For many households, especially those that are bilingual. Language acts as the bridge that leads us to the essence of who we are and to the fundamental core of our heritage. Montrul, a voice in the domain of heritage language, depicts to us the current issues in the acquisition of heritage languages. She demonstrates in the article, with great determination, the many strengths and the many problems, that surround this topic in terms of linguistic and grammatical knowledge while also delving into the conditions to which they are or are not acquired and placing them within the different linguistic and cognitive theories. While I will praise Montrul’s article on her extensive knowledge of the current issues this topic and as a zealous researcher, educating the thousands on this matter, I found there were certain issues within the article that I could not allow myself to ignore. Overall the article feels quite generic without any feeling of a thorough attempt made towards an in-depth analysis of heritage language speakers. Montrul introduces her article with the explanation of heritage language learners in the case of immigrants. Offering a background of what these heritage language learners do to fill their need for affirmation of their cultural identity and the new thought processes that have emerged as they continue to develop their presence within society. Montrul also gave an outline as to what the rest of the article would entail, alluding to three aspects, which I felt was valuable as it almost shaped the progression of the article in a clear and concise manner.
However, through the progression of the essay, Montrul’s message on the current issues surrounding heritage language speakers is somewhat lost. The process in which Montrul attempted to give a greater foundation of the topic I felt, was lacking in many ways for example, in the scope of the definition, in history and while she expanded on each of the linguistic systems there seemed to be a lack of fluency without any true link between paragraphs. It felt almost disjointed at times which contributed to the overall vague and dubious feeling of concepts that were contrived to be seemingly complex.
Montrul firstly acknowledges that the study of heritage languages has grown in popularity and explains how these people are members of a linguistic minority who acquired their home language and their majority language throughout their childhood. She elaborates further, developing on the point of acquiring two languages, as heritage language speakers accomplish near native speaker standards and a partial command of their family language, shy of their parents and of peers who were reared in their home countries. This seems like a challenging feat to me which I feel is not fully considered by Montrul and in not elaborating on the achievement of reaching such standards, it left the beginning of her essay quite hollow, as there was very little development of ideas. Montrul should have explored Harley’s (2014) discussion of bilingualism where he re-emphasises Krashen’s discoveries in his 1982 study, where individuals are far more likely to master a knowledge of a second language, when they are completely immersed in it, promoting unconscious use of grammatical rules (Harley, 2014). This mirrors the way in which children are exposed to language (Harley, 2014). Through the inclusion of this reference Montrul would have had a more concrete argument as it is evidence that she could have used to confirm her statement. However, these people are not fully immersed in their family language yet are able to acquire the properties which are existing in their input (Flores, 2015). She mentions that these people go to classes that were targeted initially for L2 learners and that they can also enroll in different establishments that would focus on the cultural and linguistic ties of heritage languages. However, while she recognized that there was a shortage of availability of education in the heritage languages, she failed to expand on this point which I feel is vital information that she is missing for a concrete argument. She should have included, that the rise in presence of these heritage language speakers in language classes are causing universities difficulties accommodating these people at the proper level for their language learning needs (Dones-Herrera, 2015). There are universities that are unable to offer language programs to Heritage language speakers as a result of economic reasons and that there are difficulties when it comes to tailoring to specialized heritage language learner needs in regular class (Dones-Herrera, 2015).
If a certain element of language is not apparent as a result of the parents not producing it or because the heritage language speaker does not have the opportunity to use a range of the language registers, this will result in the speaker probably failing to acquire this specific aspect of their language (Flores, 2015). And so, instead of explaining the abnormalities within the linguistic systems, Montrul’s attention should have been more focused on the input of the heritage language speaker and especially on the components that gives rise to limitations. Rather than mentioning briefly that a lack of input is the cause of these abnormalities, I feel that Montrul should have expanded on this point. Excluding this expanded piece of information was a missed opportunity for Montrul as it could have led to a more cohesive article.
We understand that Montrul feels as though there is a lack of education available to heritage language speakers and explains that their proficiency and literacy in their family language varies considerably. This is an interesting point; however, while it may have some impact on heritage language speakers not receiving the preferred level of input, it has been disputed by many authors that heritage language speakers are in fact advanced bilingual speakers because they are exposed to particular input (Flores, 2015). Mackey (2005) for example, describes that for learning to occur there must be a conscious effort made regarding linguistic form in the target language input. This means that while a child may disregard an adult’s correction on their grammar, syntax, or other areas of speech they will still learn their native heritage language and the majority language with speed and accuracy (Mackey, 2005). If the heritage language child has sufficient linguistic exposure to enable the development of productive language skills, it is utterly absurd to presume that limitations of biology will hinder the full acquisition of the target linguistic system (Flores, 2015). As the heritage language speaker continues to use a structure in a target like way in a certain context that suggests that the structure has been acquired (Flores, 2015). Most studies, including Montrul in this article has proved that heritage language speakers tend to produce both target like and abnormal target manners.
Montrul defined this deviant competency as an outcome of incomplete grammar. However, it can be argued that the heritage language speaker is a bilingual speaker, like Montrul suggested within the article, but also has native like qualities to completely acquire the heritage language grammar (Flores, 2015). Genessee (2001) described the language faculty in a human being as well equipped to learn two or more languages at the same time yet it’s a renowned concept that a child who is bilingual needs sufficient exposure to a language. She gave an in-depth analysis of the different linguistic systems demonstrating the abnormalities that heritage language speakers produce. However, I will debate using different authors, who do not support this way of thinking, that a heritage language is somewhat an interrupted acquisition process. Montrul may believe that for most heritage speakers the home language is the weaker language, however, the proficiency in my view, cannot be described as an outcome of deficit or an incomplete acquisition process but instead, an instance of native language development (Flores, 2015).
Another factor that Montrul failed to address within the article was the impact of migration on heritage language speakers especially with regard to Europe (Flores, 2015). In Europe, there is a long tradition of migration and in countries within the EU there are citizens with a background of migration as fourth generation citizens (Flores, 2015). This insinuates a geographical, political, and generally a cultural closeness which is often lacking in immigration flows to the US (Flores, 2015). This is crucial as it demonstrates that the heritage language speakers within European communities exhibit more uniform particularly in the section of heritage language proficiency (Flores, 2015). Why Montrul would omit the impact that a history of migration would have on a heritage language is concerning, as it would have supplied the reader with a broader scope of the influencing factors on heritage language and informed the reader of the impact that migration had on their need to fulfil their heritage and presence within society. Not only this but it serves as a more controlled factor because of the heritage language speakers sharing a joint sociolinguistic context.
Montrul contrasts the differences between first, second and heritage language acquisition. However, while this may have been an article about heritage language acquisition there seemed to be a far heavier focus on the how first and second language acquisition learners fair in comparison to heritage language speakers. Montrul’s primary focus seemed to stem from the idea that the transfer from the prevailing language could prevent complete acquisition of the heritage language. However, most studies disagree with Montrul’s hypothesis as the heritage language speaker’s performance does not include the complete replacement of a heritage language structure by competing elements of the dominant language. There seemed to be a reluctance to dwell on the majority’s opinion in the article which seemed to me to show quite a biased view on how heritage language speakers acquire their languages. Heritage language speakers are generally able to carry out these elements in the heritage language but frequently overuse grammatical structures that may coincide with the properties of the majority language.
The age of acquisition and the role of family on proficiency of heritage language acquisition is incredibly important (Zhang, Dennis & Houseman, 2018). She discussed that the usual pattern of acquisition is for the older siblings to have a stronger proficiency of the home language in comparison to the younger children in the family. However, a study carried out by Flores (2015), discovered that older heritage speakers are better at clitic pattern placement that younger speakers. She further emphasizes this point by relating it back to the effect of age in L1 attrition. However, this contradicts Montrul in her idea that language attrition or incomplete acquisition may be an innate characteristic of heritage language development, especially in the area Flores (2015). While I am pleased that she acknowledges the importance of age and timing, I am quite shocked her understanding is that the beginning of second language acquisition coincides with the onset of the first language loss. However, if Montrul had researched this point further she would have learned that the input change might not always cause the onset of the loss of language but rather extralinguistic factors such as reduced contact with formal language registers that seem to occur (Zhang, Dennis & Houseman, 2018). This would have made the article more cohesive and insightful.
As we progress through the channels of Montrul’s article, we become aware of her shortfalls of information. However, her explanation of perspective theories is quite applicable and coherent. Montrul illustrates to the reader of three concepts that she believes, combined is what leads to a heritage language speaker towards proficiency. While the idea of applying these concepts were good in theory, unfortunately, that is all it could be- good in theory. This is because the method in which Montrul applied them in practice for me, was disappointing and unsatisfactoy. Throughout her discussion of the three theoretical perspectives, I noticed that she did not directly address how the theories could have impacted on heritage languages alone. She went into considerable detail as to how it affected L1 and L2 language acquisition but did not develop or include heritage language acquisition apart from the end where a quick summation was given, to say that the three approaches were suitable to extend to heritage language acquisition. She did this without developing on why that may be the case for specifically heritage languages.