Second and Third Generation Heritage Language Speakers: HL Scholarship's Relevance to the Research Needs and Future Directions of TESOL

Debra Suarez, The College of Notre Dame of Maryland

Introduction

A growing population of English Language Learners (ELLs)¹ is U.S.-born, a phenomenon that raises new questions for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). This paper proposes the need for an improved understanding of how the research literature on heritage language speakers can inform ESL education.

Most US English Language Learners are Born in the USA

English Language Learners are defined as students with limited English proficiency who speak a language other than English at home (NCELA, 2006). During the 1989-1990 school year, a total of two million ELLs were reported in U.S. public schools (pre-K through grade 12). That number had more than doubled by the 2004–2005 academic year, when over five million ELLs, or approximately 10.5% of the total public school enrollment, were identified. In those fifteen years, ELL enrollment increased at nearly seven times the rate of total student enrollment (NCELA, 2006).

Moreover, the number of U.S. ELLs born in the United States has increased from approximately one third of the Limited Engish Proficient (LEP) population in 1991-1992 (Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993) to 64 percent of all LEPs in 2006 (Batalova, 2006). Today, more than 75% of elementary school ELLs were U.S.-born (Capps, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, & Herwantoro, 2005), compared with 41% in 1992 (Fleischman & Hopstock, 1993).

Further disaggregation of the data reveals an unanticipated pattern of generational language use: twenty seven percent of ELLs in secondary school are second generation, and twenty nine percent are third generation or beyond.² Among elementary-level ELLs, fifty nine percent are second generation and eighteen percent are third generation or beyond (see Figure 1) (Capps et al., 2005).

Figure 1. Nativity and Generation for Limited English Proficient Children by Grade Level, 2000 (by percent)

From "The new demography of America's schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act," by R. Capps, M. Fix, J. Murray, J. Ost, J. Passel, J., & S. Herwantoro, 2005, p. 17. Copyright 2005 by the Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission.

Capps et al. (2005) further point out that the numbers of third generation LEPs (18% from pre-K to 5th grade, 29% from 6th grade through high school) suggest that many U.S.-born pupils finish secondary school as LEPs.

US-born ELLs Do Not Conform to the Three-Generation Expectation

The traditional understanding of language use and shift in the United States is that the family's native language is lost by the third generation (Fishman, 1966; Veltman, 1983). However, most studies of long-term heritage language maintenance conclude that the shift to English, and the accompanying loss of the heritage language, remains the norm (Castillo, 2004; Portes Schauffler, 1994; Rivera-Mills, 2001; Rumbaut, 1994; Veltman, 1983, 1988, 2000; Wong-Fillmore, 1991). At the same time, current demographics on U.S.-born ELLs do not conform to the expectation that a family's native language is lost by the third generation and replaced with English as the dominant language. The large numbers of second-generation or higher ELLs born in the United States represent a population different from English monolinguals and fluent bilinguals and are worthy of acknowledgement and study.

While there is a good deal of research suggesting possible factors related to language maintenance, there has been much less research that has sought to understand factors behind second and third generation limited English proficiency. Some suggested factors include that limited English proficient children come from “linguistically isolated” households, where everyone over the age of 14 is limited English proficient(Capps et al, 2005).³ Other possibilities include ongoing ethnic and racial segregation. It has been noted that limited English proficient students are highly segregated by income in America's public schools (Urban Institute, 2004). De Cohen (2005) has documented that nearly 70 percent of the nation's LEP students are enrolled in 10 percent of its schools, and that LEPs are known to be economically disadvantaged, “embedding the discussion of LEP students' education within the context of what is already known about poor, minority, immigrant-serving urban schools” (p. 6).

Other suggestions are that second and third generation limited English proficiency results from use of the native language at home, which interferes with English development, and that newer immigrants and their children do not wish to learn English or become full participants in the American way of life (Krashen, 1998; Valdés, 2000b).

Second and third generation English language learners are a subpopulation of heritage language speakers. Although some studies have examined U.S.-born bilinguals (Linton, 2004; Suarez, 2002), the characteristics, differences and similarities of US born ELLs have not yet been widely studied. In their work outlining research agendas for LEP students, August and Hakuta (1997) emphasize that “priority should be given to addressing important gaps in population coverage, such as certain age or language groups, for whom the applicability of current findings from a more limited population can be tested” (p.6). Valdés (2005) has also encouraged researchers to identify differences and similarities among the spectrum of L1/L2 users.Research into heritage language speakers may contribute to the understanding of language use in the second and third generation.

This review of the research literature seeks to address the following questions:

1. What does the research say about second and third generation Heritage Language speakers?

2. Can what we have learned about U.S.-born heritage language speakers inform our understanding of U.S.-born English Language Learners?

Literature Review – Methodology

In this paper I use Valdés' (2000) definition of a heritage language speaker as a student who “is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken” and who “speaks or at least understands the language and who is to some degree bilingual in that language and in English” (p. 38). This definition emphasizes that heritage language use starts in the home, acknowledges a range of proficiencies in the home language and English, and is consistent with the definition of ELL and LEP given above.

This review focuses on the second generation or beyond, either alone or compared to other groups. Works selected for review shared the following characteristics:

• empirically-based studies, inclusive of diverse methodologies, qualitative and qualitative,
• studies based in the United States,
• studies dealing with U.S.-born heritage language learners,
• studies for which the unit of analysis included second generation or higher,
• literature on heritage language in public and private schools,
• sources from peer-reviewed journals.

The search and selection process yielded thirty-nine studies, which are summarized in Appendix A.

The selection of articles is limited by a dearth of studies that compare U.S.-born limited English proficient heritage language speakers with U.S.-born fluently bilingual heritage language speakers. The paper therefore reports on studies of second and third generation heritage language speakers who may or may not be limited English proficient.

Findings

The studies reviewed offer perspectives on three themes:

a. Designation of second and third generation heritage speakers

b. Language perceptions and linguistic adaptations of second and third generation HL speakers.

c. Relationships between heritage language maintenance and English language development.

a. Designation of Second and Third Generation Heritage Language Speakers

Several studies discuss the identification of heritage speakers and the designation of the terms heritage language and second generation. Research shows the need for a more considered use of both these terms, consistent with Wiley's call (2005) for the reexamination of terminology.

For example, J.S. Lee (2005) suggests that the distinction made between heritage and non-heritage learners is one-dimensional. Her study participants, which included second generation, generation 1.5, and immigrant students, when asked to self-identify either as heritage or non-heritage language learners, make choices outside the parameters that HL research applies to the term. Lee's findings suggest that speakers' perceptions of proficiency and their socio-psychological identification with the language are critical to their perceptions and use of their heritage language. Kondo-Brown's (2005) inquiry into sub-groups of students of Japanese encourages further examination into the differences between heritage and foreign language learners, as well as into finer distinctions among heritage speakers. Both Kondo-Brown and Lee's findings indicate the importance of self-identity to speakers. Taking this variable into account in the research design for studies of heritage speakers who are also LEPs may enrich understanding of this population.

The term second generation also would benefit from reexamination, as its inconsistent use influences research design. While most studies defined second generation consistently with the U.S. Census (see footnote 2), some researchers included members of generation 1.5 in this group,⁴ because linguistically these students have more in common with the second generation in development of the first language (e.g. Cho, 2005). However, Oropesa and Landale (1997), who examined criteria used to designate second generation speakers based on 1990 U.S. Census data, argue that researchers should distinguish foreign-born and native-born children, to allow for an examination of the differences in English proficiency among speakers based on place of birth.

Second generation LEPs also need to be distinguished from non-heritage speakers, fluent U.S.-born bilinguals, and recent immigrants. Portes (1994) argues that the failure to separate second generation speakers from other groups “obliterates their history” and results in “obscuring a major phenomenon in the recent evolution of American society” (p. 632).

b. Language Perceptions and Linguistic Adaptations of the Second Generation

It is important to study the “clash of languages confronted by second generation youth” (Portes & Shauffler, 1994, p. 644) in order to better understand the different possible outcomes of language contact, monolingualism in either language or bilingualism. This section focuses on studies of second generation language perceptions and linguistic adaptation. Language perceptions are represented by language attitude, preference, and choice, and linguistic adaptation is indicated by patterns of language use that correspond to those perceptions.

Across studies, although second generation heritage language speakers would like to maintain their heritage language and culture, they display an overwhelming preference for English. For example, an analysis of over 5,000 second generation students across language backgrounds found that over two-thirds expressed a preference for English over the heritage language (Portes & Hao, 1998). In their study of second generation 8th and 9th graders, Portes and Shauffler (1994) identified a “near-universal” preference for English in their subjects' daily lives. They also found a strong shift toward English and a positive correlation between English proficiency and length of residence or birth in the U.S. Again, the notion that native born ELLs are not interested in learning English is not supported in the research literature.

Even among second generation speakers who value bilingualism, English can be preferred to the parental language. In a seven-year study of Mexican-descent immigrant and U.S.-born parents and their U.S.-born children, participants continuously held “extremely positive” opinions about English because of its perceived higher value. The same participants were also highly positive about bilingualism and Spanish maintenance (Pease-Alvarez, 2002).

Since it is clear that English is preferred across the second and third generation, Portes and Schauffler (1994) suggest that the language attitude of youths toward their parental language is the deciding factor as to whether or not the child will retain some fluency in the parental language. Rivera-Mills' (2001) study found that second and third generation speakers have a keen desire to maintain their heritage language. A study of U.S.-born Chinese Americans and Korean Americans also found a strong desire to keep their language and culture (S.K. Lee, 2002). A comparison of attitudes among Armenian immigrant and Armenian U.S.-born students led the researchers to conclude that “American-born bilingual children may have [had] a closer affinity with the Armenian American community than either monolingual or foreign-born bilingual children” (Imbens-Bailey, 1996). Other studies across language groups also suggested that U.S.-born speakers may have a stronger desire to keep the heritage language and culture than immigrants (S.J. Lee, 2005; Pease-Alvarez, 2002; Portes & Shauffler, 1994).

Heritage speakers' views of their parental language can change over time. For example, Luo and Wiseman's (2000) study of second generation Chinese American adolescents found that peers are the most important influence on language preference and HL maintenance. Both Chinese-speaking and non-Chinese speaking peers were influential in U.S.-born children's use and retention of Chinese. Respondents also indicated that the relative importance of English and the HL varied at different times of life. Schecter and Bayley's study (2004) found a similar pattern. Likewise, Pease-Alvarez (2002) found that a household can change its dominant language in either direction. One of her study subjects was a U.S.-born parent who initiated a greater use of Spanish in the home to repair communication between her children and their Spanish-dominant father. Other subjects included U.S.-born parents whose initially Spanish-dominant households became English-dominant. Nevertheless, these studies support the findings of previous research that the shift towards English is more common than maintenance of the heritage language.

To investigate departures from the typical pattern of language shift⁵ over three generations, Tse (2001) interviewed 18-24 year olds with high levels of heritage language literacy. She found that the most important factors for slowing the rate of shift included having HL print in the home, particularly “light reading”, which fosters interest in reading. Guardado (2002) compared two groups, one bilingual and one English dominant, of U.S.-born children from Latino families. Parents of both groups said they believed that learning Spanish would give their children opportunities, and they all had a strong sense of cultural and ethnic identity. Guardado found that parents' concern for their children's Latino identity, moral development, and cognitive growth was the most significant factor in whether children remained bilingual or became English dominant. Facilitating factors for children's ethnic identity and HL use were the concrete presence of Latino culture and Spanish language in the home, including reading children's books is Spanish, playing or singing Spanish songs, and encouraging children with positive and enjoyable ways of using Spanish. Families who experienced language loss tended to use more “authoritarian discourses” (p. 354) and required, or demanded, that their children speak Spanish. Other factors associated with slowing down the rate of shift to English included the presence of grandparents in the household (Ishizawa, 2004; Kondo-Brown, 2005), gender (females are more likely to maintain the heritage language (e.g. Portes & Hao, 1998)), parental commitment to maintenance (Zhang, 2004), and higher parental education and socio-economic status (Portes & Shauffler, 1994). In general, positive relationships with parents and affirmative associations of heritage language use with home life positively influenced children's maintenance of the heritage language over generations (Arriagada, 2005; Romero, Robinson, Haydel, Mendoza, & Killen, 2004).

As Hinton (1999) points out that while family dynamics play a role in establishing language use in the second generation, the community also plays an influential role. Tse (2001) found that language shift was slowed down for the second generation in communities where there was assistance of more literate heritage language users, community institutions that used and provided HL print, and opportunities to act as literacy mediators for parents and family.

Cho (2000) found that second generation speakers' feelings of discomfort with native speakers, particularly during travel the home country, often motivated them to improve their knowledge of the heritage language. However, a shift to English can be hastened by a lack of appropriate education: J.S. Lee (2002) found that his participants wanted to develop their heritage language knowledge but had received inadequate instruction in school.

Hurtado and Vega's study (2004) suggests that the “hybridity of bilingualism” allows for heritage languages to be retained. Hurtado and Vega (2004) examined the simultaneous phenomena of language shift from Spanish to English and Spanish maintenance, and found what they call “linguistic bands”, when two or more people speak a language together (p.147), which allows for speakers to continue to use Spanish after becoming dominant in English. They also suggest that Spanish can have periods of dormancy in the lives of speakers who are in communities where Spanish is spoken and still be available for use in response to appropriate triggers.

In sum, most second generation heritage language speakers prefer English but also wish to maintain their heritage language and culture. Language preference for this group is influenced by their peer groups, and subject to alternation over time. The rate of shift or maintenance over generations can be influenced by the presence of the heritage language in the home, a supportive community, and continued contact with heritage language speakers.

c. Relationships between heritage language maintenance and English development

Scholars have noted a relationship between second generation heritage language maintenance and English language development, academic achievement, and self-perception of competency.

For example, Shibata (2004) examined the relationship of Japanese proficiency, English proficiency, and academic achievement in a group of second generation Japanese American college students, most of whom had attended Japanese school and spoke Japanese at home. Shibata found that the subjects' knowledge of Japanese did not compromise their knowledge of English. Moreover, a study of a nationally representative sample from NELS data found that heritage language maintenance and proficiency is associated with English proficiency and academic achievement (Yeung, Marsh and Suliman, 2000).

In studies by Buriel and Cardoza (1988), Glick and White (2003), Rumbaut (1995) and Suarez-Orozco and Marcelo (1995) the GPAs of non-U.S. born Mexican students were higher than those of U.S.-born students of Mexican descent. In a comparison of Mexican-born students with Mexican-descent students, Padilla and Gonzalez (2001) made the same findings, as well as a correlation of ESL/bilingual instruction with higher GPAs.They concluded that ESL and bilingual education provides students with increased academic achievement due to instruction in the “foundational skills” (p. 739) such as reading and mathematics, giving them an advantage over students without this foundation. Although Padilla and Gonzales did not distinguish between ESL and bilingual instruction, their research supports the positive effect of language education, including instruction in the heritage language.

Overall, a large body of research literature documents the positive effects of heritage language maintenance on academic achievement, cognitive development, social and psychological growth, and family relationships (e.g. Boals, 2001; Cummins, 1981; Dolson, 1985; Fernandez & Nielsen, 1986; Tseng & Fuligni, 2000; Peal & Lambert, 1962; Rumbaut, 1994). Portes and Hao (2002), in their study of second generation children, stress that “the positive effects of fluent bilingualism are not associated with mere attachment to these cultures but with simultaneous mastery of two languages and associated cultural repertoires” (p.907) (italics in original). The studies reviewed here, focusing on the second generation or higher, support Portes and Hao, and provide additional evidence of the benefits of heritage language maintenance and fluent bilingualism.

Implications

ESL educators often claim that heritage language development is not related to them or their work (Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Pease-Alvarez & Winsler, 1994; Wong-Filmore, 2000). However, if education in the heritage language results in overall academic benefits, then maintaining heritage language knowledge is of interest to all instructors. ESL teachers can play a role in supporting heritage language maintenance by becoming strong advocates for biliteracy (Grant & Wong, 2003), and valuing and incorporating students' heritage languages into classroom practices (Ernst, 1994). Even if ESL teachers and students are positively disposed towards bilingualism, rapid language shift can occur. For example, Pease-Alvarez & Winsler (1994) found that notwithstanding ESL instructors' positive associations with Spanish, elementary school students used an increasing amount of English while decreasing their use of Spanish in the course of one academic year .Wong-Fillmore (2000) notes that the message conveyed to school children is “The home language is nothing; it has no value at all” (p. 208), and children respond by believing that “they must disavow the low status language spoken at home” (p. 208). ESL instructors can help students if they work collaboratively with parents, community members and heritage language speakers (Wong, 2000) to promote heritage language development simultaneously with the acquisition of English in and out of the classroom.

The studies reviewed here indicate that LEP heritage language speakers merit study as a group distinct from those who have become English dominant, rather than as failed heritage language or failed English language speakers (Cook, 2002) or as people who “know neither language” (McSwan, Rolstad, & Glass, 2002). Researchers' findings make clear that the benefits of ESL instruction and TESOL education are not limited to imparting English proficiency and can contribute to supporting heritage language development. Moreover, the critical need for high-level heritage language speakers in the U.S. is well-documented (e.g. Malone, Rifkin, Christian, and Johnson (2004). The efforts of ESL and TESOL educators to support heritage language education can make a substantive contribution to this need and to the overall development of the child.

References

Arriagada, P. A. (2005). Family context and Spanish-language use: A Study of Latino children in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 86,(3), 599-619.

August, D. and Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

Batalova, J. (2006). Spotlight on Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Boals, T. (2001). Ensuring academic success: The real issue for ELLs. Mid-Western Educational Researcher 14 (4), 3-8.

Buriel, R. and Cardoza, D. (1988). Sociocultural correlates of achievement among three generations of Mexican American high school seniors. American Educational Research Journal, 25: 2, 177-192.

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America's schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf

Carliner, G. (2000). The language ability of U.S. Immigrants: Assimilation and cohort effects. International Migration Review 34, (1), 158-182.

Castillo, J. (2004). Spanish in the United States: Demographic changes, language attitudes and pedagogical implications. Geolinguistics 30,, 2004, 71-83.

Cho, G. (2000). The role of heritage language in social interactions and relationships: Reflections from a language minority group. Bilingual Research Journal 24(4), 369-84.

Cho, G., & Krashen, S. (2000). The role of voluntary factors in HL development: How speakers can develop the HL on their own. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 127-128(127-140).

Cook, V. (Ed). (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Second language acquisition series. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1981). Empirical and theoretical underpinnings of bilingual education. Journal of Education, 163, 16-29.

Dolson, D. P. (1985). The effects of Spanish home language use on the scholastic performance of Hispanic pupils. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(2), 135-155.

De Cohen, C.C., Deterding, N., & Clewell, B.C. (2005). Who's Left Behind? Immigrant Children in High and Low LEP Schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411231_whos_left_behind.pdf

Ernst, G. (1994). Beyond language: The many dimensions of an ESL program. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(3), 317-335.

Fenandez, R. M., & Nielsen, F. (1986). Bilingualism and Hispanic scholastic achievement: Some baseline results. Social Science Research, 15, 43-70.

Fishman, J. (1966). Language loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton.

Fleischman, H.L., & Hopstock, P.J. (1993). Descriptive study of services to Limited English Proficient Students, volume 1, Summary of Findings and Conclusions. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.

Glick, J. E., & M. J. White. (2003). The Academic Trajectories of Immigrant Youths: Analysis
Within and Across Cohorts. Demography, 40, 759-83.

Grant, R., & Wong, S. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language minority learners: An argument for change in the literacy education profession. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(5), 386-394.

Guardado, M. (2002). Loss and maintenance of first language skills: Case studies of Hispanic families in Vancouver. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 341-363.

Harklau, L., Losey, K.M., & Siegal, M. (1999). Linguistically diverse students and college writing: What is equitable and appropriate? In Harklau, Losey and Siegal (Eds.) Generation 1.5 meets college Composition (pp.1- 16). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.

Hinton, L. (1999). Trading tongues: Loss of heritage languages in the United States. English Today 15, (4), 21.

Hurtado, A., & Vega, L.A. (2004). Shift happens: Spanish and English transmission between parents and their children. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (1), 137- 155.

Ibanez, G. E., Kupermine, G., Jurkovic, G., & Perilla, J. (2003). Cultural attributes and adaptations linked to achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33, (6), 559-568.

Imbens-Bailey, A. (1996). Ancestral language acquisition: Implications for aspects of ethnic identity among Armenian-American Children. Journal of language and social psychology, 15 (4), 422-443.

Ishizawa, H. (2004). Minority language use among grandchildren in multigenerational homes. Sociological Perspectives 47, (4), 465-483.

Jo, H. (2001). Heritage language identity and ethnic identity: Korean American's struggle with language authorities. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14 (1), 26 - 41.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 89(iv), 563-581.

Kondo, K. (1997). Social-psychological factors affecting language maintenance: Interviews with Shin Nisei University Students in Hawaii. Linguistics and Education, 9(4), 369-408.

Krashen, S. (1998). Heritage language development: Some practical arguments. In S. Krashen, L.Tse , & J. McQuillan (Eds.), Heritage Language Development (pp. 3-13). Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.

Lee, J.S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language, 15(2), 117-133.

Lee, J.S. (2005). Through the learners' eyes: Reconceptualizing the heritage and non-heritage language learners of the less commonly taught languages. Foreign Language Annals, 38(4), 554-567.

Lee, J.S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). It's not my job: K-12 teacher attitudes toward heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal 30(2), 453-477.

Lee, S.K. (2002). The significance of language and cultural education on secondary achievement: A survey of Chinese-American and Korean-American students. Bilingual Research Journal 26(2), 327– 337.

Linton, A. (2004). A critical mass model of bilingualism among US born Hispanics. Social Forces 83, (1), pp. 279-314.

Luo, S.H., & Wiseman, R.L. (2000). Ethnic language maintenance among Chinese immigrant children in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(3), 307.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA). (2006). Frequently asked questions. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/

Malone, M., Rifkin, B., Christian, D., & Johnson, D. E. (2004). Attaining high levels of proficiency: Challenges for language education in the United States. Journal for Distinguished Language Studies, 2, 67-88.

McSwan, J., Rolstad, K., & Glass, G. (2002). Do some school-aged children have no language? Some problems of construct validity in the Pre-LAS Espanol. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213-238.

Oropesa, R.S., & Landale, N.S. (1997). In search of the new second generation: Alternative strategies for identifying second generation children and understanding their acquisition of English. Sociological Perspectives, 40(3), 429-455.

Padilla, A. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and US born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and Bilingual/ESL instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 727-742.

Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76(27), 1–23.

Pease-Alvarez, L. (2002). Moving beyond linear trajectories of language shift and bilingual language socialization. Conversations within Mexican-descent families: Diverse contexts for language socialization and learning. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(2), 114-137.

Pease-Alvarez, L., & Winsler, A. (1994). Cuando el maestro no habla espanol: Children's bilingual practices in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 507–535.

Portes, A. (1994). Introduction: Immigration and its aftermath. International Migration Review, 28(4), 632-639.

Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E pluribus unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the second generation. Sociology of Education, 7, 269-294.

Portes, A., & Schauffler, R. (1994). Language and the second generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today. The International Migration Review, 28(4), 640-661.

Portes, A., & Hao, L. (2002). The price of uniformity: language, family and personality adjustment in the immigrant second generation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6), 889-912.

Rivera-Mills, S. (2001). Acculturation and communicative need: Language shift in an ethnically diverse Hispanic community. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 20(2), 211-221.

Romero, A., Robinson, T., Haydel, K, Mendoza, F., & Killen, J. (2004). Associations among familism, language preference, and education in Mexican-American mothers and their children. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 25(1), 34-40.

Rumbaut, R. (1994). The crucible within: ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review,(28), 748-794.

Rumbaut, R. (1995). The New Californians: Comparative Research Findings on the Educational Progress of Immigrant Children. In R.G. Rumbaut & W.A. Cornelius (Eds.), in California's immigrant children: Theory,research, and implications for educational policy (pp. 17-70). San Diego, CA: The Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California.

Schecter, S., & Bayley, R. (2004). Language Socialization in Theory and Practice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(5), 605-625.

Shibata, S. (2004). The effects of Japanese heritage language maintenance on scholastic verbal and academic achievement in English. Foreign Language Annals, 37(2), 224-231.

Suarez, D. (2002). The paradox of linguistic hegemony and the maintenance of Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(6), 512-530.

Suarez-Orozco, C., & Marcelo, C. (1995). Transformations: Migration, family life, and achievement among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tse, L. (2001). Heritage language literacy: A study of U.S. biliterates. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14(3), 256-268.

Tseng, V. & Fuligni, A. (2000). Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino, and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 465-476.

Urban Institute (2004). "Beyond Bilingual Education: Immigrant students and the No Child Left Behind Act": An Urban Institute First Tuesday Roundtable discussion. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Valdés, G. (2000a). Introduction. In N. Anderson (Ed.), AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16: Vol 1. Spanish for native speakers (pp.1-20). Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

Valdés, G. (2000b). The ACTFL-Hunter College FIPSE Project and its contributions to the profession. In .J.B. Webb & B.I. Miller (Eds). Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from the classroom (pp. 235-241). Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard & S. Mc Ginnis (Eds), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Valdés, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 410-426.

Veltman, C. (1983). Language shift in the United States. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Veltman, C. (1988). Modeling the language shift process of Hispanic immigrants. International Migration Review, 22, pp. 545-572.

Veltman, C. (1988). The future of Spanish in the United States. Washington, DC: Hispanic Policy Development Project.

Veltman, C. (2000). The American linguistic mosaic: Understanding language shift in the United States. In S.L. McKay & S.C. Wong (Eds.), New immigrants in the United States (pp. 58-93). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wiley, T. (2005). The Reemergence of Heritage and Community Language Policy in the U.S. National Spotlight. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), pp. 594-601.

Wong-Fillmore, L.W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(3), 323-47.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39(4), 203-210.

Yeung, A.S., Marsh, J.W. & Suliman, R. (2000). Can two tongues live in harmony: Analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) longitudinal data on the maintenance of home language. American Educational Research Journal, 37(4), 1001-1026.

Zhang, D. (2004). Home language maintenance among second generation Chinese American children. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19(2), 33-53.

Notes

1. “English Language Learners” (ELLs) and “Limited English Proficient” (LEP) refer to those who speak a language other than English at home and who speak English less than “very well.” This definition of limited English proficiency is shared by the US Census and NCELA (2006). In this paper the term ELL is used unless discussing literature that uses the term LEP. (back)

2. 1st generation: foreign-born children of foreign born immigrants.

2nd generation: U.S.-born children with at least one parent born outside of the U.S.

3rd generation and above: U.S.-born children of U.S.-born parents.

Note: Consistent with the U.S. Census Bureau's definition of “native born,” children residing in the mainland with Puerto-Rican born parents are considered “native” i.e. U.S.-born. Children living in Puerto Rico are not considered part of the native-born population (Capps et al., 2005). (back)

3. Capps et al. (2005) note that in 2000, 6 in 7 LEP students were “linguistically isolated” (p. 38). (back)

4. Generation 1.5 refers to students who were born in a country other than the U.S. but emigrated as school-aged children or adolescents, and received most of their education in the U.S. (Harklau, Losey & Siegal, 1999). (back)

5. This paper uses the term language shift as defined by Valdés (2005) as the “abandonment of the regular use of the non-English language” (p. 415). (back)

Appendix. Summary of Studies (back)

Download file:D_Srz_HLJ_5_1.pdf