4
How Learning Context Shapes Heritage and Second Language Acquisition

SILVINA MONTRUL

Introduction

Heritage language acquisition is the acquisition of a first language, which is a sociolinguistically minority language, in a bilingual or second language (L2) context, and takes place in a predominantly natural or informal environment (Montrul 2016). Some heritage speakers receive formal instruction in their heritage language as adults, but most do not (Polinsky and Kagan 2007). Second language acquisition is the acquisition of an additional language after the basic structural foundations of the native language are in place. A fundamental belief in the study of adult second language acquisition over the years has been that the process of learning a second language does not depend on the context in which the language is being learned (Gass and Selinker 2001; Larsen Freeman and Long 1991; Ortega 2009). At the same time, much of second language acquisition takes place in formal environments – the classroom. In many ways, the linguistic development of instructed second language learners and of heritage speakers in their second and heritage language show seemingly comparative overall profiles in their acquisition of syntax, semantics and morphology, and apparently similar outcomes despite different contexts of learning. The goal of this chapter, however, is to show that context of learning does play a critical role in shaping the type of linguistic knowledge that heritage speakers develop, especially when compared to the knowledge of second language learners and monolingual native speakers. Recent experimental research point to subtle but important differences between heritage speakers and L2 learners in different skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing), in language processing, and in patterns of language use that can only be explained by the context of learning.

I start by providing a brief overview of heritage language acquisition and how it compares to first language (L1) and L2 acquisition, with respect to input and age of acquisition. I then focus on how context of learning shapes the type of linguistic knowledge acquired. One important distinction that emerges from our study is that informal learning environments foster the development of fluency in the second and heritage language, while formal learning environments are more suited for linguistic accuracy. Because most studies on L2 acquisition involve instructed learners while studies on heritage speakers do not distinguish between instructed and non‐instructed heritage speakers, I stress the importance of future research comparing how heritage speakers and L2 learners develop their L1 and their L2 in both formal and informal learning contexts to elucidate how context shapes additional language learning at the cognitive level.

Language acquisition in different contexts

Human beings are endowed with the ability to develop human language, which is written in our genes. Although language is in the mind, it needs a rich and supportive language environment with meaningful social interactions to be acquired fully. Both experiential and environmental factors are important contributors to the development of language and deterministic in the particular language or languages being acquired: a child raised in an English‐speaking environment learns English, a child raised in a Turkish‐speaking environment learns Turkish and a child with sufficient meaningful interactions in Spanish and English naturally learns both.

Another important factor in language acquisition is age of first intensive exposure to the language(s). According to the critical period hypothesis for language (Lenneberg 1967), a child must be exposed to his first language before puberty if not earlier for healthy language development to take place. Most researchers agree that lack of exposure to the L1 before a certain age in childhood has dramatic and irreversible consequences for native language development (Mayberry and Kluender 2018). Learning a second language is, to some extent, also influenced by age effects: the earlier the exposure to input in the second language the more native‐like the type of ability achieved in the second language. However, unlike in L1 acquisition, the relationship between age and onset of acquisition is not irreversible in L2 acquisition. Even when sustained and intensive exposure to the L2 starts after puberty L2 learners develop second language abilities, most likely aided by their previous knowledge of another language. Age effects are also relevant for language loss in a bilingual environment (Bylund 2009; Montrul 2008). Early age of acquisition is a necessary but not sufficient condition for full development of two languages in simultaneous bilinguals. The younger the bilingual individual when reduced exposure to one of his languages occurs, the faster and more dramatic the loss of the language receiving less input. This tendency has been shown for bilingual children of different ages (Anderson 1999; Flores 2010), and the younger children examined in this research show faster loss of language skills than the older children. Figure 4.1 shows the healthy development of one or two languages when there is sustained and consistent support of the language(s) throughout the lifespan, from birth to adulthood. Figure 4.2 illustrates the typical case of second language acquisition when exposure to the second language starts at around puberty. Figure 4.3 depicts the common development of a heritage language in children who do not receive sufficient exposure to the heritage language past infancy.

The biology and timing of language exposure is inextricably linked to context. Research on monolingual child language acquisition has shown that experiential factors influence language development even beyond which language(s) the child does or does not acquire (Hart and Risely 1995). For example, the quality of the input children are exposed to through interactions with their caregivers determines the number of words they know (i.e. size of their vocabularies). These differences in early language experiences have been found to be predictive of academic achievement years later in elementary school (Dickinson et al. 2010). Quality of input refers to the variety of contexts in which the language is experienced as well as the richness of the language interactions in terms of number and diversity of words, number and diversity of syntactic structures, exposure to oral language, and exposure to written language through book reading. Language experience at home and at school matters even more for children who grow up in a bilingual or multilingual environment and for child and adult L2 learners. In a bilingual and L2 acquisition situation, the quantity of input is a predictive factor in the extent of language ability and fluency developed. While reduced input leads to specific linguistic gaps in L2 learners and heritage speakers that seem comparable, the type of input experienced in different contexts influences how their linguistic knowledge is manifested differently in the two groups. We turn to the specific situation of second language learners and heritage language learners next.

Graph of language proficiency versus age displaying an ascending line with diamond markers for Language A and ascending solid line for Language B with labels, infancy, childhood and adolescence, and adulthood.

Figure 4.1 Monolingual (one line) and bilingual (two lines) language development with access to the language(s) throughout the lifespan.

Graph of language proficiency vs. age displaying ascending line with solid diamond markers for First Language (left) and solid line for Second language (right) with labels, infancy, childhood and adolescence, etc.

Figure 4.2 Second language acquisition around puberty.

Second language acquisition

Second language acquisition can happen in childhood (after age 4 or 5) or later in life. Second language acquisition after puberty is often called adult L2 acquisition. A general characteristic of adult L2 acquisition is that it occurs very often in an instructed environment, a few hours a week, as we cover in more detail in the next section. To understand the degree of language development obtained in each situation, it has been common to study L2 acquisition by comparing it to L1 acquisition by children. Although both L1 and L2 learners must build a grammatical representation of the target language based on input, there are critical differences between the two learning situations. First, knowledge of another language impacts the development of the L2 in predictable ways: many errors made by L2 learners can be related to the structural properties of their native language (L1). Second, L2 learners are cognitively more mature than children acquiring their L1 when they start learning the L2 and may rely on different input processing skills. Adults have more developed working memory capacity and can process longer phrases and sentences, whereas children process smaller units for linguistic analyses. The fact that L2 learners are exposed to written language at the onset of acquisition determines how they use metalinguistic knowledge and how they process the L2 (Sharwood Smith and Truscott 2014). Child L1 learners, by contrast, must discover the structure of their language (words, phrases, morphology) though processing auditory stimuli. With respect to amount of input, L2 learners are often exposed to less input in the L2 than children in their L1, and the quality of the input and the social interactions are also very different in L1 and L2 acquisition. Many L2 learners who receive classroom instruction where written language is emphasized have typically poorly developed conversational skills in real‐life communications and interactions, even after several years of instruction. Children learn to communicate orally, through social interactions with their caregivers.

Graph of language proficiency versus age displaying solid line for Majority language (simultaneous bilinguals) and lines with markers for Majority Language (L2 in sequential bilinguals) and Heritage Language.

Figure 4.3 Heritage language acquisition in simultaneous and sequential bilinguals under reduced input conditions.

During the course of language development both L1 and L2 learners make grammatical errors that are part and parcel of the process of learning, such as simplification of sounds and sound clusters and omission and overgeneralization of obligatory morphology. These errors go away on their own in child L1 learners, but they persist in adult L2 learners. Fossilization (Selinker 1972), or arrested development in localized areas of language, does not occur in L1 acquisition but is characteristic of L2 acquisition. During L2 production “errors” of pronunciation, grammar, and meaning are very common, often despite sustained practice and optimal quantity and quality of input and use of the language. Even children in immersion programs develop high communicative skills and fluency but are often grammatically inaccurate, making many errors (Lightbown and Spada 2006; Swain 1989). The vast majority of these errors result from imposing the structure of the L1 on attempted communication in the L2. For example, many Chinese learners have difficulty with tense in English because Chinese does not represent and mark tense grammatically. Unlike children learning their L1, L2 learners need explicit feedback about what is correct and not correct in the L2 in order to improve their proficiency and accuracy. If their corrected production (output) is “noticed” (Schmidt 2001) by the learner at the psycholinguistic level, such noticing helps the learner move to the next level of grammatical development, advancing their language acquisition.

Heritage language acquisition

Heritage language acquisition is a type of early bilingual acquisition that takes place in a specific sociolinguistic environment. Broadly defined, heritage languages are culturally or ethnolinguistically minority languages that develop in a language contact or bilingual setting where another sociopolitically majority language is spoken (Montrul 2016). Heritage languages are commonly spoken by immigrants and their children. Other situations include national regional languages and indigenous languages spoken in specific territories, such as Sami in Norway and Sweden, or Frisian in the Netherlands. Heritage speakers are child and adult members of a linguistic minority who grow up exposed to their home language – the heritage language – and the majority official language spoken and used in the broader speech community. The group of heritage speakers encompasses different types of early bilingual learners, exposed to the heritage language and the majority language in childhood before puberty: simultaneous bilinguals (exposed to the two languages since birth or before age 3) and sequential bilinguals (exposed to the heritage language as a first language and the majority language as a second language after age 4).

Heritage language acquisition is similar to both L1 and L2 acquisition. Like child L1 learners, heritage speakers are exposed to the heritage language from birth, and acquire the majority language simultaneously with the heritage language or later, as a second language, with the onset of schooling and socialization beyond the home. Heritage speakers are bilingual native speakers of their heritage language (Montrul 2013; Rothman and Treffers‐Daller 2014), except that the degree of ultimate attainment in the heritage language is variable, as in L2 acquisition, ranging from mere receptive ability in auditory comprehension to full fluency in the four language skills (speaking, listening, reading, writing) like a literate native speaker. Although heritage speakers are born with the cognitive capacity to become relatively balanced and fluent bilinguals in adulthood, this outcome depends greatly on the environmental conditions they encounter as they grow up. When input and use of the heritage language are optimal in favorable sociolinguistic environments, heritage speakers are likely to develop native‐like ability in many areas of their grammar (Kupsich et al. 2013). By contrast, when input is restricted and insufficient during the period of later language acquisition, the development of the heritage language can be delayed and interrupted (Montrul 2016; Silva‐Corvalán 2014), displaying properties typical of developmental stages of L1 acquisition, such as non‐target use of morphology (Albirini 2014) or word order patterns not attested in adult monolingual varieties (Westergaard and Bentzen 2007). By the end of the language‐learning period (adolescence), the heritage language has become secondary, it feels like a second or foreign language to the heritage speakers (See Figure 4.3), and in fact manifests many of the same characteristics of the interlanguage systems of adult L2 learners, including influence from the dominant language and non‐target stabilization in several grammatical domains (Montrul 2016).

The extent to which the linguistic patterns of heritage speakers are similar to those of L2 learners is a question that has been at the forefront of theoretical approaches to bilingualism and L2 acquisition and classroom‐based research (Bowles et al. 2014; Montrul and Bowles 2010; Potowski et al. 2009). Heritage speakers and L2 learners make similar types of errors in morphosyntax, semantics, and syntax‐discourse, and both types of learners are affected by transfer or structural influence from the dominant language, especially at lower levels of proficiency. At the same time, heritage speakers seem to have advantages over L2 learners in some areas, most notably in phonology (Au et al. 2002; Lukyanchenko and Gor 2011; Chang 2016), whereas L2 learners have advantages over heritage speakers in spelling and knowledge of metalinguistic rules (Bowles et al. 2014; Zyzik 2016). These differences appear to be related to the type of learning experience – specifically, type, modality, frequency, and amount of exposure to relevant input and use of the language, which in many ways is confounded with age. Learning the language in a primarily formal or informal context contributes to knowing the language differently for monolingual learners, L2 learners, and heritage speakers.

Formal vs. informal contexts in language learning

First language acquisition

While cognitive‐oriented approaches to language acquisition prioritize the development of linguistic knowledge in the mind of learners, language development is shaped by constant dynamic interaction with the social environment in which it is situated. The linguistic environment plays a critical role in the linguistic development of monolingual children (Hart and Risley 1995), bilingual children (Pearson et al. 1997), and bilingual adults (Siegel 2003), including L2 learners. The linguistic environment shapes, to some extent, the level of linguistic achievement, the types and amount of words and structures learned, the rate of acquisition, accuracy and fluency, and the degree of communicative and discursive competence.

Young children, both monolingual and bilingual, acquire the language(s) of their linguistic environment in an informal or naturalistic context, through social interaction with their primary caregivers. One‐to‐one interaction gives the child access to language that is adjusted to his or her level of comprehension. When the child does not understand, the adult may repeat or paraphrase. Through this interactive give‐and‐take, the adult intuitively responds to the clues the child provides as to the level of language the child is capable of processing, and the basic structure of language, from first words to complex syntax and semantics, emerges in this fashion. Although children's language form evolves in accuracy, complexity, and fluency with increased age, when children make grammatical errors, these are not typically corrected by their caregivers, and when corrected, these errors often go unnoticed, as children tend to pay attention to the meaning of interactions and not to their form. By age 4, children have grammatical and communicative competence of their native language. They have mastery of most of the morphosyntactic and semantic aspects of language and may also control various styles of speaking that characterize how people talk to each other in different circumstances. For example, in role‐playing doctor or teacher, preschool children seem to be able to modify their speech accordingly (McLaughlin 1984).

Although Chomsky (1959) claimed that the human child acquires language quickly, by age 3, language learning continues beyond this age. It is clear that a 5‐year‐old child has some way to go before achieving linguistic mastery. Language development can by no means be said to be over when the child enters school. The linguistic knowledge acquired by this age is also fragile, since children who move from one linguistic environment to another one where a different language is spoken can lose what they have acquired of their native language very fast (Kaufman and Aronoff 1991).

During the school‐age period, vocabulary continues to grow, and there is further morphological and semantic development. Consolidation of syntax continues until about age 12. When children go to school they are exposed to academic language. Academic language consists of more complex syntactic structures (passives, relative clauses, adverbial clauses, infinitival clauses, pronominal reference in embedded sentences, etc.) and more abstract and morphologically complex words (e.g. nation, nationalize, usual, usually, unusual, etc.). Socially, the linguistic environment also expands since, in addition to the primary caregivers, children interact with other children, teachers, and other adults. Still, language acquisition happens naturalistically, and children develop implicit knowledge of the language. Although academic language is presented and experienced at school in a formal environment, children are not taught the rules of the language: they always use oral and written language in meaningful communicative contexts. However, literacy contributes to the consolidation and entrenchment of language. Native speakers of a language are fluent and grammatically accurate in their native language.

Second language acquisition

Second language acquisition can happen in a formal or an informal environment. As in monolingual acquisition, the informal environment is home, the workplace, school, and other social situations, where learners are exposed to the second language and interact with interlocutors in society. However, older children adolescents and adults also learn the target language in a formal environment. The formal environment is a language class, where the amount, frequency and type of input and use of the language are much more restricted than in naturalistic settings. L2 learners learn explicit grammatical rules of the L2, which native speakers do not learn in their L1 at school (unless grammar is part of the curriculum). The question of the optimal linguistic environment in L2 acquisition has been of concern for students, teachers, and psycholinguists interested in primary linguistic data or the linguistic input necessary to promote successful language acquisition. Even though the linguistic environment shapes the language learning process, a fundamental belief in the study of L2 acquisition over the years has been that the process of L2 learning does not depend on the context in which the language is being learned (Gass and Selinker 2001; Larsen Freeman and Long 1991; Ortega 2009). The unconscious linguistic system that L2 learners develop cannot be easily manipulated by instruction in the form of studying grammar rules and practicing grammar in isolation.

In an early review of empirical studies, Krashen (1976) reached the conclusion that both for L1 and L2 acquisition, informal environments promote language acquisition when exposure to the language is intensive and there are opportunities for interaction and for the learner to extract meaning from context. In this way, input becomes intake, and language is internalized. Environments that offer exposure without interaction, such as watching TV, are much less effective. Many adult L2 learners learn the language in a formal environment, where there are limited opportunities for meaningful and purposeful interactions. The language is taught one, two, or three times a week, most likely for periods of 50–90 minutes, so the exposure is not typically intensive. During class time, language rules are explained and students study and memorize the rules of language. Of course, with the type of communicative language teaching that came into vogue in the 1980s, it is possible to expose students or create activities for meaningful interactions in the classroom as well. A key difference between the formal and informal environment is that there is a focus on form in the formal environment. In addition to exposure to the language through the teacher, other students, the textbook and the teaching materials, students receive information about the rules of the language, what is grammatical and what is not grammatical, and they receive explicit information about the accuracy of their oral and written production. The input they receive from the teacher can be native or non‐native, depending on whether or not the teacher is a native speaker. But adults can also have access to the second language beyond the classroom, either because they seek opportunities to use the language through interactions with available speakers or through self‐study. According to Krashen (1976) both formal and informal learning environments contribute to language proficiency but in different ways: the formal learning environment promotes conscious, metalinguistic learning of the language, and there is information on grammatical accuracy, correction, and feedback. The input‐intensive informal learning environment leads to acquisition (implicit learning) of the language in both children and adults. Depending on the language methodology used, the formal environment can provide opportunities for both conscious knowledge of the language and implicit learning or acquisition.

Pica (1983) conducted an empirical study on the oral production of English morphemes (3rd person singular ‐s, past tense ‐ed, progressive ‐ing, copula be, plural ‐s, etc.) in adult L2 learners learning English in formal, informal, and mixed environments. Findings showed that all participants made errors of morpheme oversuppliance in inappropriate contexts and errors of morpheme omission in required contexts. However, naturalistic learners made more omission errors than instructed learners, whereas instructed learners made more oversuppliance errors than naturalistic learners. While the contexts did not influence the developmental sequence and acquisition of these morphemes, they played a role in the type of hypotheses learners entertained about the target system to be acquired.

Since these early studies, in the last three decades, L2 acquisition research has predominantly focused on issues in instructed language learning rather than naturalistic language learning. Despite promising early research and several case studies of untutored adult learners – Schmidt's (1984) Wes study, Schumann's (1978) Alberto study, Huebner's (1983) Ge study – the vast majority of publications today concentrate on instructed language learning. The subfield of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) is well established (Ellis 2005), and its foundational question is whether systematic manipulation of the input and the conditions for learning facilitate the development and acquisition of additional languages (Loewen and Sato 2017, p. 1). The broad conclusion is that instructed language learning with focus on form leads to higher accuracy and proficiency than instruction with no focus on form (Norris and Ortega 2000). Although many of these studies have certainly increased our understanding of how language learning works in the classroom, there are compelling reasons to pay more attention to language acquisition outside the classroom.

Very few studies in the past two decades have explored naturalistic language learning (Klein and Perdue 1993; Ioup et al. 1994; Dimroth and Starren 2003). Perhaps the most extensive study of untutored language learning to date is that conducted by the European Science Foundation from 1981 to 1988 (Perdue 1993). This study tracked the development of 40 language learners from a variety of first language backgrounds in five host countries (Britain, France, Sweden, Germany, and The Netherlands) over 30 months and found that immigrants at first developed a basic variety (BV) of the target language. The BVs were all very similar, lacking morphological inflection and consisting of a rudimentary lexicon, and they mainly seemed independent of the learner's first language and target language. Whereas about one‐third of the immigrants remained at this basic level throughout the study, the others continued to develop beyond the BV (Klein and Perdue 1993). The study has yielded important insights into universals of basic language varieties, as well as developmental stages that most naturalistic learners appear to pass through. However, because the study did not report on learners beyond basic development, we know neither how proficient these learners ultimately became nor what their most advanced forms of learner language looked like. Most recently Polat and Kim (2014) tracked the accuracy, syntactic complexity, and lexical diversity in the speech of a Turkish immigrant over one year. They found that most development occurred in the participant's lexical diversity, while syntactic complexity showed potential but unverifiable gains, and accuracy showed no development. Polat and Kim's findings suggest that an untutored language learner may develop advanced lexical and syntactic skills, but achieving grammatical accuracy without instruction may be more difficult.

In conclusion, ISLA that focuses on form leads to higher levels of grammatical accuracy than instructed acquisition in a communicative rich environment (with no focus on form) and naturalistic acquisition. Furthermore, instructed second language learners develop comparable levels of written and spoken language skills, but typically feel more comfortable with written language than with spoken language.

Heritage language acquisition

As far as heritage language acquisition is concerned, most heritage speakers learn the heritage language in an informal setting and, depending on the minority language they speak and the sociopolitical situation of their heritage language, many do not have access to schooling in the heritage language or to formal instruction in adulthood. For example, while there are some bilingual education programs in the United States that offer Spanish or Mandarin, many other heritage languages (Russian, Hindi, Tagalog, Portuguese, to name a few) are not present in the school system. In Sweden, mother tongue instruction is available when there are at least five speakers of a given language in a school, but the vast majority of heritage speakers receive little formal education in the heritage language. That is why heritage languages typically develop “in the wild” (Polinsky and Kagan 2007). What this means is that heritage speakers grow up in a home hearing their heritage language (spoken by one or two parents and maybe some other family members), either exclusively or together with the societal majority language. Some heritage speakers speak the heritage language when addressed in it, some others do not and are deemed “overhearers” (Au et al. 2002) in the literature. That is, they have receptive knowledge of the heritage language. Once they go to preschool, their exposure to the home language continues to be limited to home communication, and many such speakers very quickly get into the way of hearing the home language but responding in the dominant language. Depending on the language, the community, and the family practices, many heritage speakers never learn to read or write in the home language, and if the alphabet is non‐Latin, this naturally makes matters even more difficult. Many heritage speakers of Hindi, Russian, and Mandarin Chinese in the United States, to give a few examples, are illiterate in their heritage language because of the writing system barrier. By the time heritage speakers get to college and attend a class in their home language, they lack sociolinguistic competence and knowledge of formal and informal registers: for example, they use the familiar form of address with teachers and superiors or more direct imperatives than are usually expected in formal contexts – forms that they may have picked up in interaction at home while growing up. For example, Korean has six well‐differentiated registers, which vary according to the social distinctions between the speaker and hearer (Sohn 2001). Each register is associated with particular phonological patterns and lexical choices (Kim 2001). Of those six registers expected of any adult competent speaker, heritage speakers of Korean are familiar with one or, at most, two (Kim 2001) – the intimate register (identified as the –e/–a register in the literature on Korean) and possibly familiar register (identified as the –ney register). These two registers are used in the home and are typical of children, but an adult educated speaker is of course expected to control the other four registers as well. However, as heritage speakers of Korean have not been instructed in more formal registers or did not have experiences with the language in formal contexts beyond the home they do not have knowledge of these distinctions. But because home experiences vary significantly depending on the language, the community, and the family, a striking feature of heritage language acquisition is the wide range of variation in linguistic ability found in heritage speakers. While some have mere receptive understanding of the language, others can be very fluent in the vernacular, familiar register. Au and Oh (2005) demonstrate that the language spoken by parents in the home, as well as parents' attitudes toward the home language and culture (e.g. instilling ethnic pride, discussing ethnic history and identity, and encouraging children to learn and practice cultural traditions and values) are correlated with the children's later abilities in the home language. When input is restricted and insufficient before puberty, the development of the heritage language is delayed and interrupted, and young adult heritage speakers' grammars often display properties typical of developmental stages of first (L1) and second language (L2) acquisition (Montrul 2016), as mentioned earlier in this section. Heritage speakers need motivation to maintain and develop their heritage language through language and literacy instruction beyond what they acquire at home.

Some college‐age heritage speakers seek to relearn the language in a formal context at the university level. When they come to the classroom, heritage speakers often bring well‐developed auditory comprehension skills, fairly good pronunciation (compared to a second language learner), informal and familiar vocabulary, especially vocabulary related to household items, slang terms, and baby words (including names of many animals). They also bring some productive ability in the informal register of the language, and many gaps in their lexical and morphosyntactic knowledge. They do not know how to write and they lack academic vocabulary. It appears that formal instruction is beneficial for heritage language learners and helps them expand vocabulary, learn the formal register, develop reading and writing skills and improve morphosyntactic accuracy (Montrul and Bowles 2017).

Research has shown that even in areas where L2 learners seem to have similar problems – such as with gender agreement in nouns, tense, aspect and mood in verbs, use and interpretation of definite articles, use of case marking in languages that mark case overtly, among other structures – heritage speakers and L2 learners perform differently depending on the type of task and the timing of the response required (online versus offline tasks, written or oral tasks, explicit or implicit tasks). For example, Montrul et al. (2008) found that both L2 learners of Spanish and heritage speakers of Spanish of comparable proficiency were inaccurate with gender agreement in noun phrases compared to native speakers. However, while the heritage speakers were significantly more accurate than the L2 learners in the oral task, the L2 learners were significantly more accurate than the heritage speakers in the written tasks. These same task effects were confirmed with other studies (Montrul and Perpiñán 2011; Montrul et al. 2013). Bowles (2011) and Montrul et al. (2014) found that heritage speakers performed like native speakers in implicit tasks, whereas L2 learners performed like native speakers in explicit tasks. Heritage speakers also perform better than L2 with structures that are more common in spoken language, such as case ellipsis in Korean (Chung 2018) and clitic climbing and clitic left dislocations in Spanish (Montrul 2010). Thus, context of acquisition shapes knowledge of language in heritages speakers and L2 learners in very specific ways. The informal context of learning leads to heritage speaker developing communicative use of the heritage language and implicit, somewhat fluent, if inaccurate, knowledge of the heritage language in several grammatical and performative domains.

If the formal context of the classroom promotes grammatical accuracy, an area that heritage language learners need to develop, an important question is whether formal instruction helps heritage language learners develop what they are missing. Does the type of linguistic knowledge that heritage speakers bring to the classroom give them an advantage compared to L2 learners who do not bring such knowledge? To what extent do the colloquial varieties to which heritage speakers are exposed at home help them in learning the standard varieties of the language imparted in most classrooms? Albirini (2014) sought to address this question with heritage speakers who spoke colloquial Palestinian or Egyptian Arabic at home and were receiving instruction in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). Crucially, colloquial varieties of Arabic differ in substantial ways both from MSA and from each other at the phonological, morphological, syntactic, and lexical levels. Although Arabic heritage speakers may have heard some MSA on TV, since it is used in news and other media broadcasts on central satellite networks such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, they do not typically have a command of it.

Albirini (2014) focused on sentential negation in MSA, which differs from negation in the colloquial varieties but also shares some overall similarities between the colloquial and standard systems. To determine whether knowledge of a colloquial variety provides an initial advantage for heritage language learners over L2 learners and whether that advantage is sustained as proficiency increases, Albirini tested heritage language learners and L2 learners in elementary and advanced MSA classes. All participants completed five oral tasks targeting negation in various contexts. Results showed that in the elementary class, the heritage speakers had an advantage over the L2 learners of Arabic, since their sentences involving negation were for the most part syntactically well‐formed in MSA compared to the L2 learners' sentences. At least 60% of the low‐proficiency heritage language learners' errors could be attributed to transfer from their colloquial variety. However, the initial advantage appears to dissipate as heritage speakers advance in proficiency, since among the students in the advanced class there was no significant advantage for heritage speakers compared to L2 learners with sentential negation. Formal instruction appears to accelerate grammatical development in the L2 learners.

That heritage speakers and L2 learners know the language differently because they learned it in different contexts is also confirmed by a classroom study conducted by Torres (2013). Thirty‐four heritage language learners and 49 L2 learners were randomly assigned to a control group, or to [± complex instruction] groups on the use of subjunctive or indicative with Spanish adjectival clauses. All participants completed oral and written production pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests (one to two weeks after instruction). Each test item consisted of a contextualizing sentence, followed by an incomplete sentence that the participants needed to complete either orally or in writing, depending on the test modality, using an adjectival clause requiring either the present subjunctive or the present indicative.

Control group participants completed the tests but received no instruction, whereas participants in the two complexity groups received computerized task‐based instruction on the targeted form that included written feedback. If participants chose the correct verb mood, they saw a message simply saying, “Sí/Yes” on the screen. If their mood choice was incorrect, they saw a written recast on the screen (in which the entire sentence with the correct verb form was shown.)

Instructed heritage speakers and L2 learners showed comparable gains in oral production, but L2 learners had larger pretest to delayed posttest gains in written production than the heritage language learners. Exit questionnaire responses also suggested that the heritage language learners and the L2 learners may have approached the tasks differently, perhaps based on the context of acquisition. Specifically, the L2 learners were more focused on language forms (frequently indicating that they “formed rules” about when to use the subjunctive or indicative during the instruction), whereas the heritage language learners were more focused on content and meaning‐making in the tasks. Their comments also indicated that they were less likely to perceive the written recast feedback as corrective.

Although very few studies have empirically investigated the effects of instruction on heritage language learners' linguistic development, the results seem to show that heritage language learners make learning gains from a variety of instructional techniques commonly used in L2 classrooms. Nonetheless, heritage language learners' early exposure to the heritage language in an informal setting and L2 learners' late exposure to the language in a formal setting appears to affect their orientation to the language and to instruction. For example, when asked what they know about the language, L2 learners respond that they know the conjugation of regular past tense verbs in Spanish and they know how to write them correctly, whereas heritage language learners will say that they know how to talk about events in the past and that they can understand when somebody speaks about something that happened. When asked what they want to learn, L2 learners will often say they want to learn irregular verbs and how use the past tense in conversation without having to think too much or make too many mistakes. Heritage language learners will say that they want to learn how to write the verbs, where to put the accents, and how to say some new verbs. Future research is needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of these issues and to determine whether these differences in learning orientations affect the way we assess their linguistic development.

Heritage language learners, unlike L2 learners, know how to use the language even though they may not be grammatically accurate. Formal classroom instruction is beneficial to help heritage language learners make gains in grammatical accuracy, although their orientation to the language is highly intuitive and may need support to develop metalinguistic awareness.

Informal language learning today: New technologies

The types of language learning that happen in formal and informal language settings complement each other. Informal language‐learning situations promote spontaneous and meaningful language use, which drives communicative competence and fluency. For L2 learners and heritage speakers, literacy and focus on grammatical forms help to address gaps in grammatical accuracy. For L2 learners in particular, providing a language‐intensive authentic informal environment has been difficult. Study‐abroad programs, where students travel to study and live in the country where the target language is spoken for a period of time, have been shown to be effective to help learners develop fluency and sociolinguistic competence. Access to schooling through bilingual education or some form of heritage language school is beneficial for heritage speakers, and experience with literacy impedes the advancement of attrition (Zaretsky and Bar‐Shalom 2010). New technologies today cannot replace the actual experience of interaction with human beings that is needed for language development, but they can certainly enhance and facilitate these experiences. With the advent of new forms of digital media, young learners are increasingly drawn toward video games, social media, and alternative ways of learning (Gee 2004).

Research on L2 acquisition and foreign language teaching (Doughty and Long 2003) converges on the finding that the best way to learn a second language is to be immersed in a social context where the language is spoken and to have the opportunity to interact with native speakers. This is indeed the actual environment where heritage speakers develop their language. Based on insights from the theoretical study of first and second language acquisition (Krashen 1983; Swain 1985; Long 1996), since the 1980s different iterations of the communicative approach (with more or less focus on grammar) have been prevalent in second/foreign language teaching. This approach assumes that comprehensible input is crucial for language acquisition, and input can be made more comprehensible through interaction and attendant language negotiation (Gass and Varonis 1994). This means that authentic input (exposure to the language in real‐life contexts, such as using French to ask for directions in Paris) is more conducive to long‐term language learning than behaviorist‐inspired translation drills, fill in the blanks exercises, or repetition of decontextualized phrases in made up dialogs. Furthermore, L2 learners need motivation to use the second language as much as possible (Gardner 1985; Dörneyi 2001). A great barrier is anxiety, since many older children, teenagers, and adults feel very stressed and even unable to speak when asked to perform in the second language with other peers, especially in front of others. Today, the use of technology can provide and maximize an authentic language learning immersion environment with opportunities for interaction, negotiation, and feedback to promote second language acquisition.

The advent of computer‐assisted language learning (CALL), computer‐mediated communication (CMC) and other new technologies (Bax 2003; García Carbonell et al. 2001; Peterson 2012), have provided teachers and learners with many more opportunities for autonomous, self‐directed, and individualized second language learning as well as truly engaging possibilities to maximize written and oral interactions. Computers, new media, and other emerging technologies have been essential to help enhance the quality and authenticity of the input that second language learners are exposed to and must learn from. Computer technology has also benefited human‐to‐human interaction. Because new technologies can connect learners with people in remote places, they have made it easier to access and interact with the other culture in an authentic manner. In a meta‐analysis of 37 CALL studies, Grgurovic et al. (2013) concluded that second/foreign language instruction supported by computer technology was as effective as instruction without technology, and in studies using rigorous research designs the CALL groups outperformed the non‐CALL groups. Cerezo et al. (2014), who focused on e‐tutors (interaction of learners with machines) and synchronous computer mediated communication (SCMC; interaction of learners with other learners and the teacher), concluded that these technologies successfully promote second language development at the grammatical and communicative levels.

Another advantage of new technologies is that they can assist with feedback, which both L2 learners and heritage speakers need in order to progress in their language learning. Not only can new technologies be used to actually measure learning gains (in grammatical accuracy, fluency, and social appropriateness) but they can also be used to provide immediate feedback about learners' understanding, grammatical accuracy, and cultural appropriateness of their linguistic output (Wighan and Chanier 2015). Feedback can be provided by live tutors, interlocutors, or e‐tutors automated and built into the activity. It can also be accomplished through natural language processing (NLP) programmed scripts delivered through learning management systems. Feedback has different forms (recast, self‐repair, peer correction, repetition, confirmation check, explicit correction, metalinguistic information, reinforcement, or clarification request) and technologies can be properly programmed to use different types of feedback.

A branch of communicative language teaching is task‐based language instruction (TBI) or task‐based language teaching (TBLT), which focuses on the use of authentic language and asking students to perform engaging tasks with communicative objectives to reach a goal (Long 2014). Assessment is based on task outcome, and the use of language during the task is believed to promote implicit and incidental language learning. Such language tasks must be situated in an environment where the right type of input is likely to occur and where language negotiation can be conducted meaningfully. Communicative tasks must be interesting enough to attract students to explore the authentic contexts on their own, and sufficiently engaging to sustain their motivation for repeated exploration. With repeated exploration there is more opportunity to hear and see the language (input), speak or write the language (output), and to communicate with others (interaction), which, again, are the basic ingredients for successful language learning. In technology‐mediated TBI, tasks and technology are genuinely and productively integrated in the curriculum according to learning‐by‐doing philosophies of language pedagogy, new language education needs, and digital technology realities. Empirical research by Cerezo (2010), Hsieh (2007), and Mackey (1999) found that a more agentive role in interaction does result in higher learning outcomes of L2 grammar. Blake (2000) has shown that the type of task affects how successfully learners negotiate for meaning in SCMC. Baralt (2013) concluded that the cognitive complexity of the CALL task contributed to language development. More recently, computer games like World of Warcraft or Minecraft and virtual worlds like Second Life have also begun to be explored for language learning with important results (Håkansson 2015; Peterson 2013; Sadler 2012; Thorne et al. 2009; Zhao and Lai 2009). There is ample evidence that computer technologies have enhanced engagement, attention, motivation, and feedback for language learning. A great deal of research on CALL has focused on the potential of CMC (audio and videoconferencing) and its capabilities among learners and schools, and how CMC compares to text‐only interactions (Brett and González‐Lloret 2009).

While early generations of mobile learning tended to propose activities that were carefully crafted by educators and technologists, learners are increasingly motivated by their personal learning needs, including those arising from greater mobility and frequent travel. In their review of mobile‐assisted language learning Kukulska‐Hulme and Shield (2008) found that mobile devices are being used to support social contact and collaborative learning. In particular, they seem highly suitable for promoting speaking and listening practice for both synchronous and asynchronous interaction in the context of online and distance learning.

The other big trend is seen with gaming, which is also bringing second language learners of English together (Sundqvist and Sylvén 2014; Ryu 2013). Ryu followed English language learners participating in a game. Their asynchronous computer‐mediated discourses were repeatedly reviewed, and email interviews with participants were conducted over three stages. The discourse analysis of interaction data and interview scripts showed how participants were engaged in language learning through gaming culture. Ryu found that gaming led to learning words or phrases used during the game and there was continuous use and practice of long sentences and discourse through interaction with native or more fluent peers in the online community after playing games. These two types of engagement in gaming culture drove the learners to repeated practices and collaborative interactions, which are crucial for language learning. Sundqvist and Sylvén (2014) investigated young, 10–11‐year‐old English language learners in Sweden in the fourth grade and examined the learners' L2 English language‐related activities outside school in general, and their use of computers and engagement in playing digital games. The children were divided into three digital game groups, (i) non‐gamers, (ii) moderate gamers, and (iii) frequent gamers (≥4 hours/week), based on diary data (using self‐reported times for playing digital games in English). Sundqvist and Sylvén found that the children were involved in extramural English for an average of 7.2 hours a week, with boys spending more time (11.5 hours a week) than girls (5.1 hours a week). Motivation and self‐assessed English ability were high across all groups. Thus, through engagement in fun and meaningful activities, there are opportunities for language learners to continue developing and enhancing their language skills.

Conclusion

Language learning takes place in different environments, and the type of context where language happens greatly influences how language is acquired, what is acquired, and how the knowledge is best manifested. We have seen that in monolingual and heritage language acquisition the early informal learning environment (the home) nurtures native language development, and implicit knowledge of language and fluency. The formal language environment in L2 acquisition contributes to explicit knowledge of grammatical rules and grammatical accuracy. Heritage language learners, the majority of whom are functionally illiterate in their heritage language, and second language learners who learned the second language primarily in the classroom, have complementary linguistic weaknesses and strengths because the learning contexts shape their linguistic experience. Heritage language learners are oriented primarily to the content of the task – i.e. are concerned with interpreting the meaning of the prompts rather than learning language (grammar). Heritage language learners focus on content to the neglect of form. Heritage language learners lack knowledge of essential grammatical terminology and the routines of language‐learning; L2 learners focus on form. L2 learners approach language through their classroom and textbook experience. While the classroom environment is conducive to focus on form and grammatical accuracy for both types of learners, informal environments, which today also includes new technologies, are ideal for the promotion of language use and fluency in both learning situations.

REFERENCES

  1. Albirini, A. (2014). The role of the colloquial varieties in the acquisition of the standard variety: the case of Arabic heritage speakers. Foreign Language Annals 47: 447–463.
  2. Anderson, R. (1999). Noun phrase gender agreement in language attrition. Preliminary results. Bilingual Research Journal 23: 318–337.
  3. Au, T. and Oh, J. (2005). Korean as a Heritage Language. In: Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics (ed. P. Li), 268–275. Part III: Korean Psycholinguistics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Au, T., Knightly, L., Jun, S.‐A., and Oh, J.S. (2002). Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science 13: 238–243.
  5. Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face‐to‐face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35 (4): 1–37.
  6. Bax, S. (2003). CALL: past, present and future. System 31: 13–28.
  7. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: a window on L2 Spanish development. Language Learning & Technology 4: 120–136.
  8. Bowles, M. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: what can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33: 247–272.
  9. Bowles, M., Adams, R., and Toth, P. (2014). A comparison of L2‐L2 and L2‐heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. The Modern Language Journal 98: 497–517.
  10. Brett, D. and González‐Lloret, M. (2009). Technology enhanced materials. In: The Handbook of Language Teaching (eds. C. Doughty and M. Long), 351–370. Oxford, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell.
  11. Bylund, E. (2009). Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning 59: 687–715.
  12. Cerezo, L. (2010). Talking to avatars: The computer as a tutor and the incidence of learner's agency, feedback, and grammatical form in SLA. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
  13. Cerezo, L., Baralt, M., Bo‐Ram, S., and Leow, R. (2014). Does the medium really matter in L2 development? The validity of CALL research designs. Computer Assisted Language Learning 27 (4): 294–310.
  14. Chang, C. (2016). Bilingual perceptual benefits of experience with a heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19 (4): 791–809.
  15. Chomsky, N. (1959). Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
  16. Chung, E. (2018). Second and heritage language acquisition of Korean case drop. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21 (1): 63–79.
  17. Dickinson, D., Golinkoff, R., and Hirsch Pasek, C. (2010). Speaking out for language. “Why language is central to reading development”. Educational Researcher 39 (4): 305–310.
  18. Dimroth, C. and Starren, M. (2003). Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition. John Benjamins.
  19. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21: 43–59.
  20. Doughty, C. and Long, M. (2003). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell.
  21. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. A Literature Review. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
  22. Flores, C. (2010). The effect of age on language attrition: evidence from bilingual returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13: 533–546.
  23. García‐Carbonell, A., Rising, B., Montero, B., and Watts, F. (2001). Simulation/gaming and the acquisition of communicative competence in another language. Simulation and Gaming 32 (4): 74–101.
  24. Gardner, R. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Roles of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
  25. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
  26. Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16 (3): 283–302.
  27. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated Language and Learning. New York: Routledge.
  28. Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C., and Shelley, M. (2013). A meta‐analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology‐supported language learning. Journal of the European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 25 (2): 165–198.
  29. Håkansson, G. (2015). Receptive knowledge of L2 English vocabulary and grammar before school instruction. Presentation at the 2015 PALA Conference (Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition), Halden, Norway (September 18–19 2015).
  30. Hart, B. and Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
  31. Hsieh, H.C. (2007). Input‐based practice, feedback, awareness and L2 development through a computerized task. PhD dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
  32. Huebner, T. (1983). A Longitudinal Analysis of the Acquisition of English. Karoma.
  33. Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M., and Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: a case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16: 73–98.
  34. Kaufman, D. and Aronoff, M. (1991). Morphological disintegration and reconstruction in first language attrition. In: First Language Attrition (eds. H. Seliger and R. Vago), 175–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  35. Kim, H.‐S. (2001). Issues of heritage learners in Korean language classes. In: The Korean Language in America: Volume 6. Papers from the Annual Conference and Teacher Training Workshop on the Teaching of Korean Language, Culture, and Literature (6th, Manoa, HI, August 2–5, 2001) (ed. J. Ree), 257–274.
  36. Klein, W. and Perdue, C. (1993). Utterance structure. In: Adult Language Acquisition: The Results (ed. C. Perdue), 1–40. European Science Foundation.
  37. Krashen, S. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 10 (2): 157–168.
  38. Krashen, S. (1983). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.
  39. Kukulska‐Hulme, A. and Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: from content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. Recall 20 (3): 271–289.
  40. Kupisch, T., Lein, T., Barton, D. et al. (2013). Acquisition outcomes across domains in adult simultaneous bilinguals with French as weaker and stronger language. Journal of French Language Studies: 1–30.
  41. Larsen Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
  42. Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.
  43. Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2006). How Languages Are Learned, 3e. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  44. Loewen, S. and Sato, M. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
  45. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (eds. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia), 487–535. Academic Press.
  46. Long, M. (2014). Second Language Acquisition and Task‐Based Language Teaching. Malden: Wiley‐Blackwell.
  47. Lukyanchenko, A. and Gor, K. (2011). Perceptual correlates of phonological representations in heritage speakers and L2 learners. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 414–426. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  48. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: an empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 557–587.
  49. Mayberry, R. and Kluender, R. (2018). Rethinking the critical period for language: new insights into an old question from American sign language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Online First. 21 (5): 886–905.
  50. McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second Language Acquisition in Childhood: Volume 1. Preschool Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  51. Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Reexamining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  52. Montrul, S. (2010). How similar are L2 learners and heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics 31: 167–207.
  53. Montrul, S. (2013). How native are heritage speakers? A look at gender agreement in Spanish. The Heritage Language Journal 10 (2): 15–39.
  54. Montrul, S. (2016). The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Montrul, S. and Bowles, M. (2010). Is grammar instruction beneficial for heritage language learners? Dative case marking in Spanish. The Heritage Language Journal 7: 47–73.
  56. Montrul, S. and Bowles, M. (2017). Instructed heritage language acquisition. In: The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (eds. S. Loewen and M. Saito), 488–502. New York: Routledge.
  57. Montrul, S. and Perpiñán, S. (2011). Assessing differences and similarities between instructed L2 learners and heritage language learners in their knowledge of Spanish tense‐aspect and mood (TAM) morphology. The Heritage Language Journal 8 (1): 90–133.
  58. Montrul, S., Foote, R., and Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: the effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning 58 (3): 503–553.
  59. Montrul, S., De La Fuente, I., Davidson, J., and Foote, R. (2013). The role of experience in the acquisition and production of diminutives and gender in Spanish: evidence from L2 learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research 29 (1): 87–118.
  60. Montrul, S., Davidson, J., De La Fuente, I., and Foote, R. (2014). Early language experience facilitates gender agreement processing in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17 (1): 118–138.
  61. Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning 50: 417–528.
  62. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London, UK: Hodder Education.
  63. Pearson, B., Fernandez, S., Lewedeg, V., and Oller, D. (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics 18 (1): 41–58.
  64. Perdue, C. (1993). Adult Language Acquisition: The Results. European Science Foundation.
  65. Peterson, M. (2012). Learner interaction in a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game (MMORPG): A sociocultural discourse analysis. ReCALL 24: 361–380.
  66. Peterson, M. (2013). Computer Games and Language Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  67. Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning 33: 465–497.
  68. Polat, B. and Kim, Y. (2014). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: a longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics 35 (2): 184–207.
  69. Polinsky, M. and Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: in the “wild” and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 368–395.
  70. Potowski, K., Jegerski, J., and Morgan‐Short, K. (2009). The effects of instruction on linguistic development in Spanish heritage language speakers. Language Learning 59: 537–579.
  71. Rothman, J. and Treffers‐Daller, J. (2014). A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too! Applied Linguistics 35 (1): 93–98.
  72. Ryu, D. (2013). Play to learn, learn to play: language learning through gaming culture. ReCALL25 (2): 286–301. Cambridge University Press.
  73. Sadler, R. (2012). Virtual Worlds for Language Learning: From Theory to Practice. New York: Peter Lang.
  74. Schmidt, R. (1984). The strengths and limitations of acquisition: a case study of an untutored language learner. Language, Learning, and Communication 3: 1–16.
  75. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In: Cognition and Second Language Instruction (ed. P. Robinson), 3–33. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  76. Schumann, J. (1978). The Pidginisation Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House.
  77. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209–231.
  78. Sharwood Smith, M. and Truscott, J. (2014). The Multilingual Mind: A Modular Processing Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  79. Siegel, J. (2003). Social context. In: The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (eds. C. Doughty and M. Long), 178–223. Oxford: Blackwell.
  80. Silva‐Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual Language Acquisition: Spanish and English in the First Six Years. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  81. Sohn, H. (2001). The Korean Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  82. Sundqvist, P. and Sylvén, L. (2014). Language‐related computer use: focus on young L2 English learners in Sweden. Recall 26 (1): 3–20.
  83. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Input in Second Language Acquisition (eds. S. Gass and C. Madden), 233–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  84. Swain, M. (1989). Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal 6: 68–83.
  85. Thorne, S., Black, R., and Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal 93: 802–821.
  86. Torres, J. R. (2013). Heritage and second language learners of Spanish: The roles of task complexity and inhibitory control. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
  87. Westergaard, M. and Bentzen, K. (2007). The (non‐)effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses. In: Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition. Defining The Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept (eds. Gülzow and N. Gagarina), 271–306. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
  88. Wigham, C. and Chanier, T. (2015). Interactions between text chat and audio modalities for L2 communication and feedback in the synthetic world second life. Computer Assisted Language Learning 28: 240–283.
  89. Zaretsky, E. and Bar‐Shalom, E. (2010). Does reading in shallow L1 orthography slow attrition of language‐specific morphological structures? Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 24: 401–415.
  90. Zhao, Y. and Lai, C. (2009). MMORPGS and foreign language in education. In: Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (ed. R. Ferdig), 402–421. New York, NY: IDEA Group.
  91. Zyzik, E. (2016). Towards a prototype model of the heritage language learner: understanding strengths and needs. In: Innovative Approaches to Heritage Language Teaching (eds. M. Fairclough and S. Beaudrie), 19–38. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.147.89.85