Ann Kelleher 2010 - Linguistics

Transcription

Policies and Identities in Mandarin Education: The Situated Multilingualism of
University-level ―Heritage‖ Language Learners
By
ANN MARIE KELLEHER
B.A. (Swarthmore College) 1991
M.A. (University of California, Davis) 2006
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
Linguistics
in the
OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
Approved:
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Committee in Charge
2010
-i-
Copyright by
ANN MARIE KELLEHER
2010
Abstract
This dissertation explores complex positionings of Chinese heritage language (CHL)
learners amid several intersecting discourses, including those around globalization,
identity development and language policies. Using qualitative methods, drawing
principally on critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996), nexus analysis (Scollon &
Scollon, 2004, 2007), and the analysis of discourse (Blommaert, 2005), the study
combines textual and site-based analyses to link the language development experiences
of diverse university-level CHL students to broader sociopolitical discourses.
An analysis of the concepts ―heritage language‖ and ―heritage language learner‖
serves as a foundation for ethnographic work at California Northern University (CNU, a
pseudonym). Arguments for establishing expert meanings reflect unresolved, perhaps
irresolvable, tensions between disciplinary perspectives that are forming an emerging
heritage language field. Interpreting the meaning ―heritage‖ broadly for languages and
narrowly for learners allows for an uneasy equilibrium, leaving open questions about the
significance of linkages between language and culture.
The study then explores this link in the context of university-level Mandarin
education. Site-based field work at CNU over the period 2005-2008 examines policy
enactments (Ramanathan & Morgan, 2007) and their effects on diverse CHL learners.
Findings under a dual-track program design, separating ―regular‖ and ―bilingual‖ learners
at the introductory level, revealed complications around placements; when institutional
policies did not meet students‘ language needs nor were in accord with their evolving
-ii-
sense of ethnic identity, some CHL students re-placed and re-positioned themselves,
seeking to resolve tensions they faced as they were caught at the intersection of
institutional values, program structure and their own linguistic and cultural resources.
After the program added a third track for Cantonese-background students, subsequent
work focused on the experiences of diverse CHL students in this track. The first analysis
details students‘ evolving investment (Norton, 2000) in studying Mandarin as a
―heritage‖ language whose spoken form differs greatly from Cantonese, examining
identity negotiations and how Mandarin study interacted with students‘ sense of
―Chineseness‖ (Louie, 2004). The second analysis examines teachers‘ and students‘
beliefs about the relationship between Cantonese and Mandarin. The analysis reveals why
―dialect‖ background matters for Mandarin development and that present theoretical
constructions of CHL learners render invisible significant distinctions.
In sum, this dissertation connects issues of identities, pedagogies and policies in
relational terms, demonstrating the importance of this approach for CHL education, and
also within heritage language studies and applied linguistics.
-iii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………..i
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...….ii
Table of contents...………………………………………………………………………..iv
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...vi
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………….….…….vii
List of figures……………………………………………………………………………..ix
List of tables…………………………………………………………………….………....x
Discourse transcription conventions………………………………………………..…….xi
Chapter 1. Introduction: Chinese as a global and heritage language…..………….............1
Chapter 2. Approaches to learner identity, language ideology and tracking and placement
for heritage language research……………………………...……………………………19
Chapter 3. Methods and setting …………...……………………………………….........56
Chapter 4. Reading the ―heritage language‖ discourse: Emerging framings of heritage
learners and language in the U.S………..………………………………………….........77
Chapter 5. Placements and re-positionings: Chinese ―heritage‖ learners in a foreign
language program………………………….……………………………………….…..112
Chapter 6. Why study Mandarin?: Identity, ―dialect‖ and motivation among
Cantonese/English bilingual college students...………………………………………..139
Chapter 7. When ―Standard Mandarin‖ goes global: Some local effects of Putonghua as
an object of study in the US……………………………...………..................................186
Chapter 8. Concluding reflections and points for further study………………………..222
Appendix A. Frequently Asked Questions……..………………………………………241
Appendix B. Student survey, 2005……………………………………………………..271
Appendix C. Student demographics, 2005.…………………………………………….273
-iv-
Appendix D. Student survey, 2007….………………………………………………….275
Appendix E. Interview questions, 2007-2008..…………………………………………277
References………………………………………………………………………………279
-v-
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated with much love and gratitude
to my husband, Joaquin B. Feliciano, and to my mother, Gertrude L. Kelleher.
-vi-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It gives me great pleasure to thank a number of people whose support made the
creation of this dissertation possible. First and foremost, I want to thank the members of
my dissertation committee. I offer my deep gratitude to my adviser, Prof. Vaidehi
Ramanathan, for being an exemplary mentor throughout my graduate studies. Your
teaching, intelligence, insightfulness, unconditional support and belief in my work
provided the foundation for this project and the momentum to see it through to
completion. I am deeply indebted to Prof. Julia Menard-Warwick for your instruction and
advice, in particular on qualitative methodology, and for your close reading and insightful
comments on this dissertation. I offer my profound thanks to Prof. Chengzhi Chu whose
support of my research over the past six years has been instrumental in carrying out these
projects. I have benefited a great deal from your input on this project and your
willingness to share your knowledge; I am continually inspired by your commitment to
Mandarin education. This dissertation would not have been possible without the
committee‘s support and the final product has benefitted a great deal from their
comments and critiques. I am also grateful for grant funding from the U.C. Davis Second
Language Acquisition Institute. Inadequacies remain my own.
I would also like to thank a number of people who have helped me understand more
about ―heritage‖ languages. I am indebted to the students and teachers who were involved
with this project, allowing me into their classrooms and giving generously of their time.
This project certainly could not have happened without them. My friend and colleague
Genevieve Leung has taught me more about the importance of Cantonese than all the
reading in the world could ever do and her support has helped sustain my commitment to
-vii-
this project. Conversations with my dear friend Weijing Lu and reading her insightful
scholarship over the years has inspired my own academic journey; spending time with
her and her family has provided a first-hand glimpse into the reality of life in English and
multiple varieties of Chinese. I have also benefitted from working with Joy Peyton and
the Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages. Thanks go to Joy for her
companionship and stimulating discussions at AILA ‘09 in Essen, Germany.
One of the best aspects of my time as a graduate student at U.C. Davis has been
learning from my peers. I feel a sense of deep gratitude to all of my classmates over the
years. Here, I would like to thank a few who have become close friends and formed a
support network that made the work of this dissertation more enjoyable. Dionne Soares,
Silvie Liao, Yuriko Caltabiano and Li-fen Lin were an amazing dissertation support
group; Dionne is the best dissertation e-mail group leader a girl could ask for and I
received support from Silvie in a thousand ways. Paul McPherron has been a great friend
and colleague over the years.
My family and friends provided an important network to turn to when graduate school
stress and uncertainty felt oppressive. My sisters Maureen and Susan both became great
Facebook friends over the past year; it helped to see what was going on in their lives and
receive their encouragement. Cycling with the Davis Bike Club Women‘s Race Team
was a needed break from the dissertation. Thanks to Michele Feikert and Carolyn Regan
for being great teammates, riding companions and amazing friends. Finally, I want to
thank my mother, Gertrude Kelleher, for her constant and varied support, and for always
being there to listen when I call to vent or celebrate. My husband, Joaquin Feliciano, is
the best. Thank you for everything.
-viii-
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER FOUR:
Figure 4.1. Basic terminological distinctions in SLA…………...97
Figure 4.2. ―Heritage language‖ distinguished at two levels……99
Figure 4.3. ―Heritage language‖ as a type of bilingual
language competence....…………………………..104
CHAPTER SIX:
Figure 6.1. Language background and typical seating in
Mandarin 1C……………………………………...162
Figure 6.2. Video still: Cantonese word games………………...173
-ix-
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER THREE: Table 3.1: Data sources…………………………………….……...65
CHAPTER FOUR: Table 4.1. Language and education context for articles
analyzed………………………………………………..90
Table 4.2. Article types and topics…………………………………91
Table 4.3. Source for proficiency-based definitions of heritage
language learner……………………………………….94
CHAPTER FIVE: Table 5.1. Chinese program structure at California Northern
University, 2004-2005………………………………..120
Table 5.2. Types of data collected and analyzed………………....122
Table 5.3. Students‘ self-reported Mandarin and Cantonese
abilities………………………………………………..126
Table 5.4. Students‘ self-reported reading/writing ability………..128
CHAPTER SIX:
Table 6.1. ―Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers‖ student
background overview…………………………………159
Table 6.2. Motive analysis summary: focal students‘ reasons
for studying Mandarin………………………………...165
-x-
DISCOURSE TRANSCRIPTION AND ROMANIZATION CONVENTIONS
The following conventions were used for the transcription of data extracts from audio
taped interviews.
Mark
Meaning
English text in italics
Indicates emphasis.
xxx
Unintelligible speech.
….
Brief pause.
( )
Affect in speech; for example: (laugh) to denote laughing
while speaking.
[]
Indicates material I have inserted; translations are marked
as such (i.e. [trans. …]). All translations are my own unless
otherwise noted.
Romanization
Spoken Mandarin is transcribed using the pinyin Romanization system; tone marks are
not included, however translations are given. All pinyin Romanization is given in italics.
In the few instances where Romanization of Cantonese pronunciations are included, they
are phonetic transcriptions, reviewed by a Cantonese speaker with linguistic expertise.
Cantonese phonetic transcriptions are given in quotation marks.
-xi-
1
Chapter 1. Introduction: Chinese as a global and heritage language
1. Chinese as a “global” language
This qualitative research project on diverse ―heritage‖ learners of Mandarin comes at a
critical time in terms of Mandarin teaching in the U.S. (e.g., McGinnis, 2005). One
visible effect of China‘s economic expansion is an increasingly popular focus on
Mandarin as a language of study. In February of 2007, the pervasiveness of this
perspective was brought home to me in a new way, through Mandarin pop music, or
―Mandopop‖ as it is known, in the form of the Taiwanese girl-group S.H.E. I was
attending a Chinese language department-sponsored Chinese New Year celebration at
California Northern University (CNU, a pseudonym and the site of this study). Each of
the classes in the department gave a performance, many singing along KTV-style (like
karaoke) in Mandarin to the soundtrack of popular songs. One class chose to sing the
song 中國話 ―Zhongguo hua‖ (―Chinese language‖) by S.H.E. I was amazed to hear the
chorus of the song reflect the current popularity of Chinese language study:
Chorus to 中國話 (Chinese Language) performed by S.H.E.:
全世界都在學中國話
[Chinese characters]
Quan shijie dou zai xue Zhongguo hua
[pinyin Romanization]
The whole world is learning Chinese
[translation]
孔夫子的話越來越國際化
Kongfuzi de hua yue lai yue guoji hua
Confucius' words are becoming international culture
2
全世界都在講中國話
Quan shijie dou zai jiang Zhongguo hua
The whole world is speaking Chinese
我們說的話讓世界都認真聽話
Women shuo de hua rang shijie dou renzhen tinghua
Our language makes the people of the world listen up
(pinyin and translation by tammiest, 2007; music composed by Zheng, 2007;
lyrics by Zheng & Shi, 2007)1
The lyrics express pride in greater China‘s language and culture, linking the current
popularity of the language explicitly to its long cultural tradition. The chorus leaves tacit
the driving force behind the popularity, namely China‘s rapid economic growth. The
lyrics emphasize the communicative burden of the listener (the rest of the world) to be
obedient once they can understand the language. This contrasts sharply with the way
studying Chinese is often portrayed in the U.S., particularly in the popular media and
commercial language learning advertisements, where it is the savvy U.S. business person
who will reap economic rewards by learning Chinese and exploiting Chinese markets.
Considering these two divergent perspectives, what will be the future importance of
―the whole world‖ studying Chinese? The specter (from the U.S. media perspective) of
China as the next great super-power brings with it the possibility of Chinese as the next
―global‖ language. Is the significance of this fact to be found in what the West can take or
1
I modified the translation by ―tammiest‖ (a username on the site ―Asia Fanatics‖) slightly, changing the
translation of ―guoji‖ in line 2 from ―world‖ to ―international‖. I also changed the transcription conventions
of the pinyin from the original strict character-by-character notation by merging compounds and adding
capitalization.
3
in what China can control? Phrased this way, the question reflects the kinds of
popularized, one-sided sentiments expressed in the song lyrics and U.S.-based
advertisements for Chinese, and almost invariably Mandarin, language study. But
communication is always complicated by multiple and conflicting perspectives,
conditioned by different social systems and individual experiences; this study will
examine some of the ways in which students characterized as ―heritage‖ learners of
Mandarin—generally speaking, those students with a family connection to Chinese
language and culture—are caught between these simplifying tropes.
At the national level, the upsurge in Mandarin study in the U.S. is well-supported by
both the governments of the United States and the People‘s Republic of China (P.R.C.).
As is so clear with the history of English, the spread of a language is tied to power and
dominance on the world stage in various and complex ways. The rising popularity of
Mandarin among American students is clearly tied to the economic rise of the P.R.C. in
the past decade. In the wake of its economic success, the P.R.C. is actively promoting
Mandarin study overseas. Since 2003, the U.S. has worked in partnership with the Office
of Chinese Language International (known as Hanban) to support Chinese teaching,
inviting high school teachers and students to visit China, providing textbooks and
materials to U.S. schools, opening ―Confucius Institutes‖ for Chinese language and
culture education in the U.S., and sending scores of new teachers from China to teach in
the U.S. On the U.S. government‘s side, there is an effort to increase the number of
people proficient in Mandarin to meet employment demands in both the private and
public sectors (Asia Society, 2005). The demand is tied to a post-9/11 focus on language
proficiency in what are called ―strategic‖ or ―critical‖ languages for the purposes of
4
national security and economic competitiveness (for a critique of this discourse, see
Ricento, 2005). As such, federal funding to support the teaching of Mandarin has
increased under the National Security Language Initiative since the program was
announced by President George W. Bush in 2006. Federal government reports indicate
that budgets of $65.5 million in 2007 and $85.9 million in 2008 were appropriated for
programs across the Departments of Education, Defense, State and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (U.S. Department of Education, 2007, p. 26). As of
2009, funding was being channeled into the domestic, civilian foreign language teaching
sector primarily through the STARTALK initiative (http://www.startalk.umd.edu/), with
Chinese (Mandarin) as one of the targeted languages.
2. Mandarin education in the U.S.
The prevailing view of Chinese as a global language valorizes the teaching and
learning of the language. However, as a non-dominant language in the U.S., Chinese like
all other languages except English may be looked upon skeptically by those who view
English as the necessary social ―glue‖ to bind together citizens of disparate backgrounds
(Lippi-Green, 1997). Wang (2007) examines how Chinese in the U.S. is accorded higher
or lower status across contexts. Operating from a position of advocacy for Chinese
language maintenance and growth, Wang examines Chinese language development from
an ecological, biliteracy framework (Hornberger, 2004; Hornberger & Skilton-Sylvester,
2000). She draws on Bourdieu (1991) to frame language as imparting different types of
capital, stating, ―As cultural capital, languages enable individuals, communities and
societies to connect to the past. As human and social capital, languages empower them to
move forward into the future‖ (Wang, 2007, p. 29). She argues that Chinese has
5
differential status as home language, heritage language or foreign/world language and
that conflicting views of Chinese as either ―resource‖ or ―problem‖ (Ruíz, 1984) must be
addressed by language planners. Describing this as characteristic of a ―love/hate
relationship‖ with languages other than English in the U.S., Wang says, ―[t]o date, the US
has not adequately addressed the consequences of these conflicting language education
policies‖ (p. 37).
Wang‘s analysis effectively captures complexities specific to Chinese around the
double standard that values elective second language or ―elite‖ bilingualism over the
bilingualism of linguistic minorities and immigrants (for a summary see Pavlenko, 2005,
pp. 24-25). What remains tacit in her discussion, as well as in the public discourse, is that
Chinese mean is often used to mean Mandarin, eliding reference to other varieties of
Chinese in the U.S. including Cantonese, the spoken variety that characterized Chinese
immigrants and Chinatowns in the U.S. through the end of the 20th century, and also the
Chinese diaspora in Britain (W. Li & Wu, 2008). Further, ―Chinese‖ as it is used in this
discussion means Mandarin in an idealized, standard form. Not only does the status of
―Chinese‖ change across contexts, as Wang (2007) argues, but I will also argue that there
are unspoken and unequal hierarchies of access to Chinese (and specifically, Mandarin)
as a global language that are driven, in part, by such factors such as ethnicity and
―dialect‖ background.
Clearly, the rush to teach more students Mandarin does not happen in a vacuum, but is
instead incorporated into a complex web of social relations, including education policies
and practices that reflect and have the potential to reify popular language ideologies (Gee,
1996). An excerpt from a 2006 Financial Times (London) article on the expansion of
6
Mandarin language teaching in the U.S. raises a number of relevant questions. The
quotation begins with the author describing a high school Mandarin class in Fairfax, VA.
The student the author chose to focus on, Matt Glazer, is not of Chinese heritage in
contrast to the majority of the students in his class.
And while most of the students in Matt's class are of Chinese heritage, not all
speak Chinese at home with their parents, further complicating matters. "There's
no good definition of 'Chinese heritage' student," says Ms Lei [Matt‘s teacher].
Chicago has avoided such problems partly because most of its Chinese
immigrants have been Cantonese-speaking - and are thus not involved. The city
has also promoted Chinese to as many students across the city's school system as
possible, says Robert Davis, manager of Chicago's Chinese programme. The
result is that almost 90 per cent of the 3,500 students studying Chinese at 20
schools are African-American or Hispanic - a reflection of Chicago's population,
which is, for example, 26 per cent Hispanic. "These shouldn't be boutique
programmes, these are for all students: to give them opportunities," Mr. Davis
says. (Grant, 2006)
In articles such as this, Mandarin is portrayed as a school-based opportunity for language
development, and a ticket to participate in the ‗global economy‘. For students who are not
ethnically Chinese, such as Matt, this line of reasoning is taken as an unproblematic
matter of educational opportunity. In contrast, the participation of Chinese-American
students in the same program is de-legitimized because their presence is characterized as
problematic. In the article, the author uses the situation in Chicago as an example of a
program that has avoided the problems that come with having heritage language learners
7
in the classroom, giving two reasons for the lack of Chinese-American participation.
First, the Chinese-American population is characterized as being largely Cantonesespeaking, and speaking Cantonese is portrayed as a self-evident reason for not
participating in Mandarin classes; and second, the accomplishment of attracting a student
population in proportion to the city‘s ethnic makeup means Chinese-American
participation is very limited, and this demographic representation is characterized as
preventing the program from being, ―a boutique programme.‖
The logic of the article is structured so that it gives the impression that nonparticipation by Chinese-Americans is positive. The idea of preventing Chinese education
from becoming a ―boutique programme‖ could point to issues of social class and imply
that African-American and Hispanic students are presumed to be of lower socioeconomic status and, through this program, they are receiving an important educational
opportunity. However, the article focuses on ethnicity and the clearest message I see in
the use of the expression ―boutique programme‖ is the implication that a Chinese
language program serving a large number of Chinese-American students could be
construed as serving a special interest. For learners like Matt in Virginia or the AfricanAmerican and Hispanic students in Chicago, studying Mandarin is portrayed as a great
opportunity to participate in the global economy. Through this media lens, ChineseAmerican learners raise issues that are, at best, difficult to solve (how to define and ―deal
with‖ heritage learners, an issue raised by the teacher‘s quote in this article) when
acknowledged, but in fact are often rendered invisible.
The article takes the situation in Chicago, where Cantonese-speaking students do not
participate in school-based Mandarin education, to be unproblematic. However, the lack
8
of Cantonese speakers in Mandarin education programs is a problem if access to
Mandarin means access to the benefits of knowing ―Chinese‖ as a global language. Their
absence is an invisible problem, and invisible problems are unlikely to be addressed.
This study will show that Cantonese/English bilingual college students see great value
in learning Mandarin, and that they find ways to adapt to the CNU Mandarin program
even when their sociolinguistic background places them at odds with program placement
procedures, expectations and goals. The comments of the students at CNU regarding why
they want to study Mandarin echo both the ethnolinguistic pride of the S.H.E. lyrics and
the economic opportunity view of the ―Mandarin as strategic language‖ rhetoric. They
desire educational access to the language for these reasons, and many more. Moreover,
once they begin their Mandarin studies, they begin a process of socialization to new
norms of language use which at times leads them to critique and discount their Cantonese
abilities. The study also examines some of the language beliefs that assign different
values to Mandarin and Cantonese and shows how some learners come to devalue their
Cantonese ability because of the way its status is presented relative to Mandarin. The
findings emphasize the fact that Cantonese/English bilingual students are very different
―heritage‖ learners than those with a background in Mandarin.
3. Researching diversity among Chinese “heritage” learners
Cantonese-background learners of Mandarin enter into Mandarin study with their own
set of language skills in what is considered a ―non-standard‖ variety for the purposes of
classroom instruction (Dai & Zhang, 2008). Milroy and Milroy (1991, pp. 112-115)
assert that variationist sociolinguistic research holds an important lesson for educators,
and it is one that is applicable to diverse heritage learners of Mandarin. The authors have
9
found that, despite the social value of a standard language variety and the fact that it both
encodes and projects authority, ―non-standard‖ varieties are well-maintained among
individuals and communities because they function as important markers of group
identity. Not only is it the case that these students want to maintain their Cantonese
ability as they add Mandarin to their linguistic repertoire, but once they begin speaking
Mandarin, their speech will be marked in certain ways because of their existing
Cantonese ability. This perception of accent and ―dialect‖ background will open them up
to social judgments by their teachers and other Mandarin speakers. Work on the social
meanings of ―accented‖ Mandarin is just beginning to emerge in the applied linguistics
literature (Dong & Blommaert, 2009; Q. Zhang, 2005, 2006, 2008), but findings from
such studies are of importance to the heritage language field. Further, Milroy and Milroy
point out that there is an important message here for educators. Prescriptive ideologies
can have negative consequences for linguistic minority students when the students‘
language skills are devalued and misunderstood. Based on these characteristics, CHL
learners have been described as having, ―…a very uneven grasp of the HL‖ by Li and
Duff (2008, p. 17). It is important to recognize that statements of this type can be
interpreted in different ways. For example, they can be taken as statements about
learners‘ needs or as negative critiques of their existing abilities.
Knowing that language ability is judged across contexts and individuals in myriad,
complex ways, what does it mean that Mandarin programs, ―give [students]
opportunities‖ as the article quoted above states? Which opportunities are privileged over
others and for which students? What assumptions about Mandarin study, language
background, and opportunities are reflected, and thus sustained in the higher education
10
context? In this study, I have explored these kinds of questions from a number of angles
over the past 5 years of research on the Mandarin program at California Northern
University. I used qualitative research methods, broadly ethnographic in orientation, and
employing a critical approach that examines how social structures and individual agency
interact. Such a methodology is based on a conceptual foundation of critical theory which
seeks to understand human experience in ways that move beyond positivistic and
interpretive traditions. Bredo and Feinberg (1982) describe this distinction as hinging on
the way each tradition constructs knowledge and then links knowledge to values. About
this relationship in the critical tradition they state:
It suggests that while knowledge may indeed be generated independent of one‘s
personal values, as the positivist would have it, such ―objective‖ knowledge is
nonetheless not interest-free knowledge. It also suggests that while relevant
knowledge must always be practically related to the norms of some community,
and so must always be normative, as the interpretivist would have it, such
―correct‖ knowledge may nonetheless be oriented to either more specialized or
more universal interests. Thus critical theory both agrees and disagrees with these
other two conceptions of the relation of knowledge and value. It suggests that
knowledge is always interested, but that when this is recognized it can aspire to a
kind of purity by self-consciously serving more universal rather than more
specialized interests. (p. 277)
I believe the authors overstate the promise of critical theory with the characterization of
moving toward ―purity‖ of knowledge. However, I see the importance of recognizing
―specialized interests‖ and asking what is the social value of research beyond the
11
apparent importance of research as contributing to a specific discipline. I have found this
orientation to be a theoretical framework in which I can examine questions of a social
nature with the least intrusion of discipline-determined prior assumptions necessarily
built into either the construct of the study or the interpretation process. Rather, I used an
iterative process of involvement in the setting, through participant observation and
interviews, and analysis, involving data coding and organization along with memowriting and presentations, following to some extent nexus analysis as outlined by Scollon
and Scollon (2004; 2007). It is my belief that the study of heritage language learners will
benefit from such flexibility because the field is new and fundamental theoretical
constructs are still being debated. As a research field, the territory is new and constantlyshifting. Circumstances of ―heritage‖ language study are built upon immigration histories
(personal and social), national interests impacted by global capitalism, discourses of
multiculturalism and multilingualism, the disciplinary interests of education institutions,
language ideologies across languages and varieties, and the personal identity formations
that take place within and through all of this.
Returning to the pursuit of ―universal interests‖, I do not believe that interests are ever
truly universal, but with a critical orientation, I am obliged to make explicit the values
that I take to be fundamental and define what constitutes ―emancipatory interest‖ in the
parlance of Habermas (Bredo & Feinberg, 1982, p. 274). What is the kind of greater good
that I want to work toward through this study? It is a vision of educational equality that
minimizes stereotyping and negative evaluations of students based on their
sociolinguistic background; and it is an orientation toward language development that
promotes an understanding of the social power of language to impact life opportunities
12
across a range of social divides, including ethnicity, race, class and gender. Work by
Angel Lin (Lin, 2001; 2008b) on English and Cantonese medium education in Hong
Kong offers a good analysis of why working toward these goals has merit in the
educational context.
In the summary chapter of Lin‘s (2008b) edited volume, ―Problematizing Identity,‖
she reflects on possible ways that the postmodern theorizing of the authors can help in
educational contexts, promoting less fixed identity positions for marginalized students.
Lin states:
Like it or not, teachers have been occupying powerful positions; and we can use
our power to privilege certain groups of students (usually those who have come
from similar cultural and social backgrounds as ours and have the cultural capital
to respond positively to our demands and become likable to us) and denigrate
certain other groups of students (usually those coming from a different social,
cultural, or linguistic background from ours and not having the appropriate capital
(attitudes and competencies) to respond positively to our expectations). We tend
to create rigid, stereotypic identity categories for both groups of students and
solidify the boundaries between them. (2008b, p. 215)
In part, this study will examine identity categories available for students to inhabit,
including categories that exist in the students‘ own minds, in those of their teachers,
program administrators, and those under construction and negotiation by language
specialists concerned with ―heritage‖ language education. Critical, qualitative research
takes these questions beyond identifying normative constructs or testing the validity of
etic categories. Instead through this study I examine how categories are created and
13
reified through research literature, how they are drawn upon to explain or justify actions,
and how students are socialized to accept new identity categories often based on language
value. The significance of language variety, particularly Cantonese and Mandarin, comes
into play for many of the students in this study.
A second relevant point from Lin (2008b) is her focus on performativity (Butler,
1993) and the "need to re-create identities in much more fluid, hybrid, multiple, and
dynamic ways..." (p. 215). Lin‘s practical focus as an educator is to move away from
biased language in the tracking of students, giving the examples of "bright students" and
"slow students" or "good" vs. "uncooperative students", and she emphasizes the power of
language to move students beyond essentializing self-perception. Lin makes the point that
changing the vocabulary and labels alone isn't enough, and that there must be an
accompanying change in attitudes. She emphasizes the importance of avoiding fixed
identity categories: "...teachers can also help students to draw on their imagination to
reinvent, refashion, and re-create new, positive, multiple, fluid, and dynamic identities for
themselves to overcome the straitjacket of the usual binary, static student, gender, ethnic,
social class (or other essentializing) identities circulating in most school contexts‖
(2008b). An implication of the present study is that the language classroom is an ideal
place to work on changing attitudes by promoting an awareness of the social function of
language to express and interpret identities, particularly when linguistic difference across
groups is salient (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985).
In my analysis, I examine how curriculum and pedagogy condition identity formations
in the classroom. At times, the typical foreign language materials and procedures used in
the classroom force students into unfamiliar roles that are incongruent with their sense of
14
national and ethnic identity. At other times, students actively draw on linguistic resources
that are not officially recognized in the classroom to assert a sense of shared identity with
classmates, and exclude the teacher. These kinds of observations give educators a better
foundation when striving to develop educational practices that are truly learner-centered,
taking into account local contexts and language development as a socially contingent
process. Edwards and Usher (2007) make the point that a humanistic psychological
perspective has dominated the discussion of learner-centered education, which tends to
hide truly individual experience, in an embodied sense, taking into account the lived
experiences of individuals. As a result, they say, ―[t]he abstract individualism and
technology of learner-centredness thus results in pedagogic approaches that disembody
the subject, denying the corporeal and desire and, with that, particular forms of
experience in teaching and learning‖ (p. 147).
In a related vein and relevant to the work of this study, Scollon and Scollon‘s (2004;
2007) nexus analysis methodology refocuses ethnography on situated practice,
particularly through the use of the concept of the ―historical body‖. Rather than centering
on interpretation of action in a geographically or temporally bounded context, nexus
analysis seeks to link observed interaction with the lived histories of the actors, who
bring all of their prior socialization to new contexts and are then understood under new
social semiotic conditions. I believe that close observation of classroom interactions and
effects, with a focus on disjunctures between students‘ lived histories and institutional
practices, can give teachers and researchers better ideas about how to instantiate the kind
of non-essentializing classroom Lin argues for. This is the value of shifting the focus to
language as it is used, socially contextualized and experienced differently for each
15
individual. Questions relating to how power flows through education can then be
addressed within this framework, since it is the privilege of interpreting what kind of
language is considered valuable and the ability to use privileged language that constitutes
power and success in the educational setting.
Rather than starting from specific performance measurements that are necessarily a
targeted view of language cognition or how individuals deploy language resources in
given contexts, I propose this project as a way of gaining some insight into the complex
positionings ―heritage‖ language students negotiate, as embodied users of language in a
particular place and time. The framework for this study views language as an embedded
social process (Blommaert, 2005), and employs ethnographic research methods through
an adapted form of nexus analysis (Scollon & Scollon, 2004, 2007), with a view to
understanding a current social phenomenon (the rise of Mandarin as a global language).
Doing so brings up the need to consider how institutional language requirements impact
students‘ experiences and how their abilities may be evaluated in contradictory ways
across educational contexts (Harklau, 2000) and in broader social contexts (Blommaert,
Collins, & Slembrouck, 2005). This project aims to contribute new insights into the
experiences of learners in the university context who are balancing their own academic
goals, preferences, abilities, and stresses with institutional requirements and
opportunities. With their choice to study Mandarin, an ideologically dominant variety of
Chinese, the students are positioned in contexts with the explicit agenda of moving their
language use toward standardized and socially valorized forms. Yet, due to their own
histories, their abilities, perceived identities and other characteristics open them up to
negative judgments that may in turn impact the success of their language development.
16
4. Dissertation overview
One goal of this dissertation is to examine how the multiple and conflicting dominant
discourses and language ideologies about ―heritage‖ languages and Mandarin specifically
are reflected, appropriated, or resisted by institutions and individuals. Another goal is to
identify some of the specific ways that students draw on their language repertoire to meet
the requirements of their language classes, and how their strategies reflect identity
positions they take up with respect to the institutionally-framed study of Mandarin. A
third goal is to articulate some of the ways the institution mediates between dominant
discourses and student investment in ―heritage‖ language study.
To explore these issues, this study is divided into the following chapters. Following
this introduction, Chapter 2 is a review of the literature in three areas: a selected history
of the use of the term ―heritage‖ in language education in the U.S.; how the concepts of
ethnicity and identity have been examined in this literature; and how ideology is related
to the study of heritage language development. Chapter 3 is an overview of the
qualitative, ethnographic methods I used for this study. I discuss my choice to take a
situated, qualitative approach, giving background on critical ethnography and the actionbased approach to this kind of research put forth by Scollon and Scollon (2004) as ―nexus
analysis‖. This chapter includes background on my involvement with this project, and an
overview of the data I collected, including both description and examples of how I
conducted my analysis. I also include an overview of the research setting, including a
description of the both the location where the study took place, California Northern
University (CNU), and the primary participants in the study.
17
Chapters 4 through 7 present the main analyses for this project. The first is an analysis
of the heritage language discourse as it is emerging through the Heritage Language
Journal (HLJ), the first journal dedicated to research on the ―heritage language‖ field.
The analysis looks at the way the terms ―heritage language‖ and ―heritage language
learner‖ are defined and used in the first four issues of the HLJ. The analysis reveals that
the two terms are being defined separately, in relationship to existing definitions for
concepts like ―first language‖ and ―second language‖ in a range of disciplines. A shifting
reference for the meaning of ―heritage‖ allows a range of perspectives to circulate and
reveals a dynamic tension around the relative importance of proficiency and ethnic
identity in defining these terms and establishing the field.
Moving from discourse analysis of the general formation of the heritage language
field, Chapters 5, 6 and 7 explore some of the specific conditions for heritage learners
studying Mandarin. These chapters are based on findings from critical ethnographic work
at California Northern University that took place over a period of 5 years. Chapter 5
examines how students who are placed into either the ―regular‖ or ―bilingual‖ track of the
Mandarin program re-place or re-position themselves, actually or conceptually, to better
meet their own needs. Chapters 6 and 7 explore some of the outcomes that resulted after
the Mandarin program at CNU adding an additional ―heritage‖ track to the 2-track
introductory level of the program. Observing classes and interviewing students in this
new track, specifically for students with Cantonese background, I raise issues around the
significance of ―dialect‖ background. The analyses focus on the impact of identity
negotiations on students‘ continuing interest in developing Mandarin (Chapter 6) and the
role that language ideologies play in Mandarin education for Cantonese-background
18
learners (Chapter 7). The final chapter, Chapter 8, reviews the major findings of this
study and their implications for the general heritage language field, for research on
Chinese as a heritage language, and for Mandarin education.
19
Chapter 2. Approaches to learner identity, language ideology, and tracking and
placement for heritage language research
The concept of ―heritage languages‖ provides a relatively recent framework for U.S.based research on multilingual language development (Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis,
2001; Webb & Miller, 2000). This chapter examines some of the literature related to the
history of the term ―heritage‖ as it is used in language education in the U.S. The specific
topics I will address relate closely to the analysis presented in later chapters of this
dissertation. In this review, I discuss studies that examine the connections between
―ethnic‖ identity and motivation to study a heritage language, focusing on some of the
current work on identity in Chinese as a heritage language. Next, I review some key
studies that emphasize the importance of examining the language ideologies involved in
the framing of language development research, language teaching pedagogy and teaching
practices. Finally, I discuss studies related to issues around tracking and placement, and
the relationship to language learner identity.
1. Background: “Heritage” language research in the U.S.
The adoption and use of the terms heritage language and heritage language learner in
the U.S. came about in the 1990‘s in response to growing number of ―non-traditional‖
students in foreign language classrooms, including those who grew up in the U.S. hearing
or speaking the language of study in the home and immigrants from countries where the
language of study is spoken. According to Draper and Hicks (2000), the term ―heritage‖
first appeared in the ACTFL National Standards in 1995, and with a communicative
focus, the standards were intended to apply to both foreign and heritage learners. But it
was not until the reissued standards came out in 1999 that specific guidelines for heritage
learners were included, and the inclusion was uneven across the nine language
20
classifications (Draper & Hicks, 2000, p. 28). Incorporation of the term ―heritage‖ into
the ACTFL standards marked a step forward in recognizing that not all learners of
languages other than English are ―foreign‖ language learners in a traditional sense.
Importantly, the term brought attention to the fact that, while heritage students have some
background in the language of study, this does not necessarily put students at an
advantage when in a foreign language classroom (Webb, 2000). This fact has been
explored through the lens of language proficiency, examining the differences between the
standard variety taught in the classroom and structural features of the students‘
vernacular(s), examining how educational interventions assist students in developing
their language skills in a standard variety, and how learner background (including factors
such as family literacy practices or early schooling in the heritage language) promote
maintenance of the heritage language. Along with these language development concerns,
there is also a set of social concerns that have been explored through work on the
connections between language development and identity.
Of particular interest in the heritage language field has been the relationship between
―ethnic‖ identity formations and heritage language development. Understanding how this
connection has been framed in the heritage language literature is of particular relevance
to the present study. The following overview of the ―heritage‖ literature focuses on some
of the ways early heritage language research characterized the link between ethnicity,
minority language status, identity and ―heritage‖ language development, and the way
these connections have been taken up in the literature on Chinese as a heritage language.
2. Ethnic identity and learner profiles in the heritage language literature
21
Early U.S.-based research on heritage languages was undertaken by Krashen, Tse and
McQuillan (1998).This short, edited book includes two main sections. The first discusses
benefits of developing heritage languages and negative consequences of their loss, and
the second section discusses the process of developing heritage languages. In the
introduction, Krashen argues against the perspective that bilingualism is harmful to the
individual or society, and for the perspective that there are many practical advantages to
encouraging heritage language development. He argues that there is much to be gained
for a small amount of effort, invoking an ‗investment‘ metaphor2. He also acknowledges
the personal importance of maintaining a community language for intergenerational
communication and preserving cultural traditions.
Two aspects of the book provide important background to the present study. The first
is that this book put forward some of the themes that have come to dominate the U.S.based heritage language discourse. The focus is on a traditional SLA conception of
language competence (Ellis, 1994) and the connection between language and identity is
framed in the tradition of social psychology, looking for generalized patterns across a
population with the goal of contributing new knowledge about human cognition. In
chapter 2, work by Tse (1998) begins to theorize heritage learners‘ identity development.
She presents a psychological stage model of identity development for ―ethnic minorities‖
who she characterizes as racial minorities due to, ―…distinct physical characteristics
signaling them as members of a minority group, making it more difficult for them to
2
This metaphor views heritage speakers as a ―good investment‖ because they already have a kind of head
start with the language. The assumption is that for little educational resource expenditure, such learners can
progress farther than their foreign language learner peers. This perspective is certainly not new among U.S.
linguists, and was invoked even by Bloomfield (1933) citing the possibility of heritage learners as part of a
solution to the problem of failed foreign language education in this country, as he portrayed it and as it
continues to be critiqued (e.g., Byrnes, 2005).
22
blend into mainstream society‖ (p. 15). She emphasizes that her model is specifically
addressing the population of ethnic minorities who do not find themselves to be
supported by an ethnic community. For such individuals she posits a four-stage model,
characterized by a first, brief stage of ―unawareness‖ of minority status, followed by a
second stage of ―ethnic ambivalence/evasion‖, characterized by negative feelings toward
the ethnic community; the third stage of ―ethnic emergence‖ is characterized by
exploration of ethnic identity, and is a possible time for ―embracing‖ their heritage;
finally, Tse characterizes stage four as a time when individuals become part of their
ethnic American minority group and resolve prior identity conflicts.
2.1. Adopting the ―stage model‖ of ethnic identity development
Tse relates each of these stages to the likelihood of heritage language development
through a generalized model. Her work is taken up in studies like Kagan and Dillon
(2003b) and Kagan (2005) concerning Russian as a heritage language, although they do
not address how Tse‘s work would apply to a population that is not ―ethnically‖ distinct
in the way she defines it (having distinct physical characteristics that signal they are not
part of the majority). Tse‘s work has also been taken up in the emerging literature on
Chinese as a heritage language, and is cited by both He (2008a) and Li and Duff (2008)
in the introductory chapters of ―Chinese as a Heritage Language: Fostering Rooted World
Citizenry,‖ (He & Xiao, 2008), the first edited volume specifically addressing research on
Chinese as a heritage language. However, Tse points out a number of limitations to her
model that are not necessarily acknowledged in later works. Of particular importance is
Tse‘s observation that ethnic minorities who grow up within a supportive ethnic
community may likely skip over the early stages of identity development predicted by the
23
model. The great majority of students in the present study grew up in areas with wellestablished ethnic communities and they are not likely to fit the profile for which Tse‘s
stages were designed to explain. Not only is it possible that many of the students in this
study do not fit this model, but it also important to note that this study will look at
individual experience rather than students as exemplars of types identified by Tse‘s
model or any other model. The focus here is on the situated (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
experience of individual students in a particular time and place, and is meant to reveal
new findings about the social significance of interactions between particular individuals,
―heritage‖ languages, and education policies and practices.
Tse‘s work has been particularly influential among researchers who are interested in
the impact of ethnic identity on language development and who seek general patterns that
may predict the course of heritage language maintenance and development. Her stage
model presents one way of generalizing across the individual experiences of language
minorities. Another development in the heritage language literature that also attempts to
generalize across individual experience and understand the link between language and
learner background, including ethnic identity, is a tendency to create heritage learner
―profiles‖, or composite student ―types‖ through which researchers attempt to express
significant categories of heritage language learners.
2.2. Learner Profiles
This strategy has been used by Carreira (2004) for Spanish heritage language students
to come up with a definition of ―heritage language learner‖ with what she calls
―explanatory adequacy‖ (abstract). For Carreira, this means that a definition will not only
identify students who can be considered ―heritage language learners‖ but also, ―offer a
24
roadmap for meeting the needs of HLLs with regard to language learning‖ (abstract).
Carreira undertook an empirical study to examine how Spanish teachers in the Chicago
area characterized ―heritage language learners‖. She created five hypothetical student
profiles and asked 65 teachers to state whether they would place each learner into the
―heritage‖ or the second language track of a high school Spanish program. The study
revealed that productive proficiency is a key characteristic for teachers in determining
placement into a heritage track. The study showed that students without such proficiency
but with significant exposure to the heritage culture and language, even those who had
receptive knowledge of the language, were most often placed into the second language
track.
Careirra‘s study demarcates four distinct heritage learner types, acknowledging that
presenting the types as categorical is a necessary simplification for pedagogical purposes.
She says the significance of identifying heritage learners as a set of significant types is
first to show that heritage learners are not homogenous, but rather, ―…a collection of
different types of learners who share the characteristic of having identity and linguistic
needs that relate to their family background‖ (Carreira, 2004, summary and conclusions).
Further, the study argues that the definition of heritage learners across a range of types
has ―explanatory adequacy‖ on the grounds that it distinguishes such learners from
second language learners and first language learners. Here, Carreira seems to be drawing
on SLA-based definitions of ―first language‖ and ―second language‖ to separate out
heritage learners from these other categories on linguistic grounds, and also incorporates
a cultural aspect to the definition. Connecting identity to language learning motivation,
she says, ―…HLLs do not receive sufficient exposure to their language and culture to
25
fulfill basic identity and linguistic needs. Consequently, they pursue language learning to
fulfill these needs‖ (abstract).
Carreira‘s use of SLA-based distinctions between types of language acquisition is
in keeping with a prevailing tendency in the heritage language literature, articulated most
clearly by Lynch (2003), that seeks to model the study of heritage language development
on the research paradigm of Second Language Acquisition. Authors such as KondoBrown (2005; 2006) and Valdés (2005) also emphasize the developmental differences
between heritage learners and other student populations (L1 or L2). This concern is
carried into Agnes He‘s (2006; 2008b) theory of Chinese as a heritage language (CHL,
discussed below), through her specific conceptualization of heritage language
development that contrasts with CHL maintenance. She states:
…I focus on CHL development; I do not consider CHL maintenance as can be
seen in the case of advanced level CHL students who have obtained native or near
native proficiency in all areas of the language and who take courses in literature in
Chinese to maintain or further expand their language skills. (2008b, p. 110,
original emphasis)
Fixing a clear boundary between development and maintenance is a difficult proposition
when discussing language education. First, maintaining such a distinction tends to
reinforce the deficit perspective that is prevalent in attitudes toward CHL learners
(Hendryx, 2008), because the focus is on what is lacking, relative to a ―native speaker‖
norm, rather than on what abilities the students already possess. Another controversial
point is that He contrasts competence at the lower levels with learning content through
literature courses at the higher level, a distinction that Steinhart (2006) argues is false,
26
and further, that this problematic perspective has only been exacerbated by developments
in Communicative Language Teaching through the years. Steinhart argues that,
particularly at the post-secondary level where academic content is always emphasized
and valued, acknowledging the connection between language and content at all levels of
language study is critically important. Students in foreign or heritage language classes at
all levels, including the introductory level, are learning content just as students studying
their first language (for example, students in the U.S. taking college-level English
classes) continue to develop literacy skills; this second example is the kind of language
―development‖ that He does not consider to be true language development, but rather
―maintenance‖. A second controversial point in He‘s statement is that she enjoins a native
speaker standard to define what is meant by development. The validity of reinforcing the
notion of a native speaker standard through the discourse of foreign language education is
a point that has been critiqued by authors such as Kramsch (2008).
In another study that utilizes constructed student profiles to examine the linguistic and
social needs of heritage learners, Hendryx (2008) characterizes the abilities that different
Chinese heritage language learners bring with them to the university classroom through
six student profiles, each an amalgamation of learner types he saw as the instructor for
first-year Chinese classes over several years at a university in North America. He argues
that instructors of CHL students often view the students‘ abilities through a deficit
perspective and that a positive metaphor, one of learner knowledge as ‗sprouting‘ like
seedlings, should replace this view. Hendryx briefly discusses the connection between
learner background and motivation. He reported that all of the learners had ―integrative‖
motivation, in Gardner and Lambert‘s (1972) terms, stating, ―The primary motivation for
27
all these learners to take Chinese at the college level was to learn more about Chinese
language and culture and be able to communicate with relatives and friends more easily‖
(p. 58). This characterization is based on the author‘s perspective as a classroom teacher.
It remains to be seen what other motivations might emerge in discussion with students
outside the classroom context and with an expanded notion of motivation, moving
beyond the dominant instrumental/integrative construct.
Both studies by Carreira and Hendryx underscore the range of learners who are now
commonly characterized as ―heritage‖ learners, based on a combination linguistic factors,
including speaking ability, listening comprehension, literacy, language variety, and
control of different registers, and social factors that generally focus on immigration
history, and type and degree of contact with a language minority community in the U.S.
The authors use generalized profiles to summarize the range of backgrounds they see in
their work with heritage learners in a way that reflects the kind of categorizing that
becomes a part of placement into tracked systems.
Moving to the level of theory-building in heritage language learning, another example
of the trend to use hypothetical profiles in characterizing heritage language development
comes from Agnes He‘s (2006; 2008b) proposal for an ―identity-based‖ theory of
Chinese as a heritage language, developed and explained through the perspective of a
prototypical CHL student whom she names ―Jason‖. The author characterizes the model,
based on the constructed persona of Jason, as ‗ergodic‘, a concept borrowed from
mathematics that is used to model the development of dynamic systems over time (He,
2008c). She has taken characteristics of typical students she has seen through her research
(and personal experience) in community schools, in the K-12 system and in higher
28
education to come up with a longitudinal profile of a CHL student prototype whose
language development her model is meant to explain.
He‘s model views language development through the disciplines of Language
Socialization, Conversation Analysis, SLA-based Acculturation Theory and takes learner
identity as the centering concept, focusing mostly on ―ethnic‖ identity. Learner identity in
this model is characterized primarily through a dynamic process of identification or
positioning that changes across time and space. He acknowledges that the individual will
have a diverse array of social influences and associations, and that the process of
identification is influenced by personal experience and macro-social relations between
ethnic groups. She relates this to motivation:
This theory considers the level of learner motivation to be a reflex of how s/he
defines himself/herself in ethnic terms, which, in turn, is governed by a number of
variables: (a) identification with the [sic] his/her own social group, (b) inter-ethnic
comparison, (c) perception of ethno-linguistic vitality…., (d) perception of interethnic boundaries…, and (e) identification with other social categories. (He,
2008b, p. 114)
She proposes ten testable hypotheses that would predict the rate and outcome of CHL
development. While He‘s model emphasizes the dynamic nature of identity and notes that
the relationship between language and identity will change through different periods of
an individual‘s childhood, the overall tenor of the theory is in keeping with a positivistic
research tradition. Her working definition of identity is clearly in keeping with
postmodern theories that have been applied to language development (for summaries, see
Lin, 2008a and Block, 2007), however the appeal to hypothesis testing and effort to
29
predict learning outcomes is a hallmark of ―objective‖, ―interest-free‖, ―empiricalanalytic sciences‖ (Bredo & Feinberg, 1982, p. 275), built on an epistemology that is
largely contrastive with postmodern theories of knowledge. Whether this presents a
serious problem for He‘s theory remains to be seen. I will explore this to some extent in
Chapter 6, considering how the constructed nature of ethnicity in relation to identity and
culture (for a discussion, see During, 2005, pp. 145-160(pp. 145-160), complicates the
kinds of assumptions embedded in some of the heritage language studies cited above and
in He‘s theory. The socially constructed nature of culture, and how this specifically
operates around notions of a monolithic ―Chinese‖ culture (Louie, 2004; Ong, 1999), will
be of particular significance to an identity-based theory of Chinese as a heritage
language.
3. Discourse and ideology
Either explicitly or implicitly, language ideologies underlie all work on heritage
language development. Blommaert (2005) makes the point that nearly all scholars who
theorize about ideology and language cite discourse as their meeting ground. I will first
briefly discuss each of the two terms ―discourse‖ and ―ideology‖, clarifying the meanings
that I find useful for the present study. Then I will discuss some background theory,
related to the centrality of ideology in research on language that points to the importance
of situated, qualitative research in the heritage language field.
The operating definition of ―discourse‖ in Blommaert (2005) and the definition I use
throughout this study is that discourse is ―language-in-action‖ (p. 2) and that it,
…comprises all forms of meaningful semiotic human activity seen in connection
with social, cultural, and historical patterns and developments of use. What is
30
traditionally understood by language is but one manifestation of it; all kinds of
semiotic ‗flagging‘ performed by means of objects, attributes, or activities can
and should also be included for they usually constitute the ‗action‘ part of
language-in-action. (p. 3)
The mainstream definition of discourse in the field of linguistics does not share this
focus; more often, the term is used to indicate language-in-use (Blommaert, 2005, p. 2) or
―meaning beyond the clause‖ (Martin & Rose, 2003). The definition I cite here and that I
use throughout the dissertation is a primarily social definition of discourse, one that could
be considered ―metalinguistic‖, meaning that it focuses on the relationship of language to
other cultural and social systems.
One way of understanding the connection between discourse and ideology is through
Gee‘s (1992; 1996) work on language in education. His concepts were developed and
applied in the U.S. educational context and deal primarily with the difficulties nonmainstream students encounter in mainstream schooling contexts. Gee identifies the
concept of Discourses (capital ―D‖ as opposed to small ―d‖ ―discourse‖ which is used to
note the linguistic concept of language-in-use as discussed above) as social fields that are
comprised and identified with specific uses of language, other semiotic means and
material resources, and additional social practices. A Discourse is identified with a
particular social group, for example the Discourse of linguists (see Gee, 1992, pp. 107108); individuals participate in a wide range of Discourses, tied to their various social
roles through participation in formal or informal institutions. Such groups develop a set
of common values and beliefs that identify them in contrast to other groups, and it is by
behaving in group-normative ways that an individual gains and exhibits membership.
31
Gee (1992) argues that ―Discourses‖ are always political, in that they engage with
power relations between individuals and groups, and that they are always ideological,
meaning that ideology involves, ―beliefs about the appropriate distribution of social
goods, such as power, prestige, status, distinction, or wealth…‖ and that Discourses
regulate such distribution (p. 142, emphasis in the original). For Gee, ideology is an
underlying ―theory‖ (one that is presupposed and generally unexamined) of what is
normal or natural behavior, belief or practice, unlike a Discourse which involves the
manifestation of these beliefs through use of language or other meaningful behaviors. In
sum, Gee argues that, ―…there is no way to study language, meaning, or the mind apart
from the inherently ideological and political nature of Discourse‖ (p. 142).
I summarize Gee‘s views here because they offer a clear picture of the distinctions and
connections between the terms ―ideology‖ and ―Discourse‖. Further, Gee has written
extensively about the connection between Discourses and education, and their ideological
implications. His writing provides important insights into education in the U.S., in
particular, which can inform the discussion of heritage language education as it intersects
with mainstream education. I opt to use Blommaert‘s definition of ―discourse‖ rather than
Gee‘s (and will not follow Gee‘s convention of a capitalized ―D‖) primarily because
Blommaert‘s interpretation of the term emphasizes the importance of the fact that a
shared context does not necessarily mean there is a shared perspective. Blommaert‘s
definition of discourse and his caution about context mesh well with the assumptions of
nexus analysis (Scollon & Scollon, 2004), which is also used in this study (see Chapter 3
for a discussion).
32
These perspectives point to the fact that ideology, as general beliefs about what is
normative for all kinds of human behavior, is transmitted through language and
participation in specific discourse communities. It is also the case that specific ideologies
around language itself, i.e. ―language ideologies‖, exist within different discourse
communities. Next, I will examine what kinds of language ideologies are evident in the
work reviewed above, concerning the establishment of a heritage language field.
He‘s identity theory of CHL development and the studies by Carreira and Hendryx use
student profiles to project a stance of objectivity while examining and describing general
patterns found for heritage learners. In all three cases, the emphasis is placed on what
Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to as a ―cognitive‖ perspective that focuses on what they
call ―universal learning mechanisms‖ of the type that are the focus of SLA research:
Painting a picture of the person as a primarily ‗cognitive‘ entity tends to promote
a nonpersonal view of knowledge, skills, tasks, activities, and learning. As a
consequence, both theoretical analyses and instructional prescriptions tend to be
driven by reference to reified ‗knowledge domains,‘ and by constraints imposed
by the general requirements of universal learning mechanisms understood in
terms of acquisition and assimilation. (p.52)
Generalizations across learner types, apparently focusing on the individual and bringing
up issues of identity, seem to be prevalent when an author‘s primary concern is
identifying patterns in heritage language development. In contrast, Lave and Wenger
argue that research on identity in learning must begin with a focus on social practice:
―…participation in social practice—subjective as well as objective—suggests a very
explicit focus on the person, but as person-in-the-world, as member of a sociocultural
33
community. This focus in turn promotes a view of knowing as activity by specific people
in specific circumstances‖ (p. 52), a point that is reinforced for language education by
Edwards and Usher‘s discussion of ―learner-centerdness‖ (2007, pp. 146-150), and for
sociolinguistics more generally in Blommaert (2005), with a call for more ethnographic
research to understand language under globalization (see pp. 70-73 for a discussion).
Research that is situated, in this sense, draws on the sociohistoric experience of
individuals and offers an opportunity to understand how ideology, generally, and
language ideologies, more specifically, frame learners‘ paths through opportunities for
language development.
The CHL field seems to be in the very early stages of drawing on studies of this type.
Some ethnographic work in this vein on Chinese as a heritage language has recently been
published. Li Wei and Chao-Jung Wu (2009) examined monolingual language ideologies
in complementary Chinese schools in Britain (those that are outside the compulsory
schooling system and what are similar to Chinese ―community‖ schools in the U.S.), and
detailed some of the ways students resisted the norm that was presented and reinforced by
policies and teacher practices. In the Canadian context and using Bakhtin‘s concept of
―ideological becoming‖ to examine the written narratives of heritage learners in a
community Chinese school, Maguire and Curdt-Christiansen (2007) place students‘
narratives within the sociopolitical context of Canadian language ideologies and policies,
examining how the students appropriate the ideologies they are being socialized into in
their mainstream and community schools to construct their own evolving sense of
identity. They reveal a range of ways, ―…multilingual children from non-mainstream
backgrounds negotiate discursive literacy practices in more than one language and
34
culture‖ (conclusion, paragraph 3), an area of inquiry into multilingualism that they say is
surprisingly scarce in the research literature focusing on the Canadian context.
Meanwhile, work on language ideologies and CHL in the U.S. context is just emerging.
3.1. Views of U.S.-based heritage language research as a disciplinary discourse
The ―heritage‖ language discourse in the U.S. is inherently bound up in language
planning and policy efforts to promote societal and individual multilingualism (Peyton et
al., 2001). Cummins (2005) argues that the reframing of research and debate under this
new term signals a move away from the politically charged territory of ―bilingual
education‖ to a new discursive space that is not mired in acrimony, with the hope for
renewed consideration of the benefits and possibilities of bilingual education in the U.S.
However, not all are convinced that the use of the term ―heritage‖ is a savvy move away
from an ideologically charged debate. Ricento‘s (2005) critical discourse analysis of the
―resource‖ metaphor in the heritage language discourse (c.f. Peyton et al., 2001), which
views heritage languages as an ―untapped‖ national resource, emphasizes the fact that
this new discourse is also ideologically-laden, and in some ways is repeating historical
patterns in its response to U.S. sociopolitical and military concerns. In so doing, the
discourse tends to focus on the instrumental value of certain languages and (unwittingly)
reinforce the second-class status of languages other than English in the U.S. For this
reason, Ricento concludes that the resource metaphor and the thinking behind it may
garner increased financial support for instruction in ―strategic‖ languages but it does little
to change public sentiment and increase popular support for, ―…the teaching,
maintenance, and use of minority languages in the U.S.‖ (Ricento, 2005, p. 348).
3.2. The sociopolitical context of language education
35
The implications of Ricento‘s analysis are significance for Chinese ―heritage‖
learners whose own language use may not fit easily with this ideology that reinforces
languages other than English as foreign, and thus tends to uphold a ―foreign language‖
standard. Further, language variety and the power of language standardization (Milroy &
Milroy, 1991) impact heritage language learners when their abilities in the heritage
language do not match with the language standard of the classroom (Webb & Miller,
2000). Latent ideologies surrounding language and education are of particular
significance for ―heritage‖ or language minority students. Nieto (1999) emphasizes the
importance of examining the ―sociopolitical context‖ in which minority students are
educated, considering how power flows through the educational context, differentially
impacting learners due to their personal backgrounds and life experiences. She argues
that inequality may come not only from factors such as class, gender and ethnicity, but
also that there is, ―relative respect or disrespect accorded to particular cultures,
languages, and dialects‖ (p. 192).
Some recent research on Spanish as a heritage language has examined the negative
impact of standard language ideologies on heritage language students (Schreffler, 2007;
Valdés, Gonzáles, López Garcia, & Márquez, 2008), but this line of research is largely
unexplored for Chinese. However, based on a prior study (Kelleher, 2008) that I
conducted as part of this research project (and included here as Chapter 5), I have
observed some specific effects of dialect background on learners of Mandarin. In this
study, I found that the contexts that Chinese heritage language students find themselves
in are fraught and tense because institutional policies attempt to track these learners in
very narrow ways, fitting them into a curriculum still largely based on a foreign language
36
model. Chapter 7 of this dissertation will also directly explore the role of standard
language ideologies in framing the study of Mandarin for Cantonese-background
learners.
One way to unpack some of this complexity around language education and diversity
is to contextualize language development considering the effects of modernity,
globalization, and their consequences, as demonstrated by Heller‘s (1999) ethnographic
study of a French-language minority high school in Toronto. She conducted a site-based
linguistic ethnography of a French-English bilingual school in Anglophone Toronto and
examined how the two languages were used, taught and valued by the students, teachers,
administrators and parents. This approach led her to conclude that students with little
exposure to French outside school valued their own bilingualism as social capital, giving
them access to dominant markets, and that they fared the best in this school setting where
the ideology of bilingualism as parallel standard monolingual systems was upheld. In
contrast, the ―native‖ speakers of Canadian French were disadvantaged by the school‘s
linguistic norms, through a process that, ―…reinforces and promotes the socio-economic
advancement of one set of francophones, but marginalizes another set and narrows and
normativizes the definition of what it means to speak French‖ (p. 219). Heller points out
that the school never had to deal with complications that arose because the marginalized
language minority students usually chose to leave for reasons that seemed logical on
other grounds.
Another study that adds background on the importance of examining language
ideology in education is the work of Blommaert, Creve, & Willaert (2006). In this study,
the authors examined the processes by which immigrant children in Dutch schools were
37
adversely affected by assumptions about what constitutes valued literacy practices. The
students‘ existing writing and speaking abilities were discounted by their teachers
because they did not match up with the expected orthographic and pronunciation
conventions. The authors examined the school context with the idea of relations between
language and citizenship as being indexical: ―forms of literacy provide extremely strong
indexes of identity, social status, perceived relations between people” (p. 35). They argue
that newcomer students are disadvantaged through a process of ideological
misrecognition (citing Bourdieu), wherein there is a linking of social expectations and
language performance based on assumptions and stereotype (see Irvine & Gal, 2000 for a
discussion of language and misrecognition). Further, they assert that it is at the margins
of the educational system where these patterns are most clearly revealed. The study
emphasizes that it is possible to examine the processes through which students‘ language
use is connected to social evaluations, and that these connections are often negative in the
case of language minorities. It also emphasizes the value of looking for clues to
ideological framings around language at the early stages of transition into an educational
system.
In the case of diverse CHL learners, it remains to be examined how students make
sense of the language development options they have, how they are viewed by their
teachers and other educators, and how the cumulative effect of individuals‘ choices to
study Mandarin might relate to new processes and outcomes of social organization that
result from globalization (e.g. Appadurai, 1996; Giddens, 1990). For example it will be
important to explore how Cantonese-background students‘ choices to study Mandarin
impact the department-level ―tracking‖ practices for ―heritage learners‖ on the curricular
38
level and how a diversity of ―heritage‖ students studying Mandarin affects the larger
―heritage‖ language discourse at the language planning and policy level. The study of
Chinese heritage learners with a background in a ―non-standard‖ variety at an early point
in their study of Standard Mandarin also provides an ideal venue for exploring language
ideologies that surround Chinese in the U.S. context.
4. Institutions, labels, placements and tracking
An array of sociocultural, ideological and political factors complicate multilingual
spaces in education and differentially impact the language development opportunities
available to mainstream and language minority students (Valdés, 2005; Wright, 2007).
However, it is now the differences in the proficiencies of foreign and heritage learners
that demand the attention of program directors, teachers and researchers. In the case of
Mandarin at the university level, this point is clearly represented by McGinnis (1996)
who demonstrates that the use of proficiency testing as the basis for placing students in a
dual-track system results in more homogeneous class performance on standardized tests.
However, this increased homogeneity is not the real goal. In addition to the placement
testing that yielded this effect in his study, McGinnis states two additional steps must be
taken; the first is to create new courses based on heritage learners‘ particular abilities and
needs and second, to move toward more ―globally oriented metrics‖ and long-term
curriculum enhancement (p. 107). While basing changes on what is known of students‘
proficiencies points the way for improved Chinese language programs from traditional
standpoints of teaching and curriculum design, such efforts may not address issues of
learner identity, agency, and investment that are complex and culturally-embedded. In
the absence of updated goals and materials, existing programs are constructed for foreign
39
language learners, leaving heritage language learners to fit in as best they can, and at
times for background speakers of Cantonese, against specific department placement
policies (Kelleher, 2008).
4.1. Tracking and ―heritage‖ language education
With adoption of the term ―heritage‖ and the rise of dual-track systems (KondoBrown, 2003), research on heritage language learners now often focuses on identifying
such students‘ proficiencies relative to native-speaker norms and the assumptions
developed around foreign language teaching and learning. At times, studies are
comparative, examining the differences between heritage and non-heritage learners, and
for Mandarin this includes comparative research on areas such as motivation and
achievement (Lu & Li, 2008) and skill-based learner achievement (Xiao, 2006). Other
research focuses more directly on heritage learners‘ proficiencies, including (for
Mandarin) morpheme awareness in reading (Koda, Lu, & Zhang, 2008), literacy
development (Koda, Zhang, & Yang, 2008; Xiao, 2008), use of the aspect particle ―le‖
(L. Jia & Bayley, 2008), and language maintenance and shift among immigrants (G. Jia,
2008), often comparing heritage learners to L1 speakers. Studies of this type excel at
catching large-scale tendencies. Work remains to be done examining the diversity found
in these populations and the details that lead to the measured outcomes. Examining largescale effects can mask educational inequalities that may be revealed through detailed,
qualitative work with smaller groups of students.
Now some researchers are pointing out the restrictive nature of the terms heritage and
non-heritage, including Lee (2005) who examined use of the terms across a number of
languages and points out that learner identities are multiple and fluid in ways that the
40
labels cannot do them justice. Significantly, Lee points out that the terms ―heritage‖ and
―non-heritage‖ are not mutually exclusive. Examining use of the terms in the Heritage
Language Journal (see Chapter 4), I found that the way different authors use the terms
exhibit a large degree of fluidity, based largely on disciplinary perspective, and that there
is a tendency to discount sociocultural aspects of language development when there is a
strong focus on language competence.
Recent research by Comanaru and Noels (2009) on the social psychology of
motivation to learn Mandarin points out the importance of affective factors as well as
proficiency when considering a pedagogically useful definition of ―heritage language
learner‖. The study has found commonality in motivation across Chinese heritage
learners with very different levels of prior proficiency. The study was a quantitative
survey analysis of learner motivation (using self-determination theory) among 145
university-level Mandarin language students at a Canadian university. The researchers
compared three groups. They identified a ―Chinese-Chinese‖ group, referring to the
students‘ self-identified mother tongue and ethnicity; and an ―English-Chinese‖ group,
referring to students‘ mother tongue English and Chinese ethnicity. Both of these groups
were considered ―heritage learners‖ having at least one parent who was a native speaker
of any variety of Chinese. The third category was a ―Non-Chinese‖ group, who the
researchers identified as having a ―Canadian‖ self-identity or being of European ancestry.
The researchers found that, in terms of their motivations, there were some similarities
among all three groups, but the higher and lower proficiency heritage groups tended to be
most similar in ways that are likely to be of significance for language development. A
main finding was that, in terms of motivational profiles, the two heritage learner groups
41
were nearly the same. The main motivational similarities were that the students chose to
study the language to meet a personally meaningful goal and because it, ―was enjoyable
and stimulating, because it was an integral part of who they were, and in response to
internalized pressures‖ (2009, p. 151). The authors refute the argument that students
considered to be ―native speakers‖ and those with lower proficiency should not both be
considered heritage language learners. They say, ―Importantly, both groups felt equally
strongly that their Chinese ethnicity was central to their sense of self. Thus, from a socialpsychological point of view, these two groups of HL learners can be similarly defined‖
(p. 151).
Importantly, the study provides support to the perspective that affective factors are
significant in defining the category ―heritage language learner‖, in addition to the
developed linguistic proficiencies of the learners. This work supports the value of
carefully considering how program tracks are defined, and that using a more expansive
definition of ―heritage language learner‖ is something more than just a gesture of
inclusiveness. However, there is a problem with the research design for this study, which
emphasizes the way research categories can narrow our understanding of students. The
researchers mentioned that their study participants came from families who spoke a
number of different varieties of Chinese, including Mandarin, Cantonese, Taiwanese,
Hakka and Fujian. Because their focus was on differences in proficiency levels, they
grouped all spoken varieties together. It remains unknown if there are significant
differences in learners‘ motivational orientations based on Chinese variety.
Another study which problematizes proficiency definitions and deals specifically with
tracking in a university-level Mandarin program is Weger-Guntharp (2006). The study
42
shows how proficiency-based definitions of heritage learners leave out many students
whose identities are significantly shaped by their connection to Chinese language and
culture, but whose abilities do not ‗warrant‘ placement in the so-called heritage track, a
point discussed by Carreira (2004) for Spanish. Perhaps the most salient feature of
Chinese as a heritage language—the vast diversity that exists within the language and
implications for language development—has yet to be examined. Specifically, no work
has yet been done on the language development of Cantonese (or other ―dialect‖)
speakers who are tracked into separate classes within university-level Mandarin programs
(Li & Duff, 2008). Further, Cantonese/English bilingual students complicate the current
debate around definitions of heritage language learners and the characterization most
readily at hand for these students, that of ―second dialect‖ learners relative to Mandarin
(cf. Valdés, 2005), is both controversial and unexplored. From studies that look at how
certain Mandarin accents are devalued (Dong & Blommaert, 2009), to studies that show
particular educational challenges for learners whose spoken language differs greatly from
the written standard (L. Delpit, 1992), there are many indications that language and
literacy development in Mandarin will be very challenging for students who speak other
varieties of Chinese with their families. If CHL is constructed in such a way to gloss over
these differences, it may do such students a disservice.
4.2. Tracking and language varieties
The effects of labels, tracking and placements have been examined in a variety of
contexts, including ESL (Harklau, 2000; Leki & Carson, 1997; Ramanathan, Davies, &
Schleppegrell, 2001; Schleppegrell, 2004), dialect speakers (Anyon, 1995), and vis-à-vis
vernacular languages (Hornberger & King, 1996; Ramanathan, 2005). For example,
43
Ramanathan (2005) shows how critical ethnographic methods, including text analysis and
classroom observations, can be used to explore issues around language development
opportunities and tracking. Her study of English language classes in English-medium and
vernacular-medium schools reveals some of the ways in which concretized and unequal
grooves of a tracked system are maintained through the use of particular texts and
teaching practices. While operating in different ways across contexts, such tracking
practices have the effect of constraining learners‘ language development. Underlying
such educational policies is often an ―appropriateness model of variation [that] is the
(relatively) acceptable face of prescriptivism‖ (Fairclough, 1995a, p. 39). These
arguments can have the effect of rendering invisible the linguistic diversity students bring
with them to the classroom through the process of erasure (Irvine & Gal, 2000), a point
made with regard to African-American vernacular English by Lippi-Green (1997).
In foreign language education, of which heritage language education is framed to be a
part by authors such as Valdés and He, there is the need to take some standardized form
as the goal for students to work toward. This presents a number of challenges, from
selecting a particular form to deciding to what degree ―non-standard‖ language use will
be considered acceptable. As Valdés, Gonzáles, López-García, and Márques (2008)
discuss, by defining what is and what is not academic Spanish, university-level language
departments are involved in negotiating and upholding certain language ideologies that
may be in keeping with hegemonic beliefs about bilingualism in the U.S. For Mandarin
education in the U.S., the problem that is most commonly recognized is the existence of
two different sets of orthographies; traditional characters used in places such as Hong
Kong and Taiwan, and the simplified forms developed and used in the P.R.C. and
44
elsewhere. Decisions must be made in educational contexts as to which characters will be
used, impacting the selection of teaching materials and a host of other related decisions
related to placement and the curriculum. All of these decisions will impact learners in
different ways depending on their backgrounds, and these decisions tie the classroom to
larger socio-political issues surrounding the Chinese diaspora (Li & Duff, 2008). Chinese
orthography is a high-profile issue outside of language education, and perhaps in part
because of this, it is openly discussed within Mandarin education circles. This is quite
unlike other issues around standard language, where the codified version of Standard
Mandarin serves as the goal for Mandarin education in the U.S. without much debate.
Research on Chinese as a heritage language has only just begun to examine the impact
that these choices make on learners, for example (Weger-Guntharp, 2006), but work from
other areas is instructive.
With regard to African American Vernacular English, Delpit (1993) has argued that it
is important for minority students to be aware of dominant, prestige standards of English
and for educators to work with such students to acquire prestige forms, but that this
should not be done at the expense of their vernacular. No discussion has yet emerged of
how this might happen in CHL education. Identities are characterized as fluid and
flexible, constantly re-negotiated, and students‘ backgrounds are clearly diverse, but the
basic emphasis is on language development tied to a native speaker standard. He‘s theory
acknowledges that students may be changing the language through their particular use,
but language classes are geared toward moving them to a monolingual native standard
that conforms strictly to the codified version of Standard Mandarin. Issues of language
ideology and power have not been a major focus for Chinese, nor for the larger heritage
45
language field (Valdés et al., 2008). The emphasis in most CHL research has been on the
effectiveness of language education, not how power flows through the educational
context or the social power of language.
In the case of Chinese, appropriateness ideologies are particularly intransigent as the
logic of a single standard language to bridge the diversity of spoken forms has been
actively advocated in schooling for decades in the P.R.C. (Li, 2004) and through a
separate government and set of policies in Taiwan as well3. Yet Li points out that, far
from a single standard language, ―Standard Mandarin‖ is variable and the direction it is
taking may be influenced by the prestige given to varieties of Mandarin spoken in the
economically more developed areas of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Recent research on
variation in Mandarin and the status accorded to different accents and norms of use
shows how the pressure for migrant workers in Beijing, the P.R.C.‘s capital, to conform
to official standard Mandarin pronunciation plays out in interpersonal communication
(Dong & Blommaert, 2009). The study reveals the strong hold standard language
ideology has over identity construction in the P.R.C. and how readily individuals draw on
and are marked by regional accent when negotiating power and solidarity.
Wiley et al have recently examined language attitudes among Chinese immigrants in
the U.S. (Wiley et al., 2008). Their quantitative survey of 766 immigrants from Hong
Kong, Taiwan and the P.R.C. is part of a larger project examining maintenance of
Chinese language varieties. The survey was distributed through electronic listservs and
targeted immigrant Chinese professionals or students in the U.S. The study set out to
examine the distribution of Chinese varieties spoken by the respondents, contexts of use,
3
The suppression of the Taiwanese language by the Nationalists in Taiwan is another matter I will not go
into here.
46
attitudes toward and preferences for scripts (traditional or simplified), and attitudes
toward maintenance of minority languages4 generally, and toward maintenance of
standard Mandarin as a heritage language in the U.S. The authors were interested to see
for the final two attitude questions whether there was a difference between the attitudes
of standard Mandarin speakers and speakers of other varieties. The authors do point out
some of the difficulties they had in categorizing the responses of multi-dialectal speakers,
but in the end, they came up with a method for assigning each respondent to a group by
region, Mainland China, Taiwan or Hong Kong, and by primary language variety spoken
when growing up. The authors conclude that their findings, ―…generally support the
relevance and importance of current attempts in the US to promote Mandarin as a
heritage or community language‖ (p. 86), citing the general support in survey responses
for maintenance and development of Mandarin across speakers of different varieties. The
conclusions also include three differences: lower Mandarin proficiency for those from
Hong Kong, greater multidialectalism among Taiwanese, and a difference in preference
for script, with Mainland Chinese preferring simplified characters and Taiwanese and
Hong Kong respondents preferring traditional forms.
Although not highlighted in the discussion or conclusions, an interesting finding
included in the study is a major difference between the language groups concerning their
attitudes toward standard Mandarin and schooling in the home country. A majority of
Min (Taiwanese, 55.2%) and Yue (Cantonese, 76.4%) speakers disagreed with the
proposition that basic schooling should be conducted only in Mandarin. Further, when the
same question was analyzed by region, a majority of Taiwanese respondents (51.7%) and
4
The authors use the term ―minority language‖ to mean spoken varieties of Chinese other than Mandarin
and not the languages of ethnic minorities in China or Taiwan.
47
Hong Kong respondents (92.3%) disagreed with the proposition. This contrasts with a
majority agreement among Mandarin speaking or Mainland Chinese respondents.
Disagreement went down to less than a majority for the regional Taiwan and Hong Kong,
and the language Min and Yue groups, in response to a bilingual education scenario.
Clearly there was a strong difference of opinion on schooling support for nonMandarin varieties of Chinese in the respondents‘ home regions when the data were
analyzed along both region and home language lines. In contrast, there was strong
support among the respondents across all varieties of Chinese for children of Chinese
origin in the U.S. learning or maintaining Mandarin. There was also majority support
across varieties for retaining or learning the parents‘ languages (with the qualifying
statement ―assuming they are already learning English‖), which points to positive
attitudes toward maintaining non-Mandarin varieties of Chinese in addition to Mandarin.
I believe the study reveals more difference of opinion in language attitudes between
groups than the authors acknowledge in their conclusions. The authors acknowledge that
the findings are limited by the sample, in that it was non-random and small. Further, I
would be interested to see results for questions of this type among longer-term Chinese
immigrant groups in the U.S., in particular those who are speakers of varieties of
Cantonese and were not included in this survey.
With regard to other issues of language diversity, a special issue of the Heritage
Language Journal (Summer, 2007) recently addressed the intersection of heritage
language learners and ESL. Suarez (2007) reviews literature on second- and thirdgeneration heritage language maintenance and English language development,
concluding that ―LEP heritage learners‖ should be the focus of research, distinguished
48
from their English-dominant peers, but without being viewed as simply deficient in both
languages, as often happens. Yet this will be difficult to accomplish when, even in
Suarez‘s own article, such students are juxtaposed against ―monolingual‖ English
speakers and ―fluent‖ bilinguals. To what degree are the numbers of second and thirdgeneration K-12 students classified as ―LEP‖ increasing because of a change in patterns
of language maintenance and shift, as Suarez interprets the data, versus changes in
education policies and practices around language standards and testing? Using
ethnographic methods to examine students‘ personal experiences with such
classifications is one way of addressing this kind of question.
5. Models of identity and motivation for language development research
―English, like other languages does not exist as a prior system but is produced and
sedimented through acts of identity‖ (Pennycook, 2006, p. 110). The term ―acts of
identity‖ has been taken up by a number of sociolinguists, and an early use of the term
comes from Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985), referring to one important premise of
sociolinguistics, that language is not simply an expression of denotational ideas; rather,
language also has a connotational sense that encodes metalinguistic information, linking
language to other cultural systems. Furthermore, language simultaneously provides
individuals a means to express aspects of their social identities and for those expressions
to be received and interpreted by others. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller emphasized this
agentive aspect of language variation in their investigation and interpretation of the social
role of Creole in the Caribbean, where they argue that the kind of complex social milieu
under investigation required a more complex understanding of identity to underlie their
work on language variation.
49
The kind of symbolic linking of sign and social meaning is possible because language
features point to, or index, social characteristics through the performance of an
interactional stance, in Silverstein‘s terms (2004, p. 622). This understanding of identity
moves away from a structuralist conception where, according to Block (2007), identity is
thought to be determined by social structures or biology, and is characterized by an
orientation which seeks, ―…universal laws or rules of human behavior‖ (p. 12). Block
(2007) reviews how identity has been understood and applied in work on second
language development over the past two decades. He points out that the field of applied
linguistics has adopted advances in poststructural theories of identity from work in
related fields in the social sciences. He sums up this effort to formulate a more nuanced
characterization of identity, stating:
In a nutshell, these social scientists frame identities as socially constructed, selfconscious, ongoing narratives that individuals perform, interpret and project in
dress, bodily movements, actions and language. Identity work occurs in the
company of others—either face-to-face or in an electronically mediated mode—
with whom to varying degrees individuals share beliefs, motives, values, activities
and practices. Identities are about negotiating new subject positions at the
crossroads of the past, present and future. Individuals are shaped by their
sociohistories but they also shape their sociohistories as life goes on. The entire
process is conflictive as opposed to harmonious and individuals often feel
ambivalent. There are unequal power relations to deal with, around the different
capitals—economic, cultural and social—that both facilitate and constrain
interactions with others in the different communities of practice with which
50
individuals engage in their lifetimes, Finally, identities are related to different
traditionally demographic categories such as ethnicity, race, nationality,
migration, gender, social class and language. (p. 27)
In his book, Block applies this to investigations of language development in three
contexts: among adult migrants, with traditionally-conceived foreign language learners,
and in the study abroad context. Most significant with respect to this study on heritage
language development, Block concludes with a call to problematize some of the
traditional boundaries in applied linguistics. He discusses how his work on identity in
language development reveals some limitations of a traditional notion of ‗L1‘,
emphasizing the complex sociolinguistic histories and language repertoires that are
increasingly common, given the increasingly multicultural and multilingual nature of
many modern societies. In his words, ―In contexts where multiculturalism and
multilingualism have become the norm more than the exception, there is a need to
problematize the linguistic and cultural baggage that individuals bring to the SLL [second
language learning] experience‖ (p. 192), and I would add, that learners are subjected to
when they choose to become a language learner.
A core theoretical construct that can be brought to bear in examining how identity is
implicated in language development is Norton‘s (2000) concept of investment, which
redefines motivation as put forth by Gardner and Lambert (1972). Norton describes
investment in the following way:
Investment…signals the socially and historically constructed relationship of
learners to the target language, and their often ambivalent desire to learn and
practice it…The notion presupposes that when language learners speak, they are
51
not only exchanging information with target language speakers, but they are
constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they
relate to the social world. (Norton, 2000, pp. 10-11)
Informed by poststructural theory, investment takes the relationship between a language
learner and the language of study to be complex and changing—and importantly, as being
integral to a dynamic and on-going process of identity creation—rather than Gardner and
Lambert‘s more fixed notions5 of instrumental and integrative motivation, constructs
commonly used in SLA research (Norton, 2000). And as Dörnyei (2001) points out,
Norton‘s reconceptualization moves discussions of motivation beyond what he considers
to be a pervasive overemphasis on the psychology of individual difference. Within the
research tradition Dörnyei was critiquing, motivation research often focused on how
linguistic competence, in a narrow sense, develops through classroom instruction.
Norton‘s investment framework can be the basis for research concerning how social
contexts and processes impact language development. This view resonates with the
communities of practice framework that views learning as the consequence of social
practice, or ―legitimate peripheral participation,‖ and that contexts for learning
necessarily exist both within and outside of classrooms and other intentionally instructed
settings (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
This framework has been productively applied to learner narratives, as with Norton‘s
(2000) own work on immigrant women developing English language skills in Canada. In
the U.S. context, Menard-Warwick‘s (2004; 2009) examined the narratives of Latin
American adult ESL learners in California. According to the author, ―Oral and informal
written narratives can elucidate diverse learners‘ insights on their positioning within
5
Gardner and Tremblay (1994) take issue with characterizations of the model as ―limited‖ or ―limiting.‖
52
families, communities, and society and on how this positioning has facilitated or impeded
L2 learning over time‖ (p. 297). Investment was a useful framework in this case because
it allowed the author to examine how language development was connected to the
participants‘ perceptions of their gender roles, revealing that L2 development was more
likely when investment in language development was ―congruent‖ with other investments
the study participants made based on their gendered social positionings. This work
highlights the importance of connecting formal language study to learners‘ lives outside
the classroom, through the lens of narrative, and understanding how investment in
language study is tied to other social roles.
6. Connecting identity and discourse
The concept of investment seems best suited to studies that examine the broad social
contexts in which speakers use a developing language to accomplish activities in their
daily lives. The present study comes from a different social context, that of instructed
language development. As such, keeping one eye on ―investment‖ in Norton‘s sense and
also finding a revised understanding of ―motivation‖ in a narrower sense was important
to this work. The work of Giddens (1984) points out an important understanding of
―motivation‖ that I take up in the analyses of why diverse learners choose to study
Mandarin, where the focus turns to the ―activation energy‖ (to use a scientific metaphor)
needed to enter the classroom for the first time. Discussing motivation, Giddens says,
―Motives tend to have a direct purchase on action only in relatively unusual
circumstances, situations which in some way break with the routine‖ (p. 6). It is this
sense of motive, or motivation, that I draw on when analyzing the comments of the
Cantonese-background students in Chapter 6. Investment, as a concept, is also critical to
53
this study because it maintains a focus on the socially-embedded nature of the students‘
language development over time and across social settings.
There is an additional sense in which the work of Giddens adds an emphasis that
differs from Norton‘s framing of investment. In contrast to the focus on investment as
agency, operating within constraints imposed by social factors or particular situations,
Giddens (1984) framework for social science research goes further in capturing the
dynamic, reflexive relationship between apparent social structures and human agency.
His stratification model of motivation (a general model, not specific to language
development) encompasses three layers, from the unconscious to the conscious: 1) the
unconscious, which remains inaccessible to one‘s consciousness principally through
repression, 2) a level of ―practical consciousness‖ that, Giddens says, ―consists of
knowing the rules and the tactics whereby daily social life is constituted and reconstituted
across time and space‖ (p. 90), but is a level of knowledge that leads to the
accomplishment of tasks without the ability to describe or talk about what is being
done—an awareness that underlies behaviors not articulations; and 3) a ―discursive
consciousness‖ which is a level of awareness at which social phenomena can be
articulated. Giddens points out that, through socialization and experience, knowledge
may pass from practical to discursive consciousness. In conducting qualitative research
on language learning motivation, what can and will be said by participants about their
motivations will represent only a fraction of the story behind their actions. Survey studies
are limited because they access reflections on motivation at the level of discursive
consciousness.
54
For Giddens, the importance of this motivation model is that it underlies his theory
of structuration, which looks at social structure not as pre-existing social relations and
actions. Rather, he posits that, ―the structural properties of social systems are both
medium and outcome of the practices they recursively organize‖ (1984, p. 25), or what he
calls the duality of structure. To relate these concepts to the study at hand, when students
articulate their reasons for studying Mandarin, what is available for them to state is
knowledge at the level of discursive consciousness. The fact that students are motivated
by factors of which they are unaware, part of the unconscious, or which they cannot
describe, part of their practical consciousness, highlights the need for qualitative research.
My research, using the nexus analysis model of Scollon and Scollon (2004; 2007)
(discussed below in Chapter 3), looks beyond what students say they do and why, to
examine connections to the social contexts of which they are a part. In this way, I seek to
understand what factors may be at play in choosing to study Mandarin, but that are left
unarticulated. I see this as related to the discussion of research on critical literacies
framed by Morgan and Ramanathan (2005), which they argue takes the ―subject-indiscourse‖ as the center of study. This perspective highlights that any expression of
motivation is not a simple fact, but rather, what is expressed is bound up in language
practices, internalized through socialization to discourses, and is tied to identity
formation and performance.
Other work on identity in language development places more emphasis on the effects
of the social structures that constrain or frame agency in certain ways. In a recent edited
volume by Angel Lin (2008b), the author contends that the concept of identity has gained
currency in applied linguistics research, but often remains under-theorized. She reviews
55
the theoretical underpinnings of the concept from a number of fields. The main points
that she makes about post-modern theorizing of identity help frame the approach I am
taking in this study. First, Lin (2008a) argues, there is strong cross-disciplinary
agreement over the active and discursive construction of identity, rather than identity
comprising a collection of essentialized traits such as gender, class and ethnicity. Second,
that identities provide a kind of ―horizon and framework‖ for people to take up and orient
themselves in ―moral space‖ (2008a, p. 211 referencing Taylor) and that there is a
fundamental psychological need to construct a positive sense of identity. Third, that
identity categories are constructed and reproduced by those in positions of power and
through everyday discourses that make them seem natural, and that those who are
marginalized by such categories may in turn use essentialized notions of identity to fight
against repression; and finally, that identity formation is discursive and not without
influence from, as she puts it, ―powerful mass media engines driven by global
capitalism‖(p. 211) and that this influence marks a radical change in the post-modern
condition (for a full discussion, see, pp. 210-214).
These perspectives from Giddens and Lin highlight the connections between
identities, social positions, contexts, and orientations to language development. They
make explicit some of the connections I have drawn in this selected review of the
heritage language literature and allied research between the discursive construction of a
heritage language field, pedagogical practices, identities and processes of identification,
and understandings of motivation. The analyses presented in Chapters 4 through 7 will
demonstrate how these connections impact individual students and why examining such
connections is important for the heritage language field and applied linguistics.
56
Chapter 3. Methods and setting
In this chapter, I will address some key issues regarding the methods, data,
participants and modes of analysis relevant to this dissertation. The study took place in a
number of stages and I have applied a variety of methodologies at different points in the
analysis. Each data chapter (Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7) contains a brief discussion of the
specific methods I used. This chapter focuses on the overarching methodological
approach that unites a series of projects and analyses that have been developed over a 5year period. I describe my approach as situated, qualitative analysis, and I draw
principally on critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996), nexus analysis (Scollon &
Scollon, 2004, 2007), and the analysis of discourse (Blommaert, 2005) as methodological
constructs; they have served two key purposes: 1) aspects of these methodologies have
impacted the research design, including framing of research questions, site selection, and
data collection; 2) they have helped me interpret the significance of my findings
throughout the research process, and, 3) they have allowed me to consider how the
various stages and types of analysis are mutually informative.
1. Research questions
To re-state the goal of this study, my aim is to connect the individual perspective of
diverse ―heritage‖ language learners of Mandarin to the larger institutional, social, and
historical dynamics in which they find themselves. The preliminary research questions
that guided the project included:
Ideologies
-
What ideologies about Chinese as a global language are currently circulating and
how are they discursively constructed? How are such ideologies reflected,
57
appropriated or resisted in the perspectives of learners, teachers, administrators and
programs? To what effect for students?
-
How do students narratively construct their own investment in developing
Mandarin? Do these narratives challenge or resist dominant ideologies that tend to
marginalize non-standard language varieties?
Policies
-
How are departmental and campus policies constructed and enacted around the
complex language backgrounds of the student population?
-
What rationales are called on to explain current policies?
Student Motivations
-
How does language ability acquired in the home and family background impact
learners‘ study of Mandarin?
-
How does this impact affect their initial interest and continuing investment in
studying Mandarin?
2. Situated, qualitative analysis
This study employed qualitative, ethnographic methods including participant
observation, interviews, and text analysis to develop a situated view of the complex
positionings, relative to language development, that Chinese heritage language students,
broadly defined, face at California Northern University (CNU). In their introduction to a
recent special issue of TESOL Quarterly on local enactments of policy in TESOL,
Ramanathan and Morgan (2007) state, ―Only recently have scholars begun examining the
everyday contexts in which policies are interpreted and negotiated in ways that reflect
local constraints and possibilities‖ (p. 447). In this project, I am concerned with just such
58
everyday contexts with a focus on the way educational opportunities emerge, framed by
layered levels of policy and authority, and to what effect for these students.
My reasons for employing ethnographic methods are related to the view put forward
by Blommaert (2005) concerning a research paradigm for language-in-society, his term
for critical language study that recognizes the inseparability of language and social
context. The five principles underlying this view of language, grounded in the work of
critical language research across disciplines such as sociolinguistics and linguistic
anthropology are, in abbreviated form:
1) In analyzing language-in-society, the focus should be on what language use
means to its users…
2) We have to be aware that language operates differently in different
environments, and that, in order to understand how language works, we need
to contextualize it properly…
3) Our unit of analysis is not an abstract ‗language‘ but the actual and densely
contextualized forms in which language occurs in society…
4) Language users have repertoires containing different sets of varieties, and
these repertoires are the material with which they engage in communication;
they will determine what people can do with language…
5) We have to conceive of communication events as ultimately influenced by the
structure of the world system… This fifth principle is a perspective on the four
other principles; it adds a new dimension to the various foci of attention
derived from the critical pool. (Blommaert, 2005, pp. 14-15)
59
Blommaert‘s intention in framing research on language this way is to, ―…widen the
range and punch of critical discourse analysis‖ (Blommaert, 2005, p. 16). A key feature
of this study will be investigating the linkages between the site-based field work and my
inquiry into the broader discourses concerning beliefs about Chinese heritage language
development within the emerging ―heritage language‖ field.
Important to this study are three main levels of analysis. Text-based analysis,
informed by Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 1995b, 2001), was used to examine
the operating definitions of central terms in the heritage language literature. My research
on departmental policies and teaching practices involved ethnographic methods,
including participant observation in classrooms, interviews, and document analysis. With
this, I explored the experiences of a range of heritage language students in the Mandarin
program at CNU at two different points in time: first, when the program had a dual-track
system at the introductory levels (Spring Quarter, 2005) and second, when the program
had added a third introductory-level track for Cantonese-background learners (primarily
in Fall Quarter, 2007 with follow-up observations and interviews through Winter Quarter
and Spring Quarter, 2008). Finally, I considered institutional enactments around language
teaching from a broader perspective, along the lines of Scollon and Scollon‘s (2004)
nexus analysis (see discussion below). One goal of the study is to examine how emerging
dominant discourses and language ideologies about Mandarin are reflected, appropriated,
or resisted by institutions and individuals. Another goal is to identify some of the specific
ways the focal students draw on their language repertoire to get the most out of their
Mandarin classes, and how their strategies reflect their particular investment in the
institutionally-framed study of that language. A third goal is to articulate some of the
60
ways the institutional policies mediate between dominant discourses, including the
emerging disciplinary discourse around heritage language development, and student
investment in language study.
I collected data based on ethnographic methodological approaches, drawing on the
work of Carspecken (1996), Strauss (1987), Hammersley & Atkinson (1983), Glaser &
Strauss (1967), and Watson-Gegeo (1988; 1992). The advantage of an ethnographic
approach is that analysis is framed around local meanings (emic perspectives), and then
connected to analytical constructs, in this case, theories of language in society (etic
perspectives). I collected and analyzed a range of data types to allow for ―triangulation‖
or the comparison and scrutiny of emerging analyses from different perspectives
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, p. 24). Data sources included field notes from class
observations, class materials, policy documents, popular media and scholarly articles as
the basis for a primary record, along with transcriptions of interviews as the basis of a
―dialogical data‖ record (Carspecken, 1996). Through ―reconstructive analysis‖
(Carspecken, 1996), I analyzed the data through an iterative process, along the lines of
the constant comparative method of Glaser & Strauss (1967), and further elaborated in
Strauss (1987), generally moving from open coding to thematic coding and analysis, with
an eye toward identifying emerging patterns in the data. Both support and counterevidence for emerging analyses were considered (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983), and
finally, I selected organizing themes to report findings, focusing on higher-level
categories that helped explain the significant interactions going on in the context.
Scollon and Scollon‘s (2004; 2007) particular reinterpretation of ethnography, which
they call ―nexus analysis‖, influenced my organization and execution of this study. The
61
authors‘ main reason for formulating nexus analysis as a distinct methodology is to
highlight the connections between the process of discourse analysis, broadly defined, and
social action. They define the concept of ―discourse‖ in its most basic sense as, ―the ways
in which people engage each other in conversation‖ (2004, p. 4) and note that the term
can be applied to both this conception of ―language-in-use‖ or to a broader level, similar
to Gee‘s discourse with a capital D (Gee, 1996). Further, the authors draw on
Blommaert‘s (2005) definition of discourse to flesh out their basic understanding;
Blommaert says that discourse, ―comprises all forms of meaningful semiotic human
activity seen in connection with social, cultural and historical patterns and developments
of use‖ (Scollon & Scollon, 2004, p. 5, from Blommart, 2005, p.6). Nexus analysis sets
out a process whereby the researcher not only examines how perspectives emerge within
a particular context, but also how they are tied to temporally and spatially removed
events, attitudes, people, decisions and the like. Most importantly, the research process is
designed in such a way that it is explicitly engaged with social actions in the setting,
beyond the act of the research itself. Changing the nexus of practice is an explicit goal for
this type of research. The following overview of the nexus analysis process will describe
the basics of this research cycle, which entails three main activities: engagement,
navigation and change (see Scollon & Scollon, 2004, p. 153 for a visual representation of
the relationship between the main stages of analysis).
All stages of analysis are inter-related and focused on mediated action. ―Mediated
action‖ or ―social action‖, which the authors use interchangeably, refer to the idea that,
―…any action is inherently social—it is only action to the extent it is perceived by others
as action—and that any action is carried out via material and symbolic mediation means
62
(cultural and psychological tools); hence the term ‗mediated action‘‖ (2004, p. 12). The
phases are presented in a linear order, but in practice, are intertwined to a large degree.
In the first phase, engaging the nexus of practice, the researcher identifies and
associates with a social issue. The process of identification includes finding the main
actors, observing the interaction order, and determining significant discourse cycles. The
authors say this is a process of, ―…recognizing the main mediated action (or actions)
which sit at the center of the nexus of practice…‖ (Scollon & Scollon, 2004, p.156), and
that, in addition, the researcher must also become a participant, and does this by
establishing a ―zone of identification‖ with other participants.
The second phase, navigating the nexus of practice, centers on analyzing the actions
that have been determined to be most significant through the identification of semiotic
cycles, focusing on the ―historical bodies‖ of participants (their personal, social, and
historically-embedded background), discourses in place, and significant objects and
concepts; and through mapping, or investigating the intentions, timescales and linkages
involved with actions under investigation. At this stage, the two main research activities
are discourse analysis and motive analysis, based on Kenneth Burke‘s Grammar of
motives (Scollon & Scollon cite Burke (1969 [1945]). The final stage, changing the
nexus of practice, emphasizes the involvement with other participants in the nexus of
practice to bring about change.
To distinguish this methodology from other forms of ethnography, the authors state,
―A nexus analysis is a form of ethnography that takes social action as the theoretical
center of study, not any a priori social group, class, tribe, or culture. In this it departs to a
considerable extent from traditional ethnography in anthropology or sociology‖ (p. 13).
63
This brief description captures the main reason I found nexus analysis to be the best type
of ethnographic framework for this study. This kind of focus asks the researcher to take
as a primary concern the interactive effects and implications of individuals coming
together for a shared purpose. This contrasts with more traditional ethnography that
focuses on identifying the normative practices and beliefs in a social setting. The
methodological focus that the Scollons lay out allowed me to examine the nexus around
the social activity of Mandarin study in a particular place and time where I had
connections and had been a student. I conceived of this study as a natural outgrowth of
my participation in university-level study of Mandarin, in different locations and at
different points in time. In the terms used in nexus analysis, my involvement in Mandarin
study made it a ―zone of identification‖ or a nexus in which I could be recognized as a
―legitimate‖ participant to some degree. The Scollons use this term ―legitimate
participant‖, echoing the work on learning by Lave and Wenger (1991).
3. My positionality
California Northern University, as the pseudonym suggests, is located in Northern
California and draws a significant portion of its student population from the San
Francisco Bay Area, a region with a high concentration of Chinese-Americans. A
majority of the students enrolling in Mandarin courses are Asian American, and many
can be considered heritage language learners by various definitions. The overall scope of
this study was influenced by my own study of Mandarin in a similar setting, through
interviews I conducted with a number of such students for coursework-related research,
and my involvement with the Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages,
currently supported by the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C. In this
64
introduction to my research questions and methods, I will briefly discuss these three
influences.
I began studying Mandarin Chinese in my second year at Swarthmore College, a
small, academically rigorous liberal arts college in Pennsylvania. I consider the program I
went through innovative, focusing on speaking and using pinyin extensively to facilitate
language development; but at the same time, it was a traditional foreign language
program in many respects. Most of the learners had no prior study or exposure to the
language, although there were exceptions, including one classmate who did grow up
hearing Mandarin at home and another who grew up in Hong Kong as the daughter of an
American family (non-Chinese) living overseas. I studied abroad in Beijing in the fall of
1989 and met other foreign language learners in my program who were from universities
on the west coast of the U.S., where there were high concentrations of CHL students. I
was struck by the degree of frustration and animosity some of my classmates expressed
toward the CHL students in the program.
Years later, spending time around CNU, I began hearing the same kinds of comments
coming from diverse learners: non-Chinese foreign language learners, CHL learners with
varying amounts of exposure to Mandarin, CHL learners with exposure to Cantonese and
others who do not fit neatly into any of these categories. The overwhelming sense I am
left with after talking to so many Mandarin learners is that one can always see how other
students are advantaged and you are disadvantaged when studying in such a linguistically
diverse context. Based on these experiences, I decided to design my M.A. research
project to examine how the diversity of student backgrounds meshed with the curriculum
offered by the university. The present project is an outgrowth of that original research,
65
following some of the changes in the program that were influenced by my M.A. thesis, in
particular the implementation of a separate track for Cantonese-background learners.
The final, main area of involvement that influenced this project has been my work
with the Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages. In the summer of 2006 I
interned with the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C. and worked with
the Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages to learn more about heritage
language advocacy. Through this work, serving as a member of the Alliance‘s leadership
team and writing content for their web site, I was exposed to a broad range of issues
around heritage languages and had the opportunity to discuss current areas of debate and
concern with a range of language professionals from higher education, K-12 and
community programs, as well as the defense language sector.
4. Data sources
The following table summarizes the types of data I collected and created.
Table 3.1: Data sources.
Classroom observation notes from the courses:
―Accelerated Written Chinese‖ (the ―bilingual‖
class), CHN 2B, ―Intermediate Chinese‖ (the
―regular‖ class), CHN 5R; and ―Mandarin for
Cantonese Speakers‖, Chinese (CHN) 1C and
2C.
I observed and kept field notes from: five class
sessions of the ―bilingual‖ and ―regular‖ classes in
Spring, 2005; and from approximately 20 class
sessions of CHN 1C, and two class sessions of 2C
during the 2007-2008 academic year.
Placement and language background
surveys.
I administered language background surveys in the
three main classes discussed: CHN 2B
(―bilingual‖) and 5R (―regular‖), Spring Quarter,
2005; CHN 1C, Fall Quarter, 2007.
Interviews/discussions with the participating
instructors took place throughout the periods of
observation, focusing on teaching methods,
student background, student motivation and
teacher motivation.
CHN 2B and 5R: Interviews with the two focal
students were conducted in Spring Quarter, 2005.
CHN 1C, 2C, 3C: Interviews with each of the 5
focal students took place during Fall Quarter 2007.
A second round of follow-up interviews with four
of the five focal students took place at the end of
Spring Quarter, 2008. The first interview (audio-
Interviews and informal discussions
with the CHN 2B, 5R, 1C, and 2C
instructors.
Interviews and informal conversations with
students
66
Language policies: state policies, institutional
policies including language requirements (for
both ―foreign‖ language study and English
academic writing), curriculum statements for
the Chinese and Linguistics departments, class
syllabi.
Interviews with high-level administrators in the
Letters and Science Dean‘s Office, UC
Consortium for Language Teaching and
Learning, and Vice Chancellor--Student Affairs
offices.
Media reports, government documents, job
announcements for Mandarin instructors,
academic articles
Interviews with the directors of the Chinese
language program, and the graduate and
undergraduate ESL programs.
taped) focused on language background and
motivation to study Mandarin. The second
interview (audio taped) focused on their continued
experiences through the year studying Mandarin,
including how the change in teachers affected
them.
I examined both codified policies and de facto
policies as expressed in curriculum statements and
class syllabi.
The interviews focused on policy contexts,
including internal and external pressures to change
language teaching delivery and institutional
responses.
I examined how Mandarin study is being
ideologically framed in these different sources.
These interviews focused on the institutional
policies and language study themes of the research
project.
5. Description of the setting
The setting for this study was California Northern University (CNU, a pseudonym), a
large, public university in California with an enrollment of approximately 24,400
undergraduate students in the 2006-2007 academic year. The number rose to nearly
30,000 students by 2007-2008. The student population is quite diverse and no single
ethnicity encompasses a majority of the students on campus. For undergraduates in 20062007, the campus reported an amalgamated ―Asian‖ enrollment of 41%, ―White‖
enrollment of 36%, and ―Chinese‖ enrollment, the largest subset of the ―Asian‖ group, of
18.5% (this figure does not include international students).6 Chinese-American students
make up one of the largest ethnic groups on the campus, and the Asian American
presence is very strong.
6
These statistics are made available on a news and information section of the campus‘ web site.
67
All students who apply and enroll in the university system, not just CNU, are subject
to a set of language requirements. For admission, the university system requires four
years of English (or other language of instruction) with no more than one year of ESL
―counting‖ toward the requirement, and 2 years of foreign language study, with 3 years
recommended. All admitted students must pass an English writing requirement that can
be satisfied in a number of ways, including adequate performance on the English AP or
SAT exams, passing a system-administered essay exam or taking specific classes at the
university. When the essay exams are evaluated, students with ―ESL features‖ are
identified and the campus makes a decision about what level of ESL class each student
should take (from one to three quarters).
Not all students at CNU must satisfy an additional ―foreign‖ language requirement.
The university is divided into four colleges, and each college is responsible for a set of
graduation requirements. All four colleges, for all degrees, have an English composition
requirement on top of the system-wide English writing requirement, but only two
colleges, the College of Biological Science and the College of Letters and Science, have
foreign language requirements for their students pursuing A.B. or B.A.S. degrees, but not
for those pursuing B.S. degrees. Therefore, the decision to study English or other
languages is influenced by a number of factors, balancing students‘ personal interests and
degree requirements at the level of the major, the college and the university. Academic
advising in this setting is complex and is administered in a number of ways, through
Student Services offices including within the residence halls for first-year students, in
departments for majors, and in the Deans‘ offices.
5.a. The Chinese department
68
The majority of students enrolling in Chinese courses at CNU are themselves
ethnically Chinese, and generally there is a higher demand for enrollment in these courses
than there is space. In recent years, the department operated with a ―dual-track‖
accelerated system where one year of courses were offered for students with background
in Mandarin (instead of two for ―true beginners‖) before they enrolled in the ―third year‖
series of courses. Difficulties with placement of Cantonese-background students (see
Chapter 5) led the department to add a third ―track‖ in the Fall Quarter ‘06. Now the
system is set up to accommodate separately students with Cantonese background in a
one-year series of courses before they go on to other courses in the department.
5.b. Principal Participants
With regard to the students and teachers I focus on in chapters 5, 6 and 7, there were
two distinct stages to this study.
Stage one: I first undertook fieldwork in Spring Quarter, 2005 to examine how heritage
language learners were placed, perceived of their own placement, and took action to
adapt to the conditions at CNU. The two focal students for this part of the analysis were
two different types of learners, in two different tracks of the program but studying a
similar level of material and using the same textbook (details follow in Chapter 6). The
first student participant, Kelly (all names used in this study are pseudonyms), grew up in
the U.S. speaking Cantonese with her parents, and the second, Alan, also grew up in the
U.S. and spoke Mandarin with his family. In the analysis, I examine some of the tensions
that existed for each student, with Kelly in the ―regular‖ track of the program, and Alan
in the ―bilingual‖ track. I include information from interviews with the instructors, both
of whom were female and emigrated to the U.S. as adults from Taiwan. The instructor for
69
the ―regular‖ course was in her third year of teaching at CNU and the teacher of the
―bilingual‖ course was in her first year.
Between the time this first phase took place and my fieldwork in the second phase, the
department added a third track at the introductory level: a one-year course sequence
specifically for Cantonese-background students. In discussions with the Program
Director, he let me know that my initial study was helpful in making the case with the
department and Dean‘s Office for adding this track.
Stage Two: In the second phase, the core participants for this study were 5 students (3
female, 2 male) enrolled in the first-year series of courses for Cantonese-background
speakers, identified here as 1C (Fall Quarter ‘07), 2C (Winter Quarter ‘08), and 3C
(Spring Quarter ‘09), but focusing primarily on the first quarter of study, Fall ‗07. In my
analysis, I chose to concentrate on the experiences of students just as they entered the
program for two main reasons. First, I was interested in how Cantonese-background
students would express their reasons for studying Mandarin. Second, I was interested in
how the program handled such students‘ initial transition into Mandarin education. The
classroom was a kind of liminal space where the students were first exposed to the
department‘s pedagogical approach to teaching and they were being socialized into a set
of beliefs about language and literacy. The work of Blommaert et al (2005), although
focusing on a very different educational context, underscores the importance of this
approach. As discussed in the literature review in Chapter 2, the authors conducted an
ethnographic study on classes for Dutch language-learning children who had recently
migrated to Belgium. Citing Silverstein (2003) and Blommaert (2005) on the theoretical
70
concept of indexicality, they argue, ―It is in the margins of the system that … systemic
indexical patterns …. become clearest‖ (Blommaert et al., 2006, p. 36).
Expanding out from students‘ experiences in these Mandarin development classes, I
wanted to contextualize language study at this university by participant observation in an
undergraduate ESL class in the Winter Quarter ‘08. Preliminary examination of
enrollment records showed that there is a student population at CNU that enrolls in both
ESL and Mandarin classes (approximately 150 students did so between 2003 and 2007). I
served as a writing tutor for students in one of these ESL classes, with the goal of
identifying and interviewing Cantonese/English bilingual students who have similar
language backgrounds and educational histories to the focal students in the Mandarin for
Cantonese Speakers course. In the end, only one student I tutored and interviewed had
such a background. I do not include the data from the ESL tutoring in the chapters that
follow, but the insights of this participant certainly gave me a broader understanding of
the experiences Cantonese-background students have when they choose to study
Mandarin at CNU. An analysis of the student‘s experience will be left for another paper.
6. Data analysis
I present analyses that operate from, and link, the two levels of discourse discussed by
Scollon and Scollon (2004); discourse at the level of ―language-in-use‖ and a broader
conception of discourse as the making of meaning within a social, cultural and historic
frame. Discourse analysis at the first level includes portions of my text-based analysis of
how the specific terms ―heritage language‖ and ―heritage language learner‖ were used in
the first four issues of the Heritage Language Journal, and some of my analyses of
students‘ and teachers‘ statements that I recorded through class observations and in
71
interviews, included in chapter 5, 6 and 7. At this level, I focused more on the meanings
of the terms and statements in their immediate context. My analyses in the following four
chapters also operate at the broader level of discourse, as defined by Blommaert (2005)
and discussed in Chapter 2. In chapter 4, I engage with a consideration of what an
emerging ―heritage language discourse‖ looks like, connecting the use of terms in the
individual articles to an examination of what concepts, beliefs and values are emerging in
this field of study. For the site-based analyses, I consider how the statements and actions
of individuals link to broader social contexts beyond the classroom or the interview
setting.
What I am presenting here is a longitudinal project took place in stages, and the
analysis for each stage had a different focus. The process was similar in all cases. I began
with a relevant set of data, in each case, a portion of the data types shown above, and
reviewed them for major themes. Initially, I collected the data and kept notes related to
my evolving understanding of emerging themes. I used processes along the lines of open
coding, marking the data record in ways that would aid the identification of major themes
and returned to sections of the data for closer scrutiny. For the second phase of the
classroom-based research, I used the qualitative data analysis software, Atlas.ti 5.2, to
assist with data organization and coding. As I identified important themes in the data, I
continued to write memos linking my observations to work going on in the heritage
language field and to other contexts linked to the historical backgrounds of participants;
this process of relating the mediated actions in the immediate context to their histories is
what Scollon & Scollon refer to as ―circumferencing‖, discussed above. This was always
a crucial step in the analysis cycle because these decisions resulted in my selection of a
72
framework for each part of the analysis. Also, going through this process led me to
consider the broader social context, and in turn, helped me articulate why the analysis
was significant beyond the more immediate context of the classroom.
Finally, as I proposed thematic analyses, I iteratively evaluated my work by reflecting
back on additional data and comparing the findings across different themes. A very
important part of this process was the final step of nexus analysis, or changing the nexus
of practice. This took place to some extent in the local setting through my discussions
with the Program Director. To a greater extent, my work had an effect on the larger
heritage language discourse through my involvement with the Alliance for the
Advancement of Heritage Languages. Many of my emerging analyses were incorporated
into a series of Frequently Asked Questions I wrote or co-authored for the Alliance and
are now available on the Alliance‘s web site (Kelleher, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d;
Kelleher, Haynes, & Moore, 2009). I include these FAQs in Appendix A.
The two following examples show how I linked different levels of analysis,
incorporating some of the early analysis in memo writing into my arguments.
The first example draws on the following memo from my field notes, dated July 28,
2008:
The introduction to Sun, 2006 gives a succinct, politically evasive, overview of
the rationale for the formation of Putonghua [P.R.C.-based Standard Mandarin]
and indirectly rationalizes why it is this form of language that is taught to foreign
language learners. The same rationale underlies the teaching of Putonghua to
learners in the local context I am examining (and it is not very risky to claim in
most settings where Mandarin is taught). While this volume is a "linguistic
73
introduction" and one who is well-steeped in the traditions of linguistics as a field
would expect a 'descriptive' rather than 'prescriptive' account of the language, the
explanations in this brief introduction are packed with prescriptivism. The most
marked comes up in a description of official school-based Putonghua
development for Cantonese-speaking children (Cantonese described as a
hanfangyan, or a "Chinese dialect" p. 6). Sun's discussion of Putonghua
development for children who speak Cantonese (or other "Chinese dialects"). The
author states:
‗All Han-Chinese children, particularly those growing up in dialectspeaking areas, must learn to write in this literary language in school. Fortunately,
in spite of some minor structural variations, the syntactic structures in putonghua
and the various dialects do not differ substantially, thus making learning less
onerous for dialect-speaking children.‘ (Sun, 2006, p. 8)
At the time I wrote this, I had been reviewing the data from stage two of this study,
focusing on students‘ comments that they felt knowing Cantonese made learning
Mandarin more difficult, rather than easier. I wanted to explore ways that this sentiment
was at odds with the general perception that Cantonese-background students, as heritage
learners, are at an advantage over more typical foreign language learners. I was also
looking at examples where Cantonese was mentioned in the classroom, and was
considering in what ways the teacher used it expressly to help teach Mandarin. In a move
that exemplifies the nexus analysis process of circumferencing, I was seeking the
smallest and largest timescales that apply to a mediate action. The smallest scale was that
occurring in the classroom, and I had empirical data from my field notes concerning that
74
end of the time scale. I sought out sources to link the very immediate context to the broad
history of the relationship between varieties of Chinese. I looked at a number of sources,
but chose Sun (2006) because the general tenor of the historical description, was in
keeping with other linguistic sources and the tone of the introduction was similar to
characterizations found in many Chinese language textbooks. Further, the source
specifically discusses Cantonese, which is of central importance to this study.
After reading the introduction, I made the notes above and later, after writing up the
description and discussion of the classroom events, tied these note in to my analysis.
Comments by the Program Directly in response to some of these reflections led me to
clarify my arguments as they are presented in Chapter 7. These notes and reflections
became a main link between the previous chapter (Chapter 6) on ―dialect‖ and identity,
and the final data chapter concerning pedagogic practices. This note is an example of my
first reflections on just how it is that normative views of Cantonese as a dialect are
transmitted in the classroom. In my discussion of the significance of this practice, I
viewed the situation from a number of angles and brought up a range of issues: the
teacher used this as a way to build camaraderie with the students; the students‘ diverse
backgrounds led to uneven engagement with this kind of classroom practice; the practice
itself reinforces a particular set of beliefs about Cantonese that leaves it in a one-down
position relative to Mandarin. This process of observation, reflection and writing led to a
linking between classroom practices and larger discourses about the status of Cantonese
as a dialect and ―Chinese‖, meaning the writing system and spoken Standard Mandarin,
as a language.
75
The second example shows how I incorporated my memos into my analysis with more
of a focus on how I found significance in classroom interactions. In my field notes from
October 31, 2007, I wrote:
Through this exercise, the students were mostly replying to W [the teacher] in
Mandarin, but there seems to be a pattern that their first response will be in
Mandarin, but if W asks follow-up questions, the students may switch to English.
In this classroom activity, the students were practicing a unit on expressing time. They
began by reading (chorally and individually) questions and answers about daily
schedules. The teacher moved the class from hypothetical answers to asking them about
their real schedules. The teacher asked some of the students about when they went to bed
and when they ate. Many of them went to bed very late (2 a.m. or later) and got up late in
the morning. She remarked (in Mandarin) that one of the student‘s eating schedules was
very erratic (using the word ―luan‖). As she asked more students about their real
schedules, she was inclined to follow up with additional questions, as in this case when
she asked if the student‘s schedule was erratic. In these instances, the students would
switch from Mandarin to English in their responses, and led me to make the observation
quoted above. Later, as I was writing about identity and classroom practices, this
observation and reflection became part of my understanding of how the students used
English to interact with the teacher, and that while they could understand her questions
about content not related to the lesson, they were either unwilling or unable to continue to
use Mandarin when the discussion moved too far from the material in the textbook.
Observing these instances of code-switching in classroom, and reflecting on the
ambiguity around the practice, forced me to consider more carefully why certain topics
76
about language and identity were handled in a relatively superficial way in the classroom.
I found this significant in my discussion of the way the terms for ―American‖ and
―Chinese‖, referring to people‘s identities, were presented and used in the classroom. My
conclusion that discussing the nuance of these terms would not really be possible was, in
part, related to this observation, and other similar observations, about language use in the
classroom.
Through these examples, it is possible to see how I connected specific classroom
observations to practical and theoretical considerations that can help teachers and
researchers understand what some of the hidden impacts of these practices are for
students. In my analysis, I continued to look for these types of links, between what was
immediately observable, to what the participants said to me in interviews, and finally to
the larger contexts of which the individuals and the classroom were a part. While
presented in a certain order, all of the stages of analysis became mutually informing.
77
Chapter 4. Reading the “heritage language” discourse: Emerging framings of
heritage learners and language in the U.S
1. Introduction
In this chapter I explore how the emerging ―heritage language‖ field can be examined
and better understood through a discourse analytic approach. The analysis is, in part, textbased, focusing specifically on how the terms and concepts ―heritage language‖ and
―heritage language learner‖ are used in the first four issues of the Heritage Language
Journal, the first research-based publication in the U.S. exclusively dedicated to heritage
language studies. In the analysis, I show how the terms are constructed against existing
concepts in the fields of Applied Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and
Linguistics. In this way, I show underlying characteristics of the current debates over
definitions and reveal how different definitions tend to expand or narrow the scope of a
―heritage language field‖.
I argue that the disparate tendencies that are evident in the way the terms are used
result from differences in disciplinary perspective, and, in turn, they tend to reinforce
conflicting ideologies about the nature of language. The most significant difference is
whether the priority is on studying ―heritage language‖ in purely linguistic terms, in a
classic sense according to grammatical structure, or whether the focus is on language in
its social context. The impact that this difference in focus has on language education is
significant. When ―heritage learners‖ are defined narrowly, according to specific
proficiencies, the importance of identity and affiliation in language learning is rendered
invisible. This can be expected to have real consequences in terms of the development of
78
heritage language education curricula, materials, policies and general understanding
about the meaning and significance of being a ―heritage language‖ student.
I first began doing research in this setting in the Spring of 2004 when I interviewed a
classmate from my third-year Mandarin class. I was taking a course on bilingualism and
was interested in learning about how the bilingualism of my classmate framed her
experiences of studying Mandarin as a college student. The classmate I interviewed was
born in Taiwan and moved to the U.S. when she was six years old. I began doing a
review of the literature to find out how applied linguists were approaching research
questions related to students with a family background in a ―foreign‖ language. At the
time, I had not heard the term ―heritage language‖ before, so my initial approach to this
small project was framed by the structure of course offerings in the Chinese department,
which at the time offered two tracks in the early levels of Mandarin study, one designated
―regular‖ and the other ―bilingual‖. What I found was that rather than refer to students
like my classmate as ―bilingual‖, most of the relevant research used the term ―heritage‖
to refer to such learners and to the language of study.
I also learned that the term was in ascendance in the U.S., related to a growing interest
in such students and their possible potential to reach higher levels of achievement than
‗traditional‘ foreign language learners. This is not a new idea and is mentioned by
Bloomfield as early as 1933 (1961, first published in 1933). I found that the situation in
the U.S. contrasted with that of Canada, where ―heritage‖ became increasingly common
as a term to refer to ―foreign‖ languages (languages other than English or French)
through the 1970‘s and 1980‘s but was falling out of favor by the 1990‘s (Tavares, 2000).
In contrast, in the U.S., use of the term ―heritage‖ was just picking up in the late 1990‘s.
79
In 1998 with Luce Foundation funding, the first U.S. conference on heritage languages
was held, sponsored by the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) at the University
of Maryland, College Park, the Center for Applied Linguistics, and California State
University, Long Beach. Additional conferences and publications followed, including the
publication of the volume, Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National
Resource, (Peyton et al., 2001) and, in 2006, the establishment of a new National
Heritage Language Resource Center at UCLA. It was this thread of research, focusing on
heritage languages in the U.S., that I found to be most closely aligned with the kinds of
questions I had in mind at the time.
While I found a body of literature that focused on similar research questions, adopting
this term ―heritage language‖ as a theoretical construct in my own research was never
simple or comfortable. As I continued a qualitative research project in the setting,
observing a wide range of abilities and histories in the students who seemed to fit the
general description of a ―heritage language learner‖ according to the vast array of explicit
and implicit definitions in the literature, I realized that I still had many questions about
the appropriateness or relevance of the term to my project. The following analysis is my
attempt to take a step back from the specifics of the term and view the fields of meaning
through which the terms ―heritage language‖ and ―heritage language learner‖ are being
constructed. As with all terms, there is a dynamic tension between fixing the definition,
particularly for a technical meaning and purposes of research, and the constantly shifting
semantic terrain encoded through the symbolic nature of the sign in a dynamic and
diverse set of social environments. While some researchers may prioritize fixing the
meaning of these terms to accommodate a particular approach to research, there will
80
always be an opposing tendency for the meanings to change; further, non-expert
understanding, even that of teachers and the students who are labeled with these terms
will not conform to expert definitions.
Despite this fact, it has been the fixedness that the literature has tended to focus on
with the intent of creating a term to capture a particular reality that makes sense to a
researcher or educator for a particular purpose and within a certain theoretical orientation
toward language and language development. This analysis asks, what dynamic tensions
exist in the cycle of fixedness and fluidity? What rationales are offered for fixing the
definitions? The analysis focuses on a body of literature that is most prominently
constructed as focusing on ―heritage‖ languages in the U.S.—that is, the articles from the
first few issues of the Heritage Language Journal. The journal is U.S.-based and clearly
tied to foreign language education and individual achievement. I argue these
characteristics tend to set the use of the term ―heritage language‖ apart from a broader
discussion of minority languages and of language maintenance and shift.
In this chapter I contrast the Heritage Language Journal (HLJ) use of the terms
―heritage language‖ and ―heritage language learner‖ with a critical review of concerns in
the broader heritage language discourse to highlight some major tensions in these two
distinct but inter-related areas of discussion. Further, I show how separate definitions of
―heritage language‖ and ―heritage language learner‖ allow the language education and
language policy threads to remain connected, albeit tenuously. I argue that, in keeping
with an emerging consensus view of heritage language education, the field must seek its
theoretical foundations in approaches to language study that address a broad range of
81
concerns, including the social, political, cultural and linguistic aspects of language
development.
2. The “Heritage” language discourse
In the past decade or more in the United States, use of the term ―heritage‖ to describe
languages and language learners has gained a high degree of prominence (Cummins,
2005, p. 38; McGinnis, 2005; Wiley, 2005). Two distinct strands of discussion, one
centered on language policy and the other on language education, are evident in the broad
U.S.-based heritage language discourse. The language policy thread is exemplified by a
Perspectives piece published in the Modern Language Journal (MLJ) (Byrnes, 2005). In
the MLJ, a conversation among scholars about heritage languages is framed by Jim
Cummins (2005) around issues of language policy and planning, concentrating on the
sociopolitical status of languages other than English in the U.S.
In the journal, Cummins points out that it was not until the late 1990‘s that the term
―heritage language‖ gained prominence in scholarly work on language policy. However,
its adoption into the U.S. language education landscape, the second major thread of this
discourse, began a bit earlier. While language policy and language education are
intertwined in complex ways (e.g., Baker, 2003; Ramanathan & Morgan, 2007), in this
paper I argue that there is a tendency to separate these two threads of discussion in the
U.S.-based heritage language discourse in ways that relate to the discipline-specific terms
in language education and Second Language Acquisition.
Use of the term ―heritage‖ in the language education context began in the early 1990‘s
and was codified with its incorporation into the 1996 edition of the National Foreign
Language Standards, published by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
82
Languages (ACTFL) (Valdés, 2001). Within the Standards, ―heritage‖, as applied to
language learners, is used to recognize and account for the fact that some students of
languages other than English in the U.S. come from homes where the language of study
is spoken and therefore is not a ‗foreign language‘ in the traditional sense7. How these
students differ from ‗traditional‘ foreign language learners is now a focus of research
from a range of theoretical perspectives on language and education. A central debate that
has arisen concerning heritage language education concerns who should be considered a
―heritage language learner‖ and to a lesser degree, what constitutes a ―heritage language‖
(e.g. Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005; Carreira, 2004; Fishman, 2001; Hornberger & Wang,
2008; Valdés, 2001, 2005; Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003).
From the perspective of foreign language education, use of the term ―heritage‖ by an
organization like ACTFL to describe language learners can be viewed in a positive light.
7
An issue that emerges in a number of different forms is the problem of using the term ―heritage‖ to refer
to a specific class of languages based on sociopolitical considerations in a particular setting. At times, the
term used to designate an entire category of languages, as in Canada, where it was used in some settings to
refer to those languages that are neither official (French and English) nor indigenous (for a discussion of
use of the term in Canada, see Tavares, 2000). But the term is also used to signal a relationship between a
language and an individual (Spanish is a ―heritage language‖ relative to some students in the U.S. but not
others). Additionally, we all have a ―heritage‖ and using the term to refer to a specific class of languages
renders majority cultures (and languages) immune from conceptions of ―heritage‖, inadvertently supporting
the detrimental perception that it is only ―minorities‖ who have a heritage. In the U.S. context, perhaps
English is only revealed as ―heritage language‖ when children (or adults) move abroad and are educated in
new languages, but even for monolinguals who remain in the U.S., English is a ―heritage‖ language in a
compositional sense. These issues are beyond the scope of this analysis, but are centrally implicated in the
findings.
83
Its adoption can be taken as a challenge to the double standard that values elective second
language or ―elite‖ bilingualism over the bilingualism of linguistic minorities and
immigrants (for a summary see Pavlenko, 2005, pp. 24-25). In this vein, the Statement of
Philosophy in the National Foreign Language Standards strikes a broadly optimistic and
egalitarian tone:
Language and communication are at the heart of the human experience. The
United States must educate students who are linguistically and culturally equipped
to communicate successfully in a pluralistic American society and abroad. This
imperative envisions a future in which ALL students will develop and maintain
proficiency in English and at least one other language, modern or classical.
Children who come to school from non-English backgrounds should also have
opportunities to develop further proficiencies in their first language. (ACTFL,
n.d.)
However, this ideal is still very far from the realities on the ground (for a critique of the
Standards, see Ortega, 1999), and both attitudes and logistics get in the way of moving
toward this vision of educational support for multilingualism in the U.S.
In the one study of which I am aware that critically examines the U.S.-based heritage
language discourse, Ricento (2005) concludes that viewing this turn in an optimistic way
is premature at best. Ricento brings attention to potential problems with the way the
heritage language discussion is being framed, examining use of the ―language-asresource‖ metaphor (Ruíz, 1984) in the ―heritage language movement‖ (Peyton et al.,
2001, p. 6). The metaphor characterizes the expertise that ethnolinguistic community
members have in languages other than English as an ―untapped‖ national resource, and
84
that this national resource needs to be developed for the good of the country. He
concludes that promoting heritage languages by focusing on the resource metaphor may
result in increased federal dollars for language education, but does little to increase
popular support for, ―…the teaching, maintenance, and use of minority languages in the
U.S.‖ (Ricento, 2005, p. 348). From the language planning and policy perspective of his
analysis, the promise of a heritage discourse breaking down ideological barriers remains
unfulfilled.
It is possible to read the resource metaphor in a different way. Language-as-resource
from the perspective of the individual is also a recurring theme in the heritage language
discourse (McGinnis, 2005). This is particularly strong in the work on Spanish in the
U.S., where a major concern has been validating the bilingual abilities that students bring
with them to classes and resisting the negative effects of standard language ideologies
that devalue ‗contact‘ varieties of Spanish (i.e., Colombi & Alarcón, 1997). As Garcia‘s
(2005) MLJ Perspectives piece so clearly points out, this leaves the heritage discourse in
a position full of ambivalence, on the one hand promoting the ―plural transcultural
identities‖ that express lived realities of Spanish-English bilinguals in the U.S. today, but
on the other hand, harkening back to the past and rendering languages other than English
―powerless and unimportant‖ (p. 605).
As it has emerged, the heritage language field is bound up in an attempt to cut across
specific languages, contexts and disciplinary perspectives (Alatis, 2001). Yet it now
appears that the field is becoming centered around foreign language education which
introduces a particular frame for definitional debates and introduces new questions tied to
the potential of the field. Will the field promote the ―plural transcultural identities‖
85
Garcia envisions or will it tend to maintain monolingual ideologies, with bilingualism
limited to ―two solitudes‖, languages rigidly separated as Cummins describes the
perspective perpetuated by many bilingual or dual language programs (2005, p. 588)?
This paper grounds a discussion of some of the complexity behind definitions in the
heritage language discourse in an analysis of the terms ―heritage language‖ and ―heritage
language learner‖ as they are used in the articles of the Heritage Language Journal (HLJ),
published since 2003. The journal is overtly representative of the language education
strand of the larger heritage language discourse, but is fundamentally connected to the
language policy and planning strand as well. The central questions I address are:
1) How are the terms ―heritage language‖ and ―heritage language learner‖ both
explicitly defined and implicitly defined as they are operationalized in the articles of
the HLJ?
2) How does their use mesh with the related literature on the sociopolitics of heritage
languages in the U.S.?
I draw on Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 1995b) and a Cognitive Grammar
understanding of semantics (Langacker, 1987) to address the first question by examining
meanings of the terms in the first four issues of the HLJ (2003-2006). To address the
second question, I discuss findings from the analysis within a critical review of the
broader, U.S.-based heritage language discussion. In this way, I place the text analysis in
a historical frame and ground some of the existing definitional debates in an empirical
investigation of how these terms are being deployed in the building of a ―heritage
language field‖ (Kagan & Dillon, 2003a). The analysis reveals a number of latent,
disciplinary tensions that remain to be explored.
86
3. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Grammar: Theory and methods
The theoretical framework for this analysis combines Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) (Fairclough, 1995b, 2003) with an understanding of semantics based on Cognitive
Grammar (Langacker, 1987). In a sense, this analysis sets out to explore the ―…history of
the present—changing discursive practices as part of wider processes of social and
cultural change,‖ a focus that Fairclough sees as the central, but often neglected, work of
critical analysts (1995b, p. 19). CDA, as a methodological framework, is geared toward
connecting levels of "text, discourse practice and sociocultural practice" (1995b, p. 9)
facilitating the merger of a text-based analysis with considerations of text-external social
conditions.
I view the link between texts, social contexts and historical conditions as being
informed by Giddens‘ notion of structuration (1984). Structuration is based on the
concept that social relations are subject to a ―duality of structure‖ whereby, ―…the
structural properties of social systems are both medium and outcome of the practices they
recursively organize‖ and where structure is, ―…always both constraining and enabling‖
(Giddens, 1984, p. 25). The analysis is not meant to imply a deterministic relationship
between the way terms are used (language understood here to be a type of social practice)
and social outcomes, but rather to highlight how actors construct meanings for the terms
heritage language and heritage language learner that are situated relative to their
disciplinary perspectives and suit their particular research and/or pedagogical aims,
opening up new discursive spaces in relationship to existing terms and constructions in
their fields.
87
I believe that there is analytical value in viewing definitional debates in the heritage
discourse as the process by which certain terms are becoming conventional expressions in
the Cognitive Grammar (CG) sense of (Langacker, 1987) within a newly-forming speech
community. This model for understanding semantics is a useful complement to CDA in
this case (see Lee, 1997, for an example of a similar framework). Formal approaches to
lexical semantics, based on a “criterial-attribute model of categorization” (Langacker,
1987, p. 49), have traditionally sought to express the meanings of words through the use
of semantic features. In contrast CG rejects the idea that the meaning of a word can be
arrived at through a set of “necessary and sufficient” semantic features, but that social
context plays a part in formations of meaning. Further, CG contends that it is not only at
the level of the word that meanings are conventionalized; rather symbolic units—
mappings between categories of meanings and a phonological representation—occur at
levels from the morpheme to collocations of multiple words. I raise these issues because I
believe it is important to examine how larger units of meaning, heritage language learner
and heritage language, are being concretized separately as conventional expressions in
the heritage discourse.
The analysis applies Langacker’s conceptualization of how meaning is derived for
complex symbolic units (for a full description, see Langacker, 1987, pp. 448-466).
Langacker considers complex symbolic units to be composite (components derived from
the lexical items and the context, making up a whole), rather than compositional (a
building-block metaphor), where the whole may contain information not predicted by the
component parts in isolation. In Langacker’s terms, “A composite structure derives
systemic motivation from its components, but is not assembled out of them. Nothing
88
intrinsically requires that the motivation be full rather than partial, or prevents the
inclusion of unanticipated content” (1987, p. 463). It is the case with conventional
expressions as complex symbolic units that they are interpretable in a particular way
given a certain environment or set of background understandings. As the expression in
the environment is conventionalized, it will come to retain specific features even when
decontextualized, for the speech community that is familiar with its use.
A final point with regard to semantics in CG is that the connection between
communities of speakers and symbolic units is taken to be of central importance, unlike
more traditional approaches to lexical semantics (Cruse, 1986). Some of the core
assumptions about semantics in CG are reflected in earlier frame semantics work in
Cognitive Linguistics by Fillmore, who states, “With respect to word meanings, frame
semantic research can be thought of as the effort to understand what reason a speech
community might have found for creating the category represented by the word, and to
explain the word’s meaning by presenting and clarifying that reason” (Fillmore,
1982/2006, p. 374). In this analysis the term “speech community” is understood to mean
a group of individuals who share discipline-based ways of thinking that emerge as from a
“community of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991) or “thought collective” (Ramanathan,
2002). In this case, (principally) academics participating in the heritage language
discourse use terms and concepts in specific ways that mark shared world views, but
because researchers come from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, conventional
expressions using the term “heritage” are emerging with a broad range of meanings.
To investigate this range of meanings, I began the process of analysis with an
examination of collocations using the word heritage in each of the 15 regular articles
89
published from 2003 through 2006 in the Heritage Language Journal. After recording and
organizing the occurrences thematically and accounting for patterns of modification, the
two most common uses, heritage language learner and heritage language, were further
analyzed. I conducted a general overview of the articles focusing on article topics
(languages, contexts), types (empirical study, literature review, proposal), and whether
the authors take terms like heritage language learner and heritage language to be given
constructs or address the complexity behind the labels and their applicability to particular
contexts. The findings are discussed in light of the larger heritage discourse, highlighting
tensions that emerge.
4. Analysis of the use of the terms heritage language learner and heritage language in
the Heritage Language Journal
4.1 Overview of articles
4.1.a. Article topics in the HLJ
The following statement is given as the scope of publication for the Heritage
Language Journal: ―The Heritage Language Journal invites submissions of articles based
on original research in all areas related to the study of heritage language education,
including linguistics, applied linguistics, psychology, sociology, education, language
acquisition, and foreign language methodology‖ ("Heritage Language Journal," How to
submit an article). While this cuts a wide swath, there are distinct areas of concentration
in the articles published through 2006 in the HLJ. Table 1 is a summary by language and
educational setting of the 15 articles in volumes 1-4 of the HLJ.
90
Table 4.1. Language and education context for articles analyzed.
Chinese
Higher
Education
2
Japanese
1
Russian
1
Spanish
4
General (no
specific
language focus)
Western
Armenian
2
Higher/Secondary Community
Education
Schools
Crosscontext
1
2
1
1 (this article does not deal with language education but rather
with phonology in language contact)
Volume 4 was a special issue on Chinese as a heritage language and there were plans for
other special issues on Russian and Korean (Kagan & Dillon, 2006). While not stated
explicitly within the journal, the HLJ up through volume 4, 2006 concentrated on the
higher education setting and on languages with increasing heritage language learner
enrollments.
4.1.b. Article types in the HLJ
The articles can be further categorized by type—whether they report findings of an
empirical study or primarily review literature and propose a definition, theory, research
agenda or pedagogical approach. Two articles (Carreira, 2004; He, 2006) have an
empirical component but also heavily emphasize a proposal component and are listed in
both categories. These boundaries should be considered somewhat flexible, but this
classification does capture major distinctions and gives a brief summary of each article‘s
focus.
91
Table 4.2. Article types and topics.
Empirical studies
Martinez (2003)
Matsunaga (2004)
Carreira (2004)
Godson (2005)
Beaudrie & Ducar (2005)
Chinen & Tucker (2005)
Lacorte & Canabal (2006)
He (2006)
Weger-Guntharp (2006)
Xiao (2003)
Critical discourse analysis of ―Spanish for heritage
learners‖ textbooks.
Comparison of reading ability—heritage, kanji background
(Chinese), and foreign language learner college students.
Chicago-area Spanish teachers‘ classification of five
university student profiles (HL or SLA track).
Phonological features of Western Armenian vowels in
contact with English.
Survey of Spanish language exposure, attitudes and
behaviors among students in a beginning level university
―Spanish heritage language‖ class.
Ethnic identity study of students enrolled in a community
Japanese school. Survey methodology; quantitative results
presented.
Ethnographic study/metaphor analysis of university-level
Spanish teachers‘ beliefs and practices relating to heritage
language learners in advanced-level Spanish classes.
Conversation analysis of student-teacher interactions in
Chinese community school classes.
Motivation survey of Chinese heritage language learners
(CHLL) and non-CHLL students enrolled in the ―nonheritage‖ track of a university Chinese program.
Two proficiency studies comparing university-level
heritage and ―non-heritage‖ learners to investigate whether
home language background facilitates Chinese language
reading and writing.
Literature Review/Proposals
Kondo-Brown (2003)
Broad overview of heritage language instruction at the
post-secondary level, including critique of and
recommendations for research.
Lynch (2003b)
Proposes and argues for an SLA research agenda along the
lines of Ellis (1994) as the basis for a ―Heritage Language
Acquisition‖ field.
Kagan & Dillon (2004)
Proposes sets of different pedagogical needs for ―nonheritage‖ versus heritage learners of Russian.
Chevalier (2004)
Proposes a model of literacy development for postsecondary heritage learners.
Carreira (2005)
Proposes a ―dual-approach‖ and 4-part definition for
―heritage language learner‖.
Douglas (2006)
Presents a theoretical framework for curriculum
development in ―Japanese as a Heritage Language‖
schools.
He (2004)
Proposes a theory of ―Chinese as a Heritage Language‖
development based on language socialization, conversation
analysis and SLA.
92
It is clear that the articles in the HLJ represent the building of a heritage language field
from both theoretical and empirical perspectives, with classroom and speaker-based
studies being complemented by proposals (for both theory and practice) that draw on
expertise from existing disciplinary perspectives. But in terms of defining heritage
language learners and heritage language, central constructs for this emerging field, the
issue remains an area of active debate. The following sections of analysis concentrate on
how the two terms are explicitly defined and how they are actually used (their implicit
definitions) in the HLJ articles.
4.2 Explicit definitions of the terms heritage language learner and heritage language
4.2.a. Overview of terms used for the concept “heritage language learner”
Through a collocation analysis, I found that ―heritage language learner‖ is a
frequently-occurring term in the articles of the HLJ. The term appeared as such in 9 of
the 15 articles (Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005; Carreira, 2004; Chevalier, 2004; Chinen &
Tucker, 2005; Kagan & Dillon, 2003b; Kondo-Brown, 2003; Lacorte & Canabal, 2005;
Lynch, 2003; Martinez, 2003). Of the six studies that never used the exact term ―heritage
language learner‖ five use a shortened form, ―heritage learner‖ or ―heritage student‖, or
the addition of a specific language, i.e. ―Japanese heritage learners‖ and ―Chinese as a
heritage language learners‖ (CHLL) (Douglas, 2005; He, 2006; Matsunaga, 2003;
Weger-Guntharp, 2006; Xiao, 2006). The term ―heritage speaker‖ is also used
prominently in a number of articles to refer to individuals among this student population
or potentially so (Chinen & Tucker, 2005; Kagan & Dillon, 2003b; Lynch, 2003). The
only article that does not use any of these variants is Godson (2004); the term ―heritage
speaker‖ appears in the title only, with the label ―interrupted acquirer‖ used in its place
93
throughout the article, describing Western Armenian/English bilingual speakers who
were exposed to Western Armenian since birth and began learning English before age 8.
The term ―interrupted acquirer‖ is contrasted with ―monolingual‖ and ―uninterrupted
acquirer‖ (those who did not begin learning English until they were adults). Findings
presented below use the italicized heritage language learner to refer to the general
concept, regardless of the specific terms the authors use.
4.2.b. Explicit definitions of “heritage language learner”
Explicit definitions fall into two broad categories, here referred to as ―restrictedheritage language learner‖ (after Valdés, 2005) and ―expansive-heritage language
learner‖. The articles in the HLJ provide a background discussion of the population(s)
under consideration, in most cases citing an explicit definition of heritage language
learner or giving the author‘s own working definition.
The first set of definitions are those that are explicitly restricted for pedagogical
purposes (Valdés, 2001, 2005; Wiley, 2001), taking proficiency in the heritage language
into account, in addition to some type of ―heritage‖ connection (typically family or
ancestry). This ―restricted-heritage language learner‖ definition is included in 13 of the
15 articles in the HLJ. Table 3 lists the articles that draw on Valdés‘s definition8 and
those that draw on another definition, either their own or one from another source.
8
Valdés states, ―Foreign language educators use the term to refer to a language student who is raised in a
home where a non-English language is spoken, speaks or at least understands the language, and who is to
some degree bilingual in that language and English (Valdés, 2000a, 2000b)‖ (Valdés, 2001)
94
Table 4.3. Sources for proficiency-based definitions of heritage language learner.
Articles that cite Valdés‘
proficiency-based definition
Articles that provide another
proficiency-based definition
Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005; Carreira, 2004; Chevalier,
2004; Chinen & Tucker, 2005; He, 2006; Kagan &
Dillon, 2003b; Kondo-Brown, 2003.
Douglas, 2005; Lacorte & Canabal, 2005; Lynch,
2003; Matsunaga, 2003; Weger-Guntharp, 2006;
Xiao, 2006.
Of the two remaining articles, Martinez (2003) does not explicitly give or cite a definition
and Godson (2004) gives a description of an ―incomplete acquirer‖ who is not assumed to
be a language learner. Also, Carreira (2004) proposes a new, explicit definition, one part
of which includes the ―restricted-heritage language learner‖ but incorporates ―expansiveheritage language learners‖ as well.
The second type of definition, the ―expansive-heritage language learner‖, centers on
the concept of a student who is a learner of her/his heritage language (in a sociopolitical
sense, similar to ‗minority language‘, without restriction based on proficiency), and
highlights minority community affiliation. An explicit definition of this type of learner
comes up in three articles of the HLJ (Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005; Carreira, 2004; KondoBrown, 2003) but for different reasons. Kondo-Brown (2003) mentions such learners in
part, to give sociopolitical background to her review, but primarily as a way of limiting
the scope of discussion for pedagogical purposes, similar to Wiley (2001). Kondo-Brown
then cites Valdés‘ (2001) proficiency-based definition of heritage language learner as
being relevant for her article. In contrast, Beaudrie and Ducar (2005) begin their article
citing Valdés‘ definition, but in their conclusions, return to Wiley‘s (2001)
characterization of what I am calling here ―expansive-heritage language learners‖ and
explicitly call for a broader definition that includes such learners. Carreira (2004)
95
includes both types of learners in the definition she constructs, but says that labeling the
―expansive-heritage language learner‖ as a heritage language learner is descriptively
adequate only, and that it is the proficiency-based definitions of learner types that are
explanatory for language teaching.
In the HLJ, it is clear that ―expansive-heritage language learners‖ are not often
explicitly discussed and there are only two direct calls for inclusion of these learners in
the definition of heritage language learner. Rather, it is overwhelmingly a ―restrictedheritage language learner‖ who is explicitly drawn on in the framing of knowledge
production in the HLJ.
4.2.c Explicit definitions of “heritage language”
The term heritage language is used in 14 of the 15 articles in the HLJ, the only
exception being Godson (2004). Unlike the concept of heritage language learner which
was explicitly defined in all but two of the articles in the HLJ, the term heritage language
is explicitly defined in only two articles. The two definitions mark opposite poles of use,
corresponding to ―restricted‖ and ―expansive‖ uses of the term, depending upon the
inclusion of a proficiency restriction, as with heritage language learner. The first
definition, relating to a ―restricted-heritage language‖, comes from Kondo-Brown (2003):
For example, from the 'personal' perspective of an individual leaner, whether or
not one may view his or her ancestral language as HL [heritage language] seems
to depend on the degree of association one establishes between one's own identity
and the ancestral language (e.g., an African American student studying Swahili)
(Wiley 2001)… From the perspective of language educators in the U.S., on the
other hand, the term 'heritage language' is usually connected with an endangered
96
indigenous or immigrant language, and an HL learner is one 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" (Valdés 2001: 38). (Kondo-Brown, 2003, sec. 1, paragraph 2)
Here it appears that Kondo-Brown extends Valdés‘ proficiency restriction to the term
heritage language itself, although the extension is not direct. In this passage, the focus
shifts from heritage language to learner, but the use of ―ancestral language‖ as a
counterpoint to ―heritage language‖ implies that the author does not consider the two to
be equivalent, with proficiency the necessary ingredient for the designation ―HL‖.
This is in contrast to the definition of heritage language given in Chinen & Tucker
(2005), taken from a job announcement for a position at the University of California, San
Diego:
The term 'heritage language' denotes a language other than English that is
associated with an individual's ethnic or cultural background and a 'heritage
speaker' is someone who speaks or understands a language (other than English)
that was spoken at home. (LSA Bulletin No 177, October 2002: 31-32). (Chinen
& Tucker, 2005, introduction, paragraph 2)
In this case, heritage language is not restricted by proficiency, but rather by two criteria:
1) being a language that is not English; and 2) having a connection through ―ethnic or
cultural background.‖ In contrast, ―heritage speaker‖ is restricted by some measure of
proficiency.
4.3 Implicit definitions: how the terms are framed within SLA and language education
4.3.a Conventional expressions in SLA and language education
97
The terms heritage language learner and heritage language are used in the HLJ
relative to other conventional expressions commonly associated with areas such as SLA,
language education, bilingualism, and language policy and planning. A majority of the
operating definitions in the articles can be mapped out relative to a set of established
terms, highlighting both their composite structure as conventional expressions
(Langacker, 1987) and the high degree of polysemy the terms exhibit.
With regard to SLA and language education, two basic levels of division pertinent to
the present discussion can be expressed as follows in Figure 4.1:
Primary distinction:
Secondary distinction:
L1
L2
foreign language
second language
Figure 4.1. Basic terminological distinctions in SLA.
The figure shows that the term ―second language‖ is polysemous (distinguished
orthographically here, L2/second language), a point of confusion that is discussed in the
introduction to Ellis (1994). A primary distinction is regularly made between L1 and L2,
and can refer to a particular language at the level of the individual (i.e. personally, I can
say that my first language is English and I am a second language speaker of Mandarin),
but is also related to a kind of acquisition process9. A secondary distinction is also used
to mark a certain set of conditions in which language development is taking place, and
9
This distinction is closely related to the Critical Period Hypothesis and is not without controversy. How
bilingual language development differs from monolingual language development was not traditionally
addressed within the SLA research paradigm, but treated in the separate field of bilingualism. But as this
perspective has changed (i.e. Heller, 2007), positing ―heritage language acquisition‖ as a counterpoint to
an already-problematized L1/L2 distinction raises significant concerns.
98
thus is associated with language learners, where ―second language‖ stands in opposition
to the term ―foreign language‖. ―Foreign language learner‖ is a good example of how a
conventional expression exhibits Langacker‘s idea of ―composite structure‖. Within SLA,
―foreign language learner‖ conventionally refers to a learner in a formal education setting
where the language is not spoken in the larger society, and further that the student has no
prior knowledge of the language or knowledge that is limited to development through
―foreign language‖ classes (Ellis, 1994, pp. 11-12). Clearly this understanding is
discipline-specific and not a strictly compositional meaning amounting to an exact
equivalent of ―learner of a foreign language,‖ which could signal all sorts of other
situations; for example, it could reasonably mean someone studying a language on their
own or living in a country where the language is spoken, i.e. a ―second language learner‖.
Keeping these distinctions in mind accomplishes two things: 1) it provides a conceptual
map for understanding some of the most common uses and assumptions underlying the
conventional expressions ―first language‖, ―second language‖ and ―foreign language‖
against which ―heritage language‖ is being constructed, and 2) it shows schematically
some of the ambiguity that already exists. This ambiguity is magnified with the
introduction of a heritage distinction.
4.3.b Implicit definitions of heritage language learner
The implicit definitions of heritage language learner for a majority of the articles in
the HLJ are of two types, each a variation on the ―restricted-heritage language learner‖
and associated with the introduction of the concept of ―heritage‖ at one of the two levels
in the figure above, as shown in Figure 4.2.
99
L1
(HL)
(heritage language)
L2
foreign language second language
Figure 4.2. ―Heritage language‖ distinguished at two levels.
The first type of ―restricted-heritage language learner‖ operates in a number of
articles, including Martinez (2003) and Chevalier (2004) on Spanish at the tertiary level,
Chinen & Tucker (2005) and Douglas (2005) on Japanese in community schools, and He
(2006) on Chinese across language education contexts but with a focus on community
schools. Here an understanding of ―heritage language‖ enters into the primary distinction
between ―first language‖ and ―second language‖ as a third language type (but not
focusing on ―acquisition process‖ as mentioned above and a point that will be discussed
below). These studies are not comparative, but rather focus on students from particular
ethnolinguistic communities, considering how their language development is, or could
be, best fostered in formal educational settings. The implicit definition has a proficiency
component due to an underlying assumption that students of this type are studying a
language that was spoken in the home. Here the meaning heritage language learner is
best understood as a student who is studying her/his heritage language (this is close to a
compositional interpretation, i.e. learner of a heritage language) and that proficiency is a
function of being part of an ethnolinguistic community. This is the same definition that
seems to be in operation within one of the early-emerging strains of U.S.-based research
on ―heritage speakers‖ (i.e. Cho, Cho, & Tse, 1997; Krashen et al., 1998; Tse, 2000).
At the level of the secondary distinction, a number of articles operationalize heritage
language learner primarily as a term that stands in opposition to ―foreign language
learner‖, including Kondo-Brown (2003), Matsunaga, (2003), Kagan & Dillon (2003b),
100
(in part) Carreira (2004), Lacorte & Canabal (2005), Weger-Guntharp (2006), and Xiao
(2006), all considering language development in higher education contexts. As with the
previous definition, this meaning is proficiency-restricted, assuming students have some
proficiency in the language of study because of home exposure, but in this case the term
heritage is describing a type of language learner. In these articles, the full meaning of the
resulting term cannot be predicted by a strictly compositional analysis of the term as ―one
who is studying a heritage language‖. This use of heritage language learner directly
contrasts with the conventional expression ‗foreign language learner‘ as it is understood
in the context of U.S. language education. All of these articles have some type of
contrastive focus and use the term ―non-heritage language learner‖ or something close to
it in addition to or as a substitute for ―foreign language learner‖. In such cases, heritage
language learners are the central focus and those who are not part of this group, by
definition or placement, have also been re-labeled.
Two of the articles operating with this understanding of heritage language learner
also problematize the definition. In the conclusion to Weger-Guntharp‘s (2006) article on
Chinese heritage language learners enrolled in elementary-level ―regular‖ classes of a
dual-track system, the author directly questions the utility of dividing learners this way.
Carreira also takes up this point, saying that for students who identify the language of
study as a part of their heritage but are not enrolled in the heritage track, ―…the
placement of these students into the SLA track constitutes a de facto negation their HL
identity‖ (2004, section "Not good enough for the HL track", paragraph 3).
The implicit definition of heritage language learner operating in Beaudrie & Ducar
(2005) expands on the two main operating definitions presented above. The authors use
101
an explicit proficiency-based definition to frame their study, but take it as a point of
departure only. In their conclusions they argue that the definition of heritage language
learner should do nothing to rule out learners, implying that anyone studying a language
with which they perceive a cultural connection should be considered a heritage language
learner without a proficiency restriction, i.e. the ―expansive-heritage language learner‖.
Similar to Carreira, the authors call for a two-part definition, one part that is proficiencyexclusive, to account for cultural connection and another part, which they characterize as
being relevant for pedagogical purposes, that takes proficiency into account. They give a
revised explicit definition for this second part, based on their study of learners in a
beginning level ―Spanish heritage language‖ class, as follows:
We prefer to use a more ample definition of HL learners, one that includes all
individuals that have experienced a relatively extended period of exposure to the
language, typically during childhood, through contact with family members or
other individuals, resulting in the development of either receptive and/or
productive abilities in the language, and varying degrees of bilingualism. This
definition allows for the inclusion of two groups of individuals: (1) those who
were exposed to Spanish through their families or relatives and (2) those who
were exposed to Spanish through contact with someone outside of the family (for
example a housekeeper or with friends in the surrounding community). (Beaudrie
& Ducar, 2005, section "Defining the heritage learner", paragraph 2)
Here the authors are pushing the boundary of proficiency-based definitions in a different
direction, to include all students who have developed abilities in the language in a
naturalistic manner, even if these students do not have what is traditionally considered a
102
―heritage‖ connection to the language. Taken together, their paper concludes with an
implicit definition of heritage language learner that is maximally inclusive,
incorporating all students who are studying their heritage language (meaning
family/ancestry connection) with or without pre-existing proficiency, and all students
with a particular proficiency profile, irrespective of family/ancestry connection.
Carreira (2004, section 1, paragraph 1) also calls for a definition with two parts, one
with a proficiency restriction (heritage language learner as opposed to a ―foreign
language learner‖) and one that does not (an ―expansive-heritage language learner‖
similar to the more compositional ―learner of a heritage language‖ based on cultural
connection). Her study of Chicago-area university Spanish instructors examined
hypothetical placement decisions of five students, all characterized as having Spanishspeaking family members. An implicit assumption in her definition is that the
connections to the language must have something to do with family, a perspective that is
seemingly shared by all of the authors discussed above, and expanded upon by Beaudrie
& Ducar.
4.3.c Implicit definitions of heritage language and heritage language acquisition
In the articles discussed above, when heritage language is used as a conventional
expression and in a general sense, specifically as the head of a noun phrase (e.g. ―a
person‘s heritage language‖), the term does not signal a proficiency restriction. Rather, it
is being used as an expression which is constructed against other conventional
expressions such as ―minority language‖, ―majority language‖ or ―official language‖ (as
in the Canadian context). However, when heritage language is used as a modifier of
educational concepts including, but not limited to learners (e.g. ―heritage language
103
learner‖, ―heritage language curriculum‖, ―heritage language teaching‖, ―heritage
language classes‖, ―heritage language pedagogy‖ and even ―heritage language
acquisition‖) a proficiency restriction enters into the meaning, but it is clearly derivative,
coming from the proficiency restriction in the operating definitions of heritage language
learner. In fact, ―heritage‖ by itself can be used to signal this kind of proficiency, with
―language‖ elided (i.e. ―heritage learner‖). This supports the analysis that heritage
language learner is a composite expression and not the sum of its parts and further, in the
consensus view, that a part of the meaning of being a heritage language learner is having
a cultural connection with the language through family and not solely by developing
certain abilities through ―naturalistic‖ acquisition.
An implicit definition of heritage language of another type emerges in two articles of
the HLJ, Lynch (2003) and Godson (2004), where heritage language is primarily used to
characterize a particular subset of bilingual speakers and their language competence in
the Chomskyan sense. In these cases, proficiency is a primary attribute of the definition
and not derivative. From this perspective, the heritage language starts out as an L1, but is
limited due to social context and schooling; as Lynch states, ―For the great majority of
heritage language (HL) bilinguals in the US context, acquisition of English continues
fully beyond childhood, while acquisition of the HL is significantly curtailed or even
stagnates toward the adolescent years‖ (Lynch, 2003, introduction, paragraph 1). This is
echoed in the following statement from Godson, describing ―incomplete acquirers‖
(synonymous in her article with ―heritage speakers‖) who are the focus of her study on
Western Armenian vowels:
104
Incomplete acquisition typically occurs in individuals in immigrant families that
speak a minority language while surrounded by a majority language. Such
individuals will vary in a number of ways, all of which affect their abilities in the
minority language. Among these are their age when they left their native
community, the number of years elapsed since leaving, and the age at which they
switched to the dominant language as primary. It is also possible for speakers to
have had a lapse period during which they did not speak the native language at all.
(Godson, 2004, section "language attrition and the individual", paragraph 1)
The primary focus in these descriptions is on a competence model of language and is
echoed in Lynch‘s call for a Heritage Language Acquisition research agenda modeled on
the SLA research agenda of Ellis (1994), wherein the goal of SLA is, ―…the description
and explanation of the learner‘s linguistic or communicative competence‖ (Ellis, 1994, p.
15). In this model, heritage language (―minority language‖ in the Godson quote above)
denotes a particular kind of bilingual competence in a ―native‖ language. Figure 4.3
shows how this particular use of heritage language is being constructed as a conventional
expression.
L1
Monolingual
L2
Bilingual
(HL bilingual)
[minority lang. context, unofficial(?)]
[immigrant context]
[ ―interrupted‖ acquisition]
bilingual
[other societal bilingual context]
[non-immigrant context]
[―uninterrupted‖ acquisition]
Figure 4.3. ―Heritage language‖ as a type of bilingual language competence.
However, in addition to this meaning, the expression ―heritage language acquisition‖
is also used in a broader sense, clearly within the purview of applied linguistics rather
105
than linguistics in a narrow sense (where it means a particular type of bilingual
competence), when connected to language education by other authors within the HLJ.
This quote from Kondo-Brown (2003) concerning heritage language links together the
research and education endeavors:
From heritage language educators' and researchers' perspectives, the
establishment of HL education as a valid, and distinct research field is important
because, in their view, HL learners are those who have acquired a certain level of
oral and/or written proficiency in their ancestral language in the process of using
the language at home and/or in the community, and therefore, the process and
outcomes of HL acquisition are distinctly different from those of foreign language
acquisition (Campbell and Rosenthal 2000; Valdés 1995). (Kondo-Brown, 2003,
section 1, paragraph 5)
This statement links the ―HL bilingual‖ (cf. Lynch‘s quote above) and the language
education context. Further, Kagan & Dillon (2003) state, ―Heritage language acquisition
is becoming a field in its own right within foreign language education‖ (section 1,
paragraph 1), positioning HLA as a subtype of an established field whose boundaries are
debated (see Ortega, 1999).
However, there is a distinction to be made between heritage language in Godson and
Lynch as a type of language competence, and in the proficiency-restricted definitions
used in most of the other articles, where the term is related to language in a fuller sense,
including cultural connections, language instruction, literacy development and the like.
Specific proficiencies and proficiency restrictions are invoked for pedagogical reasons,
but not to limit the scope of the ―heritage‖ language field to an examination of language
106
―competence‖ under particular social conditions. This is a difference in focus with very
significant implications for the types of research that will be seen as usefully informing a
heritage language field. The following discussion highlights some of the contradictions,
grounded in disciplinary perspective and reflected in the operating definitions of heritage
language and heritage language learner, that are being negotiated within the larger
heritage language discourse.
5. Definitional debates and the emerging heritage language field
In this analysis, two extremes emerge for possible meanings of a heritage language
learner. The first is exemplified by Godson (2004) where a heritage language learner is
an ―incomplete acquirer‖ (equated with ―heritage speaker‖ in the title of her article) who
is studying the language they have not ―fully‖ acquired. At the opposite end of the
spectrum is the ―expansive-heritage language learner‖, included as one type within
broader definitions by both Carreira (2004) and Beaudrie & Ducar (2005), defined as a
learner who is studying a language they do not know, but with which they share a cultural
connection (cf., Gambhir, 2001; Van Deusen-Scholl, 1998; Wiley, 2001). Each of these
definitions runs counter to the uneasy equilibrium found both in the HLJ in this analysis
and in the broader heritage discourse (c.f. definitions in Peyton et al., 2001), where
―heritage language‖ is understood in a broad sense, not limited by a type of proficiency,
but ―heritage language learner‖ is understood in a proficiency-restricted sense.
For educators, problems with the interpretation of heritage language learner as
―incomplete acquirer‖ should be immediately apparent. This characterization is strongly
resonant with a ―language-as-problem‖ orientation (Ruíz, 1984), a perspective Spanish
for Native Speakers educators have been fighting for decades. Setting up a research
107
paradigm for the heritage language field that is based on what students lack may seem
compelling to those who approach language development as ―acquisition‖ from a
competence perspective, identifying differences in the grammar of such speakers from
those who are ―full‖ speakers. But when taken as the basis for language education
research, it signals a return to a particular way of thinking that valorizes a ―native
speaker‖ standard and de-values multilingual language use that misses the ―native
speaker‖ mark. The HLJ article by Lacorte and Canabal (2005) shows how these
ideologies are reflected in the metaphors used by Spanish language instructors and
highlights some of the problems raised by this characterization. While questions of
competence defined against native speaker standards may be of interest to some linguists,
this theoretical perspective often characterizes the language abilities of heritage language
students from a deficit perspective (Hendryx, 2008) and, therefore, will not best meet the
needs of a heritage language field that is broadly conceived as encompassing language
education and language policy and planning issues.
A second problem that emerges with this ―incomplete acquirer‖ definition is that it is
solely based on proficiency, without regard to family, ethnicity or community
connections. With this definition, such connection is normally a part of the language
acquisition process, but is not a substantive matter beyond a concern for characterizing
the ―input‖. On the contrary, in the consensus view within and beyond the HLJ,
proficiency is taken to be the product of ethnolinguistic community membership, with an
assumption of shared ethnicity. The fact that there are ―circumstantial‖ bilinguals with
community affiliation and whose proficiency may be similar to that of heritage language
learners, where addressed, is ruled out for inclusion in the category heritage language
108
learner (Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003). There is a reluctance to
separate language proficiency from ancestry in the consensus view. Once the ―incomplete
acquirer‖ definition of heritage language learner is posited, it is based solely on a type of
proficiency, and the felicity of the term ―heritage‖ is seriously at issue.
On the contrary, discussions of an expansive use of heritage language learner, based
on ancestry, tend to recur in the literature. Van Deusen-Scholl‘s (1998) characterization
of ―learners with a heritage motivation‖ is an early example of an on-going effort to make
sense of the reality that cultural connection does not always come with language ability
(Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005), and that a readily-available compositional interpretation of the
term heritage language learner as ―learner of one‘s heritage language‖ will include such
learners. This desire to include such learners stems not just from ―logical‖ considerations,
but from a desire on the part of researchers not to exclude through labeling learners with
cultural ties to a language, as Carreira (2004) and Weger-Guntharp (2006) clearly show
can happen within dual-track systems. Despite these concerns, such a definition has been
rejected with a common sense argument that, for language education, proficiency must be
a consideration.
Important insight into this tension comes from recent empirical work by Lee (2005),
who examined use of the terms ―heritage‖ and ―non-heritage‖ across a number of
languages and points out that learner identities are multiple and fluid in ways that the
labels cannot do them justice, principally because the terms are not mutually exclusive.
Hornberger and Wang (2008) present a view of heritage language education that opens
up the field in a significant way to addressing the socially-situated nature of language
development. They adopt a definition of heritage language learner that moves the
109
question of who is included into the hands of learners themselves, asserting that student
agency should be a component of a definition:
In the U.S. context, HLLs [heritage language learners] are individuals who have
familial or ancestral ties to a particular language that is not English and who exert
their agency in determining whether or not they are HLLs of that HL [heritage
language] and HC [heritage culture]. We argue that the education of HLLs cannot
begin and end with a linguistic perspective and with a focus on classroom
practices alone. Rather, the context, content, media, and development dimensions
of HLLs must be closely studied and understood by both the learners and
educators. (Hornberger & Wang, 2008, p. 27)
This definition is based on Hornberger‘s biliteracy continua model (summarized in
Hornberger, 2002), which views bilingual language development from a language
ecology perspective, designed to account for the socially-situated nature of the various
language abilities a person acquires and develops. Another step in this direction can be
seen in the HLJ with He‘s (2006) identity theory of Chinese as a heritage language, built
on a language socialization, SLA, and Conversation Analysis framework, highlighting
the transformative potential of ―heritage‖ language learning.
6. Final thoughts
In the Modern Language Journal “Perspectives” discussion on the heritage
discourse, Brutt-Griffler and Makoni state in their response, “…[o]f course, there cannot,
perforce, be a linguistic category that combines a language that one speaks (home
language) with a language in which one may not know a single word” (Brutt-Griffler &
Makoni, 2005, pp. 609-610). But I believe this analysis shows that not only can there be
110
such a category, when you shift away from a criterial attribute model of meaning, as does
Cognitive Grammar-based semantics, but that it is just this kind of complex ―category‖
that is emerging in the consensus view. In part, this is possible because the two terms
―heritage language‖ and ―heritage language learner‖ are being conventionalized as
independent constructions in relationship to a number of existing theoretical categories in
language education and SLA. In each case where ―heritage‖ is inserted into an existing
set of meaning, it opens up a new discursive space, both reflecting and constituting a
change in our understanding of the study of language in a range of social contexts.
Further, rather than a true contradiction, the tendency to adopt a proficiency-restricted
view of heritage language learners and a broad view of heritage languages represents an
uneasy reconciliation of pedagogical and sociopolitical concerns around multilingual
language development for “minority” communities and their individual members in the
U.S.
From this analysis, I see the most pressing matter to be a serious consideration of what
core beliefs about language and social context would best support a heritage language
field. It is important to note that the heritage language learner distinction is not made
only because such students have developed proficiency in the language of study, though
this is a major concern for educators as Valdés (2001) points out. Rather, it is a
combination of understanding both these students‘ unique language development needs
and their ―sociolinguistic complexity‖ (Wiley, 2001, p. 35) that is held to be of central
concern. And, in fact, the sociolinguistic complexity of heritage language learners (rather
than their language proficiency or ‗competence‘ strictly speaking) is a very strong theme
in the articles of a special heritage language issue of the Bilingual Research Journal (Fall,
111
2000), whose publication was also motivated by the First National Conference on
Heritage Languages (Wiley and Valdés, 2000). Language development models that take
the connection between language and social context as fundamental (for an overview, see
Blommaert, 2005), rather than ancillary to language development offer a way of
balancing these proficiency and sociolinguistic complexity concerns.
112
Chapter 5. Placements and (re)-positionings: Tensions around CHL learning in a
university Mandarin program
1. Introduction
This chapter considers the role of student agency in the placement of heritage
language learners within a university dual-track Mandarin program. The site of the study,
California Northern University (a pseudonym), is a research university that enrolls
upwards of 30,000 students.10 The chapter focuses on the tensions and conflicts that arise
for Chinese as a Heritage Language (CHL) students who were enrolled in classes at the
low-intermediate level, where pedagogic policy at the time divided students into two
tracks. The ―bilingual‖ track was described as a set of accelerated courses for students
who can speak Mandarin or another dialect of Chinese but cannot read or write Chinese
characters; no student profile was explicitly stated for the ―regular‖ track, implying that
the classes are for students without such background. While this division appears
straightforward on the surface, the categorization of students along these lines is anything
but neat or simple. Two categories could not account for the heterogeneous backgrounds
of the CHL learners enrolling in the program. This study examines what happens when
students‘ language abilities and cultural identities, both self-perceived and as evaluated
by placement procedures, do not mesh well with the categories established by the
institution. The study reveals that CHL students may resist department-determined
placement, and, by re-positioning themselves, they have the power to constitute
classrooms in ways unintended by institutional policy.
10
During the 2004-2005 academic year, when the study began, approximately 17% of the undergraduate
population self-identified as Chinese-American, and Chinese-American students made up the majority of
those enrolled in Mandarin classes.
113
This case study adopts a sociocultural perspective on language, foregrounding those
aspects of language development that are part and parcel of social practice (e.g.,
Blommaert, 2005; Norton, 2000; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), a perspective on language
that is particularly salient for CHL learners who have developed language skills at home
and in communities of Chinese speakers. Ethnographic methods were employed to
examine the mutual influences institutional contexts and individuals have on each other
in terms of opportunities for language development (Bourdieu, 1991; Norton, 2000).
Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) characterize ethnographic research methodology as a
useful approach to the initial study of complicated social phenomena; considering the
relatively recent emergence of heritage language learning as a field of study in its own
right, ethnography seems an apt approach. It is also a methodology that asks researchers
to take into account their own positionality, considering how their personal perspectives
are situated vis-à-vis their research. This type of self-reflection was particularly important
for the analyses undertaken in this study.11
A critical linguistics perspective is brought to bear in framing the analysis, considering
how social and historical conditions intersect with language policy (at the local level of a
university Mandarin program), differentially constraining or enabling language
development for groups of learners (Blommaert et al., 2005; Tollefson, 2002).
Underlying this analysis is a concern for educational equity that seeks to understand how
unexpressed ideologies of the educational institution play out in ways that promote or
11
As a long-term learner of Mandarin, I have spent a large amount of time in Chinese classrooms of
different types, but my personal experience is as a foreign language learner. My understanding and the
analysis presented here are permeated by the insights that CHL learners across many different levels of the
program at CNU kindly shared with me, both through the more formal interviews I conducted for this study
and in the many informal conversations I have had with Chinese-American students who have enrolled in
Chinese classes at the university. Their perspectives radically changed my view of the program and
deepened my understanding of how complex the identity ―Chinese language learner‖ can be for ChineseAmerican students.
114
hinder learning (Brice-Heath, 1985; Gee, 1996). Language program structures, placement
and labels have powerful effects on learners (Elder, 2000; Ramanathan, 2005; Wiley,
2001) and yet research has not yet been undertaken to consider the sociocultural
consequences of the tracking and the labeling of CHL students through particular
placement processes. This case study begins to fill this gap by providing a detailed view
of placement process outcomes from learners‘ perspectives within a Mandarin program
that enrolls a large and heterogeneous group of CHL students. As will be evident, the
fluid identities and needs of these students defy the easy slotting presupposed by such
policies.
2. Relevant Background for this Study
The definition of heritage language learner (HLL) most commonly used for
university-level studies comes from Guadalupe Valdés (see discussion of definitions in
the heritage language discourse in Chapter 4 above), here restated from Valdés‘s (2001):
Foreign language educators use the term to refer to a language student who is
raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, speaks or at least
understands the language, and who is to some degree bilingual in that language
and English (Valdés, 2000a, 2000b). (p. 38)
The utility of this definition is that it provides a conceptual bridge between cultural
connection to a language and linguistic competence (broadly defined). The definition
acknowledges there are cognitive and affective ends to a metaphorical language
development spectrum. While aspects of this definition, including the focus on
proficiency or language development in the home, have been debated in the literature, as
115
discussed in Chapter 4, this characterization of ―heritage language learner‖ will be used
as the starting point for analysis in this study.
2.1. Heritage language learners in the university: language and identity
The specific linguistic advantages that heritage language learners may have over their
foreign language learner peers have been discussed in the literature (Carreira, 2004;
Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Kagan, 2005; Kondo-Brown, 2003). Yet it is also recognized
that HLLs‘ advantages do not necessarily make them better prepared for typical college
language programs, even those with separate tracks at the lower levels for HLLs (KondoBrown, 2003). Traditionally, foreign language courses assume a particular kind of
language development that differs from the language development experiences of HLLs
(Kono & McGinnis, 2001). A wide-spread response to HLL enrollments has been the use
of accelerated, dual-track programs, where HLL students are expected to progress
through introductory levels quickly, joining foreign language learners at more advanced
levels. The prevalence and problematic nature of this strategy is discussed by KondoBrown (2003). In particular, difficulties arise when HLLs are separated but materials and
methods are not changed in ways that account for their particular strengths or needs.
The differences between heritage language learners and foreign language learners are
not limited to the linguistic level. Compared to their foreign language learner peers,
HLLs participate in a wider array of social contexts wherein their language abilities are
judged, and a theoretical conception of motivation that relates the individual to changing
social contexts is a useful tool in the study of heritage language development. As
discussed in Chapter 2, a core theoretical construct that can be brought to bear in
examining the differences between heritage and foreign language learners at the level of
116
identity is Norton‘s (2000) notion of investment, which redefines the concept of
motivation as put forth by Gardner and Lambert (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Norton
describes investment in the following way:
Investment…signals the socially and historically constructed relationship
of learners to the target language, and their often ambivalent desire to
learn and practice it…The notion presupposes that when language learners
speak, they are not only exchanging information with target language
speakers, but they are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of
who they are and how they relate to the social world. (Norton, 2000, pp.
10-11)
Post-structural in its view, investment takes the relationship between a language learner
and the language of study to be complex and changing—and importantly, as being
integral to a dynamic and on-going process of identity formation—rather than Gardner
and Lambert‘s concepts of instrumental and integrative motivation, constructs commonly
used in SLA research (Norton, 2000). Dörnyei (2001) points out that Norton‘s
reconceptualization moves discussions of motivation beyond a pervasive overemphasis
on the individual, opening a path to relate the personal to the social context (see
discussion in Chapter 2 above).
Bringing in context as a factor is crucial for understanding the complexity of the
situation for CHL learners at the university. As Harklau (1994) shows by examining the
contrasting experiences of a group of immigrant high school students in their ESL and
mainstream classrooms, the fact that such language learners are boundary crossers opens
them to a range of outside judgments based on language ability, differing from context to
117
context. For CHL learners as for the ESL students in Harklau‘s study, what is valued in
one context may be a liability in another.
In the case of CHL learners, the very semiotic resources that are extremely valuable
for CHL students and their families when in the home are evaluated and labeled
―shortcomings‖ when the students enter a university-level language classroom. A
summary of the commonly observed sociolinguistic issues HLLs face at the K-12 level is
given by Wang and Green (2001); and at the university level, some relevant issues are
identified by Li and Duff (2008). Unlike foreign language learners, Wang and Green say,
HLLs‘ abilities are characterized by use of ―non-standard‖ varieties, a limited range of
registers in their oral production, imbalance between receptive and productive abilities,
and limited literacy. On the positive side, identifying and promoting awareness of these
characteristic tendencies may help ―legitimate‖ the presence of HLL students in
university language classrooms where their presence has been taken to be problematic or
even illegitimate (see Peyton, Ranard and McGinnis, 2001). This is important for Chinese
HL students whose ‗visible‘ ethnicity (Tse, 1998) makes them particularly susceptible to
criticism, borne of ignorance, for studying a language they are presumed to already
―know‖. But on the negative side, there is a danger of characterizing a group of students
by what they lack, and thereby failing to recognize and build upon their unique strengths.
2.2. Heritage language learners: Labels and placements
The difficulty of defining and identifying HLLs for pedagogic purposes has been
widely discussed (Beaudrie & Ducar, 2005; Carreira, 2004; Draper & Hicks, 2000;
Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Kagan, 2005; Valdés, 2001). In terms of the tracking and
placement of CHL learners more specifically, McGinnis (1996), shows how the
118
University of Maryland Chinese program initially adapted to increasing CHL student
enrollment through a three-step process. First, a locally-developed placement test was
administered to students; heritage and non-heritage students‘ abilities at the various levels
of the program were compared. Second, three distinct types of learners, labeled ―novice‖,
―semi-native‖ and ―native‖ were identified. McGinnis reports that ―native‖ students were
directed to enroll in higher-level courses (Classical Chinese or literature courses,
sometimes taught in Chinese), ―semi-native‖ students (specifically, those with spoken
ability in a non-Mandarin variety of Chinese and very low or no literacy skills) were
accommodated by the introduction of an ―accelerated track‖ class, and ―novice‖ students
continued to participate in the existing program. Findings indicate that adopting the new
placement testing procedures and adding the accelerated track class resulted in greater
homogeneity within classes. However, McGinnis makes the point that the university also
had other CHL learners with distinct profiles not accommodated by the revised program,
and that further monitoring and curriculum development should be undertaken as
institutional resources would allow.
In a more recent study, Carreira (2004) directly addresses HLLs‘ linguistic and
cultural backgrounds relative to placement in tertiary-level Spanish programs. She
delineates the heterogeneity of students with home language background typically
enrolling in Spanish programs and shows that there are HLLs whose level of language
development places them in a range not easily accommodated by a two-track system (in
this case, typically a Spanish for Native Speakers track versus a foreign language track).
These findings mirror those of McGinnis (1996), noted above, in that both studies
emphasize the difference between three tiers of learners: second (or foreign) language
119
learners, heritage learners and first language learners. Carreira makes the point that
separate courses should be developed for Spanish HLLs, who cannot enroll in the SNS
courses, a point also made by Beaudrie & Ducar (2005). If that is not possible, she
argues, ―foreign‖ language classes should be adapted to address the identity needs of such
learners and to capitalize on their particular linguistic strengths.
The present study takes up these points raised by Carreira (2005) and McGinnis
(1996). Given the Mandarin program at CNU with high, heterogeneous CHL student
enrollments, placement procedures in transition, and a dual-track curriculum of longstanding, I examine how CHL students are distributed across the ―bilingual‖ and
―regular‖ tracks. Because the findings are not predicted by CNU‘s stated policy, I
examine patterns based on the CHL students‘ linguistic and cultural backgrounds to
explain the actual distribution. Finally, I present some views of two focal students to
further clarify how the realities on the ground emerged within this context, drawing on
Norton‘s notion of investment.
3. Setting and participants
3.1. The Chinese program at CNU
At the time of the study, the ―bilingual‖ and ―regular‖ tracks at CNU shared the
same basic curriculum, based on the Integrated Chinese series textbooks (Liu, Yao, Shi,
& Bi, 1997), designed as a ―four skills‖ curriculum for foreign language learners. The
two tracks merged after one year of study for the ―bilingual‖ track and two years for the
―regular‖ track. After that point, there was no separation between CHL students and
120
foreign language learners.12 During Winter Quarter, 2005, when data collection began,
the Chinese program was structured as shown in Table 5.1:
“Regular” Track
“Bilingual” Track
Fall
Winter
Spring
Fall
Winter
Spring
―First‖ Year
1R
2R
(6 sections)
3R
1B
2B
(4 sections)
3B
―Second‖ Year
4R
5R
(2 sections)
6R
(Students continue in
Chinese 101)
No Tracking
Fall
Winter
Spring
―Third‖ Year
101
102
(3 sections)
103
―Fourth‖ Year
115
115
(1 section)
115
Table 5.1. Chinese program structure at California Northern University, 2004-2005.
Class abbreviations are shown (modified for anonymity but reflect program structure),
e.g. 1R is first quarter of the ―regular‖ track and 1B is first quarter of the ―bilingual‖
track. The focal courses, 5R and 2B, are shown in bold. The number of sections offered
during Winter Quarter, 2005 are shown in parentheses. The designations ―second‖,
―third‖, and ―fourth‖ year refer to the pacing of the curriculum for students in the
―regular‖ track. The accelerated, bilingual track is designed to compress two years of
study into one so that after the first year, the students in the ―bilingual‖ track move into a
12
The situation beyond the early levels is outside the scope of this study, but it should be noted that, while
tracking ceases, this does not mean in practice that the higher level classes are geared more toward foreign
language learners, as discussed by Kondo-Brown (2003). At CNU, the students who enroll in higher levels
(either by continuation from earlier levels or through direct placement) most commonly are CHL learners
with more advanced ability in Mandarin, developed to a great extent before reaching the university. My
research indicates that it is extremely difficult for a student with little background to successfully work
their way up through the program.
121
traditional ―third year‖ level. The ―Fourth Year‖ class is a repeatable, 4-unit class that
focuses on literacy development using texts such as news articles and literature.
The focal classes, one section each of Chinese 2B and 5R, were described by the
program as follows:
2B Accelerated Written Chinese (bilingual track). Lecture—5 hours.
Prerequisite: course 1B. Continuation of course 1B. Designed to accelerate the
progress of students who already know spoken Mandarin or a dialect but cannot
read or write Chinese characters.
5R: Intermediate Chinese (regular track). Lecture/discussion—5 hours.
Prerequisite: course 4R or the equivalent. Intermediate-level training in spoken
and written Chinese in cultural contexts, based on language skills developed in
course 4R.
Placement procedures: The department required students with existing ability in
Chinese, from home exposure, classroom study or a combination thereof, to go through a
placement process when first enrolling in Mandarin classes. During the 2003-2004
academic year (and for many years prior), the department used an oral interview,
including conversation, reading from the Integrated Chinese textbook series, and
questions about exposure to Chinese or prior study as the basis for placement. In addition,
students would sometimes be asked to provide a writing sample. At the start of academic
year 2004-2005, the placement procedures changed to include a written placement test
122
and a language background survey, with an oral interview used as a supplement in some
cases.13
4. Data collection
The following table (Table 5.2) summarizes the data collected for this study, including
a brief description of the data types and the corresponding collection methods.
Source
Classes
Description
Chinese 2B, Accelerated Written
Chinese
1 section, 20 students
Chinese 5R, Intermediate Chinese
1 section, 21 students
Focal
Students
Classes were selected for comparability;
2B was a few chapters behind 5R, but
both classes were preparing students to
move into Chinese 101 after one
additional quarter of study.
Selection: Selected for demographic
and language background typicality
within the class.
2B, ―Alan‖: male, freshman, ChineseAmerican, parents from Taiwan. Speaks
Mandarin with his parents. 8 years of
Chinese school (Mandarin).
5R, ―Kelly‖: female, junior, Chinese-
13
Method
Class Surveys: Collected
demographic and language
background information using
a revised and expanded version
of the department‘s placement
survey14 (see survey
instrument, Appendix B).
Observations: Observed each
class five times. Wrote daily
field notes.
Interviews (recorded and
transcribed): Asked each
student to expand on their
language background and
reasons for taking Mandarin in
college.
Alan: 2.5 hour interview. 15
While the department assigned each student to a particular level, there was no way to ―force‖ students to
enroll in the class to which they were assigned. Indeed, some students would enroll in or move to a class
other than the one assigned.
14
There is evidence that students‘ responses were more candid than they would be on a survey used for
placement purposes. One of the most interesting responses was from a student in the ―bilingual‖ track who,
in response to the question, ―What are some of the major reasons you decided to study Mandarin at CNU?‖
wrote simply, ―G.P.A. Booster.‖ And in response to the prompt ―Things I like about my Chinese classes:‖
wrote, ―Chill, hella grls that are down to kick it wit me [sic].‖ He was the only student to say outright that
he took Chinese to improve his G.P.A.
15
The students appeared to be very relaxed and candid in these interviews. An example of this is a remark
Alan made related to his desire to gain high-level ability in Chinese. He said, ―I don‘t mean to sound like a
dick…excuse me… but if Caucasians can do it why can‘t I do it?‖ He was referring to an experience he had
while on an internship with a magazine in Beijing. Among the permanent staff were Caucasian Americans
in their 30‘s or 40‘s who had begun studying Chinese as a foreign language in college. Alan‘s point was
that, with his head start (his spoken Mandarin is very good), he should be competitive for positions such as
theirs when he starts working.
123
American, parents from Mainland
China; they speak Cantonese and
Mandarin. Speaks Cantonese with her
parents. 8 years of Chinese school
(Cantonese).
Teachers 2B instructor: female, from Taiwan, first
year teaching at CNU.
5R instructor: female, from Taiwan,
third year teaching at CNU.
Each instructor had experience teaching
both the ―regular‖ and ―bilingual‖
classes.
Program Male, from Mainland China. First
Director tenure-track faculty member to hold this
position. Second year at CNU; was in
the process of evaluating the program to
make major structural changes.
Class textbooks and materials, an
Texts
institutional research report, newsletters
of a language teaching consortium
affiliated with CNU, and catalog
descriptions of the Chinese program.
Kelly: 1.25 hour interview and
additional follow-up by e-mail.
Interviews: Conducted
informal interviews with the
instructors after each
observation session, and also
recorded and transcribed a
one-hour interview with the 5R
instructor.
On-going communication
through conversations and email. Program director
reviewed and provided
feedback at multiple stages.
Critical discourse analysis and
systemic functional linguistics
(SFL)-based analysis (Martin
& Rose, 2003).
Table 5.2. Types of data collected and analyzed.
5. Data analysis
The range of data noted above was collected and analyzed based on an ethnographic
methodological approach as outlined by Hammersley & Atkinson (1983), and drawing on
the works of Glaser & Strauss (1967), Carspecken (1996), and Watson-Gegeo (1988,
1992). I employed an iterative process, along the lines of the constant comparative
method of Glaser & Strauss (1967), and further elaborated in Strauss (1987), generally
moving from open coding to thematic coding, to identify emerging patterns in the data. I
incorporated in the analysis perspectives gained through interviews, analysis of
documents, and survey responses, and included both support and counter-evidence for
my emerging analyses (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). Finally, I selected organizing
124
themes to report findings, focusing on higher-level categories that help explain the
significant interactions going on in the context, with a particular focus on how the local
setting (e.g. the individual in the classroom) relates to increasingly larger contexts (e.g.
the university as academic institution).
6. Findings
6.1. Class comparison: Student ethnicity, first language, and dominant language
Demographic comparison of the two classes focused on ethnicity, home language
background, and dominant language at the time of the survey (see Appendix C for
detailed demographic information, Tables 5-7). A majority of the students in both classes
self-identified as Chinese or Chinese-American (90% of the ―bilingual‖ class; 62% of the
―regular‖ class). The remaining students self-identified as being Asian-American, a
specific Asian ethnicity (including Vietnamese, Japanese, Cambodian, and Filipino) or of
mixed ethnic heritage, including half Japanese/half Chinese and half Asian/half
Caucasian. There were no students without Asian heritage of some sort enrolled in either
of the two classes.
Findings for ―first language‖ revealed that a nearly-identical proportion of students in
the two classes identified a variety of Chinese as their first language (55% Mandarin for
the ―bilingual‖ class and 54% Cantonese or a related dialect for the ―regular‖ class).
More students in the ―regular‖ class (one-third), identified English alone as their L1 than
did students in the ―bilingual‖ class (one-quarter). Only one student in each class
identified simultaneous development in English and another language (Mandarin and
English for the ―bilingual‖ class student; Cambodian and English for the ―regular‖ class
student); also, two students in the ―regular‖ class identified Vietnamese as their L1.
125
Finally, results for survey prompt ―dominant language now‖ revealed (perhaps
paradoxically) that a higher percentage of students in the ―bilingual‖ class considered
themselves to be English-dominant (95% of the ―bilingual‖ class; 76% of the ―regular‖
class). With the exception of one ―regular‖ class student who said he was now dominant
in Cantonese, those students who did not identify as being English-dominant reported
being equally dominant in English and another language (varieties of Chinese in most
cases).
The discrepancy between the stated placement policy (that students with background
in any variety of Chinese be placed into the ―bilingual‖ track) and actual class
composition is apparent in these findings. A large number of students who identify
Cantonese as their first language were enrolled in the ―regular‖ track class. Further, at the
time of the survey, more students in the ―regular‖ class, Chinese 5R, identified
themselves as being strongly bilingual in English and a form of Chinese than did those in
the ―bilingual‖ class, Chinese 2B (four students as opposed to one, as shown in Appendix
C). It is also interesting to note that in the ―regular‖ class, a majority of students who
were not ethnically Chinese were bilingual to some degree in other Asian languages.
6.2. CHL learner comparison by class: Abilities in Mandarin and Cantonese
At this point in the analysis, an intentional separation is drawn between the theoretical
constructs heritage language learner and foreign language learner for purposes of
analysis. Detailed analysis will now be restricted to students who meet Valdés‘s
definition of heritage language learner (see above). This includes all 20 students in the
―bilingual‖ class but only 14 of the 21 students in the ―regular‖ class. Seven students in
5R can be classified as non-CHL learners (or foreign language learners), having had no
126
regular exposure to any variety of Chinese in the home. However, many of these students
are closely connected to Chinese culture. Of these seven students, four have a cultural
connection to the language (that is, they identified themselves as having Chinese family
members and said that they were interested in studying the language because of this
connection) and could be considered heritage language learners by some definitions16.
The information presented in Table 5.3 summarizes students‘ spoken abilities in
Mandarin and Cantonese, the two main varieties of Chinese mentioned in survey
responses. Ratings are based on an analysis of students‘ survey responses regarding their
self-reported Chinese ability, language use with family members, and prior study.
Spoken Cantonese Ability
Chinese 5R ―Regular‖
Chinese 2B ―Bilingual‖
3
4
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
2
0
2
(Kelly)
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
6
(Alan)
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
Spoken Mandarin Ability
Spoken Mandarin Ability
Table 5.3. Students‘ self-reported Mandarin and Cantonese abilities.
Ability in Mandarin and Cantonese were rated separately for each student (in one case a
student in 2B was rated for Mandarin and Taiwanese): 0- no stated ability; 1- some
16
This is an important point that Hornberger and Wang (2008) raise, saying that learner agency to identify
as a heritage language learner should be one portion of the definition of the term. Also, Carreira (2005) and
Beaudrie & Ducar (2005) move to include such students as HLL by definition.
127
ability, mostly receptive; 2-productive ability, limited or infrequent use; 3-conversational
or fluent. The numbers that appear in the boxes correspond to the number of students in
the class who fit that profile; i.e. in the Chinese 5R class there are 4 students who rated
―0‖ for spoken Mandarin ability and ―3‖ for spoken Cantonese ability (see top, left corner
of table). Focal students‘ names in parentheses indicate how their abilities were rated;
they are included in the number of students for that particular box.
On the left side, the shaded area of the table, weighted toward Cantonese proficiency,
captures 92.9% of the CHL students in Chinese 5R. Shading the comparable area on the
right, with an analogous weighting toward Mandarin proficiency, captures 75% of the
students in the Chinese 2B class. The program does not state that separation between the
tracks is based on the Chinese variety spoken in the home, but separation along dialect
lines is apparent. To a noticeable degree, Mandarin-speaking students are found in the
―bilingual‖ class and speakers of other varieties in the ―regular‖ class.
The students in the Chinese 2B class all had some pre-existing ability in Mandarin,
with one exception—a student whose ability before taking the class was in Cantonese
only. However, fully two-thirds (14 out of 21 students) in the Chinese 5R class also had
pre-existing abilities in some variety of Chinese before enrolling in classes at CNU.
Seven of the students in the ―regular‖ class may be as proficient in Mandarin as the lower
third of the ―bilingual‖ class.
6.3. Reading/writing ability
The other factor taken into consideration in the departments‘ placement policy is
reading/writing ability, and the ―bilingual‖ track description states that the classes are for
students with spoken ability in any dialect of Chinese who need to develop reading and
128
writing skills. Table 5.4 compares the reading/writing abilities of the CHL students‘ in
the two classes.
3
2
1
Chinese 5 “Regular”
14.3% (2)
50.0% (7)
35.7% (5)
Chinese 2 “Bilingual”
15.0% (3)
70.0% (14)
15.0% (3)
Table 5.4. Students‘ self-reported reading/writing ability.
Each student was given a composite rating on a three-point scale based on survey
responses to self-rating of reading/writing ability, prior study and context of study: 1none/minimal ability; 2-prior study, mostly in U.S. community schools; 3-good,
including some study in a Chinese L1 context.
Results of this analysis indicate that a small but comparable percentage (approximately
15%) of CHL students with more advanced reading/writing ability (those rated a ―3‖)
were enrolled in the two classes. A difference appears between the two tracks at the
middle and lowest levels. A total of 70% of the ―bilingual‖ class was rated at the middle
level compared to 50% of the ―regular‖ class. The ―regular‖ class had 20% more students
rating a ―1‖ in their reading/writing ability (35.7%) than did the ―bilingual‖ class (15%).
Presented this way, the survey results give an overview of the kinds of CHL learners
enrolled in each class. It appears that CHL distribution across the classes comes down
primarily along dialect lines. At the low-intermediate level of the dual-track program,
Cantonese-background students are primarily found in the ―regular‖ classes and
Mandarin-background students in the ―bilingual‖ classes.
6.4. Placements and student voices
Turning now to the focal students, their comments help explain how this pattern
emerged. The data presented here focus on Alan and Kelly‘s reasons for studying
129
Mandarin at CNU and how they found potential in the program to meet their needs. Their
comments show that they each needed to re-position themselves within the structure of
the program, either actually or conceptually, to find ways to align their investment in
Chinese with the language development possibilities offered by CNU‘s particular
curriculum. Ultimately, the dialect boundary between the two tracks seems to be closely
related to the students‘ re-positionings.
6.4.a. Alan: The desire to “know” Chinese
In some ways, Alan typifies a major portion of the students in the 2B class, coming
into the program with strong conversational Mandarin skills, years of study in Chinese
community school, but little ability to read or write in Chinese. In his classes at CNU, he
characterized much of what he was studying as ―re-learning‖ and ―re-memorizing‖
characters. He expressed a high degree of confidence in his Mandarin speaking and
listening skills, saying he could ―even‖ understand speakers with a Beijing accent when
he was in that city, but said of his reading ability, ―…now in ―bilingual‖ I‘m like I should
know this word….I know I should know this from before [Chinese school when he was
younger] but I need to re-learn it because I didn‘t take it seriously‖ (interview, 4/27/05).
He expressed regret for not studying more, but as is true for many Chinese-American
children, he found he lost interest in Chinese school as academic and extra-curricular
activities associated with his mainstream school grew.
Alan expressed clearly a cross-situational tension about what it means to ―know‖
Chinese saying, ―…you know like most Asian parents will say, ‗It‘s a shame that you
didn‘t learn Chinese because you speak it so well‘‖ (interview, 4/17/05). The clear
implication is that speaking a language does not entail ―knowing‖ the language. Alan has
130
internalized this view to the point that he made this statement with no sense of irony. For
him, his reasons for being in the classroom are clear. He doesn‘t know Chinese, meaning
he can‘t read and write. He wants his Chinese to be as good as his English, and plans to
use his bilingual ability to get a good job in China, and that means he needs to be literate.
He also expressed some of his beliefs about the ways it is necessary to progress to
become literate; these are tied to program structure, on the one hand, where the class is
following the ―four skills‖ approach of the Integrated Chinese textbook, and to explicit
knowledge of language on the other hand. He said, ―[I] sometimes question why we‘re
learning these stories, but [we] need to learn that before going on to upper division.
[We‘re] learning important grammar not just wasting time on how to shop for blue jeans
and a t-shirt‖ (interview, 4/17/05).
6.4.b. Kelly: There’s no place for us (Cantonese speakers)
Unlike Alan, Kelly, was not primarily focused on literacy development. Rather, she
expressed a desire to improve her Chinese as a way of maintaining and improving
connections with her family. She went to a Cantonese Saturday school for eight years,
beginning in pre-school, but lost interest as she grew older. She said that it was difficult
to maintain her Cantonese growing up in the U.S., and that an increasing communication
gap with her grandfather, and even her parents, was what prompted her to take Mandarin.
She said, ―…it‘s hard – I don‘t want to be one of those people who can‘t understand their
family. I want to go back and visit and be OK‖ (interview, 4/19/05). As a double major in
economics and Chinese, she saw that the language would be useful in the future with her
career, but repeatedly stressed that it was her family connections that were her main
motivation for studying the language. She was even trying to work on her Cantonese
131
through her study of Mandarin, saying, ―If I learn Mandarin, it‘s kind of like learning
Cantonese too‖ (interview, 4/19/05).
Kelly said that she was initially placed into the ―bilingual‖ class, but the pace of the
―regular‖ class gave her a much better opportunity to actually learn to speak Mandarin,
something she felt she would not be able to do in the 2B course. She said:
For [Chinese 1B] I actually tried to take that class, and I understood everything that
the teacher was saying, but when he asked me to speak, I couldn‘t say anything… and
they wouldn‘t spend time on the part I don‘t know [spoken Mandarin]. The only way
to do that is to take the lower class [the ―regular‖ classes] because that‘s how I learn
how to say the words. (interview, 4/19/05)
She pointed out that her enrollment in the ―regular‖ class is coming about because of a
―gap‖ in the program—lack of Mandarin classes specifically for Cantonese speakers17;
but she also pointed out that there are negative repercussions for non-CHL students
enrolled in 5R.
When asked about how she viewed program effectiveness in terms of what she
wanted to get out of her language study, she replied:
I‘ve gotten used to it…it doesn‘t address Cantonese speakers. [The program
is] ignoring us. By pushing for more ―B‖s [the letter grade], [they are]
punishing people who are doing really well …[students without background
who] don‘t understand Cantonese but are doing good work and working
really hard. [It would be] more effective to have a Cantonese program …not
teaching Cantonese as a language ..[I] don‘t expect that, but [I] would like it
17
CNU had offered such a class during the 1990s and it was still listed in the school‘s course catalogue.
That class is once again being offered as of Fall Quarter, 2006.
132
if there was a Cantonese transition course to Mandarin. That would be most
effect. (interview, 4/19/05)
Kelly‘s comment reflects her recognition that her choice, and the choice of other students
like her, to move to 5R put pressure on the program to make the class more difficult.
7. Discussion
7.1. The mismatch between heritage learners and a foreign language curriculum
Kelly and Alan were both very clear about their reasons for studying Mandarin. Each
expressed a gap in their lives in terms of what they are able to do with their Chinese and
said they were taking classes at CNU to improve their abilities. A positive shift in
investment in the heritage language as college students is typical of many young ChineseAmericans. Tse (1998) addresses these issues, common to CHL learners, from an identity
development perspective, adapting general ethnic identity development models to the
experiences of Americans of Asian descent. She links the affective factors involved in a
four stage model, comprising unawareness, ethnic ambivalence/evasion, ethnic
emergence, and ethnic identity incorporation to attitudes toward heritage language
maintenance and language development. Both Alan and Kelly expressed sentiments that
indicate they were moving out of the ethnic ambivalence/evasion stage, identified by Tse
(2000) as being associated with a rejection of the heritage language. As college students,
a convenient way to support this renewed interest in Chinese language is to enroll in
Chinese classes.
However, convenience is a very small part of what makes a good match between a
learner and a language program. Kelly and Alan each articulated their unique investment
in studying Mandarin, emphasizing an interest in language development as a means to
133
deepen their connections within certain Chinese social networks. To accomplish this,
they expressed different orientations toward spoken and written modalities. This finding
echoes a study by McKay & Wong (1996) where the authors applied the theoretical
construct of investment to an ethnographic study of English language development in
four junior high students who were recent immigrants from China. They found that the
students showed different levels of investment across the modalities of language and that
these differences were tied to social factors in the learning context. For Kelly and Alan,
difficulties arise because the types of language teaching that would best meet their needs,
as two very different types of CHL learners, have not traditionally been supported by
universities (Kono & McGinnis, 2001). This situation may be changing, but nascent
research on heritage language development has yet to make its way into college-level
Chinese programs, to any great extent, in the form of materials and methods targeted to
CHL learners. And this is certainly the case at CNU. Using a textbook that is explicitly
designed for foreign language learners and based on an assumption that the ―four skills‖
should be equally emphasized presents specific problems for Alan and Kelly.
7.2 Placement tensions
Alan was a strong student in the 2B class. His spoken Mandarin ability was on par
with the top one-third of the class but he could not enroll in a higher level because he
lacked the necessary literacy skills. But outside the classroom, within the context of his
Chinese-speaking social networks, regardless of how well Alan could speak Mandarin,
his ability was often discounted (by both himself and others) because he did not learn to
read and write. For Alan, his ―weakness‖ (lack of literacy) was much more salient than
his strength (spoken Mandarin), and his motivation clearly reflected this. He found the
134
class challenging because there were so many characters to ―re-learn‖ and ―re-memorize‖
yet in the university Mandarin program he is a type of learner often criticized for
choosing to study the language precisely because his speaking skills are so strong (Kono
& McGinnis, 2001). This is a judgment paradox brought upon Alan simply by choosing
to study his heritage language in the university setting.
The program structure does not allow for separating students into different classes
along all of the dimensions that vary, so the ―bilingual‖ track of the CNU program enrolls
students with vastly different speaking abilities in Mandarin, from highly productive to
mostly receptive. Even the strongest speakers cannot progress much faster in their
literacy development because of the extreme distance between the spoken language and
the orthography. This problem is severe for Chinese, more so than for heritage languages
that are written with a phonetic orthography.
In a way, Alan conceptually repositioned himself as a Chinese language learner to
adapt to the materials and methods of the ―bilingual‖ class—a class that is ―designed‖ for
learners like him in only the most superficial of ways. He found the content of the
textbook familiar and boring, but rationalized why the program would take this approach,
finding satisfaction in ―learning important grammar.‖ Such students often have command
of structures presented at the beginning levels of a foreign language textbook even
though they cannot explain the ―rules‖. More advanced structures, those that students like
Alan might need to expand their formal registers, are not presented until the higher levels.
Meanwhile, a fundamental principle in SLA is that explicitly learning grammatical rules
is not the same as acquiring a language, something Alan as a learner would not be
expected to know but that language programs should take into consideration, particularly
135
for students with strong spoken abilities. Further, Schleppegrell (2004) through a
Systemic Functional Linguistics-based analysis of context-specific ESL literacy
development argues that grammar cannot be separated from meanings, communicative
purposes and contexts; it cannot be taught as an operating system, and then simply
applied in new contexts. This understanding of literacy development would argue for the
use of more authentic teaching materials, and a curriculum that emphasizes written
communicative practice and inductive learning rather than type of decontextualized, rulefocused and explicit grammar teaching used at CNU.
7.3 Resisting Department Placement
The Cantonese-speaking students are also caught in a bind. Many already have basic
literacy skills in Chinese, and they may understand spoken Mandarin to some extent, but
most cannot speak it themselves, a point Kelly made repeatedly and that was also
mentioned by Alan. In the ―bilingual‖ class, Kelly saw that she was at a distinct
disadvantage compared to students like Alan. Her investment in developing her Chinese
ability, to maintain connection with her relatives and secondarily to improve her reading,
would not be met by taking that class. The written materials were too easy for her and she
found she did not have an opportunity to improve her ability to speak Mandarin. Repositioning herself and moving to the ―regular‖ track made sense for Kelly in terms of
her primary focus on spoken communication.
At CNU, categorization seems to be flowing just as much from the bottom-up as it is
coming from the top-down through policies and placement procedures. But policies
create expectations so that the students‘ own repositioning, the ―bottom-up‖ shaping of
the program, may be viewed as illegitimate because it is not a part of the official policy.
136
Cantonese speaking students are enrolling in courses not ―designed for them‖ but that
may do a better job of meeting their needs.
Returning to the CNU program description of the ―bilingual‖ track, the policy states
that the one-year, accelerated track is for those students who have spoken ability in any
variety of Chinese but who cannot read/write. This neutralizes an important distinction
that is revealed in the findings; Chinese language variety, or ―dialect‖, matters a great
deal. Cantonese background speakers are not HLL learners of the same type as Mandarin
background speakers. Cantonese speakers, who are clearly CHL students, were enrolling
in the ―regular‖ track for good reasons, but their presence in the ―regular‖ classes put
pressure on the department to make those classes more difficult. The few foreign
language learners in the 5R class were then put at a disadvantage, a situation
acknowledged by both the 5R teacher and Kelly, who expressed a high degree of
admiration for the non-CHL learners in the class. But in the absence of additional
resources—in particular the time, latitude and resources to change the program to better
meet the needs of the students—the situation for learners in the ―regular‖ class was
frustrating for everyone involved.
Mapping out the students‘ abilities and considering the focal students‘ differential
investment in Chinese language development makes it clear that the make up of the
classes was much more complex than the program descriptions of the two tracks could
account for. A range of heritage language learners were enrolled in both tracks, and the
program as it stood at the time of the study was clearly not reflective of the stated policy
on tracking and placement. The graphing of class compositions illustrates a major
challenge for creating CHL programs. How can programs be designed and placement
137
procedures enacted that will do justice to the teaching of CHL (and ―non-CHL‖) students
when CHL students‘ language backgrounds exhibit extreme degrees of heterogeneity
along at least three dimensions—listening/speaking ability, reading/writing ability, and
Chinese language variety?
8. Conclusion
Separating students along Mandarin versus non-Mandarin home exposure lines
became a de facto categorization principle at CNU, one not expressed by the department,
distinguishing the CHL students in the ―bilingual‖ track from those in the ―regular‖ track.
This division was found to be closely related to the complex social circumstances
surrounding the use and development of Chinese language ability for CHL learners.
University CHL programs are grappling with ways of managing CHL learner
heterogeneity, but learners are not passively sitting by, waiting to be ―managed‖. This
study shows that some learners resist department placement decisions and enroll in the
course they find best meets their needs. Also, the initial choice to engage in Mandarin
study and then the decision to continue or drop out of the program from quarter to quarter
has as much impact on the makeup of classrooms, in terms of students‘ backgrounds, as
does initial placement. This study underscores the importance of the point McGinnis
(1996) makes—a program that is truly responsive to the presence of CHL learners will
continually monitor outcomes and adapt to changing circumstances. The point is
expanded on here by showing that a constellation of factors may come together that result
in unintended, but patterned divisions between students in different classes. When this is
the case, and an organic division emerges, as was the case at CNU along ―dialect‖ lines, a
clear opportunity exists to improve the program.
138
A related point raised by this case study is that the fluidity of the placement process
may not be well understood or appreciated. Unfortunately the only conception of student
agency widely discussed as having an effect on placement is that some HL students try to
―beat‖ the system (that is, they are trying to get placed so they can get an ―easy A‖).
Kelly and Alan each exerted agency to be in the class that best met their needs, not as a
way to get an easy grade. In fact, they both had to settle for a ―second best‖ solution for
their language development, enrolling in classes that were not constructed to
accommodate their needs. In Kelly‘s case this is apparent to her classmates who feel it is
not ―fair‖ to be in class with students who already ―know Chinese‖ (as one survey
respondent put it) and in Alan‘s case it is apparent in the mismatch between his goals and
those of the curriculum. The students are caught between making reasonable choices that
best support their language development and the opportunities that are available in the
context. Rather than a CHL or CFL program, the CNU classes are a hybrid, constructed
by the interaction of curriculum, pedagogy, teachers and students. Resisting the ―unequal
grooves‖ concretized by institutions through policies and procedures that do not serve
learners interests well is a huge challenge (Ramanathan, 2006). But the first step to
making positive change is recognizing the social circumstances by which inequalities
emerge and are inadvertently sustained.
139
Chapter 6. Why study Mandarin?: Identity, “dialect” and motivation among
Cantonese/English bilingual college students
1. Introduction
This chapter examines impacts of tracking policies in the Mandarin program at
California Northern University for students placed into the ―Mandarin for Cantonese
Speakers‖ classes. Excerpts from interviews and examples from the classroom
highlighting identity negotiations that arose in the context and are analyzed vis-à-vis the
student‘s evolving investment (Norton, 2000) in studying Mandarin. At California
Northern University, the Mandarin program underwent a restructuring, adding a one-year
Cantonese-background track in the Fall quarter of 2006 to what was previously a twotrack program, separating ―bilingual‖ and ―regular‖ learners at the beginning levels (see
Chapter 5 for an overview of CNU‘s two-track program). At the time of this study, the
academic year 2007-2008, the early levels of Mandarin at CNU were tracked into three
groups of learners for pedagogical purposes, and the focus of Chapters 6 and 7 is on the
―Cantonese‖ track.
The use of tracking as a tool to manage the diversity of learner backgrounds in
university-level Chinese classes has been discussed in the literature at least since the mid1990‘s (McGinnis, 1996), but it has been since the early 2000‘s with a general upsurge in
interest in ―heritage‖ language education that discussion of tracking, as well as
specialized language teaching curricula and pedagogy, has boomed. A journal dedicated
to heritage language education, the Heritage Language Journal, was introduced in 2003,
and a number of edited volumes have appeared including Brinton, Kagan and Bauckus
140
(2008), He and Xiao (2008), and Kondo-Brown and Brown (2008), as well as journal
articles crossing a number of disciplines.
Generally in this literature, ―heritage‖ and ―non-heritage‖ are taken as etic concepts—
independent theoretical constructs applied to specific situations for interpreting data
either quantitatively or qualitatively. Certainly such research has great merit and the fact
that heritage learners are now a focus of concern in their own right marks a positive
change. However, as Chapter 4 demonstrates, the ―heritage‖ language field is being
constructed against a range of conceptual categories spanning the fields of linguistics and
applied linguistics. As researchers work to narrow and fix definitions, it is important to
keep in mind the realities of the classroom, where student diversity often does not match
up to theoretical categories; it is also important to consider if the realities of the
classroom signal a need for change to existing theory.
In addition to the analysis presented in Chapter 4, examining the details of how the
term ―heritage‖ is used in broader and narrower senses, other researchers have pointed
out additional problems with these new language education terms. One effect of using
these binary labels as interpretive categories is that the groups are not mutually exclusive
(Carreira, 2004; Lee, 2005; Weger-Guntharp, 2006), and as the terms ―heritage‖ and
―non-heritage‖ have gained currency, they tend to create a new, binary focus on the
differences between two abstract learner groups. This is generally true for work on
learner motivation, the topic of the current chapter.
In addition to ―heritage‖/ ―non-heritage‖ contrastive work (most often an examination
of how ―heritage language learners‖ differ from ―foreign language learners‖) and the
recognition that ―heritage‖ and ―non-heritage‖ are not truly discrete categories, I argue
141
that research on the experiences of diverse heritage learners is also needed. I chose to
approach this by starting from a classroom, one section of the ―Mandarin for Cantonese
Speakers‖ class at CNU, to first gain a sense of the backgrounds of the students who were
placed into this particular course, and then to explore some of the significant kinds of
identity negotiation that went on as a result of their participation. The research questions
that guided this investigation were:
1. What reasons do the students articulate to account for their decision to study
Mandarin at CNU?
2. What kinds of identity negotiations arise because the students choose to study
Mandarin? How do these experiences contribute to the development of ―hybrid,
situated identities and stances‖ (He, 2008b)?
3. What impacts do these identity negotiation processes have on the students‘
evolving investment in Mandarin language development?
The importance of examining the diversity of heritage language learners is particularly
important for Chinese as a language of study. First, the Chinese language, as it is
commonly understood, constitutes a wide range of related language varieties (for a brief
overview, see DeFrancis, 1984) that are understood to be a single language based on a
range of beliefs and ideologies (Li, 2004). At times in this study, the term ―varieties‖ will
be glossed as ―dialect‖ because, in the setting, this is the most commonly-used term for
varieties of Chinese. Second, Chinese employs a character-based writing system, which
adds a layer of complexity to literacy development. Pedagogical complexity over writing
development is further compounded by the fact that there are two current sets of Chinese
orthographic standards (traditional and simplified characters), and the choice of which
142
variety to teach is fraught with difficulties (Li & Duff, 2008). My own interest in diverse
Chinese heritage learners aims at gaining perspective on their initial and evolving reasons
for studying Mandarin, and how tracking policies indirectly affect changes in students‘
motivation, interpreted here primarily through Norton‘s (1997; 2000) concept of
―investment‖.
The present analysis includes not only interactions within the classroom, but also
reports of interactions with classmates outside of class and with families. The range of
linguistic and cultural experiences related to the study of Mandarin that Cantonesebackground students bring with them to the classroom, and have access to outside class
once they enter a program, is broad and diverse. Examining the students‘ evolving
investment in studying a ―heritage‖ language whose spoken form is much different from
the variety of Chinese that many of the students continue to use with their families lends
insights into the challenges inherent in constructing language programs for diverse
learners and in framing a ―heritage language‖ field.
2. Tracking and motivation for Chinese heritage language learners
One of the ways linguisitic diversity is handled in educational settings in through
tracking. While tracking has a negative reputation among mainstream educators in the
U.S., principally because the practice has been linked to unequal educational opportunity
(see Oakes, 2005 for an overview of this subject), foreign language programs often
depend on separate tracks to offer differentiated instruction to ―heritage‖ and ―foreign‖
language learners. Kondo-Brown (2003) points out that tracking is a common approach
to handling the presence of heritage language learners in foreign language programs at
143
the university level, but that little research had been conducted up to that point to
examine the effectiveness of the practice.
For Chinese, recent research by Lu & Li (2008) has addressed the question of the
effectiveness of tracking in a CHL program with a focus on student motivation. The
authors examined differences in motivation between ―heritage‖ and ―non-heritage‖
learners of Mandarin through survey research of 120 learners at the college level.
Drawing on the foreign language learning motivation theories of both Gardner (primarily
1985 and 2001) and Dörnyei (citing 1990, 1994, 1996), the authors based their study of
motivation on the idea that Gardner‘s two basic orientations toward language study,
instrumental and integrative motivation, interact with student‘s individual learning traits
and the situation of study, ultimately affecting learning outcomes, which they
conceptualized as language achievement. Lu & Li‘s statistical analysis of survey
responses showed significant differences between three sets of learners: those with
Chinese cultural/linguistic heritage, those of other Asian cultural/linguistic heritage, and
non-Asian, non-Chinese students. They argue that their findings support the benefits of
establishing tracked programs, grouping together learners of similar backgrounds and
further recommending that ―extracurricular‖ activities be promoted to build a larger sense
of community among the students in the different tracks of a single program.
In another study by Wu (2008), the author discusses her perspectives on the
motivation and linguistic differences between heritage learners and ―true beginners‖ (a
term also used by the Chinese department at CNU), making recommendations on how to
build an effective CHL track within a university Mandarin program. The Chinese
language program at the study site, Carnegie Mellon University, established a dual-track
144
system at the elementary level in 2001 and conducted student surveys and interviews
each term to understand CHL learner needs. The author makes recommendations for
effective CHL teaching, drawing on her experience designing the program and
developing materials and curricula. Wu discusses motivation and brings up dialect
background when describing some of the differences in pronunciation and grammar
between the varieties of Chinese the students already speak and the Standard Mandarin
that is taught in the classroom. She advocates for bringing attention to the differences,
simultaneously encouraging students to respect their heritage varieties but also to work
toward adopting the grammatical forms and pronunciation of Standard Mandarin. She
also recommends drawing on CHL students‘ existing connections to Chinese language
and culture through assignments that ask them to engage with family and other members
of their Chinese-speaking communities.
Wu‘s paper is a kind of best-practices proposal for teaching CHL learners in a tracked
program, and details some of the reasons for separating CHL and ‗true beginner‘
students. Wu‘s main argument is that a student-centered approach to CHL teaching,
incorporating the individualized practice that technology enables and a conscious focus
on the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages‘ (ACTFL) ―five C‘s‖,
communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities, summarized in
ACTFL‘s Executive Summary (ACTFL, n.d.), will best address both the heterogeneity of
CHL learners while meeting their specific needs. This study indirectly points out one of
the complexities of the term ―heritage language‖; in the study, the term applies to both
Standard Mandarin and to the students‘ spoken vernacular, for example characterizing
Cantonese, Taiwanese or Shanghainese as a ―heritage dialect‖ (Wu, 2008, p. 281).
145
Examining the ues of the term ―heritage language‖ in Wu‘s paper clearly shows why it
is difficult to apply this term to Chinese in particular. The term both encodes particular
distinctions, but also functions at an ideological level. The relationship between the way
the term applies, depending on the context, exemplifies an ideological process Irvine and
Gal (2000) call ―fractal recursivity‖:
Fractal recursivity involves the projection of an opposition, salient at some level
of relationship, onto some other level. For example, intra-group oppositions might
be projected outward onto intergroup relations, or vice versa. Thus the
dichotomizing and partitioning process that was involved in some understood
opposition (between groups or linguistic varieties, for example) recurs at other
levels, creating either subcategories on each side of a contrast or supercategories
that include both sides but oppose them to something else. (p. 38)
What is important and will be highlighted in this study is that fractal recursivity is one
process by which relevant distinctions may be lost. The way this works in this specific
case is that the shift in meaning takes place because the ―non-standard‖ vernacular is
referred to as a ―heritage language (or ‗dialect‘)‖ when the frame of reference is the
Mandarin classroom (relative to Mandarin), but Standard Mandarin is the ―heritage
language‖ when the frame of reference is expanded out to foreign language education
(relative to English). It is the second meaning that is generally recognized in the research
literature, and creates a ―supercategory‖ that tends to overshadow the relevance of the
great differences between different spoken forms of Chinese.
The CHL motivation studies discussed above by Lu and Li (2008) and Wu (2008)
share an approach to understanding motivation among CHL students that is focused on
146
identifying and managing large-scale trends. The studies focus on all heritage learners as
a group, in contrast with foreign language learners. In addition to this approach, another
line of research on motivation in CHL contributes to a body of research on policy
enactments in language education (Ramanathan & Morgan, 2007). Two studies at the
university level, one by Weger-Gunthartp (2006) and the other my own (Kelleher, 2008,
which appears in revised form here as Chapter 5), use classroom-based qualitative
research methods to examine individuals and the effects of classroom experiences on
students‘ continued sense of motivation to study Mandarin. Both studies draw on
Norton‘s (Norton, 1997; 2000) concept of ‗investment‘ as a framework for languagelearner motivation, opening up considerations of how identity in a post-structural sense
(see Chapter 3, quotation from Block, 2007) is related to learners‘ ongoing engagement
with language development. Some initial work on identity formations among young CHL
students in community schools has also been undertaken (Maguire & Curdt-Christiansen,
2007), but such qualitative studies remain few in number. The present study adds to this
line of research, considering how the educational context forms a particular social field
for identity negotiation, from the standpoint of learners as ―subjects-in-discourse‖
(Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005), positioning themselves amid a host of social contexts
that come together in a university classroom for the purpose of learning Standard
Mandarin.
3. Relating motivation to identity and investment
One reason for examining identity and its relationship to motivation is that identity is
becoming a focus for theory building in CHL development. According to a proposed
147
―identity theory‖ of Chinese as a Heritage Language (He, 2006, 2008b), the author
defines Chinese heritage learners as follows:
Following Valdés‘ (2001, p. 38) definition of heritage learner, I define the
CHL learner broadly as a language student who is raised in a home where
Chinese is spoken and who speaks or at least understands the language and is
to some degree bilingual in Chinese and in English. More specifically, I focus
on learners who see Chinese ―with a particular family relevance‖ (Fishman,
2001, p. 169) and who are English-dominant with no or very limited
reading/writing ability in Chinese. In other words, I focus on CHL
development. I do not consider CHL maintenance as can be seen in the case of
advanced level CHL students who have obtained native or near native
proficiency in all areas of the language and who take courses in literature in
Chinese to maintain or further expand their language skills. (2008b, p. 110,
emphasis in original.)
The theory links development in Standard Mandarin to dimensions of time, space and
identity, with success tied to students‘ abilities to develop, ―hybrid, situated identites
and stances‖ (He, 2008b, p. 116). Complications with this definition arise when
considering the background of students in this study and the makeup of the students
taking Mandarin classes at CNU more generally.
In this chapter and the one following, I explore some of the issues that arise when
there is a large population of Cantonese-background learners in a Mandarin program,
as is the case at CNU. He‘s definition does not directly address the case of second
―dialect‖ development among Cantonese speaking students, nor does it account for
148
the fact that a Mandarin program, like the one at CNU, enrolls large numbers of
students who would be considered ―heritage‖ learners by some of the more expansive
definitions, but are ruled out according to He‘s definition.
He‘s theory also raises important questions about the meanings of ―Chinese culture‖
when discussing Chinese as a heritage language. The focal students‘ experiences remind
us first, why it is important to consider not just individual identity as ―hybrid and
situated‖, but culture and language as hybrid, fluid and situated as well (During, 2005),
and second, that identities are not just created by individual agency, but that social
structures exert powerful forces over the options individuals have for identification.
Notions of Chinese culture, ethnicity and identity are powerful and compelling social
constructs for identification among Chinese Americans (Louie, 2004), and for individual
students, language study certainly plays a part in negotiating, enacting and reinforcing
their sense of what it means to be ―Chinese‖. This may mean for Cantonese-background
students that they are being socialized into language practices when learning Standard
Mandarin that tend to marginalize their existing language abilities, a situation that has
been discussed for ―heritage‖ learners of Spanish (e.g. Colombi & Alarcón, 1997;
Lacorte & Canabal, 2005), but has remained relatively unexplored for Chinese. As Jim
Cummins aptly noted, heritage language programs are teaching languages whose
histories are complex and intertwined with issues of power; programs must recognize
learner diversity because, ―…these programs are helping students to become a particular
kind of person rather than just attempting to transmit a language‖ (quoted in Li & Duff,
2008, p. 24).
149
The concept of ―investment‖ put forth by Norton (Norton, 1997; 2000) captures a
relationship between identity and motivation that is, in many ways, relevant for
examining the social complexity of Cantonese-background students who study Mandarin.
Norton‘s conceptualization of ―investment‖ came about as she examined the language
development experiences beyond the classroom of English language learners in Canada.
The term ―investment‖:
…signals the socially and historically constructed relationship of learners to the
target language, and their often ambivalent desire to learn and practice it….The
notion presupposes that when language learners speak, they are not only
exchanging information with target language speakers, but they are constantly
organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the
social world. (2000, pp. 10-11)
―Investment‖ is not simply about the reasons an individual gives for studying a language.
It relates to issues of power and access to language development opportunities. Norton‘s
construct of investment assumes that learners choose to work toward second language
development, or ―invest‖ in a second language, when they believe that through such
development they stand to gain symbolic or material resources. Norton emphasizes
personal agency as it relates to the futures learners imagine for themselves and
investment, as a theoretical construct, places the learner as a contextualized subject at the
center of study. The work of both Giddens (1984) and Lin (2008a) complement Norton‘s
notion of investment, placing more of an emphasis on the interaction between social
structure and human agency in framing the roles of motivation and identity in language
development (for a discussion, see conclusion of Chapter 3).
150
4. Expanding the Mandarin program at CNU
4.1. The setting
The study site, California Northern University (a pseudonym), is a large, public
research university that, along with other campuses in the system enrolls the top 12.5% of
high school graduates in the state. In 2007-08 the undergraduate enrollment was about
23,500, and, of the domestic undergraduate population, about 18.7% self-identified as
Chinese or Chinese-American. Mandarin classes were in demand, with over 100 students
on the wait list in Fall Quarter 2007.
The person who manages course offerings and enrollment, the Program Director, is a
tenure-track faculty member responsible for all levels of the language portion of a
Chinese language and literature department. He came to the university after completing a
Ph.D. in Chinese linguistics and teaching Mandarin for two years at a prestigious private
university in the U.S. He also holds an M.A. degree in Chinese language teaching
pedagogy from a highly-ranked university in the People‘s Republic of China, his home
country.
One of the major challenges the Program Director faces is accommodating a wide
range of students with different kinds of existing abilities in varieties of Chinese. As a
way to manage student heterogeneity, the program implemented a tracked system at the
beginning levels in the early 1990‘s, and was one of the first higher education Chinese
departments in the U.S. to do so (Scott McGinnis, personal communication). The
university also offered a specialized class in Mandarin for Cantonese speakers in the
1990‘s. The class was offered through the Asian-American Studies Department, rather
than the Chinese Language and Literature Department. It was taught by a faculty member
151
in Asian-American Studies who spoke both Cantonese and Mandarin, but after his death,
the department no longer offered the course.
After this and through Spring Quarter 2006, Mandarin classes were offered through
two tracks at what are generally referred to as the ―first‖ and ―second‖ year levels, that is,
according to a foreign language course sequence. The ―bilingual‖ track was described as
being for students with speaking ability in any form of Chinese, but who needed to learn
the writing system. There was no official description of a typical student profile for the
―regular‖ track, the default assumption being that it was designed for foreign language
learners, or ―true beginners‖, a term that has also been used contrastively in the heritage
language literature. In the fall of 2006 the department added a Cantonese track.
In an interview with the Program Director at the end of Spring Quarter 2008, he stated
he was in an on-going process of making curricular changes to the department to
accommodate both high demand and diversity. He was able to secure funding in 2008
from the Dean‘s Office for an additional FTE to expand course offerings, and was still
working on adapting the program structure to accommodate the changing demographics
of the students enrolling in the program. From his perspective, the Mandarin language
classes were enrolling students from three significantly different groups of learners:
foreign language learners (―true beginners‖), heritage learners, and native speakers
(students who immigrated primarily from the P.R.C. in junior high or later), with a wide
range of abilities and motivations within each of these groups, and he said he was
committed to providing Mandarin language education for all types of students (summary
based on field notes, Spring ‘08).
152
The process of changing the structure of the program, as the Program Director did for
the addition of the Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers class, is administratively complex.
To accomplish that, the Program Director needed to get approval from a number of layers
of administration to which he reports, directly (the Chair of the Chinese Language and
Literature department) and indirectly (the Dean‘s Office). The Program Director used the
findings from the study presented here in Chapter 5 to help make his case with higher
level administrators that a third track, specifically for Cantonese-background students
should be added (Spring ‘08 field notes). Findings, as reported in Chapter 5, showed that
‗dialect‘ background was a complicating factor for placement and class composition, and
revealed some of the reasons that Cantonese-background students would choose to resist
department placement decisions. Kelly, the focal student with Cantonese background,
decided to move to a regular track class even though the department placed her into the
bilingual track. She did this, at least in part, because she recognized that the regular class
spent more time focused on teaching the parts of Standard Mandarin that she said she
didn‘t know; that is, as she said, ―…how to say the words‖ (Kelleher, 2008, p. 249). In
quantitative terms, the study found that 13 out of 20 students in the ―regular‖ class spoke
Cantonese to some degree.
In implementing the new CN classes, the Program Director did not have in mind
creating a completely separate course of study for the Cantonese background students.
Rather, he characterized the new set of courses (3 quarters, the equivalent of one
academic year) as being a ―bridge‖ to other classes in the program. He said that the
students would be evaluated at the end of each term to see if they could be placed into
one of the other classes in the program. Depending on their abilities, they might be placed
153
into the ―bilingual‖ track, the ―regular‖ track (at the second year level) or into a class at a
higher level (―third year‖ and above).
4.2. Qualitative inquiry into CHL student investment
Within this setting and research framework, identity became a centerpiece for
examining students‘ motivations, and a salient aspect of identity was the students‘ sense
of ethnic or cultural identity. Situated in Northern California, CNU draws many students
from the San Francisco Bay Area where there is a high concentration of ChineseAmerican high school graduates. Student enrollment in the Mandarin program is
dominated by Asian-American students, many of whom identify as Chinese or ChineseAmerican. Even in the ―regular‖ track classes (those for ―true beginners‖ as department
materials express it), students who are not visibly Asian are very much in the minority.
The general impression in the setting is that most students who study Chinese (meaning
Mandarin) are Chinese (referencing ethnicity).
There is a strong common sense assumption about what it means to be ―Chinese‖
running through the CHL literature and the comments of participants in this study. In
conversations with the students and teachers, the English term ―Chinese‖ as an identity
category was used to mean that their parents and ancestors are Han Chinese. At times,
both students and teachers mentioned the racial characteristics, ―black hair, yellow skin‖
to specify what they meant by ―being Chinese‖ (for a discussion of this expression, see
Louie, 2004, pp. 51-52); cultural characteristics, in particular being respectful of parents
and elders, were also mentioned by participants as part of what it means to them to ―be
Chinese‖. Among participants in this study, the idea of Han Chinese ancestry was
encoded in the term ―Chinese‖ as an identity category that was racially, ethnically and
154
culturally construed. This conception contrasted with the Mandarin term presented in the
class meaning ―Chinese‖, Zhongguo ren, which primarily references nationality; one
student‘s reflections on this contrast are included in the analysis.
Through interviews and class observations, I aimed to find out how a sense of ethnic
identity and connection to a Chinese family and community played a role in the dynamics
of the students‘ investment in learning Mandarin. To begin examining this, I first talked
with the students about their language background and initial reasons for enrolling in a
Mandarin class in college. I followed up with four of the initial five focal students later in
the year, asking them about their experiences in Mandarin class through the year and how
their interest in studying the language changed over time. Then, in analyzing interview
notes, I examined how the students characterized their decision to study Mandarin and
how they related being Cantonese/English bilingual to this choice and to their learning
outcomes. I also analyzed class observation notes to look for instances where ethnic or
cultural identity was raised as an issue related to the students‘ choice to study Mandarin.
The data sources I drew from include observation field notes from 22 class sessions
and a department-sponsored Chinese New Year celebration, a written student survey,
interviews with 5 of the 12 students in the class (3 female and 2 male), interviews and
conversations with two teachers and the Program Director, and class materials.
Aspects of nexus analysis methodology (Scollon & Scollon, 2004, 2007) were
instrumental in this analysis, giving shape to the connection between what was articulated
by participants, at times what remained unsaid, and connections to the context. First,
returning to a point made by Giddens (1984), it is important to recognize that many of the
actions we take in our daily lives are relatively routinized, and are not enacted with a real
155
motive behind them. Of ―motivation‖ and ―motive‖ Giddens says, ―Motivation refers to
potential for action rather than to the mode in which action is chronically carried on by
the agent. Motives tend to have direct purchase on action only in relatively unusual
circumstances, situations which in some way break with the routine‖ (p. 6).
A first step in this analysis was to analyze students‘ reasons for enrolling in the
Mandarin class, which was a break with routine, and a situation where they were more
conscious (discursively) of their reasons for doing so. I compared their responses
impressionistically and by conducting a ―motive analysis‖, according to Scollon and
Scollon (2004). This analysis process categorizes responses according to where the
speaker places responsibility for an action; there are five points of view: scene, social
actor, mediational means, purpose, and mediated action (for a full discussion, see Scollon
& Scollon, 2004, pp. 125-128).
The responses of one participant, Tina, to the question about why she was studying
Mandarin serve to illustrate the five categories. Tina‘s overarching response ascribed the
motive of her action to the scene (an external source), saying she was studying Mandarin
because others around her speak it. She brought this up in the context of discussing a job
she had where she worked at a company doing business in China and where many people,
including her boss, spoke Mandarin. In describing the circumstances by which she came
to be around others who speak Mandarin, her explanation points to reasons for studying
Mandarin of the four other types: 1) social actor (drawing on personal will and internal
characteristics); she said she would feel included in the office if she speaks Mandarin; 2)
purpose (expected outcomes or goals), she could get ahead with her company; 3)
mediational means (material and psychological resources); she needs to communicate
156
with her boss; and 4) mediated action (relating to the action itself; consequence of prior
actions); she used to study Japanese, but studies Mandarin now because she got this job.
The analysis examines the comments of each of the five focal students in this way, but
unlike Tina who spoke at length about this example, the other students‘ comments do not
exhibit motives from all five categories. For each student, I identify the overarching
reason and show a pattern that emerged in the responses.
I continued to examine the data record for themes related to identity negotiations,
discussion of ‗dialect‘, and the students‘ investments in Mandarin study. As I read
through instances where students discussed their Cantonese background, I found a
number of interactions that poignantly illustrate ways that being a ―heritage‖ language
learner, with a background not in Mandarin but Cantonese, had an impact on the
students‘ investment in learning Mandarin. I selected three particular extracts which
illustrated the most overt cases of identity negotiation related to Cantonese language
knowledge and use, considering some of the social factors that were likely to have had an
influence on the students, and finally, I considered possible ramifications. The following
chapter, Chapter 7, uses a similar methodology, with examples focusing on pedagogic
practices vis-à-vis students‘ understanding of the relationship between Cantonese and
Mandarin.
4.3. The ―Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers‖ class
The focal classes for Chapters 6 and 7 are the ―Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers‖
classes at CNU. Following is the department description of the first quarter (CHN 1C) of
the year-long sequence:
157
A beginning Mandarin Chinese class designed for students who do not
understand Mandarin Chinese but already have basic comprehension and
speaking skills in Cantonese or another Chinese dialect as well as certain
exposure to reading and/or writing in Chinese. While all the fundamental
skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing in Mandarin will be trained,
the emphasis will be on Mandarin pronunciation. Depending on their reading
and writing competence, students will be placed into different levels of
Chinese courses at the end of the one-year [Cantonese] course series (Chinese
1C, 2C, and 3C).
The description of the two subsequent quarters are nearly identical, with the exception of
the second sentence, which for the classes Chinese 2C and 3C reads, ―Continue to train
fundamental skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing in Mandarin with the
emphasis on accuracy of pronunciation and fluency of speaking.‖
A significant fact about the ―Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers‖ classes I observed is
that they were very heterogeneous, despite the possible assumption that courses
specifically for Cantonese speakers would be homogeneous. The students‘ abilities in
Cantonese, in written Chinese, their exposure to Mandarin, and their immigration
backgrounds were widely divergent. The students in Chinese 1C in the Fall Quarter of
2007 ranged from one who is third-generation American, and in fact not a speaker of
Cantonese, to one student who had immigrated to the U.S. less than 6 years earlier from
the P.R.C. But the majority of the students were born in the U.S. to immigrant parents or
immigrated before the start of formal schooling, and they reported continuing to speak
primarily Cantonese with their parents. This is significant because much of the research
158
on heritage language learners focuses on those students whose language abilities have
undergone what is characterized as ―attrition‖ or who have shifted toward using English
with their family members, particularly siblings and parents. In particular, He‘s (2008b)
definition of Chinese as a heritage language (CHL) student excludes these students from
the category ―heritage language learner‖. These students, for the most part are different
from the generalized category because their use of the heritage language (Cantonese) has
remained relatively strong as they have grown older18. Further, they have grown up in
communities with a strong Chinese presence and, as such, are not part of the
demographic discussed in Tse‘s (1998) stage model of ethnic identity development for
heritage learners (for a summary, see Chapter 3).
Many of the students in the class remain productive users of Cantonese, and while I
did not observe the students using Cantonese to talk together during class when
discussing their course work, I did observe many of them using Cantonese on a regular
basis. Some students would speak together or on the telephone in Cantonese before and
after class, and in the interviews, some students mentioned their own or their classmates‘
current use of Cantonese. At times, the teacher drew on students‘ knowledge both of
spoken Cantonese and written Standard Chinese as a pedagogical bridge for teaching
Mandarin; such interactions are examined more closely in Chapter 7.
4.4. Demographic overview of the students
The following table (Table 6.1) gives a brief, demographic overview of the twelve
students in the 1C class that I observed during the Fall Quarter, 2007. The first five
18
Robust use of Cantonese among ethnically Chinese students in this setting may be even more prevalent
than this study on Mandarin education suggests. One researcher surveying language use among
undergraduates taking in introductory linguistics course in this setting pointed out that this phenomenon of
continued use of Cantonese was prevalent in the responses (Julia Menard-Warwick, personal
communication).
159
students, whose names are highlighted in Table 6.1., are the focal students whom I
interviewed. In the later part of this chapter, I discuss in detail their motivations for
taking this course. All names are pseudonyms. The teacher called all of the students by
their Chinese names, given to them by their parents. All of the students except one,
Dawei, also had an English name which was listed on the class roster and which they
used outside of their Mandarin class. I also used their English names when
communicating with them. The pseudonyms reflect the type of name that was on the
official class roster, English or Chinese.
Tina
Julie
Eric
Susan
2nd year student; Economics major; Psychology minor.
Born in Canton; move to San Francisco at age 2.
Reported Cantonese as her first language.
Speaks all Cantonese with parents; mostly English and some Cantonese
with sister.
Attended community Chinese school in Cantonese, 5th to 9th grade, 3
hours/week.
Studied Japanese 9th to 12th grade; much more interested in Japanese
than Mandarin when starting at CNU.
2nd year student; Communications and Managerial Economic double
major.
Reported Cantonese as her first language (written survey) and being
bilingual (Cantonese/English) her whole life (interview).
Born in a small town in central California; grew up in San Francisco.
Speaks Cantonese and English with parents; mostly English with sister.
Says she uses a lot of ―Chinglish‖.
Attended community Chinese school in Cantonese and Mandarin for 4
years, 5 hours per week in late elementary/middle school. Also attended
Chinese summer school and had a Mandarin tutor.
Studied Spanish, 3 years in high school.
4th year; Biochemistry and Economics double major.
Reported Cantonese as his first language.
Born in Hong Kong, moved to San Francisco when he was 4 years old.
Speaks Cantonese with his parents; Cantonese and English with his
brother.
Attended community Chinese school in Cantonese for 2 years, 10 hours
per week in elementary school.
Also studying Korean (concurrent with Chinese 1C).
3rd year; German major; possible French minor.
Reported English as her first language.
160
Born and grew up in San Jose.
Speaks only English with everyone in her family. Recognizes a few,
isolated words in Toisan from her mother.
Attended community Chinese school in Mandarin for 9 years, 2.5 hours
per week, starting in second grade. Took one community college
Mandarin course.
Also studied French and German in high school and college.
Matt
2nd year student; Communications and Chinese major; possible East
Asian Studies minor.
Born and grew up in Oakland.
Speaks Cantonese with his parents and English with his sister.
Attended community Chinese school in Cantonese, 6 years, one hour
per week.
Also studied French in high school.
Dawei
2nd year; Computer Science major.
Born in Canton, moved to San Francisco in 8th grade; parents still in
Canton, sister in the U.S.
Speaks Cantonese with parents; Cantonese and English with his sister.
Primary schooling in Cantonese through 8th grade.
Studied English as a foreign language; compulsory school subject in the
P.R.C.
Concurrently studying Japanese.
Bonnie 2nd year; Microbiology major.
Reported Cantonese as her first language.
Born in the P.R.C.; moved to San Francisco when she was 8 or 9 years
old.
Speaks mostly Cantonese with parents; English with sister and cousins.
Primary schooling in Cantonese before immigrating to the U.S. Studied
Cantonese for 2 years in high school.
Studied English as a foreign language in the P.R.C.
Gary
2nd year; Biological Sciences major, Economics minor.
Reported English as his first language.
Born and grew up in California
Speaks almost all English with his parents and only English with his
brother. Speaks very little Cantonese with his mother and grandmother.
Understands some Toisan.
Attended community Chinese school in Cantonese for 7 years, 3 hours
per week. Studied Mandarin in high school for 2 years.
No study of other languages reported.
Andrew 2nd year; Managerial Economics and Internationals Relations double
major.
No report of first language (likely Cantonese).
Born and grew up in San Francisco.
Speaks Cantonese with his parents and English with his sister.
161
Nelson
Kelvin
Johnny
Attended community Chinese school in Mandarin for 2 years, 3 hours
per week. Studied Mandarin for 3 years in high school.
2nd year; Managerial Economics and International Relations double
major.
Reported Cantonese to be his first language.
Born and grew up in San Francisco.
Speaks mostly Cantonese with both parents. Some English and
Mandarin with both parents (reports his mother speaks little English),
also some Toisan with his mother.
Attended community Chinese school in Cantonese and Mandarin for 3-4
years, 1-2 hours per week. Studied Mandarin for 3 years in high school.
1st year.
No survey information, but likely grew up in the Bay Area.
Speaks Cantonese with his grandmother. Parents both speak Cantonese.
Attended community Chinese school in Cantonese for 2 years.
Did not complete a survey (absent that day), but from field notes it is
likely that he speaks primarily Cantonese with his mother. He has also
studied a number of other languages including Japanese and Korean.
Table 6.1. ―Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers‖ student background overview.
Most of this demographic information was taken primarily from a written survey I
administered to the class (see Appendix D). In some cases, where information was
missing, I included information drawn from classroom observations or interviews (see
Appendix E for interview questions). In a very few cases, as noted, I‘ve included
information that is a very likely assumption based on other information (for example, that
Bonnie would have studied English in the P.R.C. since English is part of a national
educational curriculum).
In general, the students sat in the same seats each day in class. Seating was not
controlled in any way by the teacher, yet the following figure (Figure 6.1) shows that
162
there was a pattern to the way the students sat in the classroom, related to language
abilities:
Teacher Wu
table
Kelvin
Johnny
Eric
Door
Bonnie
Matt
Tina
Dawei
Nelson
Andrew
Gary
Susan
Julie
AMK
Figure 6.1. Language background and typical seating in Mandarin 1C.
The shading represents bilingual abilities in Cantonese and English, with the darker
shading representing higher levels of ability in Cantonese and lighter shading lower
levels; the white background for Susan indicates that she had no ability in Cantonese. I
found 5 distinct categories. Bonnie and Dawei spent a significant part of their childhoods
in the P.R.C. and initially were exposed to English as a foreign language; Eric, Johnny,
Matt, Nelson, Tina and Andrew all spent most of their lives in the U.S. and identified
Cantonese (or simply ―Chinese‖) as their first language; also, these students all reported
continuing to speak with their parents in Cantonese; Julie and Kelvin both reported
speaking some Cantonese with their families, but less so than the previous group; Gary
and Susan each reported English as being their first language, in contrast to the previous
163
three groups, but they are different in that Gary‘s parents speak Toisan together in the
home and he said that he can understand it, whereas Susan‘s parents communicate
together only in English.
The teacher, Teacher Wu (or Wu Laoshi in Mandarin, a pseudonym) for the Fall
Quarter 2007 class, where the majority of the class observations took place, was from the
P.R.C. and was very interested in learning about ―American culture‖ from the students.
She was a visiting instructor from a prestigious university in Beijing, and she had prior
experience teaching Chinese as a foreign language overseas, in Poland. In Beijing, she
taught Mandarin to Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong, in addition to foreign language
classes with students from overseas. In the 1C class, she would often talk about the
students as American in opposition to herself as Chinese, referencing nationality, and
bringing up a number of issues around identity formations and the status of Chinese
identities in the U.S. that were left mostly unexplored in the classroom.
5. Findings and discussion
5.1. Reasons for taking Mandarin
The written survey responses were very brief. Most students responded simply that
they wanted to improve their Mandarin or are taking the class out of interest. A few
students specifically mentioned a language requirement along with their interest in
improving their ability. I will focus here on findings from the interviews when students
gave more in-depth responses, primarily discussing how the students related their existing
abilities in Cantonese to their desire to study Mandarin.
In the interviews, when the students talked about their choice to study Mandarin, they
often related it to prior language study and general impressions they have of themselves
164
as language learners. For example, Matt had a difficult time studying French in high
school. His parents encouraged him to take Spanish in college because they felt it was
more useful than Mandarin. However, Matt said he chose to study Mandarin because he
felt he would not do well with Spanish since he had a hard time with French, and that he
would do better in Mandarin since he already knew Cantonese. In the end, this view
changed when he was in class because he felt that knowing Cantonese only got in the
way with what he needed to learn for class, Standard Mandarin pronunciation. Even so,
he felt he was learning a lot and was one of the few focal students who continued
studying in the program after the end of the year. He was also the only one who chose to
make it a major or minor.
The students connected a sense of their Chinese identity with language ability, and
this was often tied to a sense of obligation and deficiency, or, what they thought they
should know. The students who spoke primarily Cantonese with their families, Matt, Eric
and Tina, did not express any sense of language deficiency or limitation in
communicating with their parents; however, limited ability to communicate with parents
is commonly cited as a characteristic of ―heritage‖ learners. Instead, it was the lack of
literacy skills that they mentioned in connection with deficiency and what they ―should‖
know, and this was a sentiment also shared by Julie. These students, including Julie, said
that they selected Mandarin, at least in part, because they already know Cantonese. They
also said that Mandarin is important to them because it is more widely used than
Cantonese. Some of Matt‘s and Tina‘s comments related this desire to expand their
instrumental ability to include a more widely-spoken variety of Chinese to the future and
work, while Eric talked about how it would help him understand popular culture. Often
165
students simply made the comment that Mandarin was more widely spoken, implying
that that is reason enough to study the language. In these kinds of indirect ways, the
students did connect their ability in Cantonese with their reasons for taking Mandarin, but
they didn‘t necessarily think that knowing Cantonese helps with their Mandarin study, a
topic discussed in Chapter 7.
The following table (Table 6.2) summarizes the kinds of motives the focal students
gave to account for enrolling in the class.
Tina
Julie
Eric
Matt
Susan
Scene
Social actor
Purpose
Because
more people
speak it and
China is
becoming
dominant.
Because her
family is
Chinese.
Mandarin is
more widely
spoken.
Things are
changing,
more
Mandarin
speakers.
Major
requirement
Will feel more
included in the
office if she does.
Because she is
Chinese.
Get ahead
with her
company.
For herself, in
contrast to
parental wish.
Lessen the gap
between herself
and others in
Hong Kong.
Would be
useful.
He wanted to for
a while but didn’t
until he changed
his major. It’s his
heritage; feels
an obligation to
know how to read
a newspaper.
Should know
more about
Chinese since
he’s Chinese.
Understand
pop music.
Requirement.
No other
good option
(ruled out
French and
Spanish)
Communicate
for work later
with
companies in
China (but
only after I
prompted).
Make
prior/wasted
study worth
something.
Meditational
means
Needs to
communicate
with her
boss.
Mediated
action
Used to
study
Japanese
but now
Mandarin
b/c she got
a certain
job.
Have to take
a language,
why not M.
Wants to
“brush up”
on
Chinese.
Already
knows
some about
the
language,
just keep
studying.
Keep
studying
because
she’s been
studying.
166
Table 6.2. Motive analysis summary: focal students‘ reasons for studying Mandarin.
While the sample size is too small to generalize, there are a few patterns that emerge
from this analysis. The first and strongest responses for each participant are highlighted
in bold. Comparing these answers, the responses grouped together based on gender and
Cantonese background. The two female Cantonese speakers, Julie and Tina, both drew
upon the discourse of Mandarin as an emerging global language, giving a scenic
explanation for taking the class. They also emphasized a social actor explanation, tying
Mandarin study to their sense of being Chinese, saying they are Chinese so they should
know more about the language. The two male Cantonese speakers, Eric and Matt, gave a
different scenic motivation, the university‘s language requirement, as the main reason for
enrolling in the course. This practical, scenic reason was accompanied by a social actor
explanation, similar to the one given by Julie and Tina: Matt and Eric also said that they
are Chinese and should know more about the language. Finally, the one student without a
Cantonese background, Susan, only offered one explanation: that she is studying
Mandarin because she has in the past and wants to make all of the wasted time worth
something. This explanation can be classified as both ―purpose‖ and ―mediated action‖;
there is a reason for studying, to make something of a past failure, but essentially she
continues because she already started, and she is similar to Matt in this regard.
5.2. Class purpose as portrayed in the classroom
The purpose of the class was clear to the majority of students, the teachers and
program director. It was to give Cantonese students a grounding in Standard Mandarin
pronunciation. Pronunciation training involved a lot of choral repetition, drilling and tests
167
based on the accuracy of students‘ standard pronunciation and their ability to transcribe
into pinyin.
In the following classroom interaction, the teacher‘s perspective on the program
structure and the purpose of the class is made explicit to the students:
Data Extract 1 (from field notes, Nov. 7, 2007):
The students were also talking about the fact that there were only 5 spots left in the
2C class for the next quarter. The registration period was still going on and some
students had registered for courses while others were still waiting for their ―pass
times‖. Dawei said that his pass time was at 6:00 a.m. the next day. Teacher Wu was
talking with the students at this point, but she didn‘t understand when Kelvin was
telling her that there were only 5 spaces left. They went back and forth a few times (in
English) before Teacher Wu understood. She then started to explain that she would
give the students another evaluation at the end of the quarter to determine what class
they should go into next and said that most of them should probably go to 2C. She
wrote course numbers on the board in the following arrangement:
4, 5, 6
1C
1
2C
3C
2
3
111 
Teacher Wu explained that the classes use the same textbook, but that the students in
this class are different because some of them can write well and they can speak
Cantonese. She wrote this diagram of the tracking practices after Bonnie and Matt
said that they heard 2C was like a combination of CHN 3 and 4. Teacher Wu said this
168
isn‘t the case and said that the program has different options for the students as they
progress. She said she would give them a test at the end of the quarter, and that,
W- Ruguo ni shuo de hen hao [trans. If you speak very well] you can go to this part
(5,6) next quarter.
She also said that some students could go to 112.
W- Wo gei ni zuo yi ge evaluation zhidao ni keyi qu nar. [trans. I will give you an
evaluation to know where you can go.]
She said that for this class (the Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers class), the teachers
give an oral evaluation after 3 weeks, 3 more weeks and at the end. She said that at
the end of the quarter they will have an oral evaluation and that students should,
W- Try your best. I want to know your level.
Summarizing the structure of the program, the teacher said,
W- Suoyi nimen keyi xue Zhongwen duan yidian. [trans. So you can study Chinese for
a bit shorter time.] Some use 3 years, maybe you can use 2 years.
She said that for this class, the focus is on speaking and that the most important things
are,
W- Di yi, shuo dui. Di er, shuo ziran. [trans. First, speak correctly. Second, speak
naturally.]
This explanation to the class was clearly in line with the Program Director‘s vision of the
class being a bridge to other classes. The teacher interpreted this in a significant way, as
seen in the last line, emphasizing correctness over speaking ―naturally‖, here, meaning
fluently. The course description said the class would concentrate on, ―…accuracy of
pronunciation and fluency of speaking,‖ and in this quote, the teacher explicitly values
169
accuracy over fluency, and this was reflected in classroom practices. In class when
practicing, the teacher and students would speak very slowly, exaggerating the tones and
very carefully articulating the sounds. The objective was for students to leave this track
as soon as they gained adequate familiarity with pinyin, the Romanization system for
Mandarin developed in Mainland China, and Standard Mandarin pronunciation.
The class also introduced simplified characters, whereas the students in the focal class,
as is true for many Cantonese-background speakers (with the exception of those from the
P.R.C.), were most familiar with traditional forms. The exceptions in this class were the
two students who completed some of their schooling in the P.R.C. before emigrating to
the U.S. (Bonnie and Dawei) and the one student who grew up without any variety of
Chinese being spoken in the house (Susan). Also, in his interview, Eric commented that
he was ―not a big fan‖ of simplified characters for the reason that he felt it was like losing
a part of the culture. Toward the end of the quarter, the teacher told me that she was
considering recommending that one or two of the students (Dawei and Bonnie) go into
the bilingual track after Fall Quarter, but she thought the other students would be best
served by continuing in the Cantonese-background class.
In interviews with the students later in the year they told me that the focus on accurate
pronunciation (rather than fluent speech) increased when they went into CHN 2C and 3C
with a new teacher. Whereas in the fall with Teacher Wu the students had opportunities
in class to speak, making up their own sentences or doing small role-playing activities, in
2C and 3C their oral production was all recitation, overseen and evaluated by the teacher,
Teacher Zhang (a pseudonym), for correctness, adhering to Standard Mandarin
pronunciation. This topic will be discussed further in Chapter 7.
170
5.3. My classmates think I‘m ‗white‘
With this background of the class, I turn now to some of the identity negotiations that
came up as a result of the students enrolling in this course. The first example comes from
an interview I conducted with Julie during the Fall Quarter, 2007 (Nov. 7, 2007). I met
with her for about 20 minutes after class and asked her about her language development
history, reasons for studying Mandarin and about her experiences in the class. I asked her
if she could tell where the teacher was from (in China) by her accent. Julie said she didn‘t
know enough to be able to tell. Then I asked if she could tell where people are from when
they speak English, based on their accent. At first she tried to address my question
directly, saying that it‘s difficult to tell. But then she switched to evaluating the
connection between accent and judgments about people. She made a general link between
accent and being ―Americanized,‖ and then said that, for her personally, she gets
offended when other people assume she doesn‘t speak Cantonese. Because this offends
her, she said, she tries not to make assumptions about what languages other people speak
based on how they look or their accent when they speak English.
I asked if she could tell me about a specific time when she was offended because
someone assumed she couldn‘t speak Cantonese. She shared the following anecdote
regarding an interaction with her classmates that took place just after leaving class one
day.
Data extract 2 (from interview, Nov. 7, 2007):
Julie: Well, it was recently actually—the most recent experience. Like, we were
coming out of a midterm…
AK: Uh-huh.
171
Julie: um for the Chinese class. And then, um, and then everyone‘s like talking about,
―Oh, what did you put for this one? What did you put for that one?‖ And I was just
like, ―Oh,‖ um, I was just…I just think I was really tired, then I started speaking
Cantonese. I was like, ―You know what. It‘s over. Like let‘s just go home and sleep.‖
You know.
AK: Uh-huh.
Julie: And then like one of the students like turned around and was like, ―What? Did
you speak Cantonese?‖ And I was like, ―We‘re in a Mandarin for Cantonese
speakers. How do I not know how to speak Cantonese?‖ You know. And then they‘re
like, ―Oh, we thought you were white.‖ I was like, ―White?!‖ And so they‘re like,
―Oh, you‘re not mixed.‖ I was like, ―No, I‘m not mixed.‖ And they were like, ―Oh, I
thought you were Filipino‖ and stuff. And I was like, ―Oh my god!‖ So…I think, you
know, I… I was just like, ―Wow, this is pretty weird‖…
Julie self-identified as Chinese American on the written survey and said in the interview
that both of her parents are both originally from Hong Kong. Her father came to the U.S.
and went to college in California. After that, he married Julie‘s mother and they settled in
the U.S. Julie said that her father‘s English is very good and that she grew up bilingual in
English and Cantonese. She became more dominant in English after going to school and
part of her reason for studying Mandarin was that it was a way to stay connected to the
Chinese language. She expressed pride in the fact that she was one of the very few in the
younger generation in her family (in the U.S.) who could still speak Cantonese. In this
example, Julie‘s classmate was ascribing to her a racialized identity – ―being white‖– that
is not part of her self-conception. The ascription also indicates that the evaluation had
172
more to do with not being Chinese than actually ―being‖ white, as her classmate grouped
―being Filipino‖ together with ―being white‖.
Of all the students I interviewed, Julie was the one who most clearly said she is
studying Mandarin to, ―lessen the gap‖ as she put it, between herself and the people she
interacts with when she travels to Hong Kong, as she has done on a regular basis with her
family and was planning to do in the future for study abroad. In our interview, she
expressed more concern about losing her Cantonese ability and with it, a sense of her
Chinese identity, as interpreted by others. She talked about being identified as an
outsider, an American, in Hong Kong because of the way she dressed and that her ability
to speak Cantonese was what brought to her a measure of recognition by others as being
more ―Chinese‖. It is ironic that through Mandarin study she was confronted with a
situation where she used Cantonese under the assumption of similarity with her
classmates, but found out she was categorized as an outsider.
5.4. Cantonese Word Games
The second example of how Mandarin study is a particular field for ethnic and cultural
identity construction comes from the interview with Eric that I conducted at the end of
the academic year (June 4, 2008). He told me about a class project he‘d been involved
with in his second quarter of Mandarin study, with the instructor for Chinese 2C and 3C,
Teacher Zhang, who was originally from Taiwan. The students were assigned to do an
out-of-class project and he put together a short video with some of his classmates. The
video included the following image of a letter (Figure 6.2, from interview June 4, 2008).
Eric said that he and his classmates included the image of the letter to show that they
learned the Chinese way of addressing an envelope. But, they also used it as an
173
opportunity to include hidden humor in their video, with two Cantonese-based jokes
embedded in the addresses.
1
1
2
Figure 6.2. Video still: Cantonese word games.
Eric explained the jokes to me, saying the first depends on the Cantonese pronuciation of
the character marked ―1‖ above. The vertical set of graphs on the left shows a stylized
image of a postage stamp at the top followed (downward) by 4 Chinese characters and
the letter ―Q‖. The student said that this was supposed to be the return address,
transliterated as, ―246 Hua Q‖ [a fictitious street name]. In Mandarin, the character
labeled ―1‖ is pronounced ―hua‖ but in Cantonese it is ―fa‖. So if the two graphs are read
out loud with this Canontese pronunciation ―fa‖ and then the letter ―Q‖ it sounds like
―fuck you‖ in English.
The second joke, shown in the string of characters on the right, depends entirely on
Cantonese pronunciation. The vertical line of characters on the right say, ―235 Polk
Street‖ – a fictitious address incorporating the name of an actual, well-known street in
San Francisco where many of the students are from. Reading the English street name
(―Polk‖) and the Cantonese pronunciation for the character marked ―2‖, it sounds like a
174
Cantonese expression ―pok gai‖ meaning literally ―fall on your face‖, but the expression
is also used in exclamation as a swear word, as Eric told me, similar to ―shit‖ in English.
In this example, Eric and his classmates used their knowledge of Cantonese to create
solidarity among themselves and with the rest of the class, excluding the teacher with
their insider knowledge of Cantonese. The students drew on a sense of shared Cantonese
identity to make this joke, and Eric told me he did think that his classmates understood
and that the teacher did not. This is a kind of resistance, but Eric was actually a little
worried that the teacher would understand because he did not really want to offend her.
This example can also be considered a type of ―critical learning‖ in the sense of a
―clandestine literacy activity‖ (citing Canagarajah, Norton & Toohey, 2004, p. 5), where
interpreting the written text requires specialized knowledge shared by the students but not
the teacher. This underscores the importance of the perspective Stein (2004) characterizes
as multimodal pedagogy, and it exemplifies in a different context how students are
creative and agentive in drawing on their vernacular knowledge in ways that avoid
official censure, developing in Canagarajah‘s terms ―multivocal literacies.‖ Canagarajah
(2004) argues that identifying these kinds of practices will give teachers a better sense of
the critical thinking skills and creativity students are capable of deploying. In this
context, it might be helpful for teachers to see and appreciate this kind of language
activity. On the surface, the students‘ letter is an intentional knowledge display, showing
that they learned material from their textbook about conventions for addressing letters.
Beyond this surface meaning, incorporating the embedded jokes in the addresses
highlights that the classroom can be a place of creativity across vernacular/standard
175
divides, the significance of which has been explored by Ramanathan (2005) in the
context of India .
This example highlights the fact that some of the students in the class share a group
affiliation, that is both constructed and expressed through linguistic norms, from which
the teacher is excluded. The normative, socially-contextualized ways language forms are
used and interpreted by members of a group display ―orders of indexicality‖ in
Blommaert‘s (2007) terms. Indexicality is the concept that linguistic forms index, or
point to, meanings beyond those that are simply denotational; such meanings link text
and context and can be ―metapragmatic, metalinguistic, [or] metadiscursive‖ (Blommaert,
2005, p. 252). These are the kinds of extended meanings that are often attributed to
speakers or writers because of the linguistic features in their language (e.g. ―accent‖ or
agreement marking), such as assumptions about class, race, gender, socio-economic
status or political views, rather than the through the denotational meanings encoded in
their language. For Blommaert, the importance of context and place is paramount to
understanding the importance of indexicality, since the indexicality that exists in one
context will not be present in all other contexts. One example he gives (Blommaert,
2007) is that middle-class English in a place like Nairobi would not be evaluated as
middle-class in the context of London or New York.
Blommaert (2007) suggests that sociolinguistics in the age of globalization would do
well to move away from a notion like Bourdieu‘s ―habitus‖, which is founded on the
assumption of shared norms, to a model of, what he calls, ―polycentricity‖, or the way
norms of language among different groups tend find authoritative ―centres‖. Blommaert
states:
176
…I suggest that whenever we communicate, apart from our real and immediate
addressees, we orient towards what Bakhtin called a ‗superaddresee‘: complexes
of norms and perceived appropriateness criteria, in effect the larger social and
cultural body of authority into which we insert our immediate practices vis-à-vis
our immediate addressees. (Blommaert, 2007, p. 118)
In the case of presenting a written artifact to the class containing a joke only interpretable
through norms of use associated with Cantonese, Eric simultaneously addressed two
different ―centres‖. In one case, the writing was a compliant act of knowledge display for
the teacher. In the other case, referencing the Cantonese-speaking community of San
Francisco, the language was marked as rude and inappropriate for the classroom. Eric
was counting on the teacher‘s lack of understanding, and therefore lack of ideological
engagement, with his performative choice. He intended for the creative effect to be lost
on her. The ultimate effect was that Eric made a joke that only his classmates can
understand.
I see this as a way of defying expectations for the students‘ language use which were
set up by the instructor, but such that the act veers from direct confrontation on two
levels. In a way, by moving to an order of discourse he assumes his teacher cannot
understand, Eric shields her from his transgression. Also, by using humor, his challenge
to the norms of the classroom are softened. Doll (1998), discusses the way humor, more
gently than shock, undermines and lays bare normative social assumptions. Discussing
the work of playwright Tom Stoppard, Doll says, ―Stoppard utilizes humor, wit and the
joke as a dramatic strategy to dislocate the spectator‖ (p. 291). The notion of
―dislocation‖ is particularly salient here as the effect of calling up a Cantonese
177
interpretation of the written characters asks the students to draw on the social norms of
language use from another place, their homes and home communities, while in the
classroom and simultaneously signals a use of language that is socially taboo. This
reinforces the point that Blommaert (2005) and Blommaert, Collins, and Slembrouck
(2005) make of the significance of place and space in our understanding of language in
use.
5.5. ―I‘ve never attached ‗American‘ to my ethnicity‖
The third example comes from an interview with Tina (Dec. 7, 2007), who reflected
very thoughtfully and at length on how she feels and chooses to identify ethnically,
culturally and nationally. Near the end of our hour-long interview, I asked Tina about her
perspective on the use of the Cantonese term ―juk sing‖ (a literal translation would be
something like ‗hollow bamboo‘; the term is used by some within the U.S. Cantonesespeaking community to signify a perceived loss of culture and was a topic that had come
up with other Cantonese-background students). After briefly discussing other terms used
for a similar purpose (including ―ABC‖ or ―American-born Chinese‖ and another
Cantonese term ―tou ju‖ literally meaning ―soil born‖), Tina discussed her attitudes
toward labeling herself.
Data extract 4 (interview on Dec. 7, 2007):
Tina: This is like kind of off topic but um in a class in high school our teacher
posed, like are you an American? Um I know that‘s a very like a very xxx topic to
everyone, like every class talks about. But for me I never thought of myself as an
American other than the fact that I‘m a citizen and that I hold a US passport. Cuz
when you ask me like ―what are you?‖ then I would say ―I‘m Chinese‖ but um a
178
lot of people that like Chinese-Americans …I have never attached American to
my ethnicity cuz I don‘t feel like I‘m …I don‘t know I mean it just never comes…
came to mind that I‘m Chinese-American and is it necessary to attach American?
Like for me I don‘t think it‘s necessary to attach like American. And it‘s very
abstract. I mean it‘s not like…it‘s not like a color, like black and white. It‘s like a
word that attaches to…that makes up your identity so for me I mean I don‘t know.
I don‘t think I‘m very Americanized as like that term Americanized.
Tina comments very clearly here on her perspective that nationality is an ―abstract‖
quality, the very point theorized by Benedict Anderson‘s (1983/2006) conception of
nation as an ―imagined community‖. She comes close to explicitly stating a racial
construction of what it means to be Chinese when she says that being American as a
nationality is abstract, ―it‘s not like a color, like black and white.‖ But she articulates this
sense of being Chinese in terms of ―ethnicity‖ and equates this with what is for her a
more concrete part of her identity. As she says, ―I have never attached American to my
ethnicity‖—an ethnicity that is clearly ―Chinese‖. For Tina, there is no mandate for a
seamless connection between U.S. citizenship, nationality and ethnicity.
We can ask, is this evidence of a radical rupture in intersocietal relations of the type
Appadurai (1996) posits in Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of global citizenship?
He proposes a metaphorical destabilization of the hyphen connecting nations and states –
the kinds of imagined connections posited by Anderson as the basis for the rise of
nationalism, catalyzed by print capitalism. Appadurai connects the increased movement
of people and mass media technologies in the past few decades to argue that, ―The story
of mass migration (voluntary and forced) is hardly a new feature of human history. But
179
when it is juxtaposed with the rapid flow of mass-mediated images, scripts, and
sensations, we have a new order of instability in the production of modern subjectivities‖
(p. 4).
Tina‘s comments concretize this proposition of a destabilization of the hyphen between
Chinese ethnicity and American nationality. In fact, she directly questions the necessity
of attaching an abstract notion like ―nationality‖ to her ―ethnicity‖. She sees her ethnicity
as being more concrete, but as both Ong (1999) and Louie (2004) point out,
―Chineseness‖ is also a social construction. But for Tina, through her lived experiences of
being a U.S. citizen closely connected to family and holding a self-perception of
―Chineseness‖ that carries equal meaning across national boundaries, the necessity of
nation in Anderson‘s sense of an ―imagined community‖ coterminous with the
boundaries of the state of which she is a citizen, breaks down.
Why might this be the case? First, we can gain some insight from Ong (1999) who
argues that U.S. culture still displays Euro-centric tendencies that place structural limits
to full citizenship based on racial and ethnic prejudice. This could lead a person like Tina
to search for identification with a community outside the U.S. Second, from Louie‘s
(2004) perspective, there may be a positive push from the U.S. discourses of
multiculturalism, encouraging a young person like Tina to embrace her Chineseness.
And third, Louie and Ong both discuss the strength of a socially constructed isomorphy
of race/ethnicity/culture/territory that results in a reification of ―Chineseness‖ that seems
to offer a strong pull for identification even across national boundaries.
Recalling that He proposes an ―identity-theory‖ of CHL development, I wanted to find
out from Tina if the complexities of ―Chinese‖ identity were addressed in the classroom.
180
I asked a follow up question based on my observation that, in the classroom, her teacher
would often make a clear distinction between herself as being ―Zhongguoren‖ (Chinese)
and the students being ―Meiguoren‖ (American)19.
Data extract 5 (interview from Dec. 7, 2007):
AK: So then is it weird? When …when like the teacher‘s asking those kinds of
questions. Cuz it‘s weird because I can notice that sometimes… …. um the answer
is different when she‘s like, ―Are you American?‖ You know, ―Ni shi Meiguoren
ma?‖ [Are you American?] ―Ni shi meiguo xuesheng ma?‖ [Are you an American
student?] ―Ni shi Zhongguoren ma?‖ [Are you Chinese?]
Tina: Yeah exactly xxxx… the question… like when she asks us is kind of like I
don‘t know. I‘m an American student because I grew up and went to school in
America but also… I don‘t think that ties to your nationality you know, but then in
her way it‘s used as in like if you‘re…you know cuz she says that she‘s Zhongguoren
[Chinese] but we‘re Meiguoren [American]. But then I‘m kinda like thinking that I‘m
Zhongguoren [Chinese] and I don‘t consider myself Meiguoren [American]. But you
know, I mean that‘s not even like… it wasn‘t even like you know like a big deal to
even discuss.
There is an obvious conflict in that Tina doesn‘t feel American and doesn‘t describe
herself as such in English, but in the Mandarin classroom she is characterized as being
American (―Meiguoren‖), and must present herself that way when answering the
teacher‘s questions and participating in classroom activities.
19
The Chinese terms specifically encode nationality, per se, as the words literally mean a person
from a particular country. They are not ambiguous the way a term like ―American‖ or ―Chinese‖ is in
English. However, there certainly is slippage between this literal encoding and they way they are popularly
used and understood.
181
There are a number of factors that contribute to this situation. First, it was in part
clearly related to the materials that were being used. The textbooks are geared toward
foreign language learners and introduce only the very basic vocabulary for terms like
―American‖ --Meiguoren, literally a person (ren) from the U.S. (Meiguo), and ―Chinese‖
– Zhongguoren, literally a person (ren) from China (Zhongguo). While the textbook does
include representations of Chinese-Americans as students, it does not introduce any
terminology to handle a concept like ―Chinese-American‖, and includes models of such
students baldly stating, ―Wo shi Meiguoren‖ (I‘m American). The teacher reproduced
these kinds of statements in the classroom, but did wonder out loud in the classroom,
seemingly to herself and speaking in Mandarin, if the students could be considered
―Chinese‖ since their parents are ―Chinese‖.
The program structure lends itself to keeping these ―foreign‖ language textbooks in
place, even with the Cantonese and Mandarin-background tracks, since the classes are
used as bridges to other courses in the program. In order to articulate with the continuing
classes, the students all study the same materials but in different class, with different
methods and at different rates (one year for the ―bilingual‖ and ―Cantonese‖ tracks covers
the same amount of materials as two years in the ―regular‖ track).
Finally, there was a language and cultural divide between the students and the teacher.
In the Fall Quarter, Teacher Wu and some of the students could not communicate about
more complex topics in English or Mandarin. The teacher was able to communicate most
readily in Mandarin with the two students who had immigrated from the P.R.C. to the
U.S. during high school. At times, the students and the teacher had difficulty negotiating
logistical questions about the class because of lack of a shared code. Discussing complex
182
meanings about national and ethnic identity, encoded differently in Mandarin and
English, or the cultural attachments to the concepts and labels in various locations
probably would not have been possible in this class.
It appears that this Mandarin classroom was not a place where disjunctures around
ethnic or cultural identity could be explored through class discussion, and yet this
exploration would seem to be an integral part of and identity-based Chinese language
development theory. Accounts of the experiences Chinese-American youth have
negotiating what it means to them to be ―Chinese‖ such as Louie (2004) and ethnographic
work on Chinese community schools (Maguire & Curdt-Christiansen, 2007; Van Ziegert,
2006) could be relevant resources for those working with Chinese as a heritage language
at the university level.
6. Connections and implications
Taking the first part of He‘s rootedness hypothesis, related to her identity theory of
CHL, she says, ―the degree of success in CHL development correlates positively with the
learner‘s desire to be rooted in his/her heritage culture and to accentuate similarities with
members of the CHL community‖ (2008b, p. 116). In the first two examples, because of
tracking, the students are in a class where they assume that their classmates will
understand Cantonese. They each choose to draw on their knowledge of Cantonese in
interactions with their classmates, asserting a cultural connection with their peers. When
they do so, the students project a Cantonese-speaking identity that opens up the
possibility of evaluation by their peers. In the first case, Julie found that her choice to
study Mandarin opened her up to an evaluation by her classmate, ―being white‖, that was
at odds with her stated desire to ―lessen the gap‖ between herself and people in Hong
183
Kong, which was a way of being perceived as more ―Chinese‖ and less Americanized. In
the second example, Eric found out that Cantonese was a resource for resistance, and
solidarity-building among his peers, in the classroom. In both cases, it was the unique
situation of being in a class with other Cantonese speakers that allowed these interactions
to happen, and in both cases, drawing on Cantonese showed a desire on Julie and Eric‘s
parts to connect to the CHL community--in this case their classmates. For these students,
they expressed and tied their sense of Chinese identity to the practice of speaking
Cantonese. It seems that they already possess a strong desire to be connected to a
―heritage‖ community and culture but it is not clear how this would be related to success
in learning Mandarin. It seems that, in He‘s theory, the ―CHL community‖ refers
specifically to a Mandarin-speaking community.
In the third example, Tina noticed the gap between her self-perception as being
―Chinese‖ and the distinctions that the teacher drew in the classroom, characterizing the
students as ―American‖ and herself ―Chinese‖. Studying Mandarin, for Tina, is
predicated on a secure sense of her own Chinese identity, as a person who was born in
Hong Kong and speaks Cantonese. She clearly states that she is studying Mandarin to
expand the circles in which she can communicate. It is not clear if her investment in
studying Mandarin is related to a sense that ―being Chinese‖ means communicating
across dialect boundaries through knowing Mandarin as a lingua franca (for a discussion
see, (Li, 2006), an assumption that is perhaps embedded in He‘s theory. Regardless, Tina
sees the study of Mandarin as important because of the increasing importance of China
on the world stage, which could offer her grounds for feeling positive about her selfidentity, as someone who identifies as Chinese. Conversely, feeling that she is being
184
excluded from the category ―Chinese‖ in the classroom causes her to consciously reflect
on her sense of ethnic identity and question what it means to be Chinese, and what it
means to be American.
I believe these examples lend important insight into how identity and language
learning are connected in complex and at times contradictory ways for Cantonese-English
bilingual students of Mandarin. And I think it is important to examine the unexpected
effects that studying the ideologically dominant standard variety has for students who
already speak a variety of Chinese that exists in an unequal relationship to Mandarin. The
students‘ sense of connection to a Chinese community comes from their families and is
mediated through their ability to speak Cantonese. These example show that studying
Mandarin, at times, can cause students to reflect on their sense of what it means to be
Chinese in new ways, but in ways that complicate the picture of what it means to find a
new sense of ―rootedness‖ through their language development.
As Louie (2004) points out, one path of ―reethnicization‖, or the process of reclaiming
a sense of ethnic identity, for some Chinese-Americans is to learn to speak ―Chinese‖. Of
her participants, Louie states:
For many of the people that I interviewed, coming to an understanding of their
Chinese American identities involves developing an awareness of class and ethnic
differences between themselves as descendants of Cantonese immigrants and
Chinese from other parts of the world who emigrated under different
circumstances. The development of this ―Cantonese consciousness‖ encompasses
an identification with the history, language, and food of the Pearl River Delta,
185
with Chinatown and with other Chinese Americans as they intersect with their
own family experiences. (p. 109)
For the focal students in this chapter, their choice to study Mandarin seemed to bring with
it opportunities to further explore and develop a sense of who they are in terms of their
ethnic and national identity. Their statements and experiences ask us to examine what
constitutes the ―CHL community‖ and ―heritage culture‖, of which He speaks in her
rootedness hypothesis, and to examine how and why it is significant that these are not
monolithic constructs.
186
Chapter 7. When “Standard Mandarin” goes global: Some local effects of
Putonghua as an object of study in the U.S.
1. Introduction
This chapter examines some of the pedagogic practices in the ―Mandarin for
Cantonese Speakers‖ classes at California Northern University (CNU), and their effects
on students‘ evolving investment in Mandarin study. The findings highlight some of the
reasons that focusing on language ideologies is important for the field of heritage
language education (also see, Valdés et al., 2008). In this analysis, I examine a number of
activities and comments from teachers and students that address the relationship between
two spoken varieties of Chinese, Cantonese and Mandarin. Considering the relationship
between standard languages, in this case Putonghua or Standard Mandarin, and
―dialects‖, represented here by Cantonese, was a rich field for eliciting implicit
assumptions and explicit beliefs about what languages are, what makes languages
―legitimate‖ or valuable, and why and how people ―should‖ develop their abilities in
different languages—all interesting aspects of language ideologies with particular
relevance for this study.
These different framings have implications for the teaching of Chinese as a heritage
language (CHL) in the U.S., in part because they are related to issues of language
variation and indexicality (see discussion in Chapter 6), and have bearing on the kinds of
messages students in heritage language classes receive about how language is valued
differently across contexts. Further, these language beliefs become a tacit guide for what
constitutes ―appropriate‖ use of language (for a discussion of the problematic nature of
appropriacy discourses see Fairclough, 1995a), reinforcing beliefs and practices around
language use that tend to value certain socially valorized forms, and in turn, reinforce the
187
social position of Standard Mandarin, even in the U.S. The data segments show some
processes through which thoughts, beliefs and attitudes about the value of Standard
Mandarin are represented in the classroom and internalized by students. In this way, it is
possible to see the impact of Mandarin as a lingua franca in the context of greater China
(Li, 2006) expand, along with China‘s economic growth, to have new purchase on the
Chinese diaspora, as seen through the local context of CHL students at CNU.
Within this framework, the research questions that guided this analysis were:
1. How is the relationship between Putonghua (Standard Mandarin) and Cantonese
understood by the teacher and students?
2. How is the relationship between the two varieties presented in the classroom? How
does it affect language teaching pedagogy in this site?
3. What beliefs about Mandarin are inculcated through their classes? What effects do
these lessons have on the students?
The term Putonghua, meaning ―common‖ or ―ordinary‖ language, is the variety of
Standard Mandarin codified in the People‘s Republic of China (P.R.C.). It is used for
education and official communication throughout the country. It is also the variety that is
taught in the Chinese program at CNU and is generally recognized as the form of
Mandarin that is taught in Mandarin Chinese language programs throughout the U.S.
Most often in the CHL research literature, when authors speak of ―Chinese‖, they are
referring to Putonghua or Mandarin more generally but do not state this explicitly.
I focus on Cantonese-English bilingual college students because a major concern I
have is how so-called ―non-standard‖ language varieties are implicated when academic
literacy development at the university is explicitly directed toward particular,
188
standardized forms of language. Examining tensions in the local setting sheds light on
how linguistic authority is unintentionally or unknowingly brought into the classroom
and the effect that it has on learners. Bourdieu (1991), in discussing habitus and symbolic
domination, makes the point that valued ways of using language are not intentionally
taught, and that the social norms that hold in place particular ways of acting are largely
unconscious. Yet these processes that are subtle when acquiring a first language are
rendered visible in the educational context, a point made by Blommaert, Creve and
Willaert (2006). Language education, through the university as a centering institution,
becomes a site where students are more explicitly and intentionally trained to use
language in ways that conform to the logic of the linguistic market, as it is understood by
teachers and administrators. This study captures students at a point where some of the
effects of socialization into the language norms of a broader discourse community,
centered on the P.R.C. and dominant ideas there concerning Chinese language and
culture, are impacting them in new ways.
The analysis also brings up some of the difficulties with a view that is present in the
CHL literature, characterizing CHL students as being caught between two different
cultures, one ―American‖ and one ―Chinese‖. While students clearly do, at times, feel
caught between cultures (for example, see Van Ziegert, 2006), maintaining a
dichotomous view as a theoretical construct in CHL research is not consistent with the
personal experience and perspectives of the focal students in this study, and I argue that
an important aspect of heritage language research must be to recognize the cultural
landscapes that diverse Chinese heritage learners find themselves in, and to develop
pedagogical approaches that are responsive to their experiences. The work I present here
189
is a first step toward understanding, in qualitative terms, the current conditions at one
university which has diversified its curriculum to adapt to a diverse population of
heritage language students.
2. Language variation and standardization in CHL research
2.1. Variation within Standard Mandarin and Mandarin education in the U.S.
A brief review of recent research in the pedagogical literature on ―foreign‖ or
―heritage‖ Chinese language teaching reveals that while variation in Standard Mandarin
is not ignored, there are few English-language studies addressing this topic for Mandarin
education in the U.S.20 One recent study sheds light on the relationship between variation
and language education as it is popularly understood in the field. Sanders (2008), a study
on variation in tone contour in Taiwanese Mandarin, was recently published in the
Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers‘ Association. After presenting findings from
an acoustic analysis, Sanders concludes with his perspective on the relevance of the study
to language teaching pedagogy. He says:
Because TCFL [teaching Chinese as a foreign language] teachers, especially at
the beginning levels, should try to promote classroom pronunciation that provides
students with the widest currency of acceptance throughout the Mandarinspeaking world, we should continue to teach our students how to produce the
prescriptive citation contours as we always have. However, due to the clear and
growing frequency of [tone change in Taiwanese Mandarin] it is not in the best
interests of the many students who will eventually experience significant contact
20
However, many studies on the topic have been published in the Chinese-language literature in the P.R.C.,
Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore (Chengzhi Chu, personal communication 3/10/10).
190
with [Taiwanese Mandarin] to pretend that this phenomenon does not exist (p.
15).
This quote is followed by a footnote stating that ―in reality‖ the majority of people from
China do not speak according to the prescriptive standard. The quote reveals a number of
assumptions about who studies Mandarin and why, but what is most revealing relative to
CHL research are the assumptions that the author makes about language learners and
their needs. The stereotypical foreign language learner Sanders has in mind seems to have
no possibility for exposure to the language of study outside the classroom. For heritage
learners who come to foreign language programs, their prior abilities will influence how
their language develops, whereas Sanders‘ remarks reflect an image of a clean slate that
teachers will mold as they see fit. Sanders continues, , ―….while actively teaching
prescriptive standards, it would be best to make our students aware of the facts about
[Taiwan Mandarin] in the hope that they could file them away for future reference
once they have entered the real world‖ (p. 15, emphasis added). His tone is very
cautious, seemingly not wanting to be perceived as suggesting that teachers move away
from prescriptive (a word he uses twice in one paragraph) standards.
Even for a more traditional foreign language learner, I would argue the ―real world‖ is
near at hand. In many areas of the U.S., it is likely that there is a local Chinese
community to which all learners (―heritage language‖ and ―foreign language‖ learners
alike) would have access, and that there would likely be heritage learners in the program.
Between the diasporic Chinese community, heritage language classmates, and the
individual background of the teacher, students will necessarily encounter variation from
the moment they begin studying. In this respect, the classroom is the real world (see
191
Baker, 2003). Yet there is a clear sense that in teaching Mandarin, the prescriptive
standards need to be upheld for the value of Mandarin as a lingua franca.
Variation in Standard Mandarin has been addressed in the heritage language literature.
Jia and Bayley (2008) present a structural variationist analysis of aspect marker use
among Chinese-American CHL students in a Chinese community school. The main
finding from the study was the identification of significant differences in appropriate use
(defined in the study according to native speaker norms) of the aspect marker ―le‖ by
different groups of students; use by students born in China was significantly better than
those born in the U.S., and those students whose families used primarily Mandarin in the
home outperformed those whose families spoke more English. The social meanings of
variation are also brought up in a recent study by Dai and Zhang (2008). The authors
discuss CHL learners' habitus, a concept used by Bourdieu to mean the, ―…set of
dispositions which incline agents to act and react in certain ways‖ (Thompson, 1991). Dai
and Zhang examine the social and cultural capital CHL students accrue through their
habitus, characterizing traits as belonging to either "Chinese" or "American" culture.
They give a number of examples of discord or discomfort CHL learners experienced
because features of their language use and habitus were not expected or socially valued
by others.
The one example that is most revealing related to the present study is their analysis of
a quote from a participant in a policy conference held at UC Berkeley in the fall of 2006.
They report a teacher saying that a CHL student failed a class because of his Cantonese
accent. In the article, the authors point out that the situation arose, and that the student
failed, because of his habitus (or hexis, bodily, his way of speaking). The authors do not
192
go beyond reporting the facts, as they understand them, and do not raise questions of
educational equity.
The authors take an important first step toward addressing issues of linguistic
variation and its implications for students. However, their study is only descriptive
whereas Bourdieu put forth the concept of habitus as a way to link social domination and
cultural tastes (During, 2005). It is the link to social domination that has not been
discussed. Bourdieu ties linguistic habitus to unified political and economic markets, and
in turn, to the political order through symbolic domination, an unconscious process that
reproduces the value of certain symbolic resources. Bourdieu argues that the reproduction
is not conscious, but rather:
It is inscribed, in a practical state, in dispositions which are impalpably
inculcated, through a long and slow process of acquisition, by the sanctions of the
linguistic market, and which are therefore adjusted, without any cynical
calculation or consciously experienced constraint, to the chances of material and
symbolic profit which the laws of price formation characteristic of a given market
objectively offer to the holders of a given linguistic capital. (p. 51)
However, the unity of the market (for a counterpoint, see discussion in Chapter 6 on
Blommaert‘s notion of ―polycentricity‖) and the overarching role of taste to structure
societies in the ways Bourdieu observed largely in the 1960‘s in France has been
critiqued (for a review of such critiques, see During, 2005, pp. 205-207). In the case of
university level Mandarin classes in the U.S., students who are part of a community of
Cantonese speakers enter the Mandarin classroom where, for the teacher, Cantonese
accented Mandarin has established connotations in a linguistic market elsewhere in the
193
world. This may be the first time in their lives that some of the students are subjected to
this particular kind of symbolic domination. The students from Cantonese-speaking
Chinese-American families and communities have not been a part of the same linguistic
market as the teacher, and in this sense, the classroom does not represent a unified
market, but the intersection of the markets of which the teacher and students were a part
before coming together. The next step that remains is to consider both the intersection of
different markets, and the processes and effects of symbolic domination in Mandarin
education, or the effects of polycentricity in Blommaert‘s terms, topics which have
produced fruitful research in other settings and with other languages (e.g., Heller, 1999).
2.2. Standard language ideology
Milroy and Milroy (1991) discuss the authority carried by judgments about
perceptions of correctness in language. For most people who have not thought critically
about the social effects of language, judgments about personal characteristics such as
race, class or intelligence can be unquestioningly tied to particular ways of using
language. The authors make the point that while the society they are a part of (late-20th
century Britain) is intolerant of bias based on characteristics such as race, gender or
religion, linguistic bias is largely invisible and remains tolerated. Their treatment of the
topic is nuanced, and they are not arguing that all processes of standardization are
oppressive and unwarranted. Rather, they point out that beyond the pursuit of
―descriptive‖ linguistics, sociolinguistics must also pursue research on the impacts of
prescriptivism.
The authors argue that authority that flows through language, an ideology of
standardization, is the complex of thoughts and beliefs that value certain language
194
features over others, and associates positive characteristics with preferred linguistic
features. In their conclusion, they say that one of the implications of their study is to
bring heightened awareness to language professionals in working with speakers of ―nonstandard‖ varieties who are often unaware of linguistic bias. Further, they remark on
increased social diversity, saying there is a growing population with a need for access to
standard language through ESL education, but that increased awareness is crucial
because, ―A simple demand for cultural and linguistic assimilation characteristic of the
standard ideology is not adequate‖ (p.177). This is equally true for language education in
languages besides English. For CHL learners who are developing their abilities in
Mandarin, greater recognition of the way standard language ideology functions would
benefit both CHL teachers and their students so that Mandarin education is not overly
assimilationist in its orientation and promotes heightened awareness of the ways language
bias is unintentionally perpetuated. In this way, learners would stand to gain much from
both the development of Standard Mandarin abilities and a critical awareness of how
authority inadvertently flows through language.
Lippi-Green (1997) offers an even stronger critique of the social force bound up in
beliefs about standard language. A main point raised by Milroy and Milroy that she
emphasizes is that expectations about standardization of written language often bleed
over into expectations for spoken language, and subsequently impact speakers of ―nonstandard‖ varieties in negative ways. Lippi-Green argues that the idea of a spoken
standard for English is actually a myth; the strength of its acceptance has to do with an
assumption that it is very closely tied to written standards, which are easier to identify
and remain more stable relative to spoken language. The myth is constantly reinforced
195
because of people‘s beliefs about appropriate language. She also argues that there is
inequality when it comes to who is expected to conform to this imagined standard. By
arguing that Standard U.S. English (as she calls it) is a myth, she blurs the distinction
between ―standard‖ and ―non-standard‖ varieties. If the same logic is applied to Chinese,
this point becomes even more complex, since there is a codification of a spoken standard
for Putonghua. Li (2004) notes a number of ideological grounds that are drawn on to
reinforce the idea of a spoken standard, while in fact the spoken variety is changing, as all
languages will over time, and exhibits other kinds of variation, including geographic.
In considering the beliefs people draw on to explain the relationships between
Cantonese and Mandarin, I have also found it important to examine the perception of
seamlessness among a singular Chinese language, culture and ethnicity; this is often
inadvertently reinforced in foreign language classes and in some of the scholarly
literature on the Chinese language (for example Sun, 2006). For students with a
background in Cantonese, their connections to South China imply both a linguistic and
cultural separation from the North, the seat of political power. Some of the
anthropological literature, including Louie (2004) and Ong (1999), that focuses on South
China and its cultural and economic importance, breaks down a pervasive view of a
homogeneous ―Chinese‖ culture, and simultaneously shows why and how a unitary idea
of Chinese culture persists and is functional for state interests, in China and the U.S. Both
authors make the point that conceptions of what it means to be ―Chinese‖ are tied to longstanding notions of commonality based on race (minzu), and Ong in particular argues that
common race serves as a possible basis for imagined affiliations in the present day. This
is in opposition to Benedict Anderson‘s (1983/2006) formulation of nation as an
196
imagined community based primarily on class consciousness and points to the possibility
of a cultural difference in the historical processes by which language has been reified in
the Chinese case. Another perspective on the reification of a unified, standard Chinese
related to the writing system, comes from Hodge and Louie (1998) who argue that the
Chinese orthographic system has lasted so long, although a phonetic system would be
more economical, because the ideological function that supports state power outweighs
any logistical drawbacks related to language learning and use.
For the Cantonese-background learners of Mandarin in this study, their sense of being
Chinese and the importance of ―knowing the language‖, as many students have put it, is a
compelling force in their choice to study Mandarin. Understanding how and why ethnic
and national identities are socially constructed helps break down this sense of a natural
connection between language and ethnicity, further opening up the discussion of how
Chinese as a language is framed in this setting and to what effect for diverse CHL
students.
3. Data sources and setting
With this framework, I will now turn to data excerpts to examine some of the ways the
teacher and students expressed the relationship between Cantonese and Mandarin, and
how the teacher presented the relationship in the classroom.
The data sources I draw on for this chapter come from observations and interviews
with the students and teacher in the Fall Quarter, 2007 Chinese 1C class discussed in
Chapter 6, class observations in the Winter Quarter, 2008 Chinese 2C class (the
continuation of 1C in which all of the focal students and many of the other students from
1C were enrolled), observations from a Chinese New Year celebration put on by the
197
department in February, 2008, and end-of-year interviews with four of the five focal
students, the teachers of both 1C (Teacher Wu) and 2C (Teacher Zhang) and the program
director.
Teacher Zhang, the instructor for 2C and 3C, was originally from Taiwan. She
completed an M.A. degree in the U.S. and had been teaching at CNU for a few years at
the time of the study; as of the 2009-2010 academic year, she was continuing to teach in
the setting. Two sections of the Cantonese track were offered in the Fall Quarter, 2007,
but the Program Director decided to consolidate the classes in Winter Quarter, 2008 due
to lower enrollments (the section of 1C that I observed only had 12 students).
All of the focal students from 1C did continue in 2C and when I interviewed them at
the end of the year, I asked them to comment on some of the differences between the two
classes. The students all agreed that Teacher Zhang was much harder and stricter than
Teacher Wu, and Teacher Zhang described herself to me as very fierce (xiong). The
students were also in agreement that Teacher Zhang emphasized pronunciation much
more than Teacher Wu, with one student estimating that 90% of class time was devoted
to work on pronunciation. The students said that Teacher Zhang did not go over grammar
in class, but made PowerPoint slides available for them to review on their own. Another
significant feature of the students‘ experiences with Teacher Zhang revolved around class
preparations for the department-sponsored Chinese New Year celebration in February.
The 2C class performed a recitation of a poem selected by the instructor, and the students
understood this to be another way for them to practice and show off their Mandarin
pronunciation. These aspects of the class will be discussed through the analysis.
4. Findings & discussion
198
4.1. Learning Mandarin as a Cantonese speaker, how do teachers and students perceive
the connection?
The first data excerpt shows how the teacher for 1C, Teacher Wu, explicitly
characterized the status of Cantonese in the classroom. This is example shows how
Teacher Wu characterized Cantonese as a dialect; it demonstrates how sound
correspondences were used both to justify the characterization of Cantonese as a dialect
and for pedagogical purposes.
Summary of classroom observations (based on field notes, 10/11/07):
During a pinyin pronunciation lesson, Teacher Wu introduced a phonetic
correspondence between Cantonese and Mandarin. She had two columns of words
written in pinyin for the students to practice pronouncing. All of the syllables in
the left column that started with ―w‖ were highlighted and all of the syllables that
started with ―k, h, g‖ in the right hand column were highlighted. For example:
bàngwǎn
zàihū
wàngběn
kèwén
The teacher asked a student to pronounce the words in Cantonese, and then she
said the Mandarin ―w‖ often corresponds to Cantonese ―m‖ and the Mandarin ―k,
h, g‖ often correspond to Cantonese ―f‖. Further, she explained to the class that
this is why Cantonese is considered a dialect and not a language. There was no
verbal response from the students to this, but some of them were nodding their
heads in agreement. The teacher downplayed any knowledge of Cantonese, saying
she didn‘t know this because she knows Cantonese, but because she read it in a
book. Teacher Wu made it clear that the students could use this correspondence
199
to help them with their development of Mandarin, implying that noticing the
regularity would help them learn words in Mandarin. She drew equal attention to
the correspondence as being evidence that Cantonese is a dialect, and she drew on
the academic authority of a book to support her claim.
Summary of classroom observations (based on field notes, 10/16/07):
In class a few days later, Teacher Wu used a similar comparison when
reviewing another set of pinyin sounds. She put up on the board a set of
approximately 30 disyllabic words in pinyin. The words were new to the students,
never having been introduced in the textbook and were presented for practice with
pronunciation. The teacher used the lists to elicit pronunciation from different
students, both individually and chorally.
When Dawei was reading a term that means ―uncle‖ (mother‘s older brother),
Teacher Wu asked him how he would say the term in Cantonese and he offered a
response. With this exception, all of the teacher‘s responses to the students were
focused on pronunciation, sometimes critiquing and correcting and other times
praising the students‘ pronunciation. One student even said out loud in English
that he was trying his best to read but, ―this is hard.‖ After his effort, Wu Laoshi
praised him, saying ―bu cuo‖ [trans. not bad]21, then asked him to repeat one of
the words, emphasizing a correction to the student‘s production of second tone (in
the word juéde [trans. feel]). She concluded this portion of the exercise saying,
21
Van Ziegert offers a brief analysis of this expression, in the modified form ―hai bu cuo‖ [not that bad],
offered as praise for a student in a Chinese community school. As an anthropologist, she sees this as a case
of linguistic relativism, where ―(Americanized) enthusiastic and proud sentiments‖ are not as readily
expressed in Chinese (Van Ziegert, 2006, p. 125). While I think this interpretation is narrow, it is an
important point that underscores the fact that language study constitutes a socialization process that
augments and builds on the Chinese norms of behavior that some of the students would have learned from
their families. In their Mandarin classes, they are learning more about Chinese cultural norms, even if they
do not feel they are overtly learning about Chinese culture, as some participants said in their interviews.
200
―Nimen de shengdiao, fayin jinbu de hen kuai.‖ [trans. Your tones and
pronunciation have improved quickly.] After this, she added the characters to the
list of words in pinyin and then asked if the students could read the characters in
Cantonese. Bonnie and Tina said they knew some and Julie said she didn‘t
remember. Teacher Wu asked Bonnie to read them in Cantonese. When she came
to a character she didn‘t know, she would ask Dawei for help and he was able to
assist. After some additional practice with the pinyin, calling on Gary, Susan and
Matt, the teacher asked Tina to try reading in Cantonese, saying (in English),
―read it in Guangdongese.‖ Tina could read about half of the characters and
Dawei volunteered a few additional answers.
After this practice, going between practice with the pinyin Mandarin
pronunciations and the students‘ Cantonese reading of the characters, Teacher Wu
emphasized the correspondence between the sounds represented as j, q, and x in
pinyin and the sounds represented by g, k, and h in Cantonese. After some
additional practice, the teacher said to the students, in Mandarin, ―After I teach
you, I‘ll be able to speak Cantonese.‖ She went on to say that, because there is
this correspondence between sounds, Cantonese, Shanghainese, Taiwanese and
the like are not languages but dialects. Both Tina and Johnny were nodding their
heads in agreement as she said this.
In this lesson, the teacher spent a significant amount of class time asking the students
to draw on their knowledge of Cantonese as a way to buttress their learning of Mandarin.
The students were engaged when called on and the teacher was sensitive to the students‘
backgrounds when asking for this kind of participation. She was aware of which students
201
would be most likely to succeed at reading the characters in Cantonese and only called on
the students to try this if they indicated they knew some of the characters. The exercise
also allowed for interaction between some of the students, as they helped each other read
the characters in Cantonese. This kind of assistance between students did not happen
when they were asked to read in Mandarin. So this use of Cantonese in the classroom
served a range of purposes. It gave the students an opportunity to draw on their Chinese
literacy skills tied to Cantonese and link them to Mandarin, and they assisted each other
in an unsual way. Perhaps this happened because the situation was non-threatening, as the
knowledge that they were asked to display (the reading of characters in Cantonese) was
not being taught in the class so it would not be considered a basis for evaluation. On an
ideological level, the display of Cantonese and linking it to Mandarin reinforced the
status of Cantonese as a dialect, not a language.
4.2. Students‘ view Cantonese as helping and hindering Mandarin development
Now, turning to the students, their perceptions of the relationship between Cantonese
and Mandarin came out mainly in response to the question: did they think knowing
Cantonese helps with their study of Mandarin? Their answers varied and reflect different
assumptions about the relationship between spoken varieties of Chinese and also between
speaking and writing.
A representative answer comes from Tina‘s first interview (Dec. 7, 2007). She
commented that she didn‘t think knowing how to speak Cantonese helps with Mandarin.
She said, ―if anything it‘s harder because what you want to say comes out in Cantonese.
If you are fresh, you don‘t know another dialect, it would be easier because you would
just remember that sound as what it is.‖ This comment resonates with the clean-slate
202
assumption embedded in the comments of Sanders (2008) discussed above, when he
advocates for the teaching of a variety with, as he says, ―the widest currency of
acceptance‖ (p. 15). This student recognized that this task of developing the standard
pronunciation presented in the classroom is harder for students like herself who already
speak another variety. Matt‘s comments show agreement with this position (interview on
Nov. 17, 2007). When I asked how already speaking Cantonese affects learning
Mandarin, he replied, ―there‘s maybe memory interference like where sometimes you
speak something you think it sounds that way but it‘s pronounced something else.‖ I
followed up, asking if there was anything that helped, and he replied, ―not that I know of
right now.‖ And when I asked specifically if knowing Cantonese grammar helped with
learning Mandarin, he said, ―I don‘t know about grammar. I think they change a little
bit.‖
In contrast, another student, Eric (interview from Dec. 7, 2007), said: ―Does it help?
That‘s a resounding yes.‖ He said his background with Chinese school is helpful because
written Cantonese is the same as written Mandarin22. He also said that he could really
notice a difference when he compared learning Mandarin to learning Korean, a truly
foreign language for him. Eric saw a benefit when focusing on writing and when he
compared his Mandarin studies to studying a foreign language. However, when students
talked specifically about pronunciation, they agreed with the first comment, that knowing
Cantonese does not help, but gets in the way. Eric was also the only student who said
directly that he was taking the course primarily to focus on writing and the only other
22
Eric was referring to the fact that in his community Chinese school, which was conducted in Cantonese,
the written language they were learning was the same as what was being taught at CNU. There is a system
of written Cantonese used principally in Hong Kong in more popular and informal written genres, but this
is not what Eric was referring to.
203
student who said she wished the class focused more on writing was Susan, who differed
significantly from the rest of the class. During the interview, he used the term Chinese
quite often and I asked him what he meant by it. After reflecting on the question, he said
that he meant the written language. This particular use of the term Chinese on Eric‘s part
is in accord with Li‘s (2004) characterization of a Chinese academic definition of a
language, where a common written language is a main criterial attribute of a language
rather than mutual intelligibility in the Western academic tradition.
In the fall, overall, more students were apt to offer one perspective or the other, that
knowing Cantonese either does or does not help in learning Mandarin. But by the end of
the year the students offered more nuanced answers to the question. They acknowledged
that while it can help for knowing the grammar and vocabulary, it gets in the way for
pronunciation and learning pinyin. Julie said that knowing Cantonese helps compared to
knowing nothing (no other variety of Chinese) and that she relies on mentally converting
meanings from pinyin into Cantonese to understand; but she also continually emphasized
that she was feeling stressed in 3C when the teacher required more writing because
Cantonese grammar was probably getting in the way. In Tina‘s interview at the end of the
year (June, 2008) she changed her emphasis and said that knowing Cantonese does help
with Mandarin in general, but that it does not help for pinyin or pronunciation, and that
the grammar has some differences. Meanwhile, Eric addressed the question a bit
differently from the way he did in the fall. In June, 2008 he said that whether or not
knowing Cantonese helps with learning Mandarin depends on whether or not you have
had ―formal training‖, meaning learning written Standard Chinese. He also remarked that
in terms of pronunciation, it probably wouldn‘t help, and gave an example of the
204
difficulty his classmate (Matt) was having, saying that Matt, ―occasionally has random
outbursts of Cantonese versions of Mandarin and then Teacher Zhang calls him on it.‖
What I find interesting in this quote from Eric is the implication that Matt‘s use of
Cantonese in the classroom is something over which he does not have conscious control.
From class observations and interviews, it was clear that the main focus of 2C and
most of 3C was pronunciation, including transcribing isolated words (without knowing
their meanings), into pinyin. The students had a very hard time doing this, and expressed
a high degree of emotion when talking about this requirement. Tina said, ―I hate pinyin‖
and Eric said that ―pinyin still hurts.‖ Most of the students said that they usually lost
points on exams because of pinyin mistakes. So while some students can see that
knowing Cantonese helps with learning Mandarin in a general way, they struggled with
pronunciation and pinyin spellings and their grades were based largely on these abilities.
The main focus of the class was on pronunciation so Cantonese got in the way of what
they were being graded on, Standard Mandarin pronunciation and accurate transcription
into pinyin.
This reinforces a point made earlier that CHL learners who have backgrounds that
influence their Mandarin production in ways that veer away from the standard are doubly
marginalized in their education. They are subjected to norms that preference English over
other languages in the broader U.S. society, and norms that preference standard Mandarin
over other varieties in the CHL classroom. This was most apparent for Matt, who was
pulled out of his regular elementary school classes to go to ESL lessons without
understanding why or feeling that it was helpful, and then when studying Mandarin at
CNU, he was constantly singled out in class and in interviews as someone who struggled
205
with Mandarin pronunciation. While he felt the placement into ESL was unwarranted, he
was happy with the corrections to his Mandarin pronunciation because it made him feel
like he was learning.
4.3. Pronunciation standards in and out of the classroom
Both the program director and the teacher were clear that the 1C class focused on
teaching Standard Mandarin pronunciation and the pinyin Romanization system.
Pronunciation training involved a lot of choral repetition, drilling and tests based on the
accuracy of students‘ standard pronunciation and their ability to transcribe spoken
sounds, words and phrases into pinyin.
In an interview with Teacher Wu (Nov. 20, 2007), she explained to me why she
emphasized speaking practice, in the form of repetition, so much. As a counterpoint to
her own perception of the students‘ accents, she quoted this expression and asked if I‘d
ever heard it.
Teacher Wu: ―Tian bu pa, di bu pa, jiu pa Guangdong ren shuo Putonghua.‖ (trans.
There is nothing to fear on heaven or earth but a Cantonese person speaking Mandarin.)
The teacher immediately rephrased this saying it means that Cantonese people speaking
Mandarin sound very strange (qiguai). However, she said, if you look at this class, you
might think their pronunciation isn‘t really that great or standard but it really does not
sound that strange. She said you hear Cantonese-accented Mandarin in movies and it is
humorous. Using accents for humorous effect in popular culture is an issue raised by
Lippi-Green (1997), pointing out that it is through such seemingly innocuous portrayals
of accented English in Disney cartoons that children learn discriminatory stereotypes,
which in turn reinforces standard language ideologies. Related to this point and reflected
206
in the teacher‘s comments is also that the degree of accent, or distance from the codified
standard, reflects social divisions along education, class and geographic lines, and that
the farther an accent diverges from the standard, the more harshly it is judged. Speakers
will recognize a kind of country bumpkin stereotype from movies and the popular media,
with a strong southern accent, as being humorous or ‗strange‘. This contrasts with what is
characterized by Li (2004) as Southern-accented Mandarin that is an index of prestige:
―What is considered prestigious is a light Taiwan or Hong Kong accent, one that betrays
a southern upbringing but does not deviate significantly from textbook Beijing
phonology. Broad rural Taiwanese or Cantonese accents still carry stigma‖ (footnote p.
99).
In fact, the teacher went on to say that no one really speaks Standard Mandarin
because people in each region have their own way of speaking. She said there are lots of
regional variations and no one really cares. But she also said that she can‘t think that way
in class. The way she put it is, ―Youyidian jiu shi fangyan…mei you wenti. Danshi wo jiu
shang ke wo bu neng zhenme xiang. Wo yiding yao jiuzheng tamen de fayin. Dui ba?‖
[trans. A little bit is just a regional accent…no problem. But when I‘m in class I can‘t
think this way. I certainly must correct their pronunciation. Right?] And then she imitated
a Cantonese-accented pronunciation and a correction to it (shown in bold):
Teacher Wu: ―zhuo shenme ne” “zhou shenme” [imitating a Cantonese accent]
“zuo shenme‖ [standard accent]. (trans. ―do what?‖ ―do what‖ ―do what‖)
This example highlights the difference between perceptions of heavy and light accents. It
also reveals a gap between popular attitudes of general tolerance toward accented
Mandarin, which Wiley et al (2008) found to be shared by recent Chinese immigrants in
207
the U.S., and the attitude the teacher feels is appropriate in the classroom. It also
emphasizes the fact that the teacher inherently recognizes that spoken Standard Mandarin
is an abstraction; one that is well-defined and codified, but an abstraction nonetheless.
This perspective is not specific to Mandarin, but following Milroy and Milroy (1991), is
true for all forms of standardized language. The authors make the point that language,
especially spoken forms of language, are variable and tend toward change, whereas
authorities make efforts to hold standard forms of language in place through on-going
social processes that are related to the needs of the state. The authors conclude,
―Therefore it seems appropriate to speak more abstractly of standardization as an
ideology, and a standard language as an idea in the mind rather than a reality – a set of
abstract norms to which actual usage may conform to a greater or lesser extent‖ (p. 23).
Some of the particular beliefs that hold the idea of Standard Chinese in place are
discussed in Li (2004).
As a person deeply committed to language education and savvy about language use,
Teacher Wu experiences tension between her own feeling that accented Mandarin is
acceptable in the world outside the classroom, but that she must uphold the prescribed
standard within the classroom to a degree that goes beyond popularly accepted norms.
The impact of this focus on standard pronunciation, heightened in the 2C class with
Teacher Zhang, becomes apparent in a comment from Susan, who does not speak
Cantonese herself and in linguistic terms, is much more like a stereotypical foreign
language learner. Susan said that at the beginning of the year she could not tell whose
pronunciation was good and whose was bad, but that by talking with classmates in 2C
she, ―learned who speaks badly‖.
208
4.4 Performing Standard Mandarin
In my year-end interviews with the four focal students, Tina, Julie, Eric and Susan, the
topic that elicited the strongest responses was the students‘ participation in the
department‘s Chinese New Year celebration in February, 2008. The department sponsors
a ―language and culture night‖ each year to celebrate Chinese New Year and each class
gives a short performance. In 2008, the department moved the celebration to a new, large
lecture hall, with room to serve food in the lobby before the program and more formal
seating for the actual performances. The celebration was well-attended and the program
did not get started until much later than scheduled; there were some technical problems
that caused delays. By the time the students in 2C performed it was getting close to 11:00
p.m., an hour and a half after the event was scheduled to end.
The students performed a ―prose recitation‖ which was quite different from the other
performances. Some classes selected a popular song to sing, one of which was the song
―Zhongguo Hua‖ (―Chinese Language‖) by S.H.E., discussed in the introduction. Others
performed skits live, or showed a video of a skit that they made. Besides classes
performing together, individual students performed special talents, including dance and
playing instruments, and the department faculty also performed, singing the final song of
the night, entitled, ―Descendents of dragons‖.
My own impression at the time was that the 2C class was the most formal and
regimented, noting that they were lined up in three rows by height, they were all wearing
similar clothing (a white t-shirt and dark pants), they were all carrying identical folders
and the performance included synchronized gestures. At the end, as they were walking
off, they all chanted the ―shave and a hair cut‖ tune. Teacher Zhang was teaching one
209
other course that quarter, a section of the ―regular‖ second quarter class, and that class‘
performance, ―rhythmic story-telling‖, seemed to be the second-most regimented
performance, and I noted after the performance that it was ―well-rehearsed‖.
In my Spring interviews with the students, they all had strong reactions when I
brought up this performance. Eric said, ―Oh God!...that was quite amusing,‖ because of
the ―odd gestures‖ they had to use. Tina said, ―Ohhh…it was so embarrassing.‖ She said
that the other performances were funny, but theirs was ―a poem‖ and that they practiced it
so many times, on top of their regular work, a point echoed by Eric and Susan. Tina and
Susan both mentioned that they could not understand any of it, but Susan did say she read
the translation, that it was very depressing, and the words didn‘t seem to match the
gestures that Teacher Zhang wanted them to do. Even though Teacher Zhang‘s other
class also gave a more regimented performance than many of the other classes, Susan
said she thought their performance was ―nice‖. After they saw Teacher Zhang‘s other
class perform, Susan said one of her classmates turned to her and said, ―Yeah, she really
hates us‖.
I asked Tina (interviewed on May 27, 2008) and Susan (interviewed on June 5, 2008)
why they did not get to pick their own performance as it seemed the other classes had
done, and why the teacher would pick this type of performance. Their responses were:
Tina: I don‘t…I don‘t think…like I think she expects like a lot from us because
we‘re already exposed to Chinese but she said she wants us to like pronounce like
Mandarin like more fluently… I don‘t know…and we don‘t have another
[Cantonese] class to compare it to so it‘s hard…(trailing off).
210
Susan: I think maybe because it‘s Cantonese speakers and she wanted to show off
our pronunciation…but …I don‘t know about that poem. I think she liked the
poem so she wants to use it but …yeah.
Both of the students understand that the performance was a chance to showcase their
pronunciation of Standard Mandarin, and that is was important because it is the
Cantonese-background class. This performance served an ideological function, showing
that Cantonese-background learners could perform Standard Mandarin. The teacher
seemed to be doing her best to showcase her class‘ progress, taking more time to work on
the performance and requiring additional practice. The students said that this put pressure
on them because the class demanded even more of their time. At the end of the year, the
main reason Eric, Julie and Tina gave for not planning to continue studying Mandarin
was that it took too much time. The pressure the teacher felt to show off the students‘
ability to produce Standard Mandarin pronunciation in a public setting added to their
already full workload; in turn, the students‘ investment in developing Mandarin
decreased because of the impression they came away with that to learn the language is
excessively time-consuming and tedious.
The focus on standard pronunciation may also have had some negative impact on their
preparedness to practice Mandarin outside of class. When I asked the students at the end
of the year if they were using Mandarin for anything other than their class, they said they
only used it with classmates because they would feel uncomfortable, concerned that they
would not be understood, if they spoke with anyone else. The students did not have much
opportunity in the class to practice expressing their own thoughts using Mandarin.
Instead, class time was devoted to pronunciation practice and classroom speech mainly
211
consisted of repetition of given models. The students were left with a strong sense of
unease about using Mandarin outside the classroom or with anyone other than their
classmates. This may have been mitigated with the opportunity in class to practice and
gain confidence in the more creative aspects of speaking.
In the end, the one student from the Chinese 1C class who apparently continued
studying Mandarin at CNU was Matt. He was the only one who planned to have a major
in Chinese, so it was the tie to an institutional objective that seems to have had the
strongest effect on maintaining an investment in learning Mandarin among this group of
students.
4.5 Misrecognition of the gap between spoken and written standards
A second set of student reflections on the relationship between Cantonese and
Mandarin reveals some of the differences in status the students see between the two
varieties.
In my Fall, 2007 interview with Tina, she said that she noticed classmates using
Cantonese sentence structure and that the teacher would point this out and correct them.
She then said that Cantonese speakers are really ―casual‖ and ―use a lot of slang,‖ making
the point that ―we don‘t speak the way we write,‖ saying most languages do, but not
Cantonese. When I asked for an example of what she meant, she talked about the first
person plural pronoun 我们, in Mandarin pronounced ‗women‘ but pronounced when
speaking Cantonese as ―ngau dei‖. There is another Cantonese spoken form to pronounce
the written characters, [something like ―ngau mun‖ which is much closer to the Mandarin
pronunciation] but she and others I have talked with say it is almost never used. Tina
(interviewed on Dec. 7, 2007) said of the pronunciation ―ngau dei‖ that:
212
―It‘s not even like a word it‘s just like a sound but I don‘t know I‘m not sure how like it
developed and everything but a lot of Cantonese words aren‘t real words.‖
From this example, it is clear that Tina assumes that most languages have a close
correspondence between their written and spoken forms, not realizing that part of the
reason for the large gap in her case relates to the codification of a written standard that is
very similar to Mandarin and differs very much from her own vernacular. Eric also
reflected on this at the end of the year, saying one of the things he came to learn through
taking Mandarin was just how ―casual‖ Cantonese speakers are because of the gap he
became increasingly aware of between spoken Cantonese and written Standard Chinese.
Cantonese suffers under these analyses, and Cantonese speakers are judged to be
―informal‖, because the spoken form does not match up to the standard written language,
whose grammar is closely tied to Mandarin.
For Julie (interviewed on May 21, 2008), she noticed the differences between the way
she speaks and the way she was being taught to write. She began to have great difficulties
with 3C when the teacher required more writing, and she said a number of times that this
was a personal problem. She even said that she continues to make the same mistakes in
writing characters over and over even when she really takes her time with her homework,
and that, ―there must be something wrong with me.‖ Julie said that Teacher Zhang was a
good teacher and it was not her fault, but that no matter how much she concentrates, she
keeps making the same mistakes, mostly in writing characters correctly by hand.
Negative consequences are apparent and can be understood as cases of
―misrecognition‖ (for a discussion, see Irvine and Gal, 2000). With Eric and Tina‘s
comments, a linguistic fact, that the grammar of written Standard Chinese is based on
213
Standard Mandarin and differs a great deal from spoken Cantonese for this reason, is
mistaken for a social fact, that Cantonese speakers are informal. In Julie‘s case, her
failure to do well in specific ways is attributed solely to personal failings, while she is
falling behind in part because she came to the class with similar spoken ability in
Cantonese, but lower literacy skills than her classmates.
Another main point that comes out in the quote from Tina is that she has found,
through studying Mandarin, that Cantonese pronunciations (words in the spoken
language) don‘t always correspond to characters, and she believes that written characters
are real words. The point that characters are real words was echoed by Matt in my Fall
Quarter, 2007 interview (interviewed Nov. 17, 2007) with him:
AK: Uh huh, what parts did you have trouble with?
Matt: Uh, the pinyin
AK: Oh okay
Matt: I‘m not very good at those, like throughout. So on every quiz like that‘s the
only problem I‘m having. Not really uh actual words.
AK: What do you mean actual words?
Matt: Like the characters.
And in his interview in June, 2008, Eric also expressed a similar sentiment. He said he
sees pinyin as a ―crutch‖ and that he feels he is better off just writing the characters since
he believes you do not need to use pinyin in ―real life‖.
These findings are consistent with some of the qualitative findings presented in Zhang
and Davis (2008). They studied CHL students‘ impressions of using webCT-based online
chat in the classroom, at first writing in pinyin and then in characters. The authors say the
214
students were eager to move on to using characters because they felt that, ―….in real
communication, they would communicate in characters rather than Pinyin‖ (p. 314). In
their conclusion the authors report that, ―[a]ccording to the HL learners, chatting in
Pinyin was a necessary preparation step before chatting in Chinese characters‖ (p. 323).
The authors report that the students developed an appreciation for the usefulness of
pinyin that they did not have before using the web-based chat in class. For the Cantonesebackground focal students at CNU, they did not see much of a use for pinyin, but rather
found it to be burdensome and they felt it only got in the way of learning characters,
similar to the initial attitudes of the students in Zhang and Davis‘ study. It is possible that
using computer chat as a pedagogical tool would change their perspective, and could
have positive effects for their on-going study of Mandarin.
However, in terms of language ideologies, all of the information presented above
reinforces a perspective that characters are real words, in keeping with the Chinese
linguistic perspective presented by Li (2004). It could be an important step in valuing the
diverse abilities of heritage learners to point out to students the linguistic observation that
words are ―real‖ by virtue of the fact they carry meaning for the users and not because
they are officially codified. Further, for students who are developing a language that is
tied to their own sense of identity, it is important to reinforce that the way the students
speak with their families, even if their speech is not written and codified in the same way
as Putonghua, is also valuable on personal, cultural and social levels.
4.6. Impact of socialization to discourse norms
The final data extract shows that it was through the experience of studying Mandarin
that one student began to evaluate her parents‘ language abilities negatively. The
215
following data comes from my conversation with Tina in Fall Quarter, 2007 (Dec. 7,
2007).
AK: Like have you…
Tina: Ummmm
AK: …tried speaking with someone just out in…
Tina: no…I haven‘t (laugh). I don‘t have the confidence to speak Mandarin yet.
AK: (laugh) OK.
Tina: It‘s… I don‘t… Like with my family, they they…they can speak uh
Mandarin too, but it‘s just that their pronunciation is not um accurate. So, um, I
asked them to like try to speak it with me but I felt that I was kind of correcting
them too (laugh) because it was like not…you know like…because like the way
that [the teacher] taught us…and then um, since she‘s from like Beijing…like her
pronunciation is like standard…so, you know. And I tried not to do it, but
sometimes I would be like, ―You‘re not pronouncing it correctly.‖
AMK: How would your parents react?
Tina: They‘re like, ―We never learned it properly, OK?‖ (laugh). So, I mean they
try to like speak Mandarin with me. So, I thought…like I appreciate that…that
they would try to speak it with me, but I haven‘t….in the beginning before I took
this class I thought that I would, like, turn to them for help a lot but I actually
haven‘t um asked for help because um they…I mean they didn‘t…they don‘t
know the pinyin system um so I actually haven‘t asked them and I, I think I‘m
doing like OK.
216
This final example points out, that for students with Cantonese background, involvement
in the study of Mandarin can entail lessons in ―legitimate language‖, a concept that
comes from Bourdieu, and that Heller & Martin-Jones (2001) take as an important
framework for understanding connections between education, language and authority. In
this example you can see Tina internalizing the legitimacy of a single variety as
appropriate, and the discomfort she has taking up a position of authority, like that of her
teacher, in relationship to her parents. She says, ―I felt that I was kind of correcting them
too‖ just as she is corrected by the teacher…and later that she ―tried not to do it‖. Her
identity position as a daughter is clearly in conflict with a new kind of position she now
inadvertently takes up in relationship to her parents. Rather than remain in this
uncomfortable position, she chooses not to continue to practice speaking Mandarin with
them. This certainly reduces her opportunities to practice her Mandarin, but maybe more
significantly, she is now placed in an awkward position of negatively judging her parents‘
language abilities, and this is a change from before she started studying Mandarin when
she thought she would be able to go to them for help.
It is also true that the point of the class is to teach the standard pronunciation, and this
is done through drilling and repetition. The students say that they feel satisfied with the
class because of this focus. As discussed above, the teacher experiences some feelings of
ambivalence about the importance of standard pronunciation, recognizing that she feels
she must hold the students to a higher standard than what is generally tolerated in the
―real world‖. In the end, students get the message very clearly that standard
pronunciation is needed to be a legitimate speaker; they do not get the message about
variation in pronunciation being a widespread feature among speakers of Mandarin. For
217
students who have remained connected with their family background through Cantonese,
participating in Mandarin study is a socialization process that can bring with it
indoctrination into a set of language ideologies that has the potential to devalue the
language abilities of their own family members.
5. Implications for linguistically diverse CHL learners
The introduction to Chinese: A Linguistic Introduction, (Sun, 2006), gives a succinct,
politically evasive, overview of the rationale for the formation of Putonghua and
indirectly rationalizes why it is this form of language that is taught to foreign language
learners. The implication is that it is the variety with the greatest prestige, with the
―possible‖ exception of, Sun allows, the case of Hong Kong where Cantonese dominates;
and it is the variety that unites mutually unintelligible dialects. The rationale that
Mandarin is functionally the most useful variety for students to learn because it is spoken
by the most people and will be useful for future career development underlies the
teaching of Putonghua to learners in the local context I have examined.
While Sun‘s book is called a "linguistic introduction" and one who is well-steeped in
the traditions of Western linguistics as a field would expect a 'descriptive' rather than
'prescriptive' account of the language, the explanations in this brief introduction reflect a
type of prescriptivism that is tied to the efforts of the state to maintain a standard
language. Sun is describing the codified variety of Mandarin that is promoted by the
government of the P.R.C. There is also a very strong assumption of a correspondence
between language and ethnicity; Sun states, ―An extraordinary phenomenon for the HanChinese is the lack of mutual intelligibility among people within the same ethnic group‖
(p. 6). This statement assumes an relatively seamless connection between a language, a
218
culture and an ethnicity, an idea that has been critiqued by Blommaert and others (for an
overview, see Blommaert, 2005, pp. 214-221). It also underscores Blommaert‘s point that
the idea of ethnolinguistic identity does not hold up to close scrutiny, and yet it is an
important concept in discourse analysis precisely because assumed ideas about language
and community need to be interrogated as a part of the process of analysis. Sun‘s
statement belies the fact that large-scale correspondence between ―ethnicity‖ and
language, where it apparently exists (i.e., in Japan or Korea), is a result of state
intervention and is tied to notions of ―nation‖ as well as ethnicity. Sun‘s statement does
stand to rationalize the need for a standard language.
The most marked example related to Cantonese comes up in a description of official
school-based Putonghua development for Cantonese-speaking children (Cantonese
described as a hanfangyan, or a "Chinese dialect" p. 6). In Sun's discussion of Putonghua
development for children who speak Cantonese (or other "Chinese dialects"), he states:
All Han-Chinese children, particularly those growing up in dialect-speaking areas,
must learn to write in this literary language in school. Fortunately, in spite of
some minor structural variations, the syntactic structures in Putonghua and the
various dialects do not differ substantially, thus making learning less onerous for
dialect-speaking children. (Sun, 2006, p. 8)
While the process may be ―less onerous‖, developing literacy skills is still a difficult,
long-term endeavor for all learners and is even more difficult for students who speak
varieties of Chinese other than Mandarin. For example, Sun discusses how the placement
of the adverb meaning ―first‖ (xiān in Mandarin, Sin in Cantonese) differs between
Mandarin (before the verb) and Cantonese (after the verb). He makes the point that a
219
Cantonese speaker learning Mandarin might use the correct pronunciation but the wrong
order and that this would be problematic in an educational setting: ―In most cases,
children growing up in a Cantonese-speaking area would be taught to avoid speaking
putonghua and writing formally in this kind of ungrammatical manner‖ (p. 9). In the case
of CHL education in the U.S., the tension here between the two varieties sharing similar,
but not identical, syntax can cause difficulties for Cantonese-background heritage
learners of Mandarin. One of the focal students, Julie, mentioned just this problem of
word order and made the point that people might not correct you when you speak, but
they certainly do correct you when you are writing and linked this to the increasing
difficulty she was having in 3C.
What the teacher said about Cantonese, that it is a dialect of Chinese, reinforced the
similarities between it and Mandarin. The teacher also used regular sound
correspondences between the varieties to assist students‘ development, in a move that is
in keeping with the sorts of best practices recommended in Wu (2008). These statements
and practices indicate and reinforce the perspective that the varieties are similar and
knowing one would help learn the other. In contrast, the students became increasingly
conscious, because of the very heavy focus on standard pronunciation, that knowing
another variety gets in the way. It is simultaneously true that knowing one variety helps
and interferes with the development of another.
I would argue that it is a mistake to minimize the importance of the differences, no
matter how few they are relative to, for example, all of the structures one could
enumerate in a syntactic analysis of the language. It is the few differences that will
become sociolinguistic markers, whose indexicality marks them as undesirable and in
220
turn, not legitimate in the classroom. This comes out very clearly in the quote from Sun
above in the last sentence where he shifts to a prescriptive meaning of ―grammatical‖. It
also highlights the fact that acquiring socially valued literacy skills will be challenging
for speakers of other varieties. The students are not immediately in the presence of a
discourse community where these different varieties are being used for different
purposes, as would be in the case if they were in China, the context about which Sun
speaks (for a brief overview of the purposes for which different varieties are used in
Hong Kong, Shanghai and Guangzhou, see Sun, 2006 p. 10). Nor are they foreign
language speakers, who are not expected to have well-developed language skills. For
foreign language learners, pronunciation problems are marked as ―non-native‖ and not
subjected to the same kinds of social judgments that exist among ―native‖ speakers of
varieties of Chinese. These differences in judging pronunciation errors relates back to
notions of what it means to be Chinese, to ethnicity and to expectations for how a person
speaks.
This is an important point to reinforce in the discussion of heritage languages. For
better or worse, Chinese-American students are judged with a different set of
expectations because they are perceived to be part of a Chinese in-group. One of the
students, Eric, perceptively pointed this out to me when I remarked that my Mandarin
pronunciation is often praised for being very ―standard‖, but that as I‘ve become aware of
how limited my real abilities are, I‘ve become increasingly uncomfortable with the
compliment. Eric said that it seemed I was being judged as an outsider in these kinds of
cases, someone who is not Chinese, and he said that he does not have that problem.
Heritage learners like Eric face a different set of problems precisely because they are
221
regarded, at times, as being part of the Chinese community. Perhaps this highlights part
of the reason why ethnicity continues to be a factor in the discursive construction of the
category ―heritage language learner‖ and why it is important to include students without
developed proficiencies in this category.
The findings I have presented illustrate some of the beliefs the teachers and students
hold about Cantonese and Mandarin, and highlight how the relationship between the two
varieties was characterized in the classroom. Through this study I found that appeals to
linguistic analysis as an outside and powerful authority tend to reinforce the status of
Cantonese as a dialect. And if Cantonese is a dialect then there must be a Chinese
language. Students are left with the impression that the only ―real language‖ is the
official, standardized form being taught in the class – a combination of the written
language and spoken Putonghua. In the Chinese academic tradition, Mandarin is only a
dialect, the same as Cantonese, but this study reveals how its status is elevated to that of a
language and becomes synonymous with the term ―Chinese‖.
222
Chapter 8. Concluding reflections and points for further study
1. Language politics through pop music
I opened this dissertation by quoting the pop song 中國話 ―Zhongguo hua‖ (―Chinese
language‖) by the Taiwanese group S.H.E. To begin this final section, I return to this
song. In the introduction, I discussed how the lyrics to the chorus were political, in the
sense that they discuss the ascendency of ―Chinese‖ language and culture on the world
stage. The lyrics state explicitly that the rise in language study will make the rest of the
world ―obedient.‖ The politics of language and authority around international relations
were clear in the original.
After initially hearing the song at California Northern University‘s 2008 Chinese
department New Year celebration, I was in my office with a Taiwanese classmate and
mentioned the song to her. Within seconds she pulled up a video of a re-made version on
YouTube, called ―Taiwan hua‖ (Taiwan hua, n.d.) or ―Taiwanese language‖. The song
mimics the lyrics of ―Zhongguo hua‖ but it is in both Mandarin and Taiwanese, adapting
the chorus to state, ―the whole world is studying Taiwanese.‖ The re-made version also
inserts Taiwan-specific references, including a portion of a famous Taiwanese folksong.
Responses to the song posted on YouTube run the gamut of emotion, tapping into a
number of controversies, including: the politics of Taiwan/China relations and Taiwanese
autonomy; the validity of expressing politics through pop music; copyright infringement;
and evaluations of the quality of the re-made version. Some respondents felt it was
―ridiculous‖ to make an issue of what constitutes ―Chinese language‖, while others felt
the issue was not being taken far enough and that other varieties of Chinese, including
Cantonese, were being left out of the conversation.
223
I raise this example to show that the statement, ―the whole world is studying Chinese,‖
is not a-political, and questions of language as it relates to power and authority lie just
below the surface. In the remake, the political focus shifts from ―Chinese‖ authority on
the world stage to a consideration of who owns ―Chinese‖. On YouTube, some who
responded to the song felt the original did not address politics. As one response put it,
―How is the original mixing entertainment with politics? The original one was just stating
how the Chinese language is spreading all over the world, not making it sound like Chia
[sic] is better than Taiwan.‖ The original was not overtly political in the sense implied by
this comment; it did not directly address the political relationship between the P.R.C. and
Taiwan, as the author of the quote above sees in the re-made lyrics. However, it is clear
that the cumulative effect of the song‘s lyrics was to encode an ideological stance
regarding Chinese language and culture that the writers of the re-make found challenging
enough to contest. This is a good example to show that there is a majority view,
influenced by a standard language ideology (Lippi-Green, 1997; Milroy & Milroy, 1991),
that regards the spread of Standard Mandarin as a-political, taken to be a given and
unproblematic. It is the voice that questions the status quo that is interpreted as being
―political‖.
This example highlights some of the tensions related to the term ―Chinese‖ that are
important for the emerging heritage language field. This study has examined some of the
specific ways the fixity and fluidity of the term is negotiated in the context of the heritage
language field, examining both the use of the term in the professional literature and
within a particular Mandarin education program. At the beginning of this dissertation I
said the following: ―Not only does the status of ―Chinese‖ change across contexts, as
224
Wang (2007) argues, but I will also argue that there are unspoken and unequal hierarchies
of access to Chinese (and specifically, Mandarin) as a global language that are driven, in
part, by such factors such as ethnicity and ―dialect‖ background.‖ This study has taken
the Mandarin classroom as the central nexus for examining this contention, and has
linked empirical finding to emerging theoretical foundations in the heritage language
field.
In this final section, I will join together some of the findings of related parts of this
study and present additional reflections that appear fruitful for further study. These final
comments include discussions that I wrote up in the context of this project, but did not
exactly fit with the analyses as I narrowed down the scope of the chapters included here.
These final reflections will help to clarify the relationship between the findings and my
initial research questions, and discuss some of the extended implications of the study. I
will also briefly discuss the limitations of this study and possible pedagogical
applications.
2. (Re)viewing the nexus of ideologies, policies and investment in Mandarin study
Each chapter in this dissertation presents specific findings that I will not restate at this
point. Rather, in this section I return to my over-arching research questions and briefly
discuss how the findings relate to these broader questions.
2.1. Ideologies
The first set of research questions I posed in Chapter 2 were related to language
ideologies. I asked: What ideologies about Chinese as a global language are currently
circulating and how are they discursively constructed? How are such ideologies reflected,
225
appropriated or resisted in the perspectives of learners, teachers, administrators and
programs? To what effect for students?
A primary finding regarding the discourse around Chinese as a heritage language from
this study is that when the upsurge in the study of Chinese is discussed in the media and
in the heritage language literature, ―Chinese‖ is assumed to mean Mandarin. In large part,
this is tied to two factors: first, that the heritage language field is primarily forming as a
part of the field of foreign language education in the U.S., and Mandarin is the most
commonly taught variety of Chinese in U.S. foreign language programs; second, because
it is the People‘s Republic of China that has experienced unprecedented economic
expansion since the 1990‘s, it is the codified standard of the P.R.C. that is seen to be the
most important variety of Chinese to learn at this time. Further, resources are being made
available by the P.R.C government to promote Mandarin study in the U.S. The result is
that the heritage language discourse about Chinese focuses on promoting Standard
Mandarin language education in the U.S. This view is becoming hegemonic, meaning
that the social factors that have led to this equation of ―Chinese‖ with Mandarin are
generally forgotten in the literature on Chinese as a heritage language; meanwhile, they
are so strong that they are now taken as common sense, thereby shutting down other
interpretations of the meaning of ―Chinese‖ (for a discussion of ideology and hegemony
in language, see Fairclough, 1995a, pp. 47-53).
The study found that the actions of the Chinese department at CNU contest this
equation, in a sense, when adapting its program to offer Mandarin classes specifically for
Cantonese-background students. The department does not use the binary categories
―heritage‖ and ―non-heritage‖ to organize its program and sort its students. Creating a
226
separate track for Cantonese-background students raises the profile of the diversity
encoded in the term ―Chinese‖. In the study site, it opened up greater possibilities for
discussing and drawing on the students‘ abilities in Cantonese to buttress their Mandarin
study. The students also felt they were learning because the class targeted an area of
language development, pronunciation, that was difficult for them. The students
themselves show us why it is important to remember that the normative interpretation of
―Chinese‖ as Mandarin is limiting. Their abilities in Cantonese made them very particular
kinds of heritage learners. They used their Cantonese abilities to support their Mandarin
development, to express non-sanctioned meanings in the classroom, to build rapport with
classmates, and to negotiate ideas of ―Chineseness‖ together outside the classroom.
At the same time, the exigencies of operating a program for a very diverse set of
learners meant that the program, even in the ―Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers‖ class,
upheld the normative interpretation of what constitutes ―Chinese‖ and Standard
Mandarin. The strongest example of this was the way standard pronunciation became the
central focus of the Cantonese-background classes. There was a local rationale for
focusing so much on pronunciation. The class was designed to prepare students to enter
other classes in the program, essentially making Cantonese-background students more
like other learners in their ability to recognize, produce and pronounce pinyin
Romanization. Structuring the program this way inadvertently produced some negative
outcomes for the students in terms of their investment in developing the ability to speak
Mandarin. They came to see learning ―Chinese‖ as primarily about Standard Mandarin
pronunciation, and linked speaking Mandarin with ―proper‖ pronunciation to such a
degree that it seemed to be prohibitively time-consuming and dampened their interest in
227
speaking it with anyone outside the classroom. The messages they received about the
importance of standard pronunciation also led to negative evaluations of parents‘ and
peers‘ pronunciation.
2.2. Policies
The second set of research questions I posed were related to policies: How are
departmental policies constructed and enacted around the complex language backgrounds
of the student population? What rationales are called on to explain current policies?
In this setting, it was clear that the program director was committed to creating a
curriculum that would accommodate a broad range of learners, including ―true
beginners‖, heritage learners with varying degrees of exposure to a variety of Chinese in
the home and prior study, and students who emigrated to the U.S. after completing some
of their schooling overseas in a variety of Chinese. The program director was involved
with constantly assessing and changing the curriculum, course offerings, teacher training
and materials to better meet the needs of these diverse learners. He was very conscious of
the need to both create more specialized classes at the introductory levels, as well as more
rigorous classes, focused on high-level literacy skills, at the advanced levels of the
program. There was a strong commitment to accommodating learners with a wide range
of backgrounds within the confines of budgetary limitations. The program director was a
successful advocate for expanding the program in ways that were appropriate for the
diverse student population at CNU.
The addition of the ―Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers‖ class was a major
development that took place during the course of this study, and points to how complex it
is to make changes in this kind of institutional setting. Securing funding for more classes,
228
finding qualified teachers, and organizing a new approach to teaching a text used in other
tracks of the program were all necessary steps to offer this new set of classes. The
principle behind their creation was to offer a ―bridge‖ to other classes in the program.
Organizing the program in this way was also pedagogically practical because students in
the track were heterogeneous and some could move to higher levels of study more
rapidly. Making the course a bridge to other classes in the program, rather than
maintaining a separate track through additional levels, was also necessary because there
was no funding, and no other tangible or intangible resources, available to continue to
offer ―specialized‖ classes beyond the first year of study. In turn, this set of resource
issues drove the way the Cantonese track was envisioned and enacted.
While the focus in this setting was clearly on teaching Standard Mandarin, the choice
to study Mandarin was understood by the program director as only one of the possible
options for studying ―Chinese‖ in the U.S. In conversation with him, he raised the
question, ―why not teach Cantonese?‖ Having taught at a private, financially wellendowed university that did teach Cantonese and other varieties of Chinese, this
possibility was something that he saw as a real option with benefits for students. He also
thought that offering such classes was not workable in the context of CNU, given the
financial limitations of a public university.
The possibility or desirability of using more Cantonese in the classroom was not
addressed, except by one student who expressed surprise that the teacher did not know
Cantonese. The tacit assumption in the context was that Mandarin should be taught
exclusively through the use of Mandarin in the classroom. However, the teacher in
Chinese 1C did try to draw out students‘ knowledge of Cantonese to help them learn
229
Mandarin, in contrast to the teacher of Chinese 2C and 3C who did not draw on the
students‘ knowledge of Cantonese.
2.3. Investment
The final set of questions I posed for this study relate to the students‘ on-going
motivation, or ―investment‖, in studying Mandarin: How does language ability developed
in the home and family background impact learners‘ study of Mandarin? How does this
impact affect their initial interest and continuing investment in studying Mandarin?
The comments of the students in the initial interviews revealed that most had a general
sense of having a connection to Chinese language and culture, broadly defined, and
because of this, they felt they should know more about the language. This points to one of
the complexities of being a heritage learner. The sense of cultural connection to a
heritage language can entail both a real desire and a sense of obligation to study and
know more about the language. This point is even more complex for Cantonesebackground learners of Mandarin who drew on the discourse of Chinese as a global
language, meaning Mandarin, to express why they wanted to enroll in the class. Some of
the students specifically wanted to improve their literacy and others only wanted to focus
on learning to speak Mandarin. For many students, it is the combination of feeling
connected to Chinese language and culture plus the institutional requirement to study a
―foreign‖ language that moves them from a desire or feeling of obligation to study more
about Chinese to actually enrolling in a class.
Once they enter the program, the analyses show that students adapt to the conditions
of the program. At times this means changing classes and tracks, and at other times this
230
means changing their perspective on what they expect to get out of the program. What
develops is a sense of how well they fit with the program, or a sense of belonging.
Some students come to feel they do not belong, as with Kelly in Chapter 5, the
Cantonese-background student who transferred from the ―bilingual‖ to the ―regular‖ track
to try to meet her own needs, but felt left out by the program. Conversely, we saw in
Chapter 7 that Susan, who was placed into the Cantonese-background class but did not
know any Cantonese, felt a strong sense of belonging in Teacher Wu‘s class but not with
Teacher Zhang. Susan felt Teacher Wu accepted the fact that she had a different
background from the other students, but she was fearful that her background would be
discovered by Teacher Zhang. For most of the focal students in Chapter 6 and 7, the
strong emphasis on correct Standard Mandarin pronunciation in the classroom seemed to
discourage them from speaking the language outside of the classroom, and they chose not
to continue studying after the end of the year. The only student who chose to go on, Matt,
decided to add Chinese as a second major because his first major required relatively few
units. Matt‘s investment seemed to have more to do with finding his own sense of
belonging at the university. He did not have a good idea of what he was interested in
doing after college. His feeling of obligation to know more about ―Chinese‖ and have
some direction for adding more units to his schedule added up to his decision to double
major.
While many of the students did not want to continue studying Mandarin, two of the
focal students were planning to go to Hong Kong for an academic term, where they
planned to take classes in English and use Cantonese quite a bit, visiting family and in
everyday life. The kinds of identity negotiations that came up in the ―Mandarin for
231
Cantonese Speakers‖ class seemed to reinforce for the students the importance of their
sense of Chinese identity. Even Susan, who was not like the other students in the class
because she did not know Cantonese, expressed that Mandarin study enhanced her sense
of being Chinese, particularly in comparison to her cousins who grew up in the Mid-West
and seemed very ―Americanized‖, by which she meant largely ignorant of and
uninterested in Chinese culture. She saw this when they traveled together to the P.R.C.
However, for most of the students, this reinforcement of a Chinese identity did not
coincide with a strong sense that continuing to learn Mandarin was important to them.
For Alan, the student in the ―bilingual‖ track of the program, discussed in Chapter 5,
the experiences he had studying abroad in Beijing reinforced his desire to advance his
Mandarin abilities. He tied his own abilities and imagined future success using Mandarin
for employment to his status as a heritage language learner, and tied his views to
ethnicity. He interned in Beijing and saw white, American employees doing well. He felt
he had a ―head start‖ because of his background and that he could develop his Mandarin
to a higher level than they had. This seemed to encourage his continued study of the
language, especially his desire to develop higher literacy skills, and simultaneously
reinforced a sense of the positive value of having been raised in a home where Mandarin
was spoken.
The study is too small to generalize, but it would be well worth pursuing further
research to find out if there is a generalization to be made here. Alan, the heritage learner
with a Mandarin background, found positive reinforcement and reason to continue his
Mandarin study through his experiences related to enrolling in the Mandarin courses at
CNU. None of the Cantonese-background students expressed such a positive orientation
232
toward continuing their studies. Is it possible that Mandarin-background heritage
learners are more likely to want to continue to study Mandarin and use it professionally
than their Cantonese-background peers? If so, what might departments do to bridge the
gap in outcomes?
2.4. Study limitations
There are a number of reasons these questions cannot be answered by this study alone
for reasons that are related to the limitations of this study. First, the study followed a
small number of students at the beginning levels of the program. Adding in qualitative
interviews and observations with additional students at higher levels would add
information about continuing investment in Mandarin study and effects of policy across
the curriculum.
A second set of limitations has to do with the backgrounds of the students I
interviewed. All of the focal students in this study were born in the U.S. or immigrated at
a very young age and can be grouped into three categories of ―heritage‖ students: those
with significant exposure to Mandarin in the home, those with significant exposure to
another variety of Chinese in the home (Cantonese in most cases in this study), and those
with strong family connections to Chinese culture, but with very little home use of
Chinese (a category that has been contested in the literature, and ruled out by proficiency
restrictions). Another significant category in this setting encompasses students who
emigrated to the U.S. during junior high or high school. There were two such students in
the Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers (1C) class, but I did not interview them.
Interviewing these students, in particular across a range of levels in the program, would
be important for further qualitative work.
233
Finally, this study is limited because it looks only at the situation at CNU. Comparing
cases like this across settings would also contribute valuable information. The situation at
CNU is, perhaps, typical of Mandarin programs on the west coast, where the population
of heritage learners is large and diverse. Comparing cases at different universities to see
how programs handle similar student populations, or conversely, comparing the situation
at a university with few heritage learners would add more to the CHL knowledge base. Li
and Duff (2008) mention that a number of Canadian universities offer courses
specifically designed for Cantonese-background learners. Comparing these programs to
the one at CNU would add an interesting international component to this kind of
qualitative research on CHL education.
3. Implications for heritage language education
In this section I will discuss the implications of this study for heritage language
education, including the formation of the heritage language field, institutional policies,
and heritage language pedagogy.
3.1. The heritage language field
An important lesson to draw from this project is that ―dialect‖ background matters and
that, unintentionally, it is being rendered invisible by the present theoretical construction
of CHL learners, i.e. in He‘s (2008b) identity theory of CHL. Mandarin education is not
the only frame of reference and object of interest for the study of Chinese as a heritage
language. Rather, it is an important social context wherein certain language abilities and
attitudes are inculcated in learners. The broader field of Chinese as a heritage language
can examine the evolving nature of ―Chinese‖, in all its diversity, as a ―heritage‖
language for communities, families and individuals in the U.S. and in other countries
234
where there is a diasporic Chinese population. This is a controversial claim because I am
questioning the assertion that the focus of the CHL field should be on teaching Mandarin,
or more broadly, that the heritage language field should primarily focus on acquisition of
proficiency in standard varieties. Indirectly I am opening up questions about the
ideological construction of languages (Makoni & Pennycook, 2006) and suggesting that
the CHL field grapple with issues raised by Li (2004) whose work specifies different
ways ideas of language and dialect are constructed according to a Chinese linguistic
framework, a Western linguistic framework and within popular understanding.
Concentrating on Mandarin education fits well with the current construction of the
heritage language field; it fits well with U.S. strategic interests in developing high-level
language ability for international relations with the P.R.C.; it fits well with existing
language programs since the majority already teach Mandarin; and it fits well with
official language policies in not just the P.R.C. but also Taiwan and Singapore that
privilege Mandarin in their education systems. For a large number of pragmatic reasons
the focus makes sense. However, it is also true that there is a long history of ChineseAmerican communities in the U.S. where the predominant language used has been
Cantonese; and Cantonese has been and continues to be a prestige variety in Hong Kong
(Sun, 2006). In the U.S., Cantonese has often become a recognizable hallmark of
―Chinatowns‖ but now, in some areas, may be in a process of being supplanted by
Mandarin (Semple, 2009). In a sense, it is possible that Cantonese may be passing from
the ―majority‖ variety of Chinese in some communities in the U.S. to a ―minority‖ variety
of Chinese. For the communities where Cantonese is falling out of usage, this is a form of
language loss, and something that I think should be of interest to the ―heritage‖ language
235
field. I am not arguing that it is not important for the field of CHL to examine how
Standard Mandarin can be taught more effectively to heritage learners, but I am saying
that it is very important to also pursue research on the broader social contexts in which
Mandarin education is embedded.
3.2. Institutional policies
This study emphasizes the importance of viewing both the implementation and study
of language education policies from the ground up, not just from the perspective of topdown decision making. Research on the effectiveness of policies in educational contexts
often looks at outcomes based on proficiency testing. It is valuable to augment this kind
of research with studies that examine students‘ experiences in CHL programs. Some of
the details in this study, for example how Cantonese was used by students or how their
investment was affected by program policies, would not have been visible if this study
had focused on measuring students‘ competence with pinyin or surveying their
motivations. I believe studies of this type ask educators to intentionally learn more about
the impact of program design on learners and reflect more on how they can be aware of
and responsive to students.
There is much to be gained by understanding more about the social contexts and
backgrounds of college-level language learners, especially students like CHL learners
who are involved in an academic pursuit that is also deeply enmeshed with their sense of
identity. For students who have not had the opportunity to develop higher level literacy
skills and more formal registers, language study may ask them to learn to evaluate their
vernacular abilities in negative ways. In the context of literacy development for speakers
of African American Vernacular English, Delpit (1993) emphasizes the importance and
236
possibility of minority students acquiring status Discourses through concerted
educational efforts. Most importantly, she argues that this kind of language development
is vital not only for accessing social and economic power, but that it can be the means for
changing social structures through a challenge from within the dominant Discourse itself.
In a similar way, I wonder if the process of developing Standard Mandarin, which entails
a process of socialization into a dominant Discourse, can be additive, both linguistically
and socially, expanding students‘ abilities in a dominant Discourse and their ability to
engage with questions of power and authority in language.
In the first quarter of the ―Mandarin for Cantonese Speakers‖ class, Teacher Wu did
draw on a language/dialect analysis, emphasizing the status of Cantonese as a dialect. Is
there other knowledge that could help the students better understand the challenge of
learning a related form of language? What about sociolinguistic studies that would help
these students understand that attaining high-level ability is possible even if their
production will never be exactly according to the standard? What knowledge is there of
the sociopolitics of language that the teacher could bring to the class to help the students
understand more about the powerful position Mandarin holds, or attitudes toward other
varieties and accents? Could such knowledge help support the students‘ learning? This
issue has been raised by Li and Duff (2008) and the work of Comanaru and Noels (2009)
supports the importance of self-determination in language development for CHL learners,
which could be augmented by such attention.
I believe the field of Cultural Studies is an allied, interdisciplinary field that lends
important insights for forming a theoretical basis to the study of ―heritage‖ languages.
This has immediate implications for language department policies. As During says of
237
Cultural Studies, ―….it is a globalizing academic field with a strong commitment to
maintaining differences between communities and cultures on the grounds that the
transnational imposition of common interests, values, styles, etc. is a mode of hegemony‖
(p. 214). Chapter 4 shows that culture figures prominently in the ―heritage‖ language
field. Cultural connections are continually brought into the discussion of language
learning, at times in ways that are very overt and at other times through assumptions and
tacit expectations. Drawing out what is meant by culture, how it is significant for
different actors involved with language education, and the way these meanings change
across contexts is an important part of the work that remains to be done in this field.
Finding a theoretical basis that is not reproductive in its orientation is an important step in
allowing for the voices of diverse learners, teachers and others to be acknowledged.
3.3. Pedagogy for Chinese as a heritage language
Diversity in classrooms is one of the most important challenges educators face, and
this is true for Mandarin education, even when programs have been tracked into different
classes for students with similar backgrounds. Awareness of difference may be an area in
need of attention for Mandarin classes that clearly prioritize imparting a codified standard
using teaching methods that are primarily teacher-centered.
This challenge as it pertains to foreign language learners comes out in Lantolf and
Genung (2002) where one of the authors, Genung, was accustomed to a more
communicative orientation in other language classes and viewed herself as a ―good‖
language learner. When her achievement in an intensive Mandarin class did not meet her
expectations, she had to shift her orientation to simply passing the class to satisfy a
requirement. The article describes and discusses the teacher‘s power and authority in the
238
classroom, characterizing the teacher as unduly authoritarian, and attributing Genung‘s
failure to achieve as a language learner, in contrast to her high achievement with other
languages, to the teacher‘s style. However, the article leaves out a discussion of Genung‘s
own power as an academic to voice her frustrations through publication. For the present
discussion, the significance is that the study points out that there are differences in
teaching methods, materials, participation structures, evaluation procedures and other
pedagogic practices between Mandarin and other languages.
It would be worth exploring to what extent Chinese (Mandarin) language classes have
a style which is fairly consistent across locations and levels, and to what extent it may be
possible to move toward a less teacher-fronted, top-down structure in programs and
classes. Students who grew up the U.S. are more accustomed to such teaching styles from
their mainstream classrooms, and conflicts arise when teachers expect their students to
meet Chinese cultural norms (Maguire & Curdt-Christiansen, 2007). Meeting students
partway may have positive benefits for language development.
4. Pedagogical implications
There has been a call in the CHL literature to respect students‘ existing abilities and
promote a positive view of their families and communities (Hendryx, 2008; Wu, 2008).
Based on this study, it seems that there are challenges to implementing this in classrooms.
One of the positive things that the department at CNU did was to draw on students‘
knowledge of Cantonese in the classroom. Another was to have the students work
together in small groups to prepare skits for class, allowing more learner autonomy and
choice in text production. With this type of assignment, the students enjoyed getting to
know their classmates better and brought more creativity to their class work. As a
239
recommendation, programs like the one at CNU might consider how they can facilitate
more free discussion and creativity in the use of language in the classroom. There has
been some discussion of how Communicative Language Teaching might be adopted for
the teaching of Mandarin and I think this is an important discussion to pursue. A balance
between accuracy and fluency is the goal in language development. As we saw in this
study, the emphasis at CNU was much more on the side of accuracy, and this is not
unique to the department. One way to shift the balance is to move away from the heavily
teacher-fronted methods that were evident in this study. This kind of change would not be
easy or comfortable as teacher control in the classroom is a characteristic that is deeply
embedded in Chinese cultural norms and expectations. However, for this very reason, it
may be a good place to start in bridging the gap in expectations between heritage learners
and their teachers.
Another area that deserves specific attention is literacy development. While the
analyses presented here did not focus specifically on the way literacy was perceived,
characterized in the class, taught, or developed by the students, all of these areas are of
concern. Using computer-based pinyin chat was shown by Zhang and Davis (2008) to
give CHL students insight into why learning the system was important. Teaching the
students how to use pinyin as an input for computer-based writing might give them a way
of practicing Mandarin through a medium that is familiar to them in their outside lives,
not just for class assignments. In a broader context, research is needed on the ways
teachers and students understand what literacy in Chinese entails and their pedagogical
beliefs related to this part of language development. Ideally, findings from this kind of
research would facilitate a greater emphasis on literacy development, even at the
240
beginning levels. Finally, focusing more on literacy, rather than pronunciation, could help
students develop their abilities to use the grammar and vocabulary they are studying, with
pronunciation being developed along the way, but not as the primary focus.
Introducing both students and teachers to the complexity of changing a person‘s
phonology, when studying a second language or second variety, may help reduce
negative judgments of others based on pronunciation. Lippi-Green‘s (1997) metaphor of
a person‘s phonology as a ―sound house‖ that has developed during a formative time of
life and that cannot readily be changed is a good reference for understanding, in an
accessible way, the difficulty of changing one‘s pronunciation. It also highlights the fact
that pronunciation is a small part of language ability. Using computers to highlight why
the pinyin system is useful, focusing on communicative use of Mandarin, and fostering an
understanding of how difficult it is to adapt to a new sound system could benefit CHL
students, especially those with a background in a variety of Chinese other than Mandarin.
5. Closing thoughts
The most valuable part of these final reflections, as I see it, is that they underscore the
importance of keeping the scope of the heritage language field broad enough to
encompass and encourage studies regarding the diversity of Chinese language use and
maintenance in the context of the ―diaspora‖. My intention is for this study to remind
researchers, practitioners and others that, while the conversation about Chinese language
in the U.S. is focused on Mandarin education, it is important to also be aware of and
closely examine the personal and social histories, local contexts and language varieties
that form the specific contexts within which language development takes place.
241
APPENDIX A
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Developed by Ann Kelleher, University of California, Davis
1. What is a heritage language?
The term ―heritage language‖ is used to identify languages other than the dominant
language (or languages) in a given social context. In the United States, English is the de
facto dominant language (not an ―official‖ language, but the primary language used in
government, education, and public communication); thus, any language other than
English can be considered a ―heritage language‖ for speakers of that language. (See
articles by Joshua Fishman, Guadalupe Valdés, and Terrence Wiley in Peyton, Ranard, &
McGinnis, 2001, for a discussion of definitions.)
In the United States, languages other than English are often thought of and referred to as
―foreign‖ languages. However, many people who live in the United States have cultural
connections to and know languages other than English. These languages are not ―foreign‖
to particular individuals or communities; instead, they are familiar in a variety of ways.
Some people may be able to speak, read, and write the language; others may only speak
or understand when spoken to. Some may not understand the language but are part of a
family or community where the language is spoken. The term “heritage” language can
be used to describe any of these connections between a non-dominant language and
a person, a family, or a community.
242
The term ―minority language‖ has also been used for the purpose of identifying
languages other than English in the United States. However, there are at least two
concerns with the term ―minority‖ language. First, while ―minority‖ in a demographic
sense tends to mean ―smaller in number‖ or less than 50% of a group (as opposed to a
numerical majority), many negative social connotations accompany the term. Second, in
a particular community or social setting in the United States, a language other than
English may in fact be spoken by a numerical majority. (See the Introduction to Peyton,
Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001, for discussion.)
Alternative terms to ―heritage language‖ have been and are being used in the United
States and in other countries. These terms include ―community language‖ (Baker and
Jones, 1998; Corson, 1999; Wiley, 2001, 2005) and ―home language‖ (e.g., Yeung,
Marsh, & Suliman, 2000).
The linguist Joshua Fishman identifies three types of heritage languages in the United
States (Fishman, 2001). These categories emphasize the historical and social conditions
of other languages relative to English.
1. Immigrant heritage languages are any of the languages spoken by immigrants
arriving in the United States after it became an independent country. Immigrant
heritage languages may overlap with colonial heritage languages; for instance,
Spanish was a colonial heritage language, and it is now an immigrant heritage
language of great importance in the United States.
2. Indigenous heritage languages are the languages of the peoples native to the
Americas. Many of these languages are now extinct, some are spoken by a very
243
few elders and are at risk of being lost, and a very few are being maintained
within communities of speakers through strong educational efforts. For a booklength account of the educational efforts to maintain Navajo within a community
on the Navajo Reservation, see McCarty (2002).
3. Colonial heritage languages are the languages of the various European groups
that first colonized what is now the United States and are still spoken here. These
include such languages as Dutch, German, Finnish, French, Spanish, and
Swedish.
References
Baker, C., & Jones, S.P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingual education and bilingualism.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Corson, D. (1999). Community-based education for indigenous cultures. In S. May (Ed.),
Indigenous community-based education (pp. 8-19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Fishman, J. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In
J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in
America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 81-89). Washington, DC &
McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.
McCarty, T.L. (2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the struggle for selfdetermination in indigenous schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D.A., & McGinnis, S. (Eds). (2001). Heritage languages in
America: Preserving a national resource. Washington, DC & McHenry, IL:
Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.
Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton,
D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving
a national resource (pp. 37-77). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for
Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.
Wiley, T. G. (2001). On defining heritage languages and their speakers. In J. K. Peyton,
D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving
244
a national resource (pp. 29-36). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for
Wiley, T. G. (2005). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Yeung, Y.S., Marsh, H.W., & Suliman, R. (2000). Can two tongues live in harmony:
Analysis of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS88)
Longitudinal data on the maintenance of home language. American Educational
Research Journal, 37 (4), 1001-1026.
245
2. Who is a heritage language learner?
In general, the term ―heritage language learner‖ is used to describe a person studying a
language who has proficiency in or a cultural connection to that language. However, just
as there are different kinds of heritage languages (see What is a heritage language? ),
there are different types of heritage language learners.
For members of indigenous communities (e.g., Navajo, Hawaiian, Arapaho), any member
of the community studying the language might be considered a heritage language
learner. In such cases (e.g., Navajo children learning the Navajo language in school), all
learners are members of the community and are heritage language learners regardless of
their levels of Navajo proficiency. Children who come from homes where no Navajo is
spoken would be considered heritage language learners, as would children who have had
some home exposure to the language. In such settings, the focus of instruction might be
community-oriented and focused on language preservation and maintenance, or it might
be on heritage language development. Language instruction is part of a larger effort to
pass on cultural connections to younger generations (Fishman, 2001; McCarty, 2002).
In K-12 public and private and college education in the United States, where English is
the predominant language of schooling, languages other than English are typically
considered foreign languages, and students of these languages are considered foreign
language learners. However, in many classrooms, some students will have a connection
246
to the language of study through their family and some proficiency in it. These students
are also heritage language learners. In some educational settings where there are a large
number of students with home background and some proficiency in the language,
separate classes are offered for heritage language learners (e.g., see program profiles on
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Raleigh, NC, Spanish heritage language program;
the Flushing High School, Flushing, NY Chinese program; and the New York City public
schools French heritage language program).
Coming from the Spanish language development context, Guadalupe Valdés, a professor
in the department of Spanish and Portuguese at Stanford University, has formulated a
basic definition that resonates with language educators and researchers.
Foreign language educators use the term to refer to a language student who is
raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who speaks or at least
understands the language, and who is to some degree bilingual in that language
and in English (Valdés, 2000a, 2000b). For these educators, the heritage language
student is also different in important ways from the traditional foreign language
student. This difference, however, has to do with developed functional
proficiencies in the heritage languages (Valdés, 2001, p. 38).
Her definition has been reprinted a number of times, including as the central definition of
―heritage language learner‖ in Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National
Resource (Peyton et al, 2001). It is also commonly cited in articles published in the
online, peer-reviewed journal, Heritage Language Journal, published annually since
2003 by the UCLA Center for World Languages.
247
This definition is especially helpful to language educators, because proficiency in the
language studied is the focus of instruction. At the same time, it raises a number of issues
that are of concern to language educators and will be addressed in other FAQs.
References
Baker, C., & S.P. Jones. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingual education and bilingualism.
Corson, D. (1999). Community-based education for indigenous cultures. In S. May (ed.),
Indigenous community-based education (pp. 8-19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Fishman, J. A. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States.
In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (eds.), Heritage languages in
America: Blueprint for the future (pp. 81-98) Washington, DC & McHenry, IL:
McCarty, T.L. (2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the struggle for selfdetermination in indigenous schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D.A., & McGinnis, S. (Eds). (2001). Heritage Languages in
America: Blueprint for the future. Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: The Center
for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.
Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage Language Students: Profiles and Possibilities. In J. Peyton, J.
Ranard & S. McGinnis (Ed.s), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a
National Resource (pp. 37-80). McHenry, IL: The Center for Applied Linguistics
and Delta Systems.
Valdés, G. (2000a). Introduction. In Spanish for native speakers. AATSP professional
development series handbook for teachers K-16, Volume 1 (pp. 1-20). New York:
Harcourt College.
Valdés, G. (2000b). Teaching heritage languages: An introduction for Slavic-languageteaching professionals. In O. Kagan & B. Rifkin (Eds.), Learning and teaching of
Slavic languages and cultures: Toward the 21 st century (pp. 375-403).
Bloomington, IN: Slavica.
D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (eds.), Heritage languages in America: Blueprint
for the future (pp. 29-36). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied
Linguistics & Delta Systems.
248
Wiley, T. G. (2005). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. (2 nd ed.).
Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta
Systems.
Yeung, Y.S., Marsh, H.W., & Suliman, R. (2000). Can two tongues live in harmony:
Analysis of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS88)
Longitudinal Data on the Maintenance of Home Language. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(4), 1001-1026.
249
3. What is a heritage language program?
In its broadest sense, a heritage language program is any language development program
that is designed or tailored to address the needs of heritage language learners (see related
FAQ, Who is a heritage language learner?). The Alliance for the Advancement of
Heritage Language (the Alliance) is building a collection of program profiles—
descriptions of heritage language programs throughout the United States. Click here for
more information about this project, including how to add a program to the collection
Heritage language programs may be at any level or setting, including community-based,
K-12, or higher education, and vary in terms of their approaches to teaching, populations
they serve, and other factors. The following overview provides a basic outline of heritage
language programs in these three major educational contexts.
Community-based programs: Historically in the United States, the strongest efforts for
the teaching of heritage languages have occurred outside of mainstream schooling where,
until recently, education in languages other than English was characterized almost
exclusively as foreign language teaching (Fishman, 2001; Valdés, 2001). Heritage
language schools are often created out of a community‘s desire to pass on their language
and culture from one generation to the next in order to maintain connections within
families and communities.
250
Community-based schools or programs are organized privately rather than within the
public education system (Fishman, 2001). Because of this, no centralized government
records have been maintained, but the linguist Joshua Fishman undertook two separate
projects (1960-1963 and 1980-1983) to identify and document such schools. His more
recent study identified over 6,000 heritage language schools, teaching 145 different
languages. Of these languages, 91 were indigenous American languages. The majority of
the schools taught the following languages: Chinese, French, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese,
Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Ukrainian, and Yiddish. (See Compton, 2001, for
discussion of heritage language communities and schools.)
Community heritage language programs vary a great deal with regard to populations
served, program structure and organization, focus of instruction, instructional methods,
materials used, staff qualifications, articulation with school-based programs, and funding
sources. What they do have in common is that they are organized by community
members—families, community leaders, churches, or civic organizations. Culture,
traditions, and other content are often taught through the language, rather than focusing
strictly on language as the object of instruction. Many schools incorporate community
events and holiday celebrations into the curriculum and rely on the involvement of
community members as staff volunteers, teachers, and school leaders. At the same time,
schools strive to meet high educational standards, and some are organized into networks
at the regional or national level. Examples include a national organization for private
German language schools, the German Language School Conference, and the two
national associations of Chinese schools, the National Council of Associations of Chinese
Schools and the Chinese School Association in the U.S. These associations, and some
251
individual schools, are creating linkages to the formal education system by offering AP
credit-bearing courses at the community schools.
The community-based programs in the Alliance Program Profiles collection can be found
here.
K-12 education: The situation at the K-12 level is complicated because schools do not
always identify or support specific ―heritage‖ language programs. Rather, they may have
immersion or two-way (dual language) programs that include heritage language speakers,
or they may have classes within the foreign language education program for heritage or
native language speakers. (See, e.g., Christian, Howard, & Loeb, 2000; Genesee, 1999;
Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Montone & Loeb, 2000, and Webb & Miller, 2000 for overviews
of such programs for overviews of such programs.) This situation is different for Spanish,
with many Spanish for Spanish Speakers (or Spanish for Native Speakers or Spanish for
Fluent Speakers) programs in school districts across the country. (See Wang & Green,
2001, for discussion of heritage language programs in K-12 education; Peyton,
Lewelling, & Winke, 2001, for discussion of Spanish for Spanish Speakers programs.) K12 heritage language programs included in the collection of program profiles developed
by the Alliance include those that enroll heritage language students and work to develop
their unique heritage language abilities.
Higher education: In general, heritage language programs in higher education are those
that have separate classes for students with home background in the language of study.
University heritage language programs can also provide courses for students who identify
with a language and culture even if their home background is not in the language of
252
study. (See Gambhir, 2001; Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003; Kono & McGinnis, 2001, for
discussion of heritage language programs in higher education.)
Information about university-level heritage language programs is being collected by the
National Heritage Language Resource Center at the University of California, Los
Angeles. Visit their Web site to learn more about these programs.
Conclusion
Despite the personal, community, and societal benefits of bi- and multilingualism,
educational conditions in the United States still make it likely that languages other than
English are lost across generations (Fishman, 1991), although there is variation within
families and communities that shows this tendency is not inevitable (Schechter & Bayley,
2002; Zentella, 1997). Language education that values, builds on, and promotes the
development of heritage languages, as a complement to the development of English, has
an important role to play in reversing this trend. A great deal of work needs to be done to
strengthen the programs described here in community-based, K-12, and higher education
settings.
References
Christian, D., Howard, E.R., & Loeb, M.I. (2000). Bilingualism for all: Two-way
immersion education in the United States. Theory into Practice, 39(4), 258-266.
Compton, C. (2001). Heritage language communities and schools: Challenges and
recommendations. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & Scott McGinnis (Eds.),
Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 145-166).
Systems.
253
Fishman, J.A. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language Education in the United States.
In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & Scott McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in
Gambhir, S. (2001). Truly Less Commonly Taught Languages and Heritage Language
Learners in the United States. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & Scott McGinnis
(Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 3777). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta
Systems.
Genesee, F. (Ed.). (1999). Program alternatives for linguistically diverse students.
(Education Practice Report 1). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on
Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Kono, N., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Heritage languages and higher education: Challenges,
issues, and needs. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & Scott McGinnis (Eds.),
Systems.
Lindholm-Leary, K.J. (2001). Dual language education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Montone, C., & Loeb, M. (2000). Implementing two-way immersion programs in
secondary schools. (Educational Practice Report 5). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for
Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.
Peyton, J.K., Lewelling, V., & Winke, P. (2001). Spanish for native speakers:
Developing dual language proficiency. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics. http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/spanish_native.html
Schecter, S.R., & Bayley, R. (2002). Language as cultural practice: Mexicanos en el
Norte. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J.K. Peyton,
D.A. Ranard, & Scott McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America:
Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL:
Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (2003). Toward a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical
and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education.
2(3), 211-230.
Wang, S., & Green, N. (2001). Heritage language students in the K-12 education system.
In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & Scott McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in
254
Webb, J.B. and Miller, B.L. (2000). Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from
the classroom. New York: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages.
Zentella, A.C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York.
Oxford: Blackwell.
255
4. What languages are taught as heritage languages in the United States?
Heritage language teaching takes place in many different instructional settings -- in
community-based programs, public and private K-12 education, and higher education. In
part, because different program types and organizations are involved, there are no
current, comprehensive studies that list all of the languages taught as heritage languages
in the United States. Further, factors such as immigration and education policies have an
impact on which languages are taught in addition to where and how they are taught. This
FAQ gives information about languages taught as heritage languages, gathered through
the program profiles collection of the Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage
Languages, and offers a brief discussion of some of the social and political factors that
affect the availability of heritage language instructional opportunities.
Languages represented in the Alliance‘s Online Collection of Heritage Language
Program Profiles include:
Languages indigenous to the U.S.: Chinuk Wawa, IchCinshKiin, Denaakk’e
Athabascan, and Navajo;
Latin American and European Languages: Spanish, French, German, Italian,
Portuguese, Russian, Ukrainian;
256
East Asian, South Asian and Pacific Island Languages: Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
Tibetan, Persian, Hindi, Ilokano, Samoan, Tongan.
This list represents only a small number of the languages currently taught as heritage
languages. The Alliance is working to expand the program profiles collection,
concentrating on community-based and K-12 programs. You can help the Alliance with
this effort.
To complete a program profile, click here.
To let us know about programs we might contact and profile, please contact Joy Peyton at
the Alliance.
The National Heritage Language Resource Center (NHLRC), housed at UCLA, is
conducting a survey of heritage language teaching in higher education. Data are not yet
available, but for more information or to participate in the NHLRC survey, visit the
NHLRC Web site.
What does it mean that a language is ―taught as a heritage language‖? The term ―heritage
language‖ signals a particular relationship between a learner and the language of study,
which is taken into consideration in program design and implementation. (See FAQ,
―What is a heritage language?‖) There is no single model of heritage language teaching,
but heritage language programs build on the experiences that students have with the
language and culture of study outside the classroom, in their families and communities.
257
Not all programs that fit this description are called ―heritage language‖ programs.
Heritage language programs in community settings, often administered through civic or
religious organizations, rarely carry this title but are important heritage language
programs that promote language maintenance across generations. Often heritage language
literacy is taught as a way to educate children about traditional cultural values, beliefs,
and practices. Languages as diverse as Yiddish, German, Chinese and Japanese have
strong traditions of having been taught through community schools in the United States.
Many other immigrant languages are now taught through community programs, and as
new groups of immigrants and refugees from around the world come to the U.S., they
have established their own community schools. As an example, after the political
upheaval in Iran in the late 1970‘s, many Iranians came to the United States. In the early
1980‘s, recent immigrants established Persian (also called Farsi or Iranian) language
schools principally in areas with large Iranian communities. Over a similar period of
time, due to political turmoil in Southeast Asia, many Hmong immigrated to the U.S.
Now Hmong communities in the U.S., including those in areas of Wisconsin and
California, have established community-based organizations that support the teaching of
the Hmong language. (For more information, visit the Hmong Cultural Center Web site.)
According to research done by the linguist Joshua Fishman in the 1980‘s (Fishman,
2001), at least 145 different languages were being taught in heritage language schools
(community-based schools) that at that time were operating outside the public education
sector in the United States. Of these languages, 91 were Indigenous languages. Since
then, the focus on teaching heritage languages has made its way into higher education
258
and the public K-12 system (primarily through programs like dual-language immersion
that educate speakers of two different languages, English and another languages, in both
languages). The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
officially recognized the unique needs of heritage learners and began establishing
standards for these students as part of their national standards in the late 1990‘s (ACTFL,
2006).
Heritage language programs in public schools include Spanish, Chinese, Denaakk‘e
Athabascan, Navajo, French, German, and Korean. For more information about K-12
heritage language programs, see the preK-12 and adult section of the program profiles.
LINK
Heritage language classes at the university level are often taught through ―dual-track‖
programs, where there are separate classes for foreign language and heritage language
learners in the lower levels of the curriculum (Kondo-Brown, 2003). Spanish and Chinese
have both been taught through this type of program structure, and Russian is emerging as
another case (Kagan & Dillon, 2003). Dual-track systems seem most likely to emerge in
contexts where a foreign language program exists and heritage language learner
enrollments are increasing. At the higher education level, Japanese is another case that
fits this profile. Classes focused on the less commonly taught languages (e.g., Arabic,
Hindi, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese) are usually only available as a single track
(foreign language and heritage language speakers are in the same class).
References
259
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2006). Standards for Foreign
Language Learning in the 21st Century, 3rd ed. Yonker, NY: ACTFL.
Fishman, J.A. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States.
In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & Scott McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America:
Preserving a national resource (pp. 81-97). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for
Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2003). A new perspective on teaching Russian: Focus on the
heritage learner. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1), on-line journal,
http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Kondo-Brown, K.(2003). Heritage language instruction for post-secondary students from
immigrant backgrounds. Heritage Language Journal, 1 (1), on-line journal,
http://www.international.ucla.edu/lrc/hlj.
260
Developed by:
Ann Kelleher, University of California, Davis
Erin Haynes, University of California, Berkeley
with Sarah Moore, Center for Applied Linguistics
8. What are the similarities and differences among English language, foreign
language, and heritage language education in the United States?
This FAQ describes the importance of developing proficiency in languages in addition to
English, whether a student is a native speaker of English, a native speaker of a language
other than English, or bilingual. It also addresses social, political, pedagogical, and
curricular differences among K-16 English language, foreign language, and heritage
language programs in the United States. These differences have important implications
for how we approach the teaching and learning of languages other than English.
Social and political factors in language education
English literacy development, as a first or a second language, is one of the fundamental
goals of public education in the United States. Development of literacy in English takes
place both explicitly in language arts classes and implicitly as a medium of instruction in
content courses. For students who come from English-speaking homes, there is often a
relatively high degree of continuity between the language spoken in the home and the
language of schooling. At the same time, even for English-speaking students, fostering
literacy development is not without social complexity. Research shows that the norms of
261
English language use that children develop in the home and community vary a great deal
based on social factors such as ethnicity, class, and region (Heath, 1983; Zentella, 1997,
2005a). Students who grow up speaking varieties of English that differ from the academic
standard face barriers to achieving school success for a number of reasons. These include
the beliefs and values that are tied to expectations about academic English literacy (e.g.,
Gee, 1996). Authors such as Delpit (1995) argue that academic success does not have to
be predicated on accommodating to majority discourse norms at the expense of home and
community language use. Rather, the focus in school should be on expanding students'
abilities to use language across the full range of social contexts in which they need or
wish to participate.
In a similar vein, proponents of heritage language development take the view that the
development of English does not have to come at the expense or loss of the other
languages that students speak. (For a definition and discussion of "heritage language" see
FAQ #1. See also Van Deusen-Scholl, 2003; Wiley, 2001). From 1968 until 2002, the
Bilingual Education Act provided federal support for the education of speakers of
languages other than English. The Bilingual Education Act underwent a number of
challenges and reauthorizations through the years, but while it was in effect, it provided
some basis for the legal protection of education for language minorities. Implementation
of the law differed across settings, but until recent years, instruction in English could be
supplemented by first language support, or bilingual language programs. The situation
changed in states such as California, Arizona, and Massachusetts between 1998 and
2002, with the passage of "English-only" initiatives that restrict students' access to first
language support in addition to English instruction. This also changed at the federal level
262
when the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) superseded the Bilingual Education
Act. At that point, all mention of "bilingual" education was dropped. Instead, NCLB
focuses solely on English language development for immigrant and U.S.-born "limited
English proficient" students. For example, a study by Wright (2007) of the impact of
NCLB legislation on heritage language programs in California, Arizona, and Texas found
that school-based heritage language programs are vulnerable to decreased support or
elimination. Additionally, NCLB's focus on accountability has resulted in increased
emphasis on standardized testing, thus further limiting time for first language use in the
classroom.
For newcomers to the United States, learning English is an important and desirable goal.
It is viewed as the basis for mainstream educational achievement and civic participation,
and it is related to processes of acculturation or adaptation to a new social environment.
However, learning English does not have to come at the expense of continuing to develop
a heritage language. Maintaining a heritage language, while also developing proficiency
in English, is important for the well-being, cohesion, and the vitality of families and
communities (Fishman, 1991; Schecter & Bayley, 2002; Wong Fillmore, 2000). Research
also shows that bilingual literacy development (simultaneously supporting the
development of both a heritage language and a mainstream, dominant language) produces
equal, and in some cases, better learning outcomes for bilingual students. (See reviews of
bilingual education outcomes in Baker, 2006; Baker & Pyrs Jones, 1998; and Cummins,
2001.)
263
Advancing the perspective that English ability can develop along with the maintenance
and development of another language is particularly important given our increased
mobility and interconnections with other parts of the world. Knowledge of other
languages and cultures (whether "foreign" or "heritage") is increasingly recognized as
important. Particularly since September 11, 2001 (9/11), there has been an increasing
focus on a gap in the U.S. foreign language capacity to fulfill its economic, strategic,
military and diplomatic needs (e.g., Brecht & Rivers, 2000; National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, n.d.); Peyton, Carreira, Wang, & Wiley, 2008;
Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001). One recent piece showing recognition of this gap is
the Modern Language Association's report, "Foreign Languages and Higher Education:
New Structures for a Changed World" (2007, http://www.mla.org/flreport).
The report examines the current state of the field and makes wide-ranging
recommendations for addressing the "language deficit." Many areas of controversy and
debate remain (See, e.g., the "Perspectives" section of the Modern Language Journal,
Byrnes, 2008), but the need for building language capacity and the value of education in
languages other than English are now seen as non-controversial. As the MLA's report
states, "In the context of globalization and in the post-9/11 environment, then, the
usefulness of studying languages other than English is no longer contested. The goals and
means of language study, however, continue to be hotly debated" (Background, para. 4).
Most significant for language educators is the fact that this discussion of "foreign"
language education at the university level also includes heritage language education as a
significant component.
264
Pedagogical and curricular factors in language education
Heritage language speakers' background knowledge and relationship with a community
of speakers make their educational needs different from those of foreign language
learners in terms of program goals, materials, and curriculum. However, in school-based
programs, many teachers of classes for heritage language speakers have been trained as
foreign language teachers and assigned to teach heritage language classes. One of the
greatest challenges for these teachers is the variability in language skills that heritage
language speakers exhibit; some are fully fluent and literate, some are fluent with no
literacy skills, some have heard the language but have limited productive abilities, and
still others are fluent in a non-prestige variety of the language (Kondo-Brown, 2005;
Lynch, 2003; Valdés, 1995, 2001). The last point is of particular importance. Students'
families and communities often speak a language that is different from the standard
variety taught in school programs and spoken by teachers in the programs, and this
variety may have undergone even more changes as a result of isolation from the home
country (Silva-Corvalán, 2005; Valdés, 2001; Zentella, 2005b).
An important factor in heritage language programs is community involvement because of
the differences between the language varieties spoken by teachers and their students.
Kagan (2005) presents heritage language learning as a triad that includes community,
family, and formal education. If all three elements are not in place, the acquisition
process suffers. Edelsky and Hudelson (1980) discovered that first grade English
speakers who were in a bilingual English/Spanish program acquired very little Spanish
without home and community reinforcement, and similar trends have been demonstrated
in other research (Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Qin, 2005). In contrast, a major
265
challenge for foreign language programs is that students typically do not have previous
familiarity with the cultural and linguistic underpinnings of the target language, and
access to culture and linguistic reinforcement can be very difficult without traveling to a
country where the language is spoken. Foreign language programs must, therefore, differ
from heritage language programs in how they present and utilize cultural and linguistic
elements of the language.
On the other hand, foreign language programs benefit from being able to focus on a
standardized, formal variety of the language, for which there are numerous teaching
materials. As discussed above, heritage language learners come to their programs with a
variety of skills and language backgrounds. They may have strong grammar skills but
lack sufficient vocabulary to communicate successfully (Fairclough & Mrak, 2003), or
they may be fluent in the language but have no literacy skills (Valdés, 1995). Therefore,
the focus in heritage language programs must vary based on students' needs. However,
materials are often not available to meet the diverse needs of heritage language programs.
While texts may exist for heritage languages that are also taught as foreign languages
(e.g., Spanish, Chinese, Russian), existing texts are often inappropriate for the learners.
Several researchers point out the need for authentic texts that haven't been translated from
English (Hernández, Takahashi-Breines, & Blum-Martínez, 2003; Howard, Sugarman, &
Christian, 2003; Kapono, 1994), while others argue that foreign language teaching texts
don't take into account the varieties and dialects of heritage language learners (BernalEnríquez & Chávez, 2003).
266
Finally, the goals of heritage and foreign language learners may differ greatly. While
both groups of speakers may desire language knowledge for socioeconomic and
professional purposes, heritage language learners are more likely to have personal or
familial reasons for maintaining their language skills. The goals of individual heritage
language learners range from personal (e.g., the desire to communicate with a relative), to
community cohesion, to religious participation, to ideological (e.g., the desire to see one's
language or culture preserved), to academic and professional. However, the two types of
programs do share the ultimate goal of producing fluent or nearly fluent speakers who
can interact successfully with speakers of the language in a variety of social contexts.
Conclusion
Historically, policy on language development in the United States has been written from
varied views toward bilingualism – some policies promote English language development
for speakers of other languages, while others promote foreign language study for
monolingual English speakers (Crawford, 2004; Wiley & Lukes, 1996). The passage of
"English-only" initiatives at the state level, and NCLB's move away from the possibility
of mother-tongue maintenance while acquiring English, are indicative of a resistance to
supporting the development and use of languages other than English for immigrants and
minorities, and researchers such as Wright (2007) have found that NCLB has a negative
impact on heritage language programs. Unfortunately in this country, maintenance of a
heritage language has been viewed as anti-assimilationist and therefore anti-American
(MacGregor-Mendoza, 2000; Spolsky, 2004). As Wang (2007) points out, education
policy is not consistent when students' language abilities are regarded by many as having
positive value from the standpoint of national capacity, while at the same time as being a
267
detriment from the standpoint of NCLB's designation of the same students as "limited
English proficient." The recent recognition of the importance of heritage languages as
part of "foreign" language education is one step toward resolving this policy
inconsistency. With greater recognition of the personal and social benefits of
multilingualism, research indicating positive educational outcomes for students who
continue to develop a heritage language (along with English), and better understanding of
the unique challenges of heritage language education, there may be opportunities to make
changes in language policy and instruction that will promote multilingualism for all.
References
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism, 4th Ed.
Baker, C. & Prys Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education.
Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bernal-Enríquez, Y. & Chávez, E.H. (2003). La enseñanza del español en Nuevo Mexico:
Revitalización o erradicación de la variedad chicana? In A. Roca & M.C. Colombi (Eds.),
Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 96-119).
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Brecht, R.D., & Rivers, W.P. (2000). Language and national security in the 21st century:
The role of Title VI/Fulbright-Hays in supporting national language capacity. Dubuque,
IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Byrnes, H. (2008). Perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 92, 284-287.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom.
Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services.
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse
society. Second edition. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York: New Press.
268
Edelsky, C. & Hudelson, S. (1980). Acquiring a second language when you're not the
underdog. In Scarcella, R.C. & Krashen, S.D. (Eds.), Research in second language
acquisition (pp. 36-42). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Fairclough, M. & Mrak, N.A. (2003). La eseñanza del español a los hispanohablantes
bilingües y su efecto en la produccíon oral. In A. Roca & M.C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi
lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 198-212). Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1991): Reversing language shift. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA:
Taylor & Francis.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hernández, E.P., Takahashi-Breines, H., & Blum-Martínez, R. (2003). "Spanish in my
blood": Children's Spanish language development in dual-language immersion programs.
In A. Roca & M.C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the
United States (pp. 123-153). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Howard, E.R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion
education: A review of the research. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Kagan, O. (2005). In support of a proficiency-based definition of heritage language
learners: The case of Russian. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 8(2-3), 213-221.
Kapono, E. (1994). Hawaiian language revitalization and immersion education.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 112, 121-135.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner
subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 563-581.
Lynch, A. (2003). The relationship between second and heritage language acquisition:
Notes on research and theory building. Heritage Languages Journal, 1(1). Retrieved
September 27, 2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/
MacGregor-Mendoza, P. (2000). Aquí no se habla español: Stories of linguistic
repression in southwest schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 333-345.
Modern Language Association. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New
structures for a changed world. Available: http://www.mla.org/flreport).
269
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (n.d..) National
security language initiative (NSLI). Retrieved February 16, 2009 from
https://www.nasulgc.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=50
Peyton, J.K., Carreira, M., Wang, S., & Wiley, T.G. (2008). Heritage language education
in the United States: A need to reconceptualize and restructure. In K.A. King, N.
Schilling-Estes, L.W. Fogle, J.J. Lou, & B. Soukup (Eds.), Sustaining linguistic diversity:
Endangered and minority languages and language varieties (pp. 173-186).Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Peyton, J.K., Ranard, D., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Heritage languages in America:
Preserving a national resource. McHenry, IL & Washington, DC: Delta Systems &
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schecter, S. R., & Bayley, R. (2002). Language as cultural practice: Mexicanos en el
norte. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2005). Spanish in the Southwest. In E. Finegan, & J. R. Rickford,
(eds.) Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Suárez-Orozco, M. M., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Qin, D. B. (2005). (Eds.). The new
immigration: An interdisciplinary reader. New York: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Valdés, G. (1995). The teaching of minority languages as academic subjects: Pedagogical
and theoretical challenges. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 299-328.
Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J.K. Peyton,
D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a
national resource (pp. 37-77). Washington, DC: The Center for Applied Linguistics.
Van Deusen-Scholl, N. (2003). Toward a definition of heritage language: Sociopolitical
and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(3), 211230.
Wang, S. C. (2007). Building societal capital: Chinese in the U.S. Language Policy, 6(1),
27-52.
Wiley, T.G. (2001). On defining heritage languages and their speakers. In J.K. Peyton,
D.A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a
national resource (pp. 29-36). Washington, DC: The Center for Applied Linguistics.
270
Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. L. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the
U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511-535.
Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned?
Theory into Practice 39(4) 203-210.
Wright, W.E. (2007). Heritage language programs in the era of English-only and No
Child Left Behind. Heritage Language Journal, 5(1). http://www.heritagelanguages.org/
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Zentella, A. C. (2005a). Building on strengths: Language and literacy in Latino families
and communities (Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Zentella, A. C. (2005b). Spanish in the Northeast. In E. Finegan and J. R. Rickford,
(Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century.
271
APPENDIX B
Language Use Survey Winter Quarter, 2005
2B, 5
I am a ( Female / Male ) student in my ( 1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th / 5 th ) year at CNU.
At the beginning of this quarter I had (freshman / sophomore / junior / senior / graduate) status.
I am majoring in __________________________________________ minor? ____________________
I identify my ethnicity as ______________________________________________________________
Languages you learned growing up
I consider my first language (dialect) to be ____________________________________________
_
I also speak _______________________________________________________________________
My dominant language now is________________________________________________________
I have limited ability in (languages/dialects): ____________________________________________
Growing up, if you didn’t hear or speak Chinese on a regular basis, continue on the back.
Chinese Language Ability
Comment on your Chinese reading/writing ability prior to study at CNU_____________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________.
List the Chinese dialects you speak and/or understand and your level of ability (e.g. understand
my parents’ Taiwanese but not my grandmother’s and I don’t speak it; conversational ability in
Cantonese): __________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Home Language Use:
For each member of your family, list the relationship of the person to you and the
language(s)/dialect(s) you speak with that person (e.g. Mother—mostly Mandarin and a little
English; Older Sister—nearly all English). For Chinese, please refer to specific dialects, not just
“Chinese”.
Person
Language(s)/Dialect(s)
____________________ _____________________________________________________________
____________________ _____________________________________________________________
____________________ _____________________________________________________________
Where did you grow up?

In the U.S.—I’ve never lived outside this country. I grew up in (city, state)
____________________________________________________________________________________.

Both outside and in the U.S.—I lived in ____________________ from (age)___________
until I was (age) ____________ and then I moved to (city, state)____________________________.

I’ve lived in a number of different places (please describe) ___________________________.
272
Chinese Language Study Prior to CNU
Did you study Chinese before attending CNU? ____________________________________________
If yes, what dialect(s) did you study? _____________________________________________________
What kind of classes did you take (weekend Chinese school, high school class etc.)? Please
describe briefly (In the U.S. or abroad? Where? How many hours per week? What material did
you study? How long did you attend? Why did you take these classes?)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Mandarin Study at CNU
What are some of the major reasons you decided to study Mandarin at CNU? ________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Things I like about my Chinese classes: __________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Things I don’t like about my Chinese classes: _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Do you use Mandarin outside the classroom?
With classmates when studying
often
sometimes
seldom
never
With classmates talking about class
often
sometimes
seldom
never
With friends who also take Chinese
classes at CNU
often
sometimes
seldom
never
With other friends
often
sometimes
seldom
never
With family members
often
sometimes
seldom
never
In restaurants/shops
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Other places/situations where I use Mandarin (i.e. student organization, church group, traveling
etc.)?
____________________________
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Do you actively seek out opportunities to use Mandarin outside the classroom? If so, how?
______________________________________________________________________________________
273
APPENDIX C
Class demographics, 2005, Chinese 2 “bilingual” and Chinese 5 “regular”
Chinese 2B
Chinese & Chinese
American
Asian & Asian American
Half Japanese/Half Chinese
Part Asian/Part Caucasian
Vietnamese
Japanese
Cambodian American
Filipino
90.0% (18)
5.0% (1)
5.0% (1)
0
0
0
0
0
Chinese 5R
61.9%
4.8%
0
9.5%
9.5%
4.8%
4.8%
4.8%
(13)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Table 1. Distribution of students in Chinese 2B (“bilingual”) and Chinese 5R
(“regular”) by ethnicity. The category labels are taken from students‘ written survey
responses. The number of students who self-identify with each category is expressed as a
percentage of total survey responses for each class; the total number of responses (n) is
shown in parentheses.
Mandarin
Cantonese
Taishan
Chaozhou
English & Mandarin
Vietnamese
Cambodian & English
English
Chinese 2B
55.0% (11)
15.0% (3)
0
0
5.0% (1)
0
0
25.0% (5)
Chinese 5R
0
42.9% (9)
4.8% (1)
4.8% (1)
0
9.5% (2)
4.8% (1)
33.3% (7)
Table 2. Distribution of students in Chinese 2B and Chinese 5R by response to the
prompt, “first language.” Taishan (or ―Toisan‖) and Chaozhou are both varieties of the
Yue dialect, of which Cantonese is the regional standard. Taking these three first
274
languages together, a total of 52.4% (n=11) of the students in 5R identify a variety of
Cantonese as their first language.
English
Cantonese
Chinese & English
Chaozhou & English
Taishan & English
Cambodian & English
Chinese 2B
95.0% (19)
0
5.0% (1)
0
0
0
Chinese 5R
76.2% (16)
4.8% (1)
4.8% (1)
4.8% (1)
4.8% (1)
4.8% (1)
Table 3. Distribution of students in Chinese 2B and Chinese 5R by response to the
prompt, “dominant language now.”
275
APPENDIX D
Language Use Survey
Fall Quarter, 2007
CHN 1C
I am a ( Female / Male ) student in my ( 1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th / 5th ) year at CNU.
At the beginning of this quarter I had (freshman / sophomore / junior / senior / graduate) status.
I am majoring in __________________________________________ minor? _____________________
I identify my ethnicity as ________________________________________________________________
Languages you learned growing up
I consider my first language(s) (dialect) to be ________________________________________________
I also speak ____________________________________________________________________________
My dominant language now is ____________________________________________________________
I have limited ability in (languages/dialects): _________________________________________________
Chinese Language Ability
Rate your Chinese READING ability prior to study at U.C. Davis from 0 – 5 _____
How did you learn to read in Chinese?______________________________________________________
Rate your Chinese WRITING ability prior to study at U.C. Davis from 0 – 5 _____
How did you learn to write in Chinese?_____________________________________________________
List the Chinese dialects you speak and/or understand and your level of ability (e.g. Conversational ability
in Cantonese, understand a little Mandarin and Toisan dialect but can‘t speak them.):
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Home Language Use:
For each member of your family, list the relationship of the person to you and the language(s)/dialect(s)
you speak with that person (e.g. Mother—mostly Cantonese and a little English; Older Sister—nearly all
English). For Chinese, please refer to specific dialects, not just ―Chinese‖.
Person
Language(s)/Dialect(s)
_____________________ _____________________________________________________________
_____________________ _____________________________________________________________
_____________________ _____________________________________________________________
Where did you grown up?

In the U.S.—I‘ve never lived outside this country. I grew up in (city, state) _______________.

Both outside and in the U.S.—I lived in ____________________ from (age)___________ until I
was (age) ____________ and then I moved to (city, state)___________________________________.

I‘ve lived in a number of different places (please describe) ______________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
276
Chinese Language Study Prior to CNU
Did you study Chinese before attending CNU? Yes / No (circle one)
If yes, what dialect(s) did you study? ________________________________
Did you study Chinese in another country? Yes / No (circle one)
If yes, where?_______________ For how long/what grades? ____________
Did you attend community Chinese school in the U.S.? Yes / No (circle one)
If yes, how many hours a week? _________ For how many years? _______
Did you study Chinese in high school in the U.S.? Yes / No (circle one)
If yes, what dialect(s)?______________ For how many years? __________
Did you study somewhere else? Describe:____________________________________________
Mandarin Study at CNU
Reasons for taking Mandarin at CNU
____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Things I like about my Chinese classes: _____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Things I don‘t like about my Chinese classes: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Do you read Chinese materials other than texts required for class? Yes / No (circle one)
Letters from family or friends
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Newspapers
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Magazines
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Comic books/graphic novels
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Fictional literature
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Nonfiction books
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Do you ever write in Chinese other than exercises required for class? Yes / No (circle one)
Using the computer
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Handwriting
often
sometimes
seldom
never
Briefly describe your current use of English and Cantonese (where/when you speak each language).
______________________________________________________________________________________
277
APPENDIX E
Following are the interview protocols I planned for gathering interview data from the
focal students, teachers and program director. I collected additional interview data from
students and teachers in the ESL program and other administrators, but do not include
that data in this study.
I originally planned to conduct two interviews with each focal student in the Fall Quarter,
2007. Because of time constraints and difficulty finding a convenient time to meet with
each of the students, I conducted only one interview during Fall Quarter, 2007, covering
the questions listed below for Interview 1 and Interview 2.
I conducted a follow-up interview at the end of the academic year, in June, 2008 with
four of the five focal students.
Interview 1
1. Please describe the language use situation in your home when you were growing
up. What languages (and varieties of Chinese) did your family speak? For what
purposes? What languages did you speak and with whom? What languages did
you speak, and in what circumstances outside the home?
2. How did your language use patterns change over time? How, when and why did
your own language use change? How and why has it continued to change since
you started studying Mandarin at CNU?
3. Why did you decide to study Mandarin at CNU? How is the program similar to or
different from what you imagined it would be like?
4. How does knowing Cantonese affect your study of Mandarin? What parts of the
class do you find easy? Difficult? What parts of the class do you find most and
least beneficial?
Interview 2
(Some questions will be repeated or rephrased to compare answers from earlier in the
quarter.)
1. What have you liked the most about this class? The least? What has been most
difficult? Least difficult?
[Specific follow-up questions will address the individual students‘ performance on
the midterm exam, asking the students to refer to examples on the corrected exam.]
2. How do you feel about your performance in the class and the grades you‘ve
received?
3. Do you plan to continue to study Mandarin after this quarter? Why or why not?
4. Why is learning Mandarin important to you? How does learning Mandarin affect
your use of Cantonese?
5. How has being bilingual affected you through your life? What have been some of
the benefits and drawbacks?
Conduct and audio tape follow-up interviews with CHN 1 CN students previously interviewed.
278
1. What did you like the most about this class? The least? What has been most difficult?
Least difficult?
2. What are the differences between the teachers you‘ve had? How are their classes
different? What did you like/not like about each teacher? What did you learn from each
teacher?
3. How do you feel about your performance in the class and the grades you‘ve received?
4. Do you plan to continue to study Mandarin after this quarter? Why or why not?
5. Why is learning Mandarin important to you? How does learning Mandarin affect your
use of Cantonese?
Conduct and audio tape interviews with the CHN 1C, 2C and 3C teachers.
1. Briefly describe your educational and teaching experience.
2. What are your impressions of the students in your class including their strengths and
weaknesses in developing Mandarin, motivations, and study skills and habits?
3. What do you like about teaching in this program? What do you think would improve the
program?
4. What are your impressions of the materials used in the course? Are they appropriate for
the students? Why or why not? How do you supplement the textbook? What teaching
methods do you find most and least successful?
5. Why do you think learning Mandarin is important for Cantonese-background students?
What do they say about this? How are they similar to or different from Mandarinbackground students? How are they similar to or different from foreign language
learners?
Conduct and audio tape interviews with the undergraduate ESL program director, faculty director
of TESOL/ESL, Mandarin language program director.
1. Briefly describe the history of the program. How has it changed over time and in
response to what factors?
2. Briefly describe the student population the program currently serves and comment on
any changes that have taken place.
3. What are some of the current problems or challenges the program is facing? How are
you addressing these problems? What has been helpful in resolving challenges and
what gets in the way?
4. Briefly describe how the program connects to other departments and programs on
campus.
5. What kinds of changes do the teachers in the program ask for? The students? Higher
level administrators?
279
References
Alatis, J. E. (2001). The genealogy of language organizations and the heritage languages
initiative. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage
languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 317-322). McHenry,
IL: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Anderson, B. R. (1983/2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and
spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). London; New York: Verso.
Anyon, J. (1995). Race, social class, and educational reform in an inner-city school.
Teachers College Record, 97, 69-94.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Asia Society. (2005). Expanding Chinese language capacity in the United States: What
would it take to have 5 percent of high school students learning Chinese by 2015?
New York: Author.
Baker, C. (2003). Education as a site of language contact. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics(23), 95-112.
Beaudrie, S., & Ducar, C. (2005). Beginning level university heritage programs: Creating
a space for all heritage language learners [Electronic Version]. Heritage
Language Journal, 3. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London ; New York: Continuum.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge, UK ; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2007). Sociolinguistics and discourse analysis: Orders of indexicality and
polycentricity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2(2), 115-130.
Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism.
Language & Communication, 25(3), 197-216.
Blommaert, J., Creve, L., & Willaert, E. (2006). On being declared illiterate: Languageideological disqualification in Dutch classes for immigrants in Belgium.
Language & Communication, 2006, 26, 1, Jan, 34-54, 26(1), 34-54.
Bloomfield, L. (1933/1961). Language. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity.
Bredo, E., & Feinberg, W. (1982). The critical approach to social and educational
research. In E. Bredo & W. Feinberg (Eds.), Knowledge and values in social and
educational research (pp. 271-291). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Brice-Heath, S. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and
school. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across
cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D., Kagan, O., & Bauckus, S. (2008). Heritage language education: A new field
emerging. New York: Routledge.
Brutt-Griffler, J., & Makoni, S. (2005). The use of heritage language: An African
perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 609-612.
Byrnes, H. (2005). Perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 582-585.
Canagarajah, S. (2004). Subversive identities, pedagogical safehouses, and critical
learning. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language
280
learning (pp. 116-137). Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding
the term "heritage language learner" [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language
Journal, 2. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical
and practical guide. New York: Routledge.
Chevalier, J. F. (2004). Heritage language literacy: Theory and practice [Electronic
Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 2. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from
Chinen, K., & Tucker, G. R. (2005). Heritage language development: Understanding the
roles of ethnic identity and Saturday school participation [Electronic Version].
Heritage Language Journal, 3. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from
Cho, G., Cho, K.-S., & Tse, L. (1997). Why ethnic minorities want to develop their
heritage language: The case of Korean-Americans. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 10(2), 106-112.
Colombi, M. C., & Alarcón, F. X. (Eds.). (1997). La enseñanza del español a
hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Comanaru, R., & Noels, K. A. (2009). Self-determination, motivation, and the learning of
Chinese as a heritage language. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(1).
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language
competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 89(4), 585-592.
Dai, J.-h. E., & Zhang, L. (2008). What are the CHL learners inheriting? Habitus of the
CHL learners. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language:
Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 37-52). Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
DeFrancis, J. (1984). The Chinese language: Fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Delpit, L. (1992). Acquisition of literate discourse: Bowing before the master? Theory
into Practice, 31(4), 296-302.
Delpit, L. D. (1993). The politics of teaching literate discourse. In T. Perry & J. W. Fraser
(Eds.), Freedom's plow: Teaching in the multicultural classroom (pp. 207-218).
New York: Routledge.
Doll, M. A. (1998). Queering the gaze. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp.
287-298). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Dong, J., & Blommaert, J. (2009). Space, scale and accents: Constructing migrant
identity in Beijing. Multilingua--Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage
Communication, 28(1), 1-23.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Douglas, M. O. (2005). Pedagogical Theories and Approaches to Teach Young Learners
of Japanese as a Heritage Language [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language
Journal, 3, 60-82. Retrieved June 16, 2007 from
281
Draper, J. B., & Hicks, J. H. (2000). Where we've been, what we've learned. In J. B.
Webb & B. L. Miller (Eds.), Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from
the classroom (pp. 15-35). Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages.
During, S. (2005). Cultural studies: A critical introduction. London; New York:
Routledge.
Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2007). Globalisation and pedagogy: Space, place and identity
(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Elder, C. (2000). Outing the native speaker: The problem of diverse learner backgrounds
in 'foreign' language slassrooms-an australian case study. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 13(1), 86-108.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995a). The appropriacy of "appropriateness". In N. Fairclough (Ed.),
Critical discourse analysis: Papers in the critical study of language (pp. 33-56).
London; New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995b). Critical discourse analysis: Papers in the critical study of
language. London; New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.
London; New York: Routledge.
Fillmore, C. (1982/2006). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics:
Basic readings (pp. 373-400). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fishman, J. A. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States.
In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in
America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 81-97). McHenry, IL: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Gambhir, S. (2001). Truly less commonly taught languages and heritage language
learners in the United States. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.),
McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Garcia, O. (2005). Positioning heritage languages in the United States. The Modern
Language Journal, 89(4), 601-605.
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1994). On motivation, research agendas, and
theoretical frameworks. The Modern Language Journal, 78(iii), 359-368.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York:
Bergin & Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA:
Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The constant comparative method. In The discovery
of grounded theory (pp. 101-115). Chicago: Aldine.
282
Godson, L. (2004). Vowel production in the speech of Western Armenian heritage
speakers [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 2. Retrieved June 16,
2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Grant, J. (2006, April 22, 2006). First words in the tongue of an awakening giant: More
and more American school are teaching their students Chinese. Financial Times,
p. 12.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography, principles in practice. London;
New York: Tavistock.
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning
environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241-272.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the "good kids" to the "worst": Representations of English
language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35-67.
He, A. W. (2006). Toward an identity theory of the development of Chinese as a heritage
language [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 4. Retrieved June 12,
2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
He, A. W. (2008a). Chinese as a heritage language: An introduction. In A. W. He & Y.
Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry
(pp. 1-12). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
He, A. W. (2008b). An identity-based model for the development of Chinese as a heritage
language. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language:
He, A. W. (2008c). Toward a temporal and spatial specification of heritage language
development. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics
2008.
He, A. W., & Xiao, Y. (Eds.). (2008). Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted
world citizenry. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language
Resource Center.
Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography.
London; New York: Longman.
Heller, M. (Ed.). (2007). Bilingualism: a social approach. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hendryx, J. D. (2008). The Chinese heritage language learners' existing linguistic
knowledge and abilities. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage
language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 53-66). Honolulu, HI: University
of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Hodge, B., & Louie, K. (1998). The politics of Chinese language and culture: The art of
reading dragons. London; New York: Routledge.
Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy:
An ecological approach. Language Policy, 6(1), 27-52.
Hornberger, N. H. (2004). The continua of biliteracy and the bilingual educator:
Educational linguistics in practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 7(2-3), 155-171.
283
Hornberger, N. H., & King, K. A. (1996). Language revitalisation in the Andes: Can the
schools reverse language shift? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 17(6), 427-441.
Hornberger, N. H., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2000). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy:
International and critical perspectives. Language and Education, 14(2), 96-122.
Hornberger, N. H., & Wang, S. C. (2008). Who are our heritage language learners?
Identity and biliteracy in HL education in the United States. In D. M. Brinton, O.
Kagan & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging
(pp. 3-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
How to submit an article. (n.d.). Heritage Language Journal. Retrieved July 15, 2007,
from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V.
Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities. Santa
Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
Jia, G. (2008). Heritage language development, maintenance and attrition among recent
Chinese immigrants in New York City In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as
a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 189-204). Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Jia, L., & Bayley, R. (2008). The (re)acquisition of perspective aspect marking by CHL
learners. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage language:
Kagan, O. (2005). In support of a proficiency-based definition of heritage language
learners: The case of Russian. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 8(2-3), 213-221.
Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2003a). Editors' foreword [Electronic Version]. Heritage
Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2003b). A new perspective on teaching Russian: Focus on the
heritage learner [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 1. Retrieved
June 15, 2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2006). Editor's foreword to volume 4. Retrieved July 15, 2007,
Kelleher, A. (2009a). Frequently asked questions: (1) What is a heritage language?
[Electronic Version] from the Center for Applied Linguistics Web site. Retrieved
December 20, 2009. http://www.cal.org/heritage/research/faq-1.html.
Kelleher, A. (2009b). Frequently asked questions: (2) Who is a heritage language
learner? [Electronic Version] from the Center for Applied Linguistics Web site.
Retrieved December 20, 2009. http://www.cal.org/heritage/research/faq-2.html.
Kelleher, A. (2009c). Frequently asked questions: (3) What is a heritage language
program? [Electronic Version] from the Center for Applied Linguistics Web site.
Retrieved December 20, 2009. http://www.cal.org/heritage/research/faq-3.html.
Kelleher, A. (2009d). Frequently asked questions: (4) What languages are taught as
heritage languages in the United States? [Electronic Version] from the Center for
Applied Linguistics Web site. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
http://www.cal.org/heritage/research/faq-4.html.
284
Kelleher, A., Haynes, E., & Moore, S. (2009). Frequently asked questions: (8) What are
the similarities and differences among English language, foreign language, and
heritage language education in the United States? [Electronic Version] from the
Center for Applied Linguistics Web site. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
http://www.cal.org/heritage/research/faq-8.html.
Kelleher, A. M. (2008). Placements and re-positionings: Tensions around CHL learning
in a university Mandarin program. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a
heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 239-258). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Koda, K., Lu, C., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Effects of print input on morphological awareness
among Chinese heritage language learners. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.),
Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 125-136).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource
Center.
Koda, K., Zhang, Y., & Yang, C.-L. (2008). Literacy development in Chinese as a
heritage language. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage
language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 137-150). Honolulu, HI:
Kondo-Brown, K. (2003). Heritage language instruction for post-secondary students from
immigrant backgrounds [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 1.
Retrieved June 9, 2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner
subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4),
563-581.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). Heritage language development: Focus on East Asian
immigrants. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Co.
Kondo-Brown, K., & Brown, J. D. (2008). Teaching Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
heritage language students: Curriculum needs, materials, and assessment. New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kono, N., & McGinnis, S. (2001). Heritage languages and higher education: Challenges,
issues, and needs. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage
languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 197-206). McHenry,
IL: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language
Teaching, 41(3), 389-408.
Krashen, S. D., Tse, L., & McQuillan, J. (1998). Heritage language development. Culver
City, CA.: Language Education Associates.
Lacorte, M., & Canabal, E. (2005). Teacher beliefs and practices in advanced Spanish
classrooms [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 3. Retrieved June
15, 2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. (2002). "I'd rather switch than fight": An activity theoretic
study of power, success and failure in a foreign language classroom. In C.
Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological
perspectives (pp. 175-196). London: Continuum Press.
285
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Le Page, R. B., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches
to language and ethnicity. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, D. A. (1997). Frame conflicts and competing construals in family argument. Journal
of Pragmatics, 27(3), 339-360.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). "Completely different worlds": EAP and the writing
experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 3969.
Li, C. W.-C. (2004). Conflicting notions of language purity: the interplay of archaising,
ethnography, reformist, elitist and xenophobic purism in the perception of
Standard Chinese. Language and Communication, 24, 97-133.
Li, D., & Duff, P. (2008). Issues in Chinese heritage language education and research at
the post-secondary level. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage
language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 13-36). Honolulu, HI: University
of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Li, D. C. S. (2006). Chinese as a lingua franca in greater China. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 26, 149-177.
Li, W., & Wu, C.-J. (2008). Code-switching: Ideologies and practices. In A. W. He & Y.
Resource Center.
Li, W., & Wu, C.-J. (2009). Polite Chinese children revisited: Creativity and the use of
codeswitching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(2), 193-211.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2001). Symbolic domination and bilngual classroom practices in Hong
Kong. In M. Heller & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Voices of authority: Education and
linguistic difference (pp. 139-168). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2008a). Modernity, postmodernity, and the future of "identity":
Implications for educators. In A. M. Y. Lin (Ed.), Problematizing identity:
Everyday struggles in language, culture, and education (pp. 199-219). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lin, A. M. Y. (Ed.). (2008b). Problematizing identity: Everyday struggles in language,
culture, and education. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination
in the United States. London; New York: Routledge.
Liu, Y., Yao, T., Shi, Y., & Bi, N. (1997). Integrated Chinese: Level 2. Boston: Cheng &
Tsui Co.
Louie, A. (2004). Chineseness across borders: Renegotiating Chinese identities in China
and the United States. Durham: Duke University Press.
Lu, X., & Li, G. (2008). Motivation and achievement in Chinese language learning: A
comparative analysis. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.), Chinese as a heritage
language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 89-108). Honolulu, HI:
286
Lynch, A. (2003). The relationship between second and heritage language acquisition:
Notes on research and theory building [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language
Journal, 1. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Maguire, M. H., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2007). Multiple schools, language,
experiences and affiliations: Ideological becomings and positionings [Electronic
Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 5. Retrieved February 16, 2008 from
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2006). Disinventing and reconstituting languages.
Clevedon England: Multilingual Matters.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause.
London; New York: Continuum.
Martinez, G. A. (2003). Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language
instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach [Electronic Version]. Heritage
Matsunaga, S. (2003). Instructional Needs of College-Level Learners of Japanese as a
Heritage Language: Performance-Based Analyses [Electronic Version]. Heritage
McGinnis, S. (1996). Teaching Chinese to the Chinese: The development of an
assessment and instructional model. In J. Liskin-Gasparro (Ed.), Patterns and
policies: The changing demographics of foreign language instruction (pp. 107121). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
McGinnis, S. (2005). More than a silver bullet: The role of Chinese as a heritage
language in the United States. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 592-594.
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment
and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant
students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577-608.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2004). ―I always had the desire to progress a little‖: Gendered
narratives of immigrant language learners. Journal of Language, Identity and
Education, 3(4), 295-311.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2009). Gendered identities and immigrant language learning.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1991). Authority in language: Investigating language
prescription and standardisation (2nd pbk. ed.). London; New York: Routledge.
Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151-169.
National Standards for Foreign Language Education. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2007,
from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Web site
http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3392
Nieto, S. (1999). Critical multicultural education and students' perspectives. In S. May
(Ed.), Critical multiculturalism: Rethinking multicultural and antiracist education
(pp. 191-215). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,
31(3), 409-429.
287
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational
change. Harlow, England; New York: Longman.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham
N.C.: Duke University Press.
Ortega, L. (1999). Language and equality: Ideological and structural constraints in
foreign language education in the U.S. In T. Huebner & K. A. Davis (Eds.),
Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA (Vol.
Studies in bilingualism, v. 16, pp. 243-266). Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: J.
Benjamins Publishing Co.
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pennycook, A. (2006). The myth of English as an international language. In S. Makoni &
A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 90-115).
Clevedon England: Multilingual Matters.
Peyton, J. K., Ranard, D. A., & McGinnis, S. (Eds.). (2001). Heritage languages in
America: Preserving a national resource. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Ramanathan, V. (2002). The politics of TESOL education: Writing, knowledge, critical
pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-vernacular divide: Postcolonial language politics
and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ramanathan, V., Davies, C. E., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). A naturalistic inquiry into
the cultures of two divergent MA-TESOL programs: Implications for TESOL.
TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 279-305.
Ramanathan, V., & Morgan, B. (2007). TESOL and policy enactments. TESOL
Quarterly, 41(3), 447-463.
Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the 'language-as-resource' discourse in the promotion
of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 348-368.
Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-34.
Sanders, R. (2008). Citation tone change in Taiwan Mandarin: Should teachers remain
tone deaf? Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 43(2), 1-16.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 15, 163-191.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics
perspective. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schreffler, S. B. (2007). Hispanic heritage language speakers in the United States:
Linguistic exclusion in education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4(1), 2534.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging
internet. New York: Routledge.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2007). Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608-625.
288
Semple, K. (2009). In Chinatown, sound of the future is Mandarin. The New York Times.
Silverstein, M. (2004). "Cultural" concepts in the language-culture nexus. Current
Anthropology, 45(5), 621-652.
Standards for foreign language learning executive summary. (n.d.). Retrieved January 8,
2010, from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Web
site, http://www.actfl.org/files/public/StandardsforFLLexecsumm_rev.pdf
Stein, P. (2004). Representing rights and resources: Multimodal pedagogies in the
language and literacy classroom. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical
pedagogies and language learning (pp. 95-115). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Steinhart, M. M. (2006). Breaching the artificial barrier between communicative
competence and content. Modern Language Journal, 90(ii), 258-262.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sun, C. (2006). Chinese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Taiwan Hua [Taiwanese language]. author unknown, posted by Professorxavier1020.
Retrieved March 1, 2008 from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26bUt5XJ9s.
tammiest. (2007). translation, S.H.E. - 中國話 (Zhong Guo Hua) [Chinese language].
Retrieved June 16, 2009, from
http://asianfanatics.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=390724
Tavares, A. J. (2000). From heritage to international languages: Globalism and Western
Canadian trends in heritage language education. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 32(1).
Thompson, J. B. (1991). Editor's introduction. In J. B. Thompson (Ed.), Language and
symbolic power (author, Pierre Bourdieu) (pp. 1-31). Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Tollefson, J. W. (2002). Introduction: Critical issues in education language policy. In J.
W. Tollefson (Ed.), Languaeg policies in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tse, L. (1998). Ethnic identity formation and its implications for heritage language
development. In S. D. Krashen, L. Tse & J. McQuillan (Eds.), Heritage language
development (pp. 15-29). Culver City, CA.: Language Education Associates.
Tse, L. (2000). The effects of ethnic identity formation on bilingual maintenance and
development: An analysis of Asian American narratives. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(3), 185-200.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2008). Enhancing
foreign language proficiency in the United States: Preliminary results of the
National Security Language Initiative. Washington D.C.: Author.
Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton,
D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving
a national resource (pp. 37-77). McHenry, IL: 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.
Valdés, G., Gonzáles, S. V., López Garcia, D., & Márquez, P. (2008). Heritage languages
and ideologies of language: Unexamined challenges. In D. M. Brinton, O. Kagan
289
& S. Backus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging. New
York: Routledge.
Van Deusen-Scholl, N. N. (1998). Heritage language instruction: Issues and challenges.
AILA Newsletter, 1, 12-14.
Van Deusen-Scholl, N. N. (2003). Toward a definition of heritage language:
Sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations. Journal of Language, Identity and
Education, 2(3), 211-230.
Van Ziegert, S. (2006). Global spaces of Chinese culture: Diasporic Chinese
communities in the United States and Germany. New York: Routledge.
Wang, S. C. (2007). Building societal capital: Chinese in the U.S. Language Policy, 6(1),
27-52.
Wang, S. C., & Green, N. (2001). Heritage language students in the K-12 education
system. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages
in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 167-196). McHenry, IL: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL
Quarterly, 22(4), 575-592.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1992). Thick explanation in the ethnographic study of child
socialization and development: A longitudinal study of the problem of schooling
for Kwara‘ae (Solomon Islands) children. In W. A. Carsaro & P. Miller (Eds.),
The production and reproduction of children’s worlds: Interpretive
methodologies for the study of childhood socialization (Vol. 58, pp. 51-66). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Webb, J. B. (2000). Introduction. In J. B. Webb & B. L. Miller (Eds.), Teaching heritage
language learners; voices from the classroom (pp. 3-12). Yonkers, NY: American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Webb, J. B., & Miller, B. L. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching heritage language learners; voices
from the classroom. Yonkers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages.
Weger-Guntharp, H. (2006). Voices from the margin: Developing a profile of Chinese
heritage language learners in the FL classroom [Electronic Version]. Heritage
D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving
a national resource (pp. 29-36). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wiley, T. G. (2005). The reemergence of heritage and community language policy in the
U.S. national spotlight. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 594-601.
Wiley, T. G., de Klerk, G., Li, M., Liu, N., Teng, Y., & Yang, P. (2008). Attitudes toward
Mandarin, heritage languages, and dialect diversity among Chinese immigrants
and international students in the United States. In A. W. He & Y. Xiao (Eds.),
Chinese as a heritage language: Fostering rooted world citizenry (pp. 67-88).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource
Center.
290
Wright, W. E. (2007). Heritage language programs in the era of English-only and No
Child Left Behind [Electronic Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 5. Retrieved
February 1, 2008 from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/.
Wu, S.-m. (2008). Robust learning for Chinese heritage learners: Motivation, linguistics
and technology. In K. Kondo-Brown & J. D. Brown (Eds.), Teaching Chinese,
Japanese and Korean heritage language students: Curriculum needs, materials
and assessment. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Xiao, Y. (2006). Heritage learners in the Chinese language classroom: Home background
[Electronic Version]. Heritage Language Journal, 4. Retrieved June 15, 2007
Xiao, Y. (2008). Home literacy environment in CHL development. In A. W. He & Y.
Resource Center.
Zhang, D., & Davis, N. (2008). Online chat for heritage learners of Chinese. In K.
Kondo-Brown & J. D. Brown (Eds.), Teaching Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
heritage language students: Curriculum needs, materials, and assessment (pp.
299-328). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhang, Q. (2005). A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the
construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society, 34(3), 431-466.
Zhang, Q. (2006). Cosmopolitan Mandarin: Linguistic practice of Chinese waiqi
professionals. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16(2), 215-235.
Zhang, Q. (2008). Rhotacization and the 'Beijing smooth operator': The social meaning of
a linguistic variable. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 201-222.
Zheng, N. (2007). Zhongguohua [Chinese language] (music). On album title: Play: HIM
Inc.
Zheng, N., & Shi, R.-c. (2007). Zhongguohua [Chinese language] (lyrics). On album
title: Play: HIM Inc.

Ann Kelleher 2010 - Linguistics

Transcription

Similar documents

Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park

From the Classes

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

Superlative and Comparative Terms Geometric Shapes Zero Activity

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

info – PDF - Godin Property Brokers

KTSF Sales Flash - KTSF Channel 26

For Adding to the World Heritage List

Ready to Quit Smoking?