Heritage Language Teaching: Research

and Practice - eBook PDF

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/heritage-language-teaching-research-and-practice
-ebook-pdf/
DIRECTIONS IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

b ANGUAGE
Course Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski
Copyright 2014 by McGraw-HillEducation. All rights
resewed. Printed in the United States of America. Except as
permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part
of this publication may be reproducedor distributed in any form
or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system,
without prior written permission of the publisher.

This McGraw-HillCreate text may include materials submitted to

McGraw-Hillfor publicationby the instructor of this course.
The instructor is solely responsible for the editorial content of such
materials. Instructors retain copyright of these additional materials.
Contents

1. Heritage Language Teaching in the United States: An Introduction 1

2. General Sociolinguistic Considerations 13
3. Who are Heritage Language Learners? 32
4. Goals and Principles in Heritage Language Instruction 58
5. Developing Listening and Speaking Skills 82
6. Developing Literacy Skills: Reading 104
7. Developing Literacy Skills: Writing 120
8. Approaches to Grammar Instruction 153
9. Developing Cultural Proficiency 178
10. Program and Administrative Considerations 193
A. Bibliography 219
Index 237
Credits

1. Heritage Language Teaching in the United States: An Introduction: Chapter 1 from Heritage
Language Teaching: Research and Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 2015 1
2. General Sociolinguistic Considerations: Chapter2 from Heritage Language Teaching: Research and
Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 2015 13
3. Who are Heritage Language Learners?: Chapter 3 from Heritage Language Teaching: Research and
Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 20 15 32
4. Goals and Principles in Heritage Language Instruction: Chapter 4 from Heritage Language Teaching:
Research and Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 2015 58
5. Developing Listening and Speaking Skills: Chapter5 from Heritage Language Teaching: Research and
Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 2015 82
6. Developing Literacy Skills: Reading: Chapter 6 from Heritage Language Teaching: Research and
Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 2015 104
7. Developing Literacy Skills: Writing: Chapter 7 ftom Heritage Language Teaching: Research and
Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 2015 120
8. Approaches to Grammar Instruction: Chapter 8 from Heritage Language Teaching: Research and
Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 20 15 153
9. Developing Cultural Proficiency: Chapter 9 from Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice
by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 20 15 178
10. Program and Administrative Considerations: Chapter 10 from Heritage Language Teaching: Research
and Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski, 2015 193
A. Bibliography: Chapter from Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice by Beaudrie, Ducar,
Potowski, 2015 219
Index 237 -
- -- - - -- --- - -. - -
 Heritage Language Teaching:Research and Practice 1
- .

CHAPTER 2

Heritage Language Teaching

in the United States:
An Introduction

T h e r e are "significantly more" bilingual or multilingual people in the world

than there are monolinguals (Tucker, 1999). Although only 21% of U.S. resi-
dents report speaking a language other than English in the home (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012), the country is quite linguistically diverse. Over 300 languages
are spoken within our national boundaries, and the number of speakers of
many non-English languages is on the rise. For example, between the Census
reports of 2000 and 2010, the Spanish-speaking population grew by 32%,
the Chinese-speaking population grew by 39%, the number of Vietnam-
ese speakers grew by 37% and the Russian-speaking population increased
by 21%.
One of the areas most impacted by this growth in linguistic diversity is
education. The number of school-age children who spoke a language other
than English at home rose from 4.7 to 11.2 million between 1980 and 2009-that
is, from 10% to 21% of the population between the ages of 5 and 18 (National
Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). Some groups of educators, typically
categorized under the fields of bilingual education or English as a Second
Language (ESL), focus on helping these children learn English as well as their
school subjects. Typically, when these students arrive at high school and col-
lege, they encounter the possibility of engaging in formal study of a "foreign"
language. The teachers of these students in these classes, to whom this book is
primarily addressed, work in the field that is referred to by names including
"foreign" language, "second language" (L2), and "world" language education
(in this book, we use the terms "second language" or "L2"). When these
students choose to study a language that they grew up hearing and/or speak-
ing, they are usually referred to as "heritage speakers" or "heritage learners" of
their heritage language (HL). This term was widely adopted after appearing in
the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Stan-
dards of Foreign Language Learning (1996).'

'1t should be noted that some researchers reject the term "heritage"learner and prefer terms like
"bilingual" instead (e.g., Garcia, 2005).
* I
Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

One of the most commonly cited definitions of "heritage language learner"

(HLL) or "heritage learneru-now canonical in the field--comes from Valdes
(2000). She defines the HLL as an individual who "is raised in a home where
a non-English language is spoken. The student may speak or merely under-
stand the heritage language and be, to some degree, bilingual in English and
the heritage language" (Valdes, 2000, p. 1).As we will see in more detail in
Chapter 3, this definition is referred to as "narrow" because it excludes those
individuals who were raised with a strong cultural connection to a particular
ethnolinguistic group and have a "heritage motivation" to study the language,
but who do not speak or understand the language at all. These latter individu-
als fall into the "broad" definition of HLLs and, as we will see in this book, are
often linguistically indistinguishable from traditional L2 learners (though their
affective needs may differ from those of their L2 peers). Those HLLs who fall
under Vald#slsnarrow definition have developed some proficiency in the heri-
tage language due to exposure to linguistic input in that language during child-
hood. They may be able to understand the language but not speak it, which
we acknowledge by using the term heritage learner rather than speaker; they
may be able to speak it but not read or write it; or they may have proficiency
in all areas. This definition also excludes students who arrived from a Spanish-
speaking country after the age of 12, who typically have developed adult-like
proficiency (Silva-Corval611, 1994; Montrul, 2008) and are usually considered
"native" or "homeland Spanish speakers.
Thus, the primary factor that differentiates HL from L2 learners is that
they learn their heritage language starting at birth from their family members.
What differentiates HLIs from homeland speakers is that HLLs spend a por-
tion of their prime language-learningyears immersed in an environment where
English, not the heritage language, is dominant. Many HL learners' linguistic
trajectories follow a common course: they receive input in the heritage language
in the home, sometimes exclusively, but sometimes combined with exposure to
English, until they begin preschool or kindergarten. Once schooling begins, the
amount of input changes drastically in favor of English, while the heritage Ian-
guage usually remains confined to the home and community. This means that
the HL did not have the same exposure to the wide variety of linguistic and
social experiences that a homeland speaker did, usually resulting in a different
linguistic system.
Even this narrow definition of HLLs yields a heterogeneous group. These
individuals can vary along many dimensions that will be explored in this book.

THE NEED FOR HERITAGE LANGUAGE

EDUCATION
Some people ask, "If a person grew up speaking X language (Spanish,Chinese,
Arabic, etc.), why does he need to study it in school?" A clear answer to this
question lies in an analogy with English classes: all native English speakers in
the U.S. are required to take English classes in elementary school, high school,
and college-even though they already speak English. Such classes, often
referred to as language arts, tpically focus on literature and literary analysis,
 Heritage LanguageTeaching:Research and Practice i 3

formal writing, vocabulary development, spelling, grammar, and sometimes

media literacy and public speaking. Heritage learners, too, can and should fur-
ther their skills in listening, speaking, reading, and writing their heritage lan-
guage, as well as broaden their cultural knowledge, through formal study of
their heritage language. It is also the case that not all native English speakers
have the same levels of proficiency in reading and writing the language. We
will see in this book that heritage learners, too, differ widely in terms of what
they can do with their heritage language.

Pause to consider. ..
. . . the areas in which heritage learners likely feel stronger and weaker in
their heritage language. For example, do you think they feel stronger in lis-
tening and speaking or in reading and writing the heritage language? Why
might this be?

Another answer to the question of why heritage speakers should study

their heritage language lies in the fact that most high schools and colleges/
universities require a certain amount of study of an L2. As a nation we invest
copious time and resources in L2 instruction, totaling nearly 1.7 million enroll-
ments in colleges and universities in 2009 according to the Modem Language
Association (Furmin, Goldberg, & Lusin, 2010). Yet consider the amount of
time it takes for the traditional L2 learner to reach high levels of proficiency.
The Foreign Service Institute estimates that the average student needs 2,400
to 2,760 hours to reach a level of working professional proficiency in Chinese.
Translated into classroom seat time, this is 80 to 92 weeks of 30 contact hours per
week (McGinnis, 1994), or 18.4 years of typical high school instruction (under-
stood as 5 hours per week for 36 weeks). Clearly such exposure is rarely possi-
ble, given the typical language-learning opportunities available in the U.S. But
students who already have a degree of naturalistically acquired competence in
a language can often be brought to very high levels of proficiency and literacy
through formal study. Many heritage learners need less time than L2 learners
to develop similar levels of proficiency, if their needs are met with appropriate
instruction. In addition, they often possess rich sociocultural knowledge that
L2 learners can develop only by spending time living abroad. Thus, it makes
great sense as a nation to maintain and develop the skills of heritage learners.
Profiles and needs of heritage learners are increasingly appearing in main-
stream news outlets. Faulx (2013), for example, quoted Professor Taoufik Ben
Amor, coordinator of the Arabic program at Columbia University in New York .
City, who claims that the popularity of the school's Arabic for heritage learner
courses has been driven by first- and second-generation Americans looking to
reclaim or maintain a link to their family's homeland. This is in part because
their families "[immigrated] at a time when the idea of the melting pot has dis-
appeared a little bit." Faulx (2013) also noted that in Portland, Oregon, a group
of Vietnamese university students in 2004 were frustrated by a lack of advanced
Vietnamese classes and started holding their own class every Saturday. This
- 4
I
_ _ ..
Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski
_. . . . . .. . . . . . . - -- .. . . - . .. . ._ -- _
.._. - ... . .. . .- . -... - - - - -

prompted the university to offer a heritage Vietnamese course and then, as

Professor Linda Godson stated: "Several other people came forward and said,
'What about us?"' Her department now offers five different heritage language
courses, including Spanish and Hindi, and the demand is growing.
Enrollments in language courses also show that the presence of heritage
learners nationwide continues to increase. According to the Modern Language
Association report (Furmin, Goldberg, & Lusin, 2010), Spanish continues to be
the most widely studied L2 in U.S. high schools and postsecondary institutions,
accounting for 52% of all postsecondary L2 enr~llrnents.~ But the greatest
growth in the number of students in 2002-2009 was in Arabic, which grew by
46% in those years, adding to the already substantial increase of 127%in the
2006 survey. In 2006, Chinese enrollments had grown by 51% (and by an addi-
tional 18% in 2009) and Korean enrollments by 37% (with another 19%growth
by 2009). Given the growth of the Arabic-, Chinese-, and spanish-speaking
populations, it is reasonable to assume that the increase in enrollments in these
three languages is due in part to an increase in the population of heritage learn-
ers of these languages. This is further attested to when one looks at the reality
of English language learners (ELLS)in this country. It has been projected that
by the year 2025, one in every four students will be an ELL, due not entirely to
an increase in immigration but to the fact that the language used in the home is
not English alone (Van Roekel, 2008). These same students often also fall into
the category of heritage language learners, and as their numbers continue to
climb, so too will their enrollment in English and other language classes.
Heritage learners are a very heterogeneous group and are different from
traditional L2 learners in ways that will be explored throughout this book.
Whether HL students are mixed into L2 courses or enrolled in separate courses
for heritage learners, educators need to accommodate instructional materials
and methodologies in order to address their needs appropriately. Although
increasing numbers of high schools and universities around the nation now
offer heritage learner courses specifically designed for these students, the
majority of heritage learners do not have access to such specialized courses.
At the secondary level, just 9% of schools surveyed in 1997 offered Spanish
heritage learner instruction (Rhodes & Branaman, 1999). In the early 2000s the
National Foreign Language Center and the American Association of Teachers
of Spanish and Portuguese found that only 18% of the college and university
programs surveyed had "Spanish for native speakers" classes (Ingold, Rivers,
Tesser, & Ashby, 2002). A more recent study (Beaudrie, 2012),however, found
that 40% of universities nationwide are now offering Spanish heritage learner
courses-an increase of 45% since 1990, but still leaving 60% of universities
without such programs.
Based on demographics, this book will make frequent reference to the
teaching of Spanish. Over 60% of all the non-English language speakers in
the U.S. (and three out of every four English Language Learning students) are
Spanish-speakers (Van Roekel, 2008). The U.S. Latino/Hispanic population
growth accounted for more than half of the increase in the total U.S. population

2 ~ h next
e most numemus are French (13% of postsecondary enrollments), German (6%), and
American Sign Language (5%).
 Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice
- 5

between 2000 and 2010, and there is a long history of research and pedagogy
on Spanish as a HL. We also include specific examples from other heritage
languages, including Arabic, Chinese, French, Korean, and Russian.

WHAT A R E "MINORITY LANGUAGES "1

It is important to note that in the U.S., heritage languages are also considered
minority languages, because English is the numerically dominant language of
society. Despite the fact that the U.S. does not have an official language, approx-
imately 79% of the nation's population reports speaking only English in the
home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). English is the language of government, mass
media, and, importantly for our focus, education. The most widely spoken
minority/heritage languages in the U.S.are listed in Table 1.1.
Though the U.S.does not have an official language, English is clearly the
most prevalent national language and has a great deal of power associated
with it. Much like individual people who belong to minority groups, minority
languages often suffer from prejudice. Many monolingual English speakers in
the U.S., for example, associate Spanish with poverty, immigration, and crime,
despite the fact that Spanish is the second most widely spoken language in the
world and is used daily as a language of economics, literature, and government.
Often the status of a language is directly related to the status of the people that
speak it. Thus, if people view certain groups in a negative light, they usually
view the languages of those groups negatively as well. Some people, including
the almost 2 million members of the organization called Official English, wish

TABLE 1.1 Language Other Than English Spoken in the Home by Those 5
and Older in the U.S.
% of Total U.S. Metropolitan Areas with
Number of Population High Concentrations of
Language Speakers (308,745,538) Speakers
Spanish 37,579,787 12.2% Los Angeles, New York,
Miami, Chicago
Chinese 2,882,497 0.9% New York, Los Angeles,
San Francisco, San Jose
Tagalog 1,594,413 0.5% Los Angeles, San Francisco,
New York, San Diego
Vietnamese 1,419,539 0.5% Los Angeles, San Jose,
Houston, Dallas
French 1,301,443 0.4% New York, Washington,
DC, Boston, Miami
Korean 1,141,277 0.4% Los Angeles, New York,
Washington, Chicago
German 1,083,637 0.4% New York, Chicago,
Los Angeles, Washington
Source: Based on U.S. Census Bureau, "Language Spoken at Home" table, Americail
r ?,..C I \ I - _ . .P-1: ...-L - - / m n - I l \
6 Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

to see the U.S. as an "officially English" nation, regardless of their opinions on

any particular non-English languages; they do not value the idea of public edu-
cation taking place in any language other than English (interested readers can
consult Crawford, 2000; Pavlenko, 2000).
As a result of this landscape, almost all children receive their formal edu-
cation in the U.S. entirely in English. Speakers of non-English languages-
particularly when they are young children--often internalize strong messages
about the inferiority of their family's language. It is no surprise, then, that with
very few exceptions the grandchildren of immigrants to the U.S. (commonly
referred to as the third generation) use English exclusively and retain very little
productive proficiency in the heritage language. We will explore the processes
of language loss in greater detail in Chapters 2 and 3.

Pause to consider. ..
...the ways in which linguistic repression takes place. Have you ever heard
someone say "You're in America, speak English" (or "speak American") or
other signals that non-English languages are not welcome in the U.S.?What
might be the historical and ideological basis of such messages? How does
the educational system promote the superiority of English?

ORIENTATIONS TO LANGUAGE
According to Ruiz (1984),societies tend to view languages from one of three per-
spectives: (1) language-as-problem, (2) language-as-right, and (3) language-as-
resource. It is useful to consider the ways in which these three perspectives can
manifest within the H L classroom, because they result in very different out-
comes. The language-as-problem orientation can manifest itself negatively in
the classroom in many ways:
When H L students lack some of the academic skills valued in formal
school settings, their home language is often incorrectly blamed, lead-
ing some educators to argue that these students should take additional
English classes instead of HL classes.
When teachers are trained only in methods designed for L2 learners,
which often do not work well with HL learners (as we will see through-
out this book), they tend to view Hl.students as problematic because their
language skills do not match those of the textbook or the other students.
As we will see in Chapter 2, the variety of the language spoken by many
heritage learners is sometimes stigmatized. Teachers who view stu-
dents' variety of the language negatively can unintentionally contribute
to students' decision to abandon it altogether rather than suffer shame
through criticisms of their ways of speaking.
An example of the language-as-problem orientation comes from the 19th
century. The U.S. treated indigenous languages as a problem and created
boarding schools to eradicate students' native languages and replace them with
 Heritage LanguageTeaching:Research and Practice 1I
!

English. Our aim in this book is to help all language educators, L2 and HL
alike, to see the value of understanding the H L as a resource. The language-
as-resource orientation acknowledges that all natural forms of language have
value and can be used as resources in a number of different ways, including but
not limited to:

Intellectual resource: All human knowledge is constructed in and through

language. Thus, intellectual functioning of any high order is inextricably
involved with language. Research on the intellectual effects of bilingualism
consistently finds that when bilinguals also develop biliteracy, they reap
significant cognitive advantages beyond those of nonliterate bilinguals.
Cultural resource: Language is a critical resource of cultural vitality, both
for the arts and for developing ways to appreciate, speak about, and par-
ticipate in understandings of new forms of representation. Having insider
knowledge of another culture gives one access to different ways of viewing
and understanding the world around them, typically leading to improved
communication between diverse groups.
Economic resource: Globalization has spread wealth away from the 20th-
century colonial powers. New economic powerhouses have emerged in
Asia and in non-English native-speaking parts of Europe. In fact, most of
the world's economy does not function primarily in English. Thus, pro-
ficiency in non-English languages is an important economic and social
resource for heritage learners.
Social resource: Many political, legal, personal, and familial problems reside
in difficulties of communication. Popular culture frequently references
problems of youth and teenagers, family conflict, and political alienation
due to communication difficulties. Language is a central feature in a com-
munity's psychological and organizational well-being, so it deserves direct
attention and cultivation.

There have been some recent advances on the national level of the
language-as-resource orientation toward heritage languages. Starting in the
1990s, grassroots movements to promote HL teaching became more wide-
spread. The late Russ Campbell helped organize a series of meetings to discuss
current knowledge about heritage language maintenance, development, and
revitalization, as well as establish a research agenda. That momentum led to
the first national Heritage Languages in America conference in 1999. A year
later came the Heritage Language Research Priorities conference, followed
by the second National Heritage Languages Conference. Soon thereafter, the
Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages was officially estab-
lished. In 2002 the Heritage Language Jourrzal was founded. Finally, in 2006, the
National Heritage Language Resource Center was founded as one of the fifteen
language resource centers funded by the U.S.Department of Education, with
yearly research institutes, multiple conferences and workshops, and online
resources. Clearly, heritage languages are gaining increased recognition in this
country, and it is important that they garner the same respect and recognition
within our classrooms.
- 8
-- - --
Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski
- - - ..

Pause to consider. ..
How can teachers-not only heritage language teachers but also teachers
of other content areas-promote the orientation of language as a resource?
Think of several concrete ways in which we can help the following groups
understand the value of all languages as well as the benefits of bi(or multi)
lingualism: students, colleagues, parents, the larger community.

HERITAGE LANGUAGE EDUCATION

As we have mentioned, in the U.S.it is unfortunately still common that non-
English languages are treated as a problem. Even most programs labeled
"bilingual education" have as their primary goal to transition the children to
all-English instruction as soon as possible; that is, there is no simultaneous goal
for students to maintain or develop their heritage language. Most elementary
school years in the U.S.are thus devoted entirely to education through English.
By the time students get to high school and are permitted to study a second lan-
guage, their heritage language has often atrophied considerably (this pheno-
menon will be explored in greater detail in Chapters 2 and 3). Such a policy of
neglect is counterintuitive when we consider how greatly individual students
as well as the nation collectively could benefit from HL speakers who are also
formally educated in their HLs.
Even though the language-as-right philosophy embraces students' heritage
languages as something they have a right to speak, many language teachers
still view heritage learners' varieties of that language as a problem, often "cor-
recting" them with criticisms such as "You don't say X; you say Y." We will
discuss an in-depth approach for how to deal with the variation present in HL
learners' language varieties in Chapter 2. Traditional L2 courses are especially
ill-suited to these students' strengths and needs, and can even be detrimental to
their self-esteem. This issue is explored in greater depth throughout this book.

Pause to consider. , .
. ., the case of a proficient English speaker who seeks; to fulfill his Eng-
lish requirement in high school or college through an English as a Second
Language (ESL) course. Would the school permit him to do so? Would the
student necessarily get an "easy A" because he already speaks English? Do
you think this is similar to the case of a heritage learner with strong profi-
ciency in the heritagelanguage taking a course designed for second
language learners?

There is a growing presence of educational programs designed for heritage

learners of many different languages. To date there has not been a national sur-
vey of the presence of heritage language programs at different course levels
 --
Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice
~ ..
9

and in different languages. We mentioned earlier that 9% of high schools and

40% of U.S. colleges and universities offer Spanish as a heritage language
(Rhodes & Branaman, 1999; Beaudrie, 2012). At the elementary school level,
researchers have estimated 84 hoshuukoo Japanese programs (Kataoka, Koshi-
yama, & Shibata, 2008), 600 Chinese programs (Chao, 1997) with approxi-
mately 258,000 students enrolled (Kondo-Brown et al., 2013, p. 29), and 1,000
Korean programs (Shin, 2005) in the U.S. Some of these are within state school
districts; others are community-based. As these types of educational oppor-
tunities continue to grow, along with the population of students who benefit
from them, addressing the pedagogical concerns of HL students and teachers
becomes an important issue.
Despite their linguistic and cultural potential, heritage language students
present a number of daunting challenges to language programs. This book
addresses many of the issues and questions that teachers of heritage learners
should consider, including the following:

What is my role as a language instructor for heritage learners? How do I

help them strengthen their HL? Should I correct their language produc-
tion, and if so, how do I do so without sending a message that their way
of speaking is a problem rather than a resource?
How do I help heritage learners transfer academic and linguistic skills
from English to their heritage language?
How do I meet the needs of my heritage learners when they have no alter-
native but to enroll in L2 classes and are mixed together with L2 learners?
What teaching approaches would work best for heritage learners?

As we will explore throughout this book, HL students have different lin-

guistic and affective needs than L2 students, and as a result, instruction should
occupy itself with a very different knowledge base and set of skills. However,
there is a perturbing erroneous assumption evident in schools throughout the
United States: that teachers who have studied second language acquisition
and have been trained in L2 methodology will automatically make good HL
teachers. This occurs even at institutions that are responsive enough to heritage
learners to offer a separate HL track. It is useful to illustrate the fallacy of this
assumption through a comparison with the field of English teacher training.
Nearly all postsecondary English departments maintain a clear curricular dis-
tinction between those studying to become ESL teachers and those studying to
become native English language arts teachers. It is not assumed that ESL teach-
ers will be successful native language arts teachers, nor vice versa. In fact, state
requirements demand separate coursework and award different endorsements
and certifications in these two fields.
The L2 field is in dire need of recognizing a similar important distinction.
Table 1.2 suggests the content areas in which HL teachers should be knowl-
edgeable in order to teach successfully, using examples from Spanish but likely
applicable to other HLs as well.
Based on these descriptions of teacher competencies, Potowski and Carreira
(2004) sought to determine whether traditional L2 teacher training programs
are adequate to prepare teachers to work with heritage learners. They analyzed
10 Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

TABLE 1.2 Necessary Teacher Competencies for Teaching Heritage Learners of Spanish
Teachers of heritage learners should meet the requirements expected of all teachers of
Spanish. In particular, teachers of heritage learners should demonstrate the following
competencies:
1. Advanced language proficiency
2. Knowledge of appropriate pedagogical principles in language expansion and
enrichment
3. Theories of cognitive processes that underlie bilingualism
4. Theories of social and linguistic processes that underlie bilingualism and
languages in contact
5. Knowledge of the sociolinguistic dynamics of the heritage language around the
world and as a viable system of communication in the United States
6. Knowledge and understanding of the connections of the students' home culture
with those of their families' countries of origin
7. Understanding the social, political, and emotional issues associated with having
various degrees of proficiency in one's heritage language
8. Ability to elicit and respond appropriately to students' attitudes toward studying
their heritage language
9. Differentiatinginstruction to respond to the diierent proficiencies and learning
styles of students
10. Knowledge of sound procedures in language course placement
11. Advocating for heritage learners and promoting the importance of the heritage
language program within the school
12. Knowledge of literacy development theories and best practices
13. Knowledge of theories and pedagogies related to the acquisition of formal registers
14. Knowledge of the local heritage cominunities with whom they will be working
Source: Based on Garcia and Blanco (2000), Potowski (2005), Webb and Miller (2000),
and AATSP (2000).

37 L2 methods course syllabi in 23 states3 and found that only one syllabus
mentioned heritage language issues, even though some of the universities were
located in areas with heritage Spanish-speaking populations large enough to
support Spanish HL courses for undergraduates at those very universities. Of
the seven most popular textbooks used in those syllabi, only two mentioned
HL issues, totaling eight pages of material. Thus, most of the areas in Table 1.2
appear not to be covered in typical L2 methodology courses, nor are these top-
ics likely to have been studied by teachers when they were undergraduates or
graduate students (particularly when their language degrees were awarded
from predominantly literature-based language departments).The present book
seeks to improve heritage language education by addressing these necessary
teacher competencies.
3~lthoughthe sample of syllabi is not large enough to make generalizationsabout L2 methods instruc-
tion across the United States, the courses represented by these syllabi are clearly insuffiaent to prepare
teachers who work with heritage language speakers. In addition, an informal survey taken of teach-
ers in twelve states revealed that only one state had requirements for HL teachers, and no state had
standards for heritage language instruction (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2001). No state currently
offers certification or endorsement for public school teachers who teach heritage language courses.
 Heritage LanguageTeaching:Research and Practice 1 11

Pause to consider. . .
. . . the fourteen areas of competency recommended in Table 1.2 for teachers
of heritage learners. Which three do you feel are most important, and why?
In what ways can teachers learn about those areas?

SUMMARY
Of the three views of linguistic diversity proposed by Ruiz (1984)-language as
a resource, language as a right, and language as a problem-the first two, language
as a resource and as a right, are the ones most commonly espoused by success-
ful modem educators. Using these perspectives to recognize and address the
linguistic and affective needs of heritage learners-which include developing
confidence in their heritage language skills, reconnecting with family members,
maintaining cultural traditions, and communicating with the larger heritage
community-are of primary importance. There are additional potential ben-
efits to working effectively with heritage learners. Their linguistic and cultural
skills can play a vital role in the security and economic prosperity of the nation.
Heritage language learners also represent a large potential source of enrollments
to L2 programs in the U.S., particularly in Spanish. Most importantly, equipping
HL students with additional skills in their HL will better prepare them for a
future in which they can effectively serve their own HL community as well as
interact with larger global communities that speak their HL.Encouraging stu-
dents to see the value in their HL and culture is a primary goal of I-IL education.
The fact that today's second language classrooms are increasingly popu-
lated by heritage language learners provides a strong argument that all lan-
guage teachers should receive professional preparation for working effectively
with these students - not just those assigned to the HL classroom. This is simi-
lar to recent movements in K-12 education that advocate for all teachers, not
just "bilingual" or ESL teachers, to receive professional preparation in working
with English language learning children (Samson & Collins, 2012). Valdes and
her colleagues caution us that "inappropriate instruction may actually have a
much greater impact on the abandonment of home languages by young peo-
ple" (Vald&s,Fishman, et al., 2008, p. 22), meaning that there is a lot riding on
effective heritage language instruction.
In this book we seek to offer concrete ideas on how to achieve this goal
of effective heritage language instruction. Wherever possible, we cite relevant
research on heritage learners. However, some areas of HL language develop- .
ment and instruction have not yet received research attention. In those areas
we cite research with L2 learners and sometimes with L1 native language arts
instruction as well, in an attempt to offer informed hypotheses about best class-
room practices with heritage learners. We hope to create dialogue between
teachers with their valuable classroom experiences and researchers who can
carry out qualitative and quantitative research on the many important aspects
of heritage language learning and development.
12
- .
I Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski - -
-- -

KEY CONCEPTS
1.Second/ World language 5. Official language/minority
education language
2. Heritage speaker/learner 6. Language as a problem/resource/
3. L2 learner right
4. Heritage language education

DISCUSSION QUESnONS
1. Think about the minority languages that are common in the area of the U.S.
in which you live. Are these languages generally treated as a problem, a
right, or a resource in the community and in the schools?
2. It is often the case that second language learners are praised for the language
skills they develop in Spanish, Chinese, French, Korean, and so on, while
heritage learners of these languages are criticized for the ways they speak
these languages. Why do you believe this occurs? How can this be changed?
3. Consider how you might justify to administrators, fellow teachers, and par-
ents the need for heritage language speakers to formally study their HL.
How might you use the ideas of language as a problem, right, or resource
to present your case? See the TEDx talk by Potowski called "No Child Left
Monolingual" for additional ideas.
4. Examine the websites of the National Heritage Language Resource Center
and/or the Alliance for Heritage Languages. Report on two or three concrete
activities of these groups that you find interesting.

FOR FURTHER READING

Brecht, R., & Ingold, C. (2002). Tapping a national resource: Heritage languages
in the United States. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC:ERIC Clearinghouse
on Languages and Linguistics. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED464515.pdf
Pavlenko, A. (2002). "We have room for but one language here": Language
and national identity in the US at the turn of the 20th century. Multilingua,
21(2/3), 163-196.
Peyton, J., Ranard, D., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Heritage languages in America:
Preserving a national resource. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.
Potowski, K. (2011). Language diversity in the United States. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Valdbs, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects:
Pedagogical and theoretical challenges. Modern Language Journal, 79(3),
299-328.
Webb, J., & Miller, B. (2000). Teaching heritage language learners: Voices frarn the
classroom. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages.
 I
Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice

CHAPTER 2

General Sociolinguistic
Considerations

Chapter 1 introduced the idea that for teachers to work effectively with heri-
tage learners, their knowledge base must include sociolinguistic considerations.
This chapter explores such concepts, including dialects, registers, "standard"
language, languages in contact, and language shift. Throughout this chapter
we offer suggestions about how teachers can best apply knowledge of these
concepts to heritage language teaching.

"LANGUAGES" VERSUS "DIALECTS"

Some people understand the difference between "languages" and "dialects"
to be as follows. If two speakers can understand each other-say, an English
speaker from Canada and another English speaker from South Africa-then
they are speaking different dialects of the same language. This is referred to
as nzutual intelligibility. But if two speakers cannot understand each other-for
example, a French-only speaker from Paris and a Norwegian-only speaker from
Oslo-they are said to speak two different languages because they have zero
mutual intelligibility. Spanish is one of the languages with the greatest number
of different dialects in the world (for example, see http://dialectos.osu.edu/
default.cfm). Yet speakers from all Spanish-speaking nations can communicate
with each other with relatively minimal intelligibility issues.
However, this definition has several problems. First, there are situations
such as in China, where some parties, including the government, claim that
every mainland Chinese person speaks "a dialect of Chinese," although many
of these people cannot understand each other. This is an example of what are
really different languages being called dialects of one language, in an attempt
to create a sense of national unity. It must be recalled, however, that these
languages use a common orthography, which means they are "more related"
to each other than are other "unrelated" languages. A somewhat opposite
example comes from Catalonia (the northeast region of Spain that includes
Barcelona), where the Catalan language is widely spoken. Some people who
14 Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

live in the Catalonian region of Valencia say that they speak "Valencian" and
claim that it is a separate language from Catalan, although there is almost
100% mutual intelligibility with the Catalan spoken in the rest of Catalonia. In
this example, opposite from the Chinese example, people are seeking to distin-
guish themselves from others with whom they share the same language.
There are at least two additional problems with the "mutual intelligibility"
yardstick. Many speakers of Spanish and Italian say that they can communi-
cate rather well with each other-but linguists typically agree that Spanish and
Italian are in fact two different languages. Finally, there can be asymmetrical
degrees of "intelligibility" between groups of speakers. For example, Norwe-
gians report understanding Danish and Swedish much better than Danes and
Swedes report understanding Norwegian.
Another approach to understanding the difference between language and
dialect is that of power and prestige. Yiddish sociolinguist Max Weinreich is
credited with popularizing the phrase "A language is a dialect with an army
and navy." This underscores the role of social and political conditions in the
way people understand the status of ways of speaking: when a group of people
controls military power, their way of speaking enjoys elevated status. Similarly,
it is sometimes mistakenly thought that the prestigious variety of a language is
"the language" in some true sense of the word (for instance, a more pure or
more correct version), while less prestigious varieties are called "dialects" of
that language. This is not true. In linguistic terms, everyone speaks a dialect of
a language.
The following analogy about ice cream can be helpful in understanding
the linguistic relationship between dialects and language. If you walk into
an ice cream store and simply order "ice cream," the person working behind
the counter will not be able to serve you anything. This is because you did
not specify whichflavor you want. "Ice cream" is a generic concept, and while
we can all agree, in a general sense, on what ice cream is, it really only exists
and can be consumed through its different flavors. Similarly, "language" is a
generic concept, and while we can all agree on what "Vietnamese," "Italian,"
and "English are, these languages only exist and can be spoken through their
dialects. For example, the "English language" (like "ice cream") is an abstract
concept that no one actually speaks! You can only speak a dialect, such as
Australian English, U.S. English, Indian English, or Irish English. Dialects are
like ice cream flavors; everyone speaks at least one of them.
Furthermore, national dialects can be broken down further into regional
and ethnic dialects. U.S.English has many dialects, such as New York English
or Chicano English, and UK English includes dialects like Yorkshire English
and Black Country English. A few other examples, with some concrete gram-
matical differences, are shown in Table 2.1. An asterisk "*" before a sentence
means that it is not grammatical in a particular dialect.
Thus, every single person who speaks a language by definition speaks a par-
ticular dialect of that language. Linguists have long underscored that all dialects
are rule-governed and equal in value (we will return to specific examples later
in this chapter). But from a sociopolitical perspective, some dialects are accorded
higher prestige than others. This chapter explores the relevance of this issue in
the HL classroom because, in the case of HL learners, the dialect acquired in the
 Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice iI 15
I

TABLE 2.1 Dialectal Differences in Grammatical Systems

Language Dialect Construction
English United States Which teariz is losirzg?
*Whichtearit are losing?
England Whiclr teanz are losirig?
*Whicfrtearrl is losirtg?
Spanish Mexico No s t si tierles fienzpo. = Ifclause
No st si tengas tiernpo. = Indirect question
Most other Spanish- No s t si tierzes tierlzpo. = Ifclause
speaking countries *No st si tertgas fientpo.
Arabic Egyptian Ma ba ha bbesh el-ahwa = I don't like coffee.
*Ba ha bbesh el-ahwa
Jordanian Ba ha bbesh el-ahwa = I don't like coffee.
*Thesentence is not grammatical in a particular dialect.

home is sometimes a stigmatized variety of the language. In other words, relat-

ing back to our ice cream analogy, it is often the case that one flavor is considered
less prestigious than another. Why are some dialects stigmatized, while others
are considered prestigious? A group's way of speaking can be stigmatized and
considered "inferior" for at least three reasons. Dialects may:
Be common to rural areas. In many parts of the world, things that are
urban are deemed more prestigious than those that are rural. This
often goes hand in hand with levels of formal education, whereby it is
assumed (often incorrectly) that rural features represent less "educated"
ways of speaking.
Be associated with marginalized social/etlznic groups. For example,
African American English (AAE) in the U.S. is often (incorrectly) consid-
ered less valid than other forms of U.S. English. AAE is equally as valid,
but it is stigmatized and viewed negatively in most formal contexts.
Exhibit features that indicate direct and recent contact with another lan-
guage, including phenomena such codeswitching and borrowings, to
which we will return later in this chapter.

I Pause to consider ...

1 . . .examples of dialect variation in any of the languages you speak. Have
I speakers of other dialects ever showed a surprised or negative reaction to the
1 way you said something? What did that person say and how did you react?
Why is it important to understand the concept of dialect when teaching
heritage learners? Many heritage learners speak stigmatized dialects. Sociolin-
guistically well-informed teachers recognize that, while some dialects are stig-
matized, they are all equally valid. To continue the ice cream analogy, we can
probably all agree that vanilla and chocolate are more common or "standard"
--.-..--16
- - - .
Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

flavors of ice cream--but this does not mean that rocky road or mint chocolate
chip are "incorrect" in any way, Applying this analogy to language, educators
must recognize that there are many different ways of speaking, and that one
"flavor" or dialect is no more correct than another. In Chapter 4 we will return
to ways in which teachers can fruitfully address issues of dialect prestige.

WHAT IS "REGISTER"?
In addition to the fact that we all speak a geographic and social dialect of a
language, practically every speaker also moves between various styles of speak-
ing. Register is the term used to describe the different levels of formality we use
with different interlocutors (that is, our listeners or readers). When we give a
formal speech to an assembly or to classmates, we tend to speak in a more for-
mal register. Likewise, when we "hang out" with friends, we use a very different
style of speaking. Adjusting our register refers to our ability to adapt our speech
to our interlocutors and the communicative event. Even people who have not
received a formal education in their native language(s) are able to use different
registers; for example, in all dialects of English, it is fairly common knowledge
when it is appropriate to use "Could you please pass the salt?" versus "Girnme
the salt." Different registers of speech are learned as part of the normal language
acquisition and socialization process that all children go through.
Heritage speakers are usually aware of the fact that a different style of
speaking is required with certain people. However, they sometimes do not have
the repertoire in their heritage language in order to carry out more formal reg-
isters. The following analogy is useful in understanding why heritage speakers
typically have a preponderance of informal language features, and the way that
we as teachers can respond in a sociolinguistically informed way. Think about
what you typically wear to a beach, versus what you wear to a formal wedding
in a cathedral, temple, or some other formal locale. Before continuing, take a
moment to fill in the chart below with some of your ideas.

Clothes Commonly Worn To the Beach Clothes Commo~tlyWon1 To a Weddittg

Women Men Women Men

I
 Heritage LanguageTeaching: Research and Practice 17

You probably listed very different articles of clothing for the beach (includ-
ing sandals, shorts, bathing suits) versus the wedding (possibly including a
gown, suit and tie, formal shoes). Now consider what would happen if a couple
were to show up at the formal wedding wearing the beach attire. What might
the other people in attendance say? "What, are they crazy?! Look at what they're
wearing! That is totally inappropriate." Next consider what would happen if
the couple were to show up at the beach, but wearing the formal wedding attire
(and for this example, they are not attending a beach wedding!). What might
the other beachgoers think? "Wow, those people must be uncomfortably hot!
Why are they wearing those clothes? That is totally weird."
What do these reactions have in common? In both cases the couple was con-
sidered to be dressed in a way that was unexpected. Notice that it was never
suggested that the bathing suit, the tie, the high heels, or the tuxedo were "incor-
rect." This is because an article of clothing cannot be incorrect. Clothing can be
unexpected, inappropriate, ill fitting, out of fashion, mismatched, and maybe
even ugly, but we cannot call any garment inherently "incorrect." Garments of
clothing simply exist; there is nothing "correct" or "incorrect" about them.
It is similar with language. While it is certainly true that learners (both L2
and HL) produce language uses that are grammatically incorrect, when an entire
community uses a particular way of speaking, as sociolinguistically informed
teachers we cannot label it incorrect. It may represent an unexpected use of lan-
guage in certain communicative events, and we should engage our students in
an analysis of why it is considered as such. For example, writing "cuz" instead of
"because" in a school essay is an instance of an unexpected use of language, not
because "cuz" is "incorrect" but rather because it is too informal for the specific
academic writing assignment. And despite the fact that it is not incorrect, its use
will likely have negative consequences for a student who produces it in a formal
essay. In another example, saying "She don't want none" is not incorrect either
(despitewhat "official" grammar books say; we will return to the concept of pre-
scriptive grammar later in this chapter), but it will likely not be well received in
most formal speeches. It is also true that when we bump into a friend in the hall-
way, it would be bizarre to ask, "At what time is our engagement this evening?"
instead of "When are we meeting later?" Thus, using language in an unantici-
pated way-language that is either too formal or too informal for the particular
communicative exchange-may result in reactions ranging from an odd look
to costing someone a position during a job interview. Understanding these lan-
guage differences and making our students aware of them and of their commu-
nicative consequences is, we feel, one of the central jobs of the HL teacher.
Let us take the beach/wedding analogy a bit further. Heritage speakers
often show up to our language classes with knowledge of "beach Arabic,"
"beach Korean," or "beach Spanish." That is, they have bathing suits, sandals,
and shorts in their heritage language. However, they do not have "wedding
Arabic/Korean/Spanish," such as a suit and tie or a gown. Why is it often the
case that, particularly when they were raised in the U.S.from a young age,
heritage speakers have both beach and wedding attire in English, but they have
only beach attire in the heritage language? It is likely because every formal
communicative event they have had to carry out in their lives has taken place
in English. That is, almost every time they wrote a school essay, spoke to an
18 Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

elder stranger, or carried out a bank transaction, it was in English. Thus, their
"wardrobe" in English contains a wider variety of clothing that is useful for
both formal and informal events. However, they typically did not have many
opportunities to "attend formal events" (such as writing essays, speaking with
strangers, or going to the bank) in their heritage language. The informal context
of their homes, much like the "beach" in our analogy, allowed them to develop
only an informal "wardrobe" (register) in the heritage language.
As heritage language teachers, what should our reaction be when students
show up to the "wedding" that is our classroom, but they are wearing bath-
ing suits? Do we wonder, "What, are they crazy?! Look at what they're wear-
ing!" and tell them that their ways of speaking are "incorrect"? Think back to
the Pause to consider. . . box on page 3 in this chapter-how might such com-
ments make our students feel? In contrast, a teacher who is sociolinguistically
informed could ask their students to carry out an informal investigation on a
particular language use so that they can arrive themselves at the notion that
certain forms are used more frequently in certain settings.
Here is an example from Spanish, where the verb haber can be realized in
the present subjunctive as either haiga (stigmatized) or lraya (prestigious).After
alerting our students to the two forms, without further explanation, we could
assign our students to observe pre-prepared clips of lectures, news, and other
formal events as well as telenovelas (soap operas) or media that use more infor-
mal speech, all of which include the use of lzaiga and haya. Students could then
be asked to discuss their results with each other the following class period. This
activity exposes students to more formal uses of the H L as well as having them
critically examine which forms are used in which context. The teacher can then
lead the students in a discussion that includes ideas such as these:
As you can see, haiga and Izaya, despite sharing the same meaning and
deriving from the same verb, are used in different contexts. We saw
that most formal contexts use haya. But this does not mean that we
never hear haya in informal contexts. Nor does it mean that we never
hear haiga in formal contexts, although it is less frequent. Choosing
which form to use when, and understanding the implications of your
choices and what reactions they might cause, are our primary goals in
this class. Being able to use both forms will make you a more versatile
speaker and writer of the language.
Next the teacher might have the whole class read some formal texts and
underline the uses of Izaya. He might spend time explaining the origins of the
form haiga and how it became stigmatized in modern Spanish. He could also
send students to Mark Davies's Spanish corpus and have them search for the
word haiga (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/). Allowing students to dis-
cover first-hand the high frequency of this word in both the past and the present
likely legitimizes their varieties more than hearing the teacher's explanations.
Importantly, the teacher can also encourage students not to eliminate haiga
from their Spanish. When we attend a wedding wearing formal clothes, no one
expects us to throw away our bathing suits! We need our bathing suits when-
ever we go to the beach. In the same way, our students might prefer to use lzaip
when they speak informally with family and community members. Finally, this
 I
Heritage LanguageTeaching:Research and Practice j 19

teacher would be patient while the student "tries on" and acquires the appro-
priate use of the new article of clothing to see how it fits (that is, how it is used
in formal contexts)'.

Pause to consider ...

What are two examples in the heritage language you teach that should be
approached in a similar way as the form haiga in the example above?

LANGUAGES IN CONTACT
In the previous section we mentioned that a linguistic use can be stigmatized
because it suggests recent contact with another language. Language contact is
almost as old as humanity itself. There are a number of linguistic phenomena that
typically result from language contact, including codeswitching, borrowing, and
extensions. We will briefly explain examples of each of these phenomena and dis-
cuss their role in the HL classroom (for a more complete discussion of language
contact terminology and phenomena, see Thomason & Kaufrnan, 1988).

Phenomenon I : Codeswitching
Codeswitching refers to the use of two (or more) languages in a single turn or
speech act. It can happen at the boundary between two sentences (intersenten-
tial) or within the same-sentence (intrasentential), as shown in Examples 2.1
and 2.2 below. Note that intrasentential codeswitching does not need to involve
a large phrase, nor does it require that one remain in the "switched" language.

Example 2.1 : Intersentential codeswitching

"I have to be home by 4:OO. Si no, mi lzermano sale sin mi."

Example 2.2: Intrasentential codeswitching

"If I don't get home by 4:00, mi hermano sale sin mi."

Some people think that codeswitching happens because speakers do not

know how to say particular words in one of their languages. This can certainly
be true at times, but a study carried out by Zentella (1997) showed a different
picture. The author recorded five Puerto Rican girls speaking in a variety of dif-
ferent contexts over a period of 10 years. She found that 75% of the time, when
the girls codeswitched, they did in fact know how to say the word in the language
they had been speaking before they codeswitched. Evidence for this was that the
girls had produced those words in the other language in earlier recordings.

'We must also acknowledge that some forms that are in fact used by groups of speakers in formal
contexts would be considered inappropriate by other speakers. In our analogy: Different comrnuni-
ties consider different kinds of attire appropriate for a wedding.
20 - Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski
- . .

Why do people codeswitch, then, if they know how to say the words they
need in the language they had been speaking first? There are many different
reasons that bilinguals engage in codeswitching: to quote what someone else
said, either directly or indirectly; to provide emphasis or clarification; to change
topics; or to convey a meaning that is culturally tied to one language more than
the other, to name a few. In the same way that an English monolingual exer-
cises communicative options when choosing words like "huge," "massive," or
"humongous," a bilingual exercises communicative options in going back and
forth between languages. Chinese HL scholar Anges He's study showed how
bilinguals mixed English and Chinese at multiple levels of phonemes, mor-
phemes, syllable structures, tones, noun and verb phrases, and clauses through
a full range of verbal resources from both languages that are simultaneously
accessible to the speakers. Based on her findings, she argues that
pushing and breaking perceptible linguistic boundaries, [Chinese] HL
speakers celebrate their multi-competence, traverse invisible cultural
and identity boundaries, and employ and enjoy both languages at
all ages and proficiency levels in transient and transcendent multi-
performances, which in turn can become a rich resource for heritage
language socialization across the lifespan. (He, 2013, p. 304)
It is important to note that codeswitching is a constraint-governed behavior.
This means that speakers do not change languages back and forth at random
points in a sentence; there are very strong tendencies2 that govern where it is
"OK to switch languages and where not to switch. The principal tendency is
this: almost without exception, codeswitches obey the syntactical rules of both
languages at the same time. That is, the grammatical rules of neither Language
1nor Language 2 are violated. Studies have shown that most bilinguals agree
on which codeswitches sound "natural" and which do not--even though there
are no lists of rules that parents explicitly pass down to their children about
how to codeswitch. Codeswitching is just another part of the internal grammar
system that many bilinguals develop naturally as they interact with other bilin-
guals in the community.

Pause to consider , ..
.. .
the following codeswitches. In each language, Wo of the examples are
considered felicitous (they sound "OK"to most people) &d two are infelic-
itous (probably no m e would ever say them). If you speak Arabic, Russian,
or Spanish: Can you determine which two examples are infelicitous and
which two are felicitous? Can you propose what grammatical "rule" makes
certain codeswitches sound wrong? If you teach a different language, search
online for (or try to generate) a few examples that sound OK and a few that
do not, and explain what the rule might be.

'~nterestedreaders can consult sources such as Poplack (1980) to learn more about the grammatical
constraints on codeswitching.
 Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice
21
--..

Arabic
1. I like to aruuh.
2. Ana mish munkin to fall in love with her.
3. She told me to go, bes ma-ha beit- sh.
4. FaWcarf innak you wanted to come.

Russian
1. Ona skazala mne to call her when I am done.
2. With any luck nasha kornanda pobedit.
3. This malchik skazal mame good-bye.
4. Ne take moju kurtku.

Spanish
1. Yo went to la store para buy the ensalada.
2. Le dijo que she didn't want to wait any longer.
3. If you don't bring a jacket te va a darfrio.
4. La ardilla no had anything else to offer his friend besides beans, but
he se lo ofreci6 con generosidad.
For additional examples in Spanish, check out the "iHablaya!" series on
YouTube.
Answers are found at the end of this chapter.

Far from being a behavior that shows a lack of linguistic proficiency,

codeswitching actually requires a high level of competency in both languages.
Some researchers, including McClure (1981), Poplack (1980), and Zentella
(1997), have shown that heritage speakers with weak proficiency in the heritage
language do much "simpler" codeswitching than those who have strong pro-
ficiency in the heritage language. In addition, many teachers have noticed that
L2 students, too, mix languages. Sometimes, particularly when the L2 students
are very advanced, these switches resemble native bilinguals' codeswitch-
ing (Liebscher & Dailey-O'Cain, 2004). However, other studies suggest that
L2 learners codeswitch differently than native bilinguals (Potowski, 2009).
As HL educators, we must recognize the normalcy of the practice of
codeswitching within bilingual communities. Far from being random, indica-
tive of "lazine~s,"~ or proof of a lack of linguistic knowledge, codeswitching is
evidence of a strong level of proficiency in both languages. Because codeswitch-
ing is typically used in informal contexts with people the speakers know well,
and recalling our earlier analogy of wedding (formal) versus beach attire, it
may be considered an example of "beach" language. Thus, like our favorite
pair of jeans, it is not something teachers should disparage or seek to eradicate.

3~ilingualPuerto Rican comedian Bill Santiago writes, "I happen to speak two languages and use
them both. What's so lazy-brained about that? I happen to have two legs, too, but nobody ever
accuses me of being perezoso [lazy] because I don't hop around on just one!"
22 Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

Teachers working from an informed sociolinguistic approach respect students'

codeswitching while trying to encourage them to generate more formal (in this
case, monolingual) speech and writing in the classroom context. These teach-
ers also understand that bilinguals are not two monolinguals "rolled into one."
Linguists long ago rejected this idea, because in order to develop a monolin-
gual system, one must live a monolingual life. It is simply not tenable for one
person to live one life in one language and a parallel life, complete with all
of the same experiences, in another language. Although some bilinguals may
seem "balanced" in their two languages, most are more proficient or comfort-
able talking about particular topics in one of their languages. Thus, teachers
should not have as a goal for heritage learners to "pass" as monolingual speak-
ers of the HL.
Interestingly, some research suggests tangible benefits when students
learn about when codeswitching is permitted. Nichols and Colon (2000), for
example, found that heritage speakers who were permitted to write first drafts
of their compositions in codeswitched language and later transform them
into monolingual Spanish texts produced much higher quality essays in both
content and organization. Similarly, although most teachers prefer to use the
heritage language 100%of the time, Macaro (2001) points out that "there is vir-
tually no research demonstrating that staying in the L2 vs. switching to the L1
in specific circumstancesleads to better learning." In other words, there may be
tangible learning benefits for students when the teacher makes judicious use of
codeswitching in both the L2 and the HL contexts.

Pause to consider .. .
.. .what the role of codeswitching might be in the HL classroom. Should it
be completely excluded or promoted by the students and by the teacher? At
what levels of instruction, and in what activities, might codeswitching serve
as a useful bridge for students studying an academic variety of the heritage
language?

Phenomenon 2: Borrowings
The second phenomenon of languages in contact to be described here are lexical
borrowings. This refers to taking a word from Language B that did not previ-
ously exist in Language A and "dressing it up" so that it looks and sounds like
it belongs to Language A. There are many borrowings in English from other
languages, such as mammoth, sputnik, and vodka (from Russian), bandanna, guru,
and jungle (from Hindi/Urdu), and patio, corral, and mustang (from Spanish).
There are several reasons why borrowings happen. Psycholinguistic
research has shown that the human mind produces language based on
frequency-the more often we hear or use a word, the more likely we are to
produce it. Because the dominant language of the United States is English, it is
not uncommon to hear many words that are of English origin make their way
into non-English languages. In addition to frequency effects, sociolinguistic
 Heritage LanguageTeaching: Research and Practice
I
23

researchers have suggested that there may be cultural motivations for lexical
borrowings. For example, Otheguy and Garcia (1993)conducted interviews with
25 bilingual individuals who had moved to New York City as adults. They had
lived their own childhoods entirely in Spanish in Latin America, and had raised
their children in the U.S.When talking about their own childhoods, they used
Spanish words like el comedor escolar (lunch room), ellla director(a1 (school
principal), and el edificio (building). But when talking about their children's
experiences, they used the English borrowings el lunclz room, ella principal, and
el bildin. Obviously these borrowings were not due to any lack of knowledge
of the monolingual Spanish variant, which they had produced several months
prior. The authors proposed that these pairs of concepts did not, in fact, refer to
the same thing in the minds of these speakers. For example, a comedor escolar
is culturally different from el lunch roam in that a comedor is a space devoted to
eating at any time of day, both in homes and in institutions, while a lunchroom's
primary purpose is a midday meal and is found only in institutions. Thus, in
this explanatory account, culturally different concepts require different names.
Whatever the underlying reasons for lexical borrowings, research has
shown that the lexical base of the HL is quite similar to the lexical base of other
monolingual varieties of the language (Carreira, 2000). That is, U.S. Korean is
still highly lexically similar to the Korean language as spoken in Korea. Yet
many people judge lexical variation in bilingual varieties more harshly than
they do in monolingual varieties. For example, if a British person says, "This
queue is too long," although American listeners might not initially understand
the word "queue," they will quickly gather that a "queue" is a line. In addition,
they will not likely judge the person as "speaking poorly." Yet heritage speak-
ers are routinely criticized by monolinguals (including teachers) for employing
lexical borrowings, even if they are perfectly comprehensible.
A sociolinguistically informed HL teacher makes students aware of lexical
differences and, again invoking the beach versus wedding analogy, lets them
know that there are more formal ways to express certain ideas. It merits repeat-
ing that our job is not to tell students that el high sclzool or el bildin are incorrect-
quite the opposite, in fact, because not only are these words not incorrect, they
are the most appropriate choice in various communicative contexts. Instead,
teachers can help students understand that monolingual speakers of the HL
might not understand these words and offer different options to express simi-
lar (though not always equal) concepts. This is aligned with the language-as-
resource approach outlined in Chapter 1 because it does not require students to
abandon ways of speaking, but rather adds on to an already established base of
communicative knowledge.

Pause to consider . ..
What are some common lexical borrowings in your students' speech
or writing? How should these borrowings be treated in the classroofn?
How can teachers use these borrowings as stepping stones in expanding
students' language skills?
 24-
- - -- -~
- -
Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski
- - -- - - -

Phenomenon 3: Extensions (Lexical and Grammatical)

The third phenomenon of language contact involves extensions, either of
semantic meaning or of grammatical structure. As described earlier, borrowings
are words that did not exist in Language A (the heritage language) before con-
tact with Language B (English).An extension involves taking a word or structure
that already exists in Language A and extending it (hence the term "extension")
so that it takes on new meanings that are influenced by Language 8. This often
happens because a word or phrase in Language A looks very similar to the
meaning in Language B. Table 2.2 shows some examples of lexical extensions
in a few languages.
It is easy to find examples of lexical extensions in the heritage languages of
the U.S.Grammatical extensions, however, are relatively less common. Gram-
matical extensions occur when a new meaning is incorporated to a structurally
similar form. These typically consist of more than one word. Some examples of
grammatical extensions appear in Table 2.3.

TABLE 2.2 Examples of Lexical Extensions

New, Extended Used in
Meaning in Meaning in U.S. English Word Monolingual
Language Word Monolingual Varieties Variety It Resembles Varieties
Spaizish form Physical parameters Paperwork to be form formulario
filled out
aplicar To dedicate oneself To seek to apply solicitar
to an activity, or to employment
spread on
To agitate or move To change to move mudarse,
a physical object msidence cambiarse
gospital Military hospital Hospital hospital bol'nitsa
trjuk Circus trick Trick trick sposob, hitrost'
bunmga Piece of paper College essay paper rabota,
sochinenie
Arabic To put To put on labas
clothes
akhadh To take To take a class - daras

TABLE 2.3 Examples of Grammatical Extensions

English Construction It Used in Monolingual
Language U.S.Varieties Resembles Varieties
Spanish* Estd bien conmigo. It's fine with me. Me parece bien.
i Cdmo te gustd? How did you like it? i Te p s t 6 ?
Voy a estar dos mds meses. Two more months. Voy a estar dos meses mbs.
Chinese Wo fang shu zai shubao (li) I put the book in the Wo ba shu fang zai
backpack. shubaoli.
*Examplesfrom Silva-Corvalln (1994).
 Heritage LanguageTeaching: Research and Practice
.. 25-.

These three phenomena that result from language contact are summarized
in Table 2.4 with examples from Korean and Spanish in contact with English.
In summary, when languages are in contact, these three phenomena often
result. Given the fact that English has much more prestige and use in the U.S.
than the heritage languages, it is common for heritage languages to show more
influence from English than vice versa4. Some of these phenomena constitute
simplifications of the heritage language. Just as children naturally try to make
language as systematic as possible, so do bilinguals-in particular because man-
aging two languages is an increased cognitive load. Research has shown that
even when a language is not in direct contact with another language, it tends
to simplify its grammar over time. The bilingual mind, like all human minds,
strives to make the most efficient use of its time and resources. As a result, it is
common for the less dominant language to show processes of simplification.
Despite the fact that these phenomena have occurred in almost every
language contact situation throughout time and around the globe, they are
often stigmatized. We saw in Chapter 1that non-English languages are often
viewed with suspicion and negativity in the U.S.What this section has shown
is that, in addition, the particular ways that heritage learners speak these lan-
guages are often stigmatized as well--sometimes by their own family and
community members-because they manifest these three contact phenom-
ena. Thus, the doubly negative message that heritage speakers often receive
is: "Chinese/Hindi/Arabic/Spanish (etc.) is not valued here in the US.,but
especially not the way you speak it." Often, popular speech even refers to U.S.
language varieties by names like Chinglish, Franglais, Japish, or Spanglish.

TABLE 2.4 Three Common Results of Language Contact

Phenomenon Definition
Codeswitching Switching between
languages, either
between two
sentences or in the
middle of a sentence.
Borrowing The language "borrows"
or imports a word or a
grammatical use from
another language.
Extension The language takes
an already existing
word or phrase and
extends it to encompass
a new meaning.
Examples from U.S.
Korean
Pogoshipunde, but
I don't have time today.
grocery shopping,
garage, gas
Lexicon: nagada
("go out with" -+ date)
try heba "try it out"
Examples from U.S. Spanish
No qztiero ir but I don't
have much choice.
pari for party, rlicle for
nickel, nldizacher for
manager
Lexicon: aplicnr for
"to apply" (for a job),
Grammar: Gerund in
subject position: Fuma?ido
es malo para la salud.
C o r m para presidente
"run for president"

4Note,however, that it is not uncommon for the HL to influence heritage learners' English, as in the
Spanish example "Lastnight I dreamt with my grandmother" (Lynch201393).
 Pause to consider ...
. . .the following quote from Ricardo Otheguy about the term "Spanglish":
It's inevitable that the term "Spanglish" carries the idea that Spanglish
is not Spanish. I think it's important that people have the idea, "I speak
Spanish, I speak a kind of home Spanish, I need to learn to read and
write and talk a more formal type of Spanish." That seems to me more
positive than a person saying, "I don't speak Spanish. I speak Spang-
lish." [Translated from Spanish. A video and transcription of the debate
are available at http://potowski.org/debate-spanglish with a written
summary in English.]
Also consider Ana Celia Zentella's perspective that this term should be
embraced, mostly because speakers themselves often use it, and also
because the wider community can be educated about the validity of
bilingual varieties.
Do you think terms such as "Korenglish," "Runglish," "Hinglish," or
"Spanglish" are positive or neutral, or do they reflect and create harmful
connotations?

Not only are these language contact phenomena completely natural, in

some situations it might be more appropriate to use U.S. English-based lexical
borrowings and extensions rather than words and phrases preferred in mono-
lingual, home-country environments. It merits noting that U.S. dialects of heri-
tage languages are sometimes numerically very large. For example, as of 2012
the U.S. has the fourth-largest Spanish-speaking population in the world! In
what circumstances should Spanish teachers accept U.S. Spanish usages as
perfectly valid, rather than insist on vocabulary from other cout~tries?~
Consider
this parallel example. If you grew up in the U.S. speaking English, your English
teachers likely never told you that you should say "lift" instead of "elevator,"
or "boot" instead of "trunk" of a car, or even "soda" instead of "pop" (or vice
versa). They were not concerned that English speakers in England or other
parts of the U.S. might not understand you when you said "elevator," "trunk,"
or "pop." Why, then, do we tell heritage speakers that they should say "X"
instead of "Y" because speakers from other countries might not understand
them? This is one of the most difficult questions that sociolinguistically
informed teachers must grapple with: Which forms constitute "beach" attire
and which are "wedding" attire, and which constitute "formal" attire in the
U.S. versus other countries.
A recent study tackles the importance of the I-IL within the larger U.S.HL-
speaking community. Martinez and Schwartz (2012) discuss an innovative pro-
gram designed specifically for HL learners of Spanish interested in the health

'ln September 2012, the Real Academia de Lengua Espaiiola (Royal Academy of the Spanish
Language) introduced the term "estadounidismo" ("United States-ism") into its dictionary to
describe Spanish words originating in the United States.
 I
,
Heritage LanguageTeaching: Research and Practice ' 27
i

services field. As a required component of the program, students had to com-

plete an internship at a clinic on the U.S.-Mexico border, where "the use of a
local variety of the language was legitimized and seen as useful and appropri-
ate, even correct" (p. 45). Thus, there are prestigious contexts in which the HL
variety might be required, such as in a doctor and patient interaction. Helping
our students to see the vitality of their HL in the wider HL community should
be one of our primary goals. By encouraging students to get more involved in
the local HL community, we might also help them to see the utility of their own
variety of the language.
Even if the numbers of HL speakers in a particular U.S. community are not
very large compared to speakers in another country where the language is soci-
etally dominant, their ways of speaking deserve respect and might in fact be
the most expeditious way to communicate. For example, what benefit is gained
from insisting on using the word bol'nitsa (hospital) among U.S.Russian speak-
ers who always use gospital with each other? We cannot offer an easy answer
to the question of when to require U.S.-based variants and when to require
home-country variants, but throughout this book we return to this concept of
the teacher helping the student decide and understand the repercussions of dif-
ferent language uses in different situations; empowering our students should
be our foremost goal.

Pause to consider . ..
Have you seen any of the three phenomena discussed in this chapter in
print or heard them orally? Do you think those uses of the words/phrases
were appropriate for the audience-perhaps more appropriate than the
formal/academic variety?

"STANDARD" LANGUAGE
With or without formal schooling, most speakers have a sense of what is
"good" in their language and what is not as good. If someone in the U.S. were
to ask, "What is standard English?," a common response might be that stan-
dard English is "correct" English-the way people are "supposed to" talk and
write, according to grammar books. The assumption is that standard English, or
the "standard" of any language, follows a set of grammatical rules. These rules
are taught in schools and exemplified in formal contexts such as the media.
These same rules are supposed to guide our speech and writing, helping us
sound more "proper."
In many countries people take great pride in the fact that their language
was codified in dictionaries and grammar books and "standardized"; schol-
ars and educated people agreed on what was the "best" form of the lan-
guage. Some examples of the many languages that have been standardized
include Polish, Quechua, Lithuanian, modern Greek, Catalan, and Dutch.
Languages that have been standardized typically have a regulating body
28 -- Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski
- . - - - -

(such as a national language academy) that seeks to uphold the standard.

For example, the Acadbmie Francaise is charged with maintaining the integ-
rity of the French language. Among other tasks, it is faced with creating new
words in French to help offset the influx of English borrowings-an exercise
that is seen by many Francophones as an act of national identity mainte-
nance (Berg, 2011). Similarly, the Real Academia Espaiiola is charged with
establishing proper usages for the Spanish language. In the case of Spanish,
though, there are also 21 additional Academies of the Spanish language in
the Asociaci6n de Academias EspaAolas throughout the world. The existence
of 22 different regulating bodies of the Spanish language illustrates the vast
complexity behind attempts to standardize the language, particularly when it
is spoken in many different countries.
In addition to codifying "standard" usage, language academies must also
modify the standard to include changes that naturally happen to the language.
Obviously what was "standard" English in Shakespeare's time is no longer
standard today. Once a standard variety has been chosen, it is supposedly
used by schools and the media, and is generally thought of as "correct" by
speakers of the language, thus granting it more prestige than other varieties.
However, linguists agree that the variety selected to become the standard is
based on which groups of speakers hold the most prestige, not which variety
of the language is "better." As noted by Escobar (1976), "Standard language
is an abstract concept; it represents a variety that no one actually speaks."
Similarly, Hidalgo (1997) claimed, "There is no standard language, only a
social or regional variety that, for economic or political reasons, was elevated
to higher status." Finally, Lippi-Green (2012) asserts that a standard language
ideology exists in the U.S. educational system that promotes a bias toward an
abstracted, nonvarying spoken language-essentially a bias toward an aca-
demic variety of the language. Linguists realize that, although they may have
less status, other ways of using a language are equally as correct and valid as
the "standard" variety.

Pause to consider . .. -
...the word "standard." What word is its opposite? How would that word
sound to you if someone used it to describe the way that you, your family,
and your community speak? What might be a more accujtate (and less
negative-sounding) way to talk about such concepts?

As Villa (1996) points out, another definition for the term "standard" is
something toward which one should aspire. In this definition, "standard"
language is an idealized, nonexistent norm. However, it is undeniable that this
norm, whether real or mythical, guides native speakers' intuitions. It serves as
the basis for standardized tests in language such as the American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages Oral Proficiency Interview. People's belief
 Heritage LanguageTeaching: Research and Practice 29

in its existence cannot be denied, so it needs to be addressed in language class-

rooms, especially in the heritage language context.
Another way to look at the word "standard" is through its definition as
something set up and established by authority as a rule for measurement. For
example, a kilometer is a standard unit of measurement, and 20 kilometers is
the exact same distance everywhere from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. How-
ever, as discussed earlier in this chapter, languages exist only in their many
dialects, and dialects are usually quite different from each other. For exam-
ple, pinche means very different things around the Spanish-speaking world,
and gossess means very different things around the French-speaking world.
Thus, it is often not possible to talk about one sole "standard" of these or any
languages.
Arguments that heritage learners should learn the "standard" variety of
the language-in addition to questions about the "standard" raised above-
must be considered alongside sociolinguistic considerations of language
contact, language change, and importantly, the audiences with whom these
speakers will be using the language and for what purposes. For example,
a survey of over 1,700 heritage language learners (Carreira & Kagan, 2011)
indicated that most heritage learners wanted to study the language in order
to communicate with family members and in their local communities, many
of whom likely use U.S. contact varieties of the language. In Chapter 5 we
will see some of the complications that can arise for the teaching of grammar
when concepts of standard language are held too tightly. Our students' goals
need to be kept in mind alongside more formalized goals set by the educa-
tional system, in order to try to achieve the most successful results for our HL
students.
The fact that certain varieties of a language enjoy more prestige necessarily
means that other varieties have less. Some people will go so far as to say that
they cannot understand other people's varieties because their language is "so
bad." Linguists, however, would argue that what is impeding communication
in such cases is not a linguistic barrier, but rather a social one. Unfortunately for
our HL students, many have been confronted with these linguistic prejudices.
Many recount being corrected for speaking the HL "poorly" by both teachers
and family members. As one HL student stated, "I don't feel my Spanish is that
good. I talk 'pocha' Spanish" (Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005, p. 13).It is our job as HL
educators to help students confront their linguistic insecurities and to empower
them to become confident speakers of the HL.

LANGUAGE SHIFT
We mentioned earlier in this chapter that many U.S. varieties of non-English
languages have emerged as new dialects--such as U.S. Spanish, U.S. Viet-
namese, and U.S. Polish. However, most of these dialects do not have time to
become established, because speakers shift to English within a few generations.
Typically, and particularly where immigrant languages are involved, there is a
three-generation pattern of language shift: the parent generation, sociolinguis-
tically called first generation or "GI," arrives to the U.S.as adults, fluent and
30 Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

usually monolingual in the heritage language. Their children, either born in

the U.S. or brought here before the age of 5 (called second generation or "G2")
usually end up bilingual, but often with English as their stronger language due
to all-English schooling and the predominant use of English in wider society.
Of the children of G2 individuals, the grandchildren of the original immigrant
adults and who are called third generation or "G3," some are proficient in the
family's heritage language, but many G3 individuals are unable to understand
anything in the heritage language. We will return to the concept of intergenera-
tional language shift in Chapter 3.
Might high-quality heritage language instruction help curb language
shift by encouraging heritage speakers to value their HL, develop proficiency
in it, and transmit it to their children? There is currently no empirical evi-
dence that HL study leads to greater intergenerational language transmis-
sion, although it would be reasonable to assume that it could. We return to
this as a possible goal of HL instruction in Chapter 4. What is also reasonable
to assume is that, when faced with criticism of their HL outside of the class-
room, combined with criticism of their ways of speaking the HL inside the
classroom, heritage speakers may prefer to abandon the heritage language
altogether. Teachers who use a sociolinguistically informed approach have
a better chance of encouraging HL development and intergenerational lan-
guage transmission.

The linguistic processes described in this chapter-including codeswitching,

borrowings, and extensions-are totally natural yet frequently stigmatized.
Even many language researchers show a certain bias against bilingual varieties.
For example, a researcher might compare bilingual grammars to monolingual
grammars and conclude that the bilingual grammars are "deficient" in spe-
cific ways. It is imperative that we, as HL teachers, be aware of our own biases
against certain varieties of language and strive to embrace a sociolinguistically
informed perspective. In this way we can equip our heritage speaker students
with the knowledge necessary to understand the sociopolitical realities that
surround HLs in the U.S. and, we hope, the desire to continue speaking and
studying their heritage language.
By exposing students to a variety of contexts, and bringing the HL
community into the HL classroom and the HL classroom out into the HL
community, we can begin to tackle issues of sociolinguisticvariation with real-
life examples (discussed in Chapter 9). Appreciation of diversity must
serve as a cornerstone for language and culture teaching in the HL classroom.
Being sociolinguistically informed requires an expansion of the role of the
HL educator beyond that of "teacher of a prestige variety of the language"
toward increasing students' sociolinguistic awareness so that they can be
empowered to make their own decisions as to what language to use in spe-
cific contexts.
 I
Heritage LanguageTeaching:Research and Practice
J 31

KEY CONCEPTS
1. Dialect 9. Linguistic extensions
2. Language 10. Language simplification
3. Register 11. Standard language
4. Style 12. Linguistic prestige
5. Language contact 13. Language shift
6. Language identity 14. Sociolinguistically informed
7. Codeswitching approach to HL teaching
8. Lexical borrowing

DISCUSSION QUESTTONS
1. Consider the beach/wedding analogy discussed in this chapter. How is
choosing which language is more comfortable different from choosing which
language is more appropriate?What consequences might there be to choosing
the comfortable form in the (in)appropriate context? How should both of
these issues inform our teaching?
2. Generate a list of 3-5 borrowings and/or extensions in the heritage language
you teach. Do some of them seem more common or acceptable than others?
Why might that be the case?
3. Design an activity to help students become more aware of the sociolinguis-
tic variation present in the languages they speak. How can teachers use the
students in the HL classroom as a starting point? And how can the com-
munity outside the classroom be utilized for this purpose? What activities
might help students become more aware of the different styles, registers, and
dialects that they use and hear on a daily basis?
4. Think about the HL curriculum you currently teach. How does the idea of a
standard language shape and inform it? What are your views on the influ-
ence that standard language varieties should have in the HL context?

FOR FURTHER READING

Carreira, M. (2000).Validating and promoting Spanish in the U.S.:Lessons from
linguistic science. Bilingual Research lournal, 24,423-442.
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English zuitlz an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimina-
tion in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Martinez, G. (2003). Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language
instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language
Journal, I . www.heritagelanguages.org
Siegel, J. (1999). Stigmatized and standardized varieties in the classroom: Inter-
ference or separation? TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 701-728.

Answers to "Pause to consider.. .,"page 21:

lnfelicitoiis codeswitches:
Arabic = #I and #2. Rtissian = #3 and #4. Spanish = # I and #4.
 CHAPTER 3

Who Are Heritage Language

Learners ?

Classes of heritage language learners are often very heterogeneous in a

number of ways that are relevant for language teachers. This chapter focuses
on different characteristics of heritage learners. When teachers under-
stand the linguistic, affective, cultural, and academic characteristics of these
students-particularly how they differ from L2 learners-they are much better
positioned to be successful in designing programs for these learners and in
teaching them.

DEFINITION OF HERITAGE LANGUAGE LEARNER

Many educators in the U.S. use the term heritage language learners as an
umbrella term to describe a very diverse population of learners. The phrase
was widely adopted after appearing in the ACTFL Standards oof Foreign Lan-
guage Learning (1996). It should be noted, however, that some do not like the
term "heritage" learner. Garcia (2005)' for example, argues that the word "heri-
tage" invokes something left behind, "something that one holds onto vaguely
as one's remembrances" rather than a vibrant language used in the present
and projected into the future, which would be better captured by the term
"bilingual." Other countries like Canada and Australia use the term community
language learner.
Although it is the term most widely used in the U.S., heritage language
learner can mean different things to different people. There are both broad and
narrow definitions of the term (Polinsky & Kagan, 2007). The broad definition
includes individuals who have been raised with a strong cultural connection
to a particular language, usually through family interaction, but who may
not in fact speak or understand the language at all (Fishman, 2001). Learners
who have no measurable proficiency in the heritage language have also been
referred to as learners with "a heritage motivation" (Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003).
The narrow definition of heritage language learner, on the other hand, includes
only those individuals who have developed some proficiency in the heritage
language due to exposure during childhood. These individuals may be able to
understand the HL but not speak it, they may be able to speak but not read or
write in their HL, or they may have proficiency in all areas. Yet, as we will see,
 Heritage LanguageTeaching: Research and Practice -- -33

even when applying the narrow definition, there can be a very wide range of
learner profiles.
As noted in Chapter 1, one of the most commonly cited definitions of "her-
itage learner" comes from Guadalupe Valdks, who defines an HL learner as an
individual who "is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken.
The student may speak or merely understand the heritage language and be, to
some degree, bilingual in English and the heritage language" (Valdks, 2000a,
p. 1). This definition highlights a strong connection to the language from the
home and/or community context, as well as the expectation of a certain degree
of proficiency in the language, although this proficiency might be minimal. In
other words, Valdes embraces a narrower definition of heritage learners as best
suited for educational contexts, as we do throughout this book. Notice that our
"narrow" definition is actually quite broad, excluding only those learners with
practically zero degree of HL proficiency. Our intention is not to exclude learn-
ers who have a heritage motivation. Our focus is on the language-teaching
profession and the linguistic needs of learners. Those students who do not
possess even receptive proficiency in the language may have their needs best
met in an L2 classroom, even though this may ignore their cultural and affec-
tive needs (see Carreira, 2003; Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005). In general, HL learners
falling within ValdQfs (2000a) definition will have linguistic needs that are
best met using a combination of native language arts and L2 pedagogies.

Pause to consider ...

Draper and Hicks (2000) define the HL learner as "someone who has had
exposure to a non-English language outside the formal education system"
(p. 19). Who does this definition include and exclude? In your opinion, how
does it compare with Valdks's definition?

What heritage learners of both the broad and the narrow definitions share,
and what differentiatesthem from "homeland"' speakers, is that they spent a por-
tion of their prime language-learning years immersed in an English-speaking
environment. Although no exact age range has been established for what we
are calling "prime language-learning years," most language acquisition schol-
ars agree that someone who immigrates to the U.S. at the age of 15 or later has
probably developed adult-like proficiency in their homeland language(s).Thus,
someone who emigrates from Korea at the age of 17, for example, would be con-
sidered not a heritage speaker of Korean, but rather a native Korean speaker.
Similarly, an individual who arrived from Mexico at the age of 16, proficient in
Spanish and Zapotec, would not be considered a heritage speaker of Spanish
or Zapotec. The term "native speaker" requires additional discussion, as it is

'By "homeland,"we are refemng to the countries of origin of the nonBnglish language.However,
this term is problematic in the case of indigenous languages as well as Spanish in parts of the
Southwest US.,where the "homeland"is currently U.S.territory.
34 Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

particularly difficult to define. It does not mean "monolingual in language X,"

because most people in the world are actually bilingual. Nor is it synonymous
with "spoke language X since childhood," because people's linguistic trajecto-
ries can change radically over time (see Davies, 2003, for additional discussion).
In spite of all of these issues, the term "native speaker" is still widely used by
teachers and researchers alike. Thus, we offer the (problematic) definition of a
native speaker as an idealized monolingual speaker of a language who grew
up in a context where the language enjoys dominant status (Lynch, 2012). By
this definition, what distinguishes heritage learners from native speakers are
their experiences within an environment in which the HL is not the dominant
language of the country, including their lack of schooling in the HL and a
wide range of contexts of language input in the HL. Despite this difference, it
is important for educators to highlight HLLs' bilingual repertoires as a strong
asset rather than falling short of some native speaker norm.
It is typically those individuals born in the U.S. or who immigrated here
before the age of 15 who are considered heritage learners, because part or all
of their primary language-learning years took place in a majority English-
speaking environment. Their linguistic development generally looks as fol-
lows: They receive input in their heritage language in the home from birth
and continue to be exposed to the heritage language (sometimes exclusively,
but sometimes combined with exposure to English) until they begin pre-
school or kindergarten. Once schooling begins, the amount of input changes
drastically in favor of English, and the heritage language usually remains
confined to the home and community. This means that they did not have the
same exposure to the wide variety of linguistic and social experiences that
a "homeland" speaker did, and thus their linguistic systems look different
from those of their "homeland" counterparts. Perhaps most importantly for
HL teachers is the fact that most HL learners have little to no exposure to the
HL in academic contexts, and many of those who do have only been exposed
to their HL in an L2 classroom. Thus, their literacies and writing modali-
ties often are restricted in range and lack a developed academic variety of
the HL.
Even within this narrow definition, there can be a wide variety of heri-
tage learners, ranging from purely receptive bilinguals who can comprehend
some basic spoken language to those with production skills to those who have
received some education in the HL in a country where it is the dominant/
majority language. Thus, the proficiency that is required to be considered
an HL learner varies greatly from context to context and from language to
language. We will return to the topic of linguistic proficiency several times in
this chapter.

--- I

. . .the different profiles of the students you teach, Based on the common
i
characteristics of these learners, what definition of a heritage learner would
be most appropriate for your classroom?
1
1I
 i
Heritage Language Teaching: Research and Practice 35
i

DNERSITY OF HERITAGE LEARNERS

Heritage learners can vary along many dimensions, including the following
five: historic, linguistic, educational, affective, and cultural (see Table 3.1). Each
of these factors can play an important role in linguistic proficiency and learner
motivation, and they can also influence each other.
To illustrate these points, in this section we will make frequent reference to
the findings from a study by Carreira and Kagan (2011), the most comprehen-
sive survey available of HLLs to date. They surveyed over 1,700 college heritage
learners of 22 different languages (84% living in California and 16% in other
parts of the U.S.) with 45 discrete point questions ("On a scale of 1 to 5 . . .")
and two open-ended questions about their linguistic proficiency and language-
learning motivation.
(1)Historical Dimension
Important language categories related to heritage learners are immigrant lan-
guages, indigenous languages, and colonial languages (Fishman, 2001). Indig-
enous languages have been spoken in what is today the U.S. by people who
were living here prior to the arrival of European explorers; Navajo, Western
Ojibwe, and Hawaiian are examples of indigenous HLs. Colonial languages are
those that were brought to the U.S. by European colonizers, including English,
German, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. Over time English established itself
as the national (albeit never the official) language of the United States, making
way for yet another category of languages, namely, immigrant languages.
Immigrant languages refer to any language spoken by those who immigrated
to the country during the postcolonial period. Some languages, like Spanish, fit
into more than one category: colonial in the Southwest and immigrant in the
Southwest and many other parts of the country.

TABLE 3.1 Five Dimensions of Heritage Learner Diversity

- - - --

Heritage Larlglmage Lennler Diversity

(1)Historical (2) Linguistic (3) Educational (4) Affective (5) Cultural
Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension
Immigrant, indig- Age and order of Type and amount Motivations Ethnolinguistic
enous, or colo- acquisition of of schooling and attitudes identity
nial language English and in heritage
heritage language and dominant Linguistic self- Family cultural
Generation of languages confidence practices
immigration Prestige of language
varieties spoken Travel to
"homeland"
Registers, domains, country
and overall
amounts of Interaction with
HL use the local HL
cornmunitv
Source: Based on Beaudrie and Fairclough (2012).
- - -- 36
Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski
-- -. . - - - - - -

These categories carry with them radically different historical, social, lin-
guistic, and demographic realities. For example, when compared to immigrant
languages such as Arabic or Mandarin, indigenous languages like Navajo
and Hawaiian tend to evidence fewer speakers, lower proficiency levels, and
fewer social networks in which the languages are used. Undoubtedly this is
the result of the sociohistorical situation of indigenous communities in the
United States. In the case of immigrant languages, the immigration history of
the family can be an essential element in understanding the learner's degree
of proficiency in the HI,. As described in Chapter 2, language shift to English
occurs very rapidly, typically within three generations: the first generation
arrives after age 11, and is usually monolingual in the home language; the
second generation is born here or brought before the age of 6 and usually ends
up bilingual in English and the HL,but stronger in English; and members of
the third generation (the grandchildren of the first generation) are sometimes
productively competent in the HL,but sometimes only receptively competent;
other times, members of the third generation do not develop any proficiency
at all in the HL.
Although there are exceptions, these patterns are helpful in understanding
the variety of HL proficiency levels. For example, consider the Korean-origin
students described in Table 3.2, all of whom are today 19 years old:

TABLE 3.2 Korean Example of Sociolinguistic Generation and Linguistic Proficiency

Sociolinguistic Probable Proficiency
Student Characteristics Generation in Korean
Student A Arrived from Korea at age 10 ~1.5' Quite strong in all four
areas. Literacy may
not be as developed
as age-matched peers
in Korea.
Student B Arrived from Korea at age 5 Strong in speaking and
listening, principally
for informal topics.
May not have literacy
in Korean.
Student C Born in Los Angeles; parents raised G2 Moderate skills in
in Korea speaking and listen-
ing, principally for
informal topics. Prob-
ably does not have
literacy in Korean.
Student D Born in Los Angeles; one parent G3 Low in speaking and
raised in Korea, the other raised listening. No literacy
in Los Angeles in Korean.

'"Generation 1.5 refers to an individual who immigrated to the U.S. between the ages of 6 and 12
and usually completed some schooling in the home country.
 Heritage LanguageTeaching: Research and Practice
, . - 37 -

Pause t o consider ...

. ..whether Student D's proficiency in Korean might be different if the
Korean-raised parent was the mother versus. the father. Also consider an
additional student, similar to Student D but with two parents raised in Los
Angeles instead of one raised in Korea. How might this student's Korean
proficiency be when compared to that of Student D? Would you still con-
sider her a heritage learner? What linguistic characteristics would she need
to possess in order to fit well into your HL program?

What Table 3.2 suggests is that, as the sociolinguistic generation increases,

proficiency in the heritage language typically decreases. When this happens to
many individuals, it is said that the community is shifting from the heritage
language to English. It is worth noting that 80% of the 1,732 college heritage
learners of 22 different languages surveyed by Carreira and Kagan (2011)were
G2s-that is, born in the U.S.or brought here before the age of 5. Thus, the U.S.
will see not only continued immigration but also continued birth of G2 speak-
ers, as well as more G3 speakers when the G2s have children, most of whom
will likely not have strong productive abilities in their heritage language. It is
important to note that some HLLs are also English language learners (ELLs),
and ELLs are the fastest-growing sector of the school-aged population. It is pro-
jected that by 2015, ELL enrollment in U.S.schools will reach 10 million, and
that by 2025 nearly one out of every four public school students will be an ELL
(Van Roekel, 2008).
Table 3.2 simplifies HL diversity to some extent; other researchers have
classified as many as eight distinct types of HLLs (Valdes, 1997). This diver-
sity is further complicated by the different varieties of the HL that learners can
bring to the classroom, as discussed in Chapter 2 and in the next section. Simi-
larly to what often happens in English classes, students who speak a presti-
gious variety of the HL typically experience greater success in the classroom
than those who speak a stigmatized variety (such as Appalachian English or
African American English).

(2) Linguistic Dimension

In the linguistic dimension, the age and order of acquisition of English and of the
heritage language strongly influence learners' profiles. Three general patterns
regarding age and order of acquisition are as follows: bilingual first language
acquisition, early second language acquisition, and late second language acqui-
sition. The difference between these three phenomena is the age of onset of bilin-
gualism. In discussions of these phenomena, the symbol ";"is used to reference
a child's age-for example, "3;2" refers to a child aged 3 years and 2 months.
Bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA) children essentially have two
first languages, learned chronologically at the same time. De Houwer (2009)
emphasizes that to be considered a true case of BFLA, the child must be spo-
ken to in two languages since the moment of birth (that is, at 0;O). However,
38 Beaudrie, Ducar, Potowski

this does not always mean that during the person's life both languages will
be spoken with the same degree of proficiency or frequency. It is normally the
case that one language develops more than the other. For example, some adults
who experienced BFLA only understand (without being able to produce) one
of their languages, whereas others have productive abilities in both languages.
Researchers agree that in cases of BFLA, each language develops independently
and that children go through the same stages of acquisition as monolingual
children. Children who experience the second pattern, early second language
acquisition (ESLA), begin learning their second language between the ages of
1;5 and 4;O. This describes the case of heritage learners who were raised mono-
lingually in the heritage language until, for example, they began attending day-
care in English. Finally, children with the third pattern, late second language
acquisition (LSLA), began learning a second language after the age of 4;O. Many
G2 heritage speakers are cases of LSLA: they heard and spoke only the heritage
language until they began attending school in English. However, LSLA out-
comes are also affected by age of onset of bilingualism; that is, many children
who immigrate to the U.S. at age 5 end up with higher English proficiency as an
adult than one who arrives at age 9 (and often the opposite is true of their HL
competence, which is stronger the later they arrive).
Why is age of onset of bilingualism so important? There are at least two rea-
sons. First, research suggests that after the age of 10, it is likely that a child who
emigrates to a country where a different language is spoken will not acquire
every feature of the new language. However, she will not lose many basic
aspects of her first language, either (Montrul, 2008). This is sometimes referred
to as the "critical period" of language acquisition: after a certain age, typically
coinciding with puberty, people may not have access to their innate biologi-
cal capacity to acquire language in the same way they did when they were
children. Prior to that age, it is more likely that the new L2 will be completely
acquired and that some aspects of the L1 might be lost. Second, several stud-
ies indicate that there is a strong correlation between a younger age at onset of
learning a majority language (in our case, English in the U.S.) and a lower profi-
ciency in the minority/heritage language (Anderson, 1999,2001; Montrul, 2002;
Silva-Corvaltin, 2003). For example, a child who heard and spoke nothing but
Polish during the first 5 years of his life (a case of LSLA) will typically have a
stronger Polish system than another child who began exposure to English at the
age of 3 (ESLA) or since birth (BFLA). This is because in most parts of the US.,
minority languages are used in far fewer contexts than the majority language,
and as a result of the early use of English, children have fewer opportunities to
develop their linguistic systems.
Other linguistic facets of heritage learners' diversity include dialect pres-
tige, domains of HL use, and quantity of HL use. Chapter 2 described in detail
issues of linguistic prestige and stigmatization. An example from the Spanish-
speaking world is described by Zentella (1997). Many Puerto Rican Spanish
speakers have internalized criticisms from different sources that their dialect
of Spanish is inferior. Rather than be mocked or criticized for the ways they
speak Spanish, they sometimes prefer to shift to English. This is less likely to
happen to speakers of more prestigious dialects of Spanish. Students also differ
greatly in terms of the different domains or arenas of interaction in which they
 Heritage LanguageTeaching: Research and Practice 1I

speak their HL, which in turn influences the registers they will develop. If the
domains of HL use are only informal (such as in the home and neighborhood),
then only informal registers will typically be developed; but if speakers engage
in formal domains of HL use (including school, business, or religious services),
they are more likely to develop more formal registers as well.
Overall amounts of HL use, too, influence linguistic development. This can
depend greatly on the composition of the local community. For example, Alba
et al. (2002) found that a third-generation Cuban child living in Miami, where
50% of the population is Spanish-speaking, is twenty times more likely to be
bilingual than a child living in an area where just 5% of the population speaks
Spanish. Also, overall amounts of HL use can vary during the life cycle. There
can be stretches of time during which individuals speak the HL exclusively,
other times when they rarely speak it at all, and then times when they revert
to using it more frequently again. For example, Zentella (1997) found that a
group of Puerto Rican girls in New York City used Spanish rather frequently
as young children, shifted away from it during adolescence, and returned to
greater Spanish use upon having their own children.
In their national survey, Carreira and Kagan (2011) asked students about
the quantity of their exposure to the heritage language, including within the
domains of home, Internet, reading, schooling, and visiting the home country.
Table 3.3 shows the general patterns they reported for exposure and self-rated
proficiency for differentlanguage groups (although we must note that students
who speak the same language may vary considerably from each other).
This diversity in learners' linguistic profiles has tremendous implications
for teaching. Teachers cannot assume that the strengths and weaknesses that
learners bring to the classroom are uniform, so we must invest time in identify-
ing these differences-ideally for a majority of students and before designing
and implementing a curriculum. As HL teachers, we need to be inquisitive,
flexible, and considerate of learner differences if we wish to successfully utilize
what they already know as a bridge to the development we seek from them.
The HL curriculum should allow sufficient time at the beginning of the course
to explore students' diversity through "get-to-know-you" activities, diagnos-
tic assessments, surveys, and formal and informal interviews (see the section
"Tools for Getting to Know Heritage Language Learners" below). We will fur-
ther discuss the need for continued formative assessment in Chapter 4.

TABLE 3 3 Exposure, Usage, and Proficiency Among Different Heritage Language Groups
-- -

Language Exposure & Usage Listening & Speaking Proficiency

Korean Moderate Low-Intermediate
Mandarin & Cantonese Moderate Intermediate
Persian High Intermediate
Russian High High
Spanish High High
Taga 1og Low Intermediate
Vietnamese Low Intermediate
Sotrrc~:Carreira and Kagan (2011).
 -40
Beaudrle, Ducar, Potowskl
-- -

Pause to consider ...

. . .the following quote from a JapaneseAmerican HL student:
I . . .had one parent who was Japanese and only one parent who really
spoke Japanese. And to a certain degree, I think some people believed it
was a disadvantage to my success in the school . . .And so I got a lot of
comments from teachers like, "For someone who has only one person
to talk to in Japanese at home, your Japanese is pretty good!" And I was
kind of offended to a certain extent. (StarTalk, Unit 1;http://startalk.
nhlrc.ucla.edu/startalk/lessons.aspx)
What characteristics might prevent some teachers or programs from
accepting this student as an HL learner of Japanese?When might an HL
class benefit him more than an L2 class? Why might the student have felt
offended at the teachers' comments about his Japanese?

(3) Educational Dimension

At least three educational variables are important when assessing heritage
learners' profiles: overall formal education, home literacy practices, and for-
mal education received in the HL. When working with immigrant students,
for example, it is important to determine whether and how long they attended
school in the home country. Those students who attended school (for instance,
studying in Spanish in Argentina or in Cantonese in Hong Kong) typically will
have stronger oral and literacy skills in the language than students who did
not, which will be particularly important if the heritage language uses a differ-
ent writing system than English.
An important home literacy practice is reading books to children. In their
survey of 22 heritage languages, Carreira and Kagan (2011) reported that a
higher percentage of Spanish speakers (50%) than other HL groups (37%)
learned to read first in their HL before English. Spanish-speakers were also
slightly more likely than the average survey respondent (79%vs. 71%) to have
been read to in the HL by a parent or relative. Russian heritage learners were
the most likely (93%) to have been read to in their HL by a parent or relative,
and slightly more than half (56%) first learned to read in their HL or learned
to read in English and Russian at the same time (12%).In contrast, 45% of the
Cantonese- and Mandarin-speaking respondents had never read in their HL.
These home literacy practices can have a profound impact on students' needs
in the HL classroom. While some Russian HL classes may be able to start read-
ing literary works, Cantonese students may not be ready for such activities
early in their HL studies.
Finally, some heritage learners in the U.S. have access to instruction in
their heritage languages while they are growing up. This might occur in a
dual immersion school, a Saturday school, or heritage language programs in
elementary school. Chapter 10 will describe these types of programs in more
detail and discuss some implications for HL programs that work with these
students when they grow older.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
still is seen in Silenia. There the same muscular partition exists, but
the branchial lamellae on either side have disappeared, the slits
between the two chambers, which occur in Poromya, still persisting,
but separated into three groups. Cuspidaria represents the last stage
in the development. In the ventral chamber there appears nothing at
all corresponding to a branchia; the surface of the partition appears
perfectly uniform, but on careful examination three little separate
orifices, remains of the three groups of orifices in Silenia, are
observed.[276]
Relation between Branchiae and Heart.—The object of the
branchiae being, as has been already stated, to aerate the blood on
its way to the heart, we find that the heart and the branchiae stand in
very important structural relations to one another. When the
branchiae are in pairs, we find that the auricles of the heart are also
paired, the auricle on the right and left sides being supplied by the
right and left branchiae respectively. This is the case with the
Dibranchiate Cephalopods (Argonauta, Octopus, Loligo, etc.), the
Zygobranchiate Prosobranchs (Fissurella, Haliotis), and all
Pelecypoda. In the Amphineura (Chiton, etc.) there are two auricles
corresponding to the two sets of multiple branchiae. In the case of
the Tetrabranchiate Cephalopods (Nautilus) there are four auricles
corresponding to each of the four branchiae. Compare Fig. 79, A, B,
C, D, E.
On the other hand, when the branchia is single, or when both
branchiae are on the same side, and one is aborted and
functionless, the auricle is single too, and on the same side as the
branchia. This is the case with the Tectibranchiate Opisthobranchs
(Philine, Scaphander, etc.), all the Pectinibranchiate Prosobranchs
(Rachiglossa, Taenioglossa, and Ptenoglossa), and the other
Azygobranchiate Prosobranchs (Trochidae, Neritidae, etc.). In the
last case the right auricle exists, as well as the left, but is simply a
closed sac, the coalescing of the two gills on the left side having
thrown all the work upon the left auricle. Compare Fig. 79, F, G, H.
 Fig. 79.—Diagram illustrating the relations between
branchiae, heart, and aorta in the Mollusca: A, In
Chiton; B, Pelecypoda; C, Dibranchiate
Cephalopoda; D, Tetrabranchiate Cephalopoda; E,
Prosobranchiata Zygobranchiata; F,
Prosobranchiata Azygobranchiata; G,
Prosobranchiata Monotocardia; H,
Opisthobranchiata Tectibranchiata: 1, Ventricle; 2,
Auricle; 3, Aorta; 3a, Cephalic aorta; 3b, Visceral
aorta; 3c, Posterior aorta. (From A. Lang.)

Circulatory System
All Mollusca, without exception, possess a circulatory system of
more or less complexity. The centre of the system is the heart, which
receives the aerated blood from the breathing organs, and propels it
to every part of the body. In the Scaphopoda alone there appears to
be no distinct heart.
The heart may consist simply of a single auricle and ventricle, and
an aorta opening out of the ventricle. From the aorta the blood is
conveyed to the various parts of the body by arteries. Veins convey
the blood back to the breathing organs, after passing over which it
returns by the branchial or pulmonary vein to the heart, thus
completing the circuit.
As regards position, the heart is situated within the pericardium, a
separate chamber which in the Pelecypoda, Cephalopoda, and the
bilaterally symmetrical Gasteropoda lies on the median line, while in
the asymmetrical Gasteropoda it is on one or other of the sides of
the body, usually the right. The veins connected with the branchiae,
and consequently the auricle into which they open, are situated
behind the ventricle in the Opisthobranchiata (whence their name),
while in the Prosobranchiata they are situated in front of the
ventricle.
The number of auricles corresponds to the number of branchiae.
Thus there is only one auricle in the great majority of
Prosobranchiata (which are accordingly classified as Monotocardia),
and also in the Opisthobranchiata, while the Pulmonata have a
single auricle corresponding to the pulmonary chamber. There are
two auricles in the Amphineura, in a small group of Gasteropoda,
hence known as Diotocardia, in all Pelecypoda, and in the
Dibranchiate Cephalopoda. In the Tetrabranchiate Cephalopoda
alone there are four auricles corresponding to the four branchiae.
A single aorta occurs only in the Amphineura and in the
Tetrabranchiate Cephalopoda. In all the other groups there are two
aortae, leading out of the anterior and posterior ends of the ventricle
in Pelecypoda and Dibranchiate Cephalopoda, while a single aorta
leads out of the posterior end alone, and subsequently bifurcates, in
most of the Gasteropoda. One aorta, the cephalic, supplies the front
part of the body, the oesophagus, stomach, mantle, etc.; the other,
the visceral aorta, supplies the posterior part, the liver and sexual
organs.
The general circulatory system in the Mollusca has not yet been
thoroughly investigated. As a general rule, the blood driven from the
ventricle through the aorta into the arteries, passes, on reaching the
alimentary canal and other adjacent organs, into a number of
irregular spaces called lacunae. These in their turn branch into
sinuses, or narrow tubes covered with muscular tissue, which
penetrate the body in every direction. In the Dibranchiate
Cephalopoda true capillaries are said to occur, which in some cases
form a direct communication between the arteries and veins.
According to some authorities[277] capillaries and veins exist in
certain Pelecypoda in connexion with the intestinal lacunae, but this
again is regarded by others as not established. A similar difference
of opinion occurs with regard to the precise function of the foot-pore
which occurs in many Mollusca, some holding that it serves as a
means for the introduction of water into the blood-vascular system,
while others regard it as a form of secretion gland, the original
purpose of which has perhaps become lost.
Blood.—As a rule, the blood of the Mollusca—i.e. not the
corpuscles but the liquor sanguinis—is colourless, or slightly tinged
with blue on exposure to the air. This is due to the presence of a
pigment termed haemocyanin, in which are found traces of copper
and iron, the former predominating. Haemoglobin, the colouring
matter of the blood in Vertebrates, is, according to Lankester,[278] of
very restricted occurrence. It is found—(1) in special corpuscles in
the blood of Solen legumen (and Arca Noae); (2) in the general
blood system of Planorbis; (3) in the muscles of the pharynx and
jaws of certain Gasteropoda, e.g. Limnaea, Paludina, Littorina,
Chiton, Aplysia. This distribution of haemoglobin is explained by
Lankester in reference to its chemical activity; whenever increased
facilities for oxidisation are required, then it may be present to do the
work. The Mollusca, being as a rule otiose, do not possess it
generally diffused in the blood, as do the Vertebrata. The actively
burrowing Solen possesses it, and perhaps its presence in Planorbis
is to be explained from its respiring the air of stagnant marshes. Its
occurrence in the pharyngeal muscles and jaws of other genera may
be due to the constant state of activity in which these organs are
kept.[279]
According to Tenison-Woods[280] a species of Arca (trapezia
Desh.) and two species of Solen, all Australian, have red blood. It is
suggested that in these cases the habits of the animal (the Solen
burrowing deeply in sand, the Arca in mud) require some highly
oxidising element, surrounded as the creature is by ooze. In Arca
pexata (N. America) the blood is red, the animal being familiarly
known as the ‘bloody clam.’ Burrowing species, however, are not all
distinguished by this peculiarity. Tenison-Woods finds red fluids in
the buccal mass of many Gasteropoda, e.g. in species of Patella,
Acmaea, Littorina, Trochus, Turbo, giving the parts the appearance
of raw meat.

The Mantle
On the dorsal side of the typical molluscan body, between the
visceral sac and the shell, lies a duplicature of the integument,
generally known as the mantle. The depending sides of the mantle,
which are usually somewhat thickened, enclose between themselves
and the body mass a chamber of varying size and shape, called the
mantle cavity, which communicates freely with the external air or
water, and encloses and furnishes a protection for the organ or
organs of respiration. On its upper or dorsal surface the mantle is
closely applied to the shell throughout its whole extent, the cells with
which it is furnished secreting the materials from which the shell is
formed (see p. 255). The whole mantle is capable, to some degree,
of secreting shelly matter, but the most active agent in its production
is the mantle edge or margin.
In the Prosobranchiata the mantle cavity, for reasons which have
already been explained, is found on the left side of the animal, its
front portion being in many cases produced into a tubular siphon.
Within the mantle cavity are found, besides the branchia, the anus,
the apertures of the kidneys, and the osphradium. In the pulmonata
the mantle fold encloses a so-called lung-cavity. The front edge of
the mantle coalesces with the integument of the neck in such a way
as to enclose the cavity very completely, the only communication
with the outer air being by means of the contractile breathing or
pulmonary aperture on the right side. In the Tectibranchiate
Opisthobranchs the mantle fold is inconsiderable, and is usually not
of sufficient extent to cover the branchia, while in the Nudibranchs,
which have no true branchiae, it disappears altogether.
 In the Pelecypoda the mantle cavity is equally developed on each
side, enclosing the two sets of branchiae. The mantle may thus be
regarded as consisting of two equal portions, which form a sort of
lining to the two valves. The lower or ventral portion of the mantle
edges may be simple, or provided with ocelli (Pecten, Arca),
tentacles, cilia (Lima, Lepton), or doubled folds. The two portions of
the mantle touch one another along the whole line of the edge of the
two valves, and, although thus in contact, may remain completely
separate from one another, or else become permanently united at
one or more points. This fusion of the mantle edges corresponds to
important changes in the organisation of the animal as a whole. The
anal and branchial siphons are no more than prolongations of the
mantle edges on the posterior side into a tubular form. These
‘siphons’ exhibit the siphonal form more distinctly according as the
adjacent portions of the mantle become more definitely fused
together.

Fig. 80.—Diagram illustrating the various stages in the closing of the mantle in
Pelecypoda: A, mantle completely open; B, rudiments of siphons, mantle still
completely open; C, mantle closed at one point; D, mantle closed at two
points, with complete formation of siphonal apertures; E, development of
siphons, ventral closure more extended; F, mantle closed at three points, with
fourth orifice: f, foot; s.a, s.b, anal and branchial siphons; 1, 2, 3, first, second,
and third points of closure of mantle. (After A. Lang.)
This progressive fusion of the mantle edges may be taken as
indicating definite stages in the development of the Pelecypoda. A
perfectly free mantle edge, joined at no point with the edge of the
adjacent mantle, occurs in Nucula, Arca, Anomia, and Trigonia (see
Fig. 80, A, B). Here there is nothing in the nature of a siphon, either
anal or branchial; in other words, no contrivance exists to prevent the
spent water which has passed over the branchiae from becoming
mixed with the fresh water which is to reach them. When the mantle
edges are fused at one point only, this is invariably on the middle
part of the posterior side, thus separating off an anal opening which
may become prolonged into a tube-like form. At the same time the
adjacent underlying portions of the mantle edges draw together,
without actually coalescing, to form an opening for the incurrent
stream of water, the rudiments of the ‘branchial siphon’ (Fig. 80, C).
This is the case with most Mytilidae (see Fig. 75) with Cardita,
Astarte, and Pisidium. In the next stage the branchial opening is
separated off by the concrescence of the mantle edges beneath it,
and we have the mantle united in two places, thus forming three
openings, the ventral of which is the opening for the protrusion of the
foot (Fig. 80, D). This is the case in Yoldia, Leda, the majority of the
Eulamellibranchiata (e.g. Lucina, Cyrena, Donax, Psammobia,
Tellina, Venus, Cardium, Mactra), and all Septibranchiata. In Chama
and Tridacna the fused portions of the mantle become more
extended, and in Pholas, Xylophaga, Teredo, Pandora, and Lyonsia
this concrescence takes place over the greater length of the whole
mantle edge, so that the mantle may be regarded as closed, with the
exception of the three apertures for the foot and the two siphons
(Fig. 80, E).
In certain genera there occurs, besides these three apertures, a
fourth, in the line of junction between the pedal and branchial
orifices. It appears probable that this fourth orifice (which has been
regarded by some as an inlet for water when the siphons are
retracted), stands in relation to the byssal apparatus (Fig. 80, F). In
Lyonsia, for instance, a thick byssus protrudes through the orifice,
which is large and open. In Solen, Lutraria, Glycimeris,
Cochlodesma, Thracia, Aspergillum, and a few more genera, which
have no byssus, the orifice is very small and narrow. It is possible
that in these latter cases, the byssal apparatus having become
atrophied, the orifice has been correspondingly reduced in size.[281]
Mantle Reflected over the Shell.—It is sometimes the case that
the mantle edges tend to double back over the external surface of
the shell, and to enclose it to a greater or less extent. When this
process is carried to an extreme, the edges of the reflected mantle
unite, and the shell becomes completely internal. We see an
incipient stage of this process in Cypraea and Marginella, where the
bright polish on the surface of the shell is due to the protection
afforded by the lobes of the mantle. A considerable portion of the
shell of Scutus is concealed in a similar way, while in Cryptochiton,
Lamellaria, and Aplysia the shell is more or less completely
enclosed. Among Pulmonata, it is possible that in forms like Vitrina,
Parmacella, Limax, and Arion, we have successive stages in a
process which starts with a shell completely external, as in Helix,
and ends, not merely by enveloping the shell in the mantle, but by
effecting its disappearance altogether. In Vitrina and some allied
genera we have a type in which the mantle lobes are partly reflected
over the shell, which at the same time exhibits rather less of a spiral
form than in Helix. In the stage represented by Parmacella, the
mantle edges have coalesced over the whole of the shell, except for
a small aperture immediately over the spire; the nucleus alone of the
shell is spiral, the rest considerably flattened. In Limax the shell has
become completely internal, and is simply a flat and very thin plate,
the spiral form being entirely lost, and the nucleus represented by a
simple thickening at one end of the plate. In Arion, the final stage, we
find that the shell, being no longer needed as a protection to the vital
organs, has either become resolved into a number of independent
granules, or else has entirely disappeared.
Some indications of a similar series of changes occur in the
Pelecypoda. The mantle edge of Lepton is prolonged beyond the
area of the valves, terminating in some cases in a number of
filaments. In Galeomma and Scintilla the valves are partially
concealed by the reflected mantle lobes, and in a remarkable form
recently discovered by Dall[282] (Chlamydoconcha) the shell is
completely imbedded in the mantle, which is perforated at the
anterior end by an orifice for the mouth, and at the posterior end by a
similar orifice for the anus. In all these cases, except Lepton, it is
interesting to notice that the hinge teeth have completely
disappeared, the additional closing power gained by the external
mantle rendering the work done by a hinge unnecessary. It is quite
possible, on the analogy of the Gasteropoda mentioned above, and
also, it may be added, of the Cephalopoda and other groups, that we
have here indicated the eventual occurrence of a type of Pelecypoda
altogether deprived of valves, a greatly thickened mantle performing
the part of a shell.[283]

The following works will be found useful for further study of this
portion of the subject:—
F. Bernard, Recherches sur les organes palléaux des
Gastéropodes prosobranches: Ann. Sc. Nat. Zool. (7) ix. (1890), pp.
89–404.
G. Cuvier, Le Régne animal (ed. V. Masson); Mollusca, Text and
Atlas.
C. Grobben, Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Baues von Cuspidaria
(Neaera) cuspidata Olivi, nebst Betrachtungen über das System der
Lamellibranchiaten: Arb. Zool. Inst. Wien, x. (1893), pp. 101–146.
E. Ray Lankester, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., vol. xvi.
(1883), Art. ‘Mollusca.’
A. Ménégaux, Recherches sur la circulation des Lamellibranches
marins: Besançon, 1890.
K. Mitsukuri, On the structure and significance of some aberrant
forms of Lamellibranchiate gills: Q. Journ. Micr. Sc., N.S. xxi. (1881),
pp. 595–608.
H. L. Osborn, On the gill in some forms of Prosobranchiate
Mollusca: Stud. Biol. Lab. Johns Hopk. Univ. iii. (1884), pp. 37–48.
R. Holman Peck, The structure of the Lamellibranchiate gill: Q.
Journ. Micr. Sc., N.S. xvii. (1877), pp. 43–66.
P. Pelseneer, Contributions à l’étude des lamellibranches: Arch.
Biol. xi. (1891), pp. 147–312.
 CHAPTER VII
ORGANS OF SENSE: TOUCH, SIGHT, SMELL, HEARING—THE FOOT—THE
NERVOUS SYSTEM

Organs of Sense: I. Touch

Tactile organs, although occurring in some of the Mollusca, do not
appear to attain special or marked development, except in a few
cases. The whole surface of the skin, and particularly of the foot, is
very sensitive to the slightest impression. Nearly all Gasteropoda are
furnished with at least two cephalic tentacles, projecting like horns
from each side of the fore part of the head. At or near the base of
these are generally situated the eyes. In the Helicidae the eyes are
situated, not at the base, but at the apex of the tentacles, and in that
case—except in Vertigo—a second pair of shorter tentacles appears
beneath the longer pair. It frequently happens that several senses
are centred in a single organ; thus the upper tentacles of snails not
only carry the eyes and serve to a certain extent as tactile organs,
but they also carry the organs of smell.
The edges of the mantle, which are sometimes specialised into
lobes, appear to be keenly sensitive to touch in all Gasteropoda.
In Cypraea (Fig. 81) these lobes, or tentaculae, are a prominent
feature of the animal, and also in certain genera of the Trochidae
(Fig. 82). In most of the carnivorous land Pulmonata—e.g.
Testacella, Rhytida, Ennea—there are developed, under the lower
pair of tentacles, and close to the mouth, large labial palps or feelers.
These are connected with the cerebral ganglion by a very large
nerve, and may therefore be supposed to be of extreme
sensitiveness. In some of the large carnivorous forms (Glandina,
Aerope, compare Fig. 21, p. 54) these palpae are of great size, and
curl upwards like an enormous pair of moustaches. When a
Glandina seizes its prey, the palpae (see Fig. 83) appear to enfold it
and draw it in towards the mouth.
Fig. 81.—Cypraea moneta L., showing tentaculae
at edge of mantle, which partly envelops the
shell: Si, siphon; M, M, mantle; F, foot; T´,
tentaculae at edge of mantle. (After Quoy and
Gaimard.) × 3/2.

Fig. 82.—Monodonta
canalifera Lam., New
Ireland, showing mantle
lobes. (After Quoy and
Gaimard.)
 Fig. 83.—Glandina seizing
its prey, with buccal
papillae turned back.
(Strebel.)
It is in the Opisthobranchiata that the organs of touch attain their
maximum development. Many of this group are shell-less or possess
a small internal shell, and accordingly, in the absence of this special
form of defence, a multiplied sense of touch is probably of great
service. Thus we find, besides the ordinary cephalic tentacles,
clusters or crowns of the same above the head of many
Nudibranchiata, with lobe-like prolongations of the integument, and
tentacular processes in the neighbourhood of, or surrounding the
branchiae (see Figs. 58 and Fig. 84, or even projecting from the
whole upper surface of the body (Fig. 5, C).
In the Pelecypoda, the chief organs of touch are the foot, which is
always remarkably sensitive, especially towards its point, the labial
palps on each side of the mouth, and the siphons. In certain cases
the mantle border is prolonged into a series of threads or filaments.
These are particularly noticeable in Pecten, Lepton, and Lima (Fig.
85), the mantle lobes of the common L. hians of our own coasts
being very numerous, and of a bright orange colour. In many genera
—e.g. Unio, Mactra—this sensibility to touch appears to be shared
by the whole mantle border, although it is not furnished with any
special fringing. The ‘arms’ of the Cephalopoda appear to be keenly
sensitive to touch, and this is particularly the case with the front or
tentacular pair of arms, which seem to be employed in an especial
degree for exploration and investigation of strange objects.
 Fig. 84.—Idalia Leachii A. and H., British seas;
br, branchiae. (After Alder and Hancock.)

Fig. 85.—Lima squamosa Lam.,

Naples, showing tentacular lobes
of mantle (t, t); a, anus; ad.m,
adductor muscle; br, br,
branchiae; f, foot; sh, shell.
Taste.—The sense of taste is no doubt present, to a greater or
less extent, in all the head-bearing Mollusca. In many of these a
special nerve or nerves has been discovered in the pharynx,
connecting with the cerebral ganglion; this no doubt indicates the
seat of the faculty of taste. The Mollusca vary greatly in their likings
for different kinds of food. Some seem to prefer decaying and highly
odoriferous animal matter (Buccinum, Nassa), others apparently
confine themselves to fresh meat (Purpura, Natica, Testacella),
others again, although naturally vegetarian, will not refuse flesh on
occasion (Limax, Helix).
Mr. W. A. Gain[284] has made some interesting experiments on
the taste of British land Mollusca, as evidenced by the acceptance or
rejection of various kinds of food. He kept twelve species of Arion
and Limax, and eight species of Helix in captivity for many months,
and tried them with no less than 197 different kinds of food,
cannibalism included. Some curious points came out in his table of
results. Amalia gagates appears to be surprisingly omnivorous, for
out of 197 kinds of food it ate all but 25; Arion ater came next, eating
all but 40. Limax arborum, on the other hand, was dainty to a fault,
eating only seven kinds of food, and actually refusing Swedes, which
every other species took with some avidity. Certain food was
rejected by all alike, e.g. London Pride, Dog Rose, Beech and
Chestnut leaves, Spruce Fir, Common Rush, Liverwort, and Lichens;
while all, or nearly all, ate greedily of Potatoes, Turnips, Swedes,
Lettuces, Leeks, Strawberries, Boletus edulis, and common grasses.
Few of our common weeds or hedgerow flowers were altogether
rejected. Arion and Limax were decidedly less particular in their food
than Helix, nearly all of them eating earthworms and puff-balls, which
no Helix would touch. Arion ater and Limax maximus ate the slime
off one another, and portions of skin. Cyclostoma elegans and
Hyalinia nitida preferred moist dead leaves to anything else.

II. Sight

Position of Eyes.—In the majority of the head-bearing Mollusca

the eyes are two in number, and are placed on, or in the immediate
neighbourhood of the head. Sometimes they are carried on
projecting tentacles or ‘ommatophores,’ which are either simple (as
in Prosobranchiata) or capable of retraction like the fingers of a glove
(Helix, etc.). Sometimes, as in a large number of the marine
Gasteropoda, the eyes are at the outer base of the cephalic
tentacles, or are mounted on the tentacles themselves, but never at
the tip (compare Fig. 60, p. 153 and Fig. 98, p. 199). In other cases
they are placed somewhat farther back, at the sides of the neck. The
Pulmonata are usually subdivided into two great groups,
Stylommatophora and Basommatophora (Fig. 86), according as the
eyes are carried on the tip of the large tentacles (Helix, and all non-
operculate land shells), or placed at the inner side of their base
(Limnaea, Physa, etc.). In land and fresh-water operculates, the
eyes are situated at the outer base of the tentacles.

Fig. 86.—A, Limnaea peregra Müll.; e, e, eyes; t, t, tentacles; B,

Helix nemoralis Müll.; e, e, eyes; t, t, tentacles; p.o,
pulmonary orifice.
In the Helicidae, careful observation will show that the eyes are
not placed exactly in the centre of the end of the tentacle, but on its
upper side, inclining slightly outwards. The eye is probably pushed
on one side, as it were, by the development of the neighbouring
olfactory bulb. The sense of smell being far more important to these
animals than the sense of sight, the former sense develops at the
expense of the latter.
Organisation of the Molluscan Eye.—The eye in Mollusca
exhibits almost every imaginable form, from the extremely simple to
the elaborately complex. It may be, as in certain bivalves, no more
than a pigmented spot on the mantle, or it may consist, as in some of
the Cephalopoda, of a cornea, a sclerotic, a choroid, an iris, a lens,
an aqueous and vitreous humour, a retina, and an optic nerve, or of
some of these parts only.
In most land and fresh-water Mollusca the eye may be regarded,
roughly speaking, as a ball connected by an exceedingly fine thread
(the optic nerve) with a nerve centre (the cerebral ganglion). In
Paludina this ball is elliptic, in Planorbis and Neritina it is drawn out
at the back into a conical or pear shape. In Helix (Fig. 87) there is a
structureless membrane, surrounding the whole eye, a lens, and a
retina, the latter consisting of a nervous layer, a cellular layer, and a
layer of rods containing pigment, this innermost layer (that nearest
the lens) being of the thickness of half the whole retina.

Fig. 87.—Eye of Helix pomatia

L., retracted within the
tentacle; c, cornea; ep,
epithelial layer; l, lens; op.n,
optic nerve; r, retina. (After
Simroth.)
Comparing the eyes of different Gasteropoda together, we find
that they represent stages in a general course of development. Thus
in Patella the eye is scarcely more than an invagination or
depression in the integument, which is lined with pigmented and
retinal cells. The next upward stage occurs in Trochus, where the
depression becomes deeper and bladder-shaped, and is filled with a
gelatinous or crystalline mass, but still is open at the top, and
therefore permits the eye to be bathed in water. Then, as in Turbo,
the bladder becomes closed by a thin epithelial layer, which finally,
as in some Murex, becomes much thicker, while the ‘eyeball’
encloses a lens (Fig. 88), which probably corresponds with the
‘vitreous humour’ of other types.

Fig. 88.—Eyes of Gasteropoda, showing arrest of

development at successive stages: A, Patella; B,
Trochus; C, Turbo; D, Murex; ep, epidermis; l, lens;
op.n, optic nerve; r, retina; v.h, vitreous humour.
(After Hilger.)
In Nautilus the eye is of a very simple type. It consists of a cup-
shaped depression, with a small opening which is not quite closed by
the integument. The retina consists of cells which line the interior of
the depression, and which communicate directly with the branches of
the optic nerve, there being no iris or lens. This type of eye, it will be
observed, corresponds exactly with that which occurs in Patella. It
appears also to correspond to a stage in the development of eyes in
the Dibranchiata (e.g. Octopus, Sepia, Loligo). Lankester has
shown[285] that in Loligo the eye first appears as a ridge, enclosing
an oval area in the integument. By degrees the walls of this area
close in, and eventually join, enclosing the retinal cells within the
chamber in which the lens is afterwards developed (Fig. 89). It thus
appears that in some cases the development of the eye is arrested
at a point which in other cases only forms a temporary stage towards
a higher type of organisation.

Fig. 89.—Three stages in the development of

the eye of Loligo; r, r, ridge, enclosing
p.o.c, primitive optic chamber; or, orifice
between the closing ridges; s.o.c,
secondary optic chamber; ci, ci, ciliary
body; l, rudimentary lens; R, retina. (After
Lankester.)
 Fig. 90.—Eye in A, Loligo; B, Helix or Limax; C, Nautilus: a.o.c, anterior optic
chamber; c, cornea; int, integument; ir, iris; l, lens; l´, external portion of
lens; op.n, optic nerve; op.g, optic ganglion; p.o.c, posterior optic
chamber; r, retina. (After Grenacher.)
The developed eye in the dibranchiate Cephalopods consists of a
transparent cornea, which may or may not be closed over the front of
the lens. Behind the cornea is a narrow chamber (the anterior optic
chamber) which is continued for three parts round the whole circle of
the eye, and into which project the front portion of the lens and the
folds of the iris. Throughout its whole extent, the anterior optic
chamber is lined by the integument, the portion of which on the inner
side is the choroid. The lens is divided into an outer and inner
segment by a thin membrane, and is supported by the ciliary body
which forms a continuation of the retina. The main portion of the lens
lies within the posterior optic chamber, at the back and sides of
which is found the retina (Grenacher).
There can be no doubt that the Cephalopoda use their eyes to
observe, but there is nothing to show that any other Mollusca use
their eyes for this purpose, the sense of smell in their case largely
taking the place of visual observation. Madame Jeannette Power
once saw[286] the Octopus in her aquarium holding a fragment of
rock in one of its arms, and watching a Pinna which was opening its
valves. As soon as they were perfectly open, the Poulpe, with
incredible address and promptitude, placed the stone between the
valves, preventing the Pinna from closing again, upon which it set
about devouring its victim. The next day the Poulpe was seen, after
crushing some Tellina, to stretch himself down close by a Triton
nodiferus, and watch it attentively. After four hours the Triton
emerged from its shell, when the Octopus sprang upon it, and
surrounded it with its arms.
Powers of Vision in Land Mollusca.—The Helicidae are
undoubtedly very short-sighted. Seldom emerging from their retreats
except in twilight and darkness, they are naturally myopic, and see
better in a subdued than in a bright light. Experiment has shown that
a Helix can perceive an object better at 6 centimetres distance in a
weak light than at 4 or 5 millimetres in a strong one. Cyclostoma
elegans and Paludina vivipara are comparatively long-sighted,
perceiving objects at a distance of 20 to 30 centimetres.[287] The
increased power of vision is due, in these two cases, to increased
elaboration in the construction of the eye, Paludina possessing a
large and almost spherical lens, to which the vitreous humour closely
adheres, while in Cyclostoma the lens is remarkably hard, and the
aqueous humour very abundant. According to V. Willem,[288] the
Pulmonata are very sensitive to the slightest movement of the air or
jarring of the surface on which they crawl, but are so short-sighted as
only to perceive a confused image of a large object at about 1 cm.,
and to distinguish the form of objects at not more than 1 or 2 mm.
The senses of touch and smell are far more active than that of sight.
A bean-pod enclosed in a narrow glass case and placed before a
hungry snail was not noticed, but when taken out of the case and
placed 8 cm. behind the snail, the latter at once turned towards it to
devour it.
Some interesting experiments were conducted by the same
author with the view of ascertaining whether snails avoid or court the
light. He placed a number of species in different wooden boxes,
which were divided into a light and a dark compartment, having
previously well soaked the boxes in water to secure a humid
atmosphere and surface, and so induce the snails to move about.