Polinsky and Scontras (Polinsky & Scontras, Reference Polinsky and Scontras2019) focus on the comprehension and production of the heritage language in the adult population, in keeping with the majority of studies that have focused on heritage speakers. Although the heritage speaker label originated in the context of the study of the minority heritage language in adults in North America, it can equally be applied to the study of children who speak a language that is different from the dominant societal language (Kupisch & Rothman, Reference Kupisch and Rothman2018). In the following I will extend Polinsky and Scontras's main focus from adult speakers to child speakers, I will make some considerations on input as a trigger of “divergence between heritage speakers and the relevant baseline”, and I will briefly consider how children's own production may affect heritage language acquisition.
Polinsky and Scontras variously characterise the baseline language as the language “that served as the input for acquisition” and “the monolingual standard of comparison”. On the one hand Polinsky and Scontras acknowledge that heritage speakers “encounter input that is different both qualitatively and quantitatively from the monolingual learner”, and at the same time they talk about “divergent attainment, a situation where the learner acquires a system different from the baseline”. The meaning of baseline language thus remains ambiguous throughout as it wavers between being a “diasporic variety spoken by first-generation immigrants” and the monolingual benchmark. Polinsky and Scontras further argue that “heritage speakers constitute an outcome often assumed to be impossible outside of pathology or trauma: children exposed to a language from birth who nevertheless appear to deviate from the expected native-like mastery in pronounced and principled ways”.
This characterisation of heritage language acquisition is rather puzzling since, by definition, heritage speakers are not exposed to the minority language in the same context as monolingual learners, and therefore it is not clear why they should be expected to acquire a variety that is not in their input. Children acquire the language to which they are exposed, and in this sense their acquisition can never be divergent, unless it is so because of a developmental language disorder. In the same way in which one would not consider the British variety of English of a child brought up in England to be divergent from American English, it is not clear why a child who is exposed to British English as a heritage language in Italy should be considered to be in any way divergent from a monolingual child in England. Child heritage speakers are exposed to a variety of the minority language from their parents and potentially from a community of other heritage language speakers who, in the best of cases, may be first-generation immigrants at different stages along the language attrition continuum, and as such more or less distant from the monolingual variety in their country of origin (Schmid & Köpke, Reference Schmid and Köpke2017). In other scenarios the child's input in the heritage language could come from second- or even third-generation heritage language speakers themselves and therefore they would be exposed to a variety that is potentially even further from the monolingual native language spoken in the original homeland. Unfortunately, there is still very little research comparing child heritage speakers’ language production with their caregivers’ input to test the extent to which the way in which they “diverge” from a hypothetical monolingual baseline is actually the result of their expected convergence on the input they do receive. Paradis and Navarro (Reference Paradis and Navarro2003) provided just such a tentative piece of evidence in accounting for the proportion of redundant overt pronouns in the Spanish of a young Spanish–English bilingual child, but more research is needed to show how child heritage language learners actually converge on the heritage language baseline.
Another under-studied variable that may contribute to explaining differential outcomes in the acquisition of a heritage language is children's own production. Over the course of development, child heritage speakers will vary in the extent to which they switch to using the dominant language when addressed in the heritage language. Birth order and the start of formal education are two factors that influence how much child heritage speakers will engage with the dominant societal language (Bridges & Hoff, Reference Bridges and Hoff2014). Recent research on child heritage speakers that has factored in measures of language output alongside language input has shown a contribution of language use to expressive skills over and above input (Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Mendez-Perez & Gillam, Reference Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Mendez-Perez and Gillam2010; Ribot, Hoff & Burridge, Reference Ribot, Hoff and Burridge2018). Unlike monolingual children, who have no choice but to use their one language, child heritage speakers do have a choice. The way in which they exercise that choice has interesting implications, both for heritage language maintenance, and for better understanding how children's agency in their language use affects their linguistic development.
You have
Access
Polinsky and Scontras (Polinsky & Scontras, Reference Polinsky and Scontras2019) focus on the comprehension and production of the heritage language in the adult population, in keeping with the majority of studies that have focused on heritage speakers. Although the heritage speaker label originated in the context of the study of the minority heritage language in adults in North America, it can equally be applied to the study of children who speak a language that is different from the dominant societal language (Kupisch & Rothman, Reference Kupisch and Rothman2018). In the following I will extend Polinsky and Scontras's main focus from adult speakers to child speakers, I will make some considerations on input as a trigger of “divergence between heritage speakers and the relevant baseline”, and I will briefly consider how children's own production may affect heritage language acquisition.
Polinsky and Scontras variously characterise the baseline language as the language “that served as the input for acquisition” and “the monolingual standard of comparison”. On the one hand Polinsky and Scontras acknowledge that heritage speakers “encounter input that is different both qualitatively and quantitatively from the monolingual learner”, and at the same time they talk about “divergent attainment, a situation where the learner acquires a system different from the baseline”. The meaning of baseline language thus remains ambiguous throughout as it wavers between being a “diasporic variety spoken by first-generation immigrants” and the monolingual benchmark. Polinsky and Scontras further argue that “heritage speakers constitute an outcome often assumed to be impossible outside of pathology or trauma: children exposed to a language from birth who nevertheless appear to deviate from the expected native-like mastery in pronounced and principled ways”.
This characterisation of heritage language acquisition is rather puzzling since, by definition, heritage speakers are not exposed to the minority language in the same context as monolingual learners, and therefore it is not clear why they should be expected to acquire a variety that is not in their input. Children acquire the language to which they are exposed, and in this sense their acquisition can never be divergent, unless it is so because of a developmental language disorder. In the same way in which one would not consider the British variety of English of a child brought up in England to be divergent from American English, it is not clear why a child who is exposed to British English as a heritage language in Italy should be considered to be in any way divergent from a monolingual child in England. Child heritage speakers are exposed to a variety of the minority language from their parents and potentially from a community of other heritage language speakers who, in the best of cases, may be first-generation immigrants at different stages along the language attrition continuum, and as such more or less distant from the monolingual variety in their country of origin (Schmid & Köpke, Reference Schmid and Köpke2017). In other scenarios the child's input in the heritage language could come from second- or even third-generation heritage language speakers themselves and therefore they would be exposed to a variety that is potentially even further from the monolingual native language spoken in the original homeland. Unfortunately, there is still very little research comparing child heritage speakers’ language production with their caregivers’ input to test the extent to which the way in which they “diverge” from a hypothetical monolingual baseline is actually the result of their expected convergence on the input they do receive. Paradis and Navarro (Reference Paradis and Navarro2003) provided just such a tentative piece of evidence in accounting for the proportion of redundant overt pronouns in the Spanish of a young Spanish–English bilingual child, but more research is needed to show how child heritage language learners actually converge on the heritage language baseline.
Another under-studied variable that may contribute to explaining differential outcomes in the acquisition of a heritage language is children's own production. Over the course of development, child heritage speakers will vary in the extent to which they switch to using the dominant language when addressed in the heritage language. Birth order and the start of formal education are two factors that influence how much child heritage speakers will engage with the dominant societal language (Bridges & Hoff, Reference Bridges and Hoff2014). Recent research on child heritage speakers that has factored in measures of language output alongside language input has shown a contribution of language use to expressive skills over and above input (Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Mendez-Perez & Gillam, Reference Bohman, Bedore, Peña, Mendez-Perez and Gillam2010; Ribot, Hoff & Burridge, Reference Ribot, Hoff and Burridge2018). Unlike monolingual children, who have no choice but to use their one language, child heritage speakers do have a choice. The way in which they exercise that choice has interesting implications, both for heritage language maintenance, and for better understanding how children's agency in their language use affects their linguistic development.