The present study: Multilinguals’ perspectives on the experience of learning and living with

In light of the theoretical framework and the questions outlined, the task of more explicitly and systematically reconceptualizing the notion of HERITAGE LEARNER requires shifts at the theoretical-conceptual level as well as at the level of empirical enquiry.

At the theoretical-conceptual level, it is essential to, first of all, recognize that the concept of HERITAGE LEARNER is rooted in a monolingual paradigm and to gain a profound

understanding of the implications of this point. It is essential to grasp how the paradigm manifests itself in how people look at, speak about, research, address, and teach heritage learners. The theoretical-conceptual considerations outlined in chapters 2 – 4 served to establish a fine-grained understanding of this point. In particular, using multilingual

subjectivity as a theoretical lens has allowed us to generate an alternative view on heritage

learners’ language repertoires and the relation between language and the self, against the backdrop of which we can identify and defamiliarize the taken-for-granted views that cast a monolingual monocentric perspective on heritage learners’ subjectivities. For instance, before looking through the lens, it was already clear that contrastive research designs and the continuum-based proficiency models outlined in chapter 2 take the heritage language system as a key unit of analysis, but it is only in light of the dynamic perspectives on language and the self introduced in chapter 3 that we could develop a closer idea of what is left out or rendered invisible in traditional perspectives – e.g., how language users actively position themselves through language, how they draw on their entire repertoire flexibly as they relate to others and give meaning to themselves, and so on. In short, the theoretical lens of multilingual subjectivity has a) allowed us to develop a fine-grained view of the ways in which common understandings

relate to the monolingual paradigm, and b) it has allowed us to derive a new conception of

HERITAGE LEARNER as explicated in 4.1.

Based on these understandings at the conceptual level, the second step towards reframing heritage learners as multilingual subjects entails empirically investigating the phenomenon in new ways. Specifically, empirical studies are needed that explicitly approach heritage learners as multilingual subjects rather than seeing them merely as people with a connection to a ‘heritage’ culture and a specific level of heritage language proficiency on a one-dimensional continuum. In order to reframe heritage language education within a (dynamic) multilingual perspective, it is crucial to gain insight into ways in which students’ positionality as multilingual speakers affects what is relevant to them in their use and investment in ‘heritage’ languages – how it impacts their (perceived) possibilities, desires, and (how they deal with and experience) challenges that relate to living with a ‘heritage’ language as multilinguals. Conversely, it is vital to understand how processes of heritage language education potentially figure into students’ development and sense of self as multilingual speakers.

How heritage learners conceive of their multilingual subjectivities in relation with processes of language learning, has not been systematically analyzed through empirical enquiry. The present study sets out to investigate this underexplored terrain. I explore how individual participants’ constructions of what it means to be multilingual relate to their constructions of acquiring and learning German as a ‘heritage’ language in Canada, guided by the following considerations.

Rather than starting from the point that ‘mastery of the heritage language’ and ‘belonging to a heritage culture’ (local or abroad) are the single most important dimensions to

heritage learners’ sense of self, their language use, and their investment in the heritage language, I approach participants in this study more openly: What themes and discourses do

they make relevant to different realms of their experience of living and learning with German

as a ‘heritage’ language in Canada? Where and when and how has German or having a ‘German background’ played a role in their lives? In what kinds of social constellations? What meanings – memories, feelings, ambitions, hopes, fears, expectations, and so on – do individual participants associate with German or having a German background?

While approaching participants openly in the described sense, I yet approach them with a specific focus – as multilingual language users – seeking insight into dimensions of multilingual experience that remain invisible within the traditional monolingual, monocentric framework. Put differently, one could say that I set out to contextualize the experience of learning a ‘heritage’ language in a new way, namely, explicitly situating and examining it in the broader context ‘being multilingual’ rather than against the backdrop of ‘being native’ or being a ‘traditional’ language learner.

In so doing, I will aim to provide a subject-centred view that illuminates the experiential, affective dimensions of participants’ experiences and that pays attention to aspects associated with ‘dynamic’ views on multilingualism, such as specific challenges and thrills that they associate with experiencing the world through a multilingual lens.

Furthermore, drawing on the notion of subjectivity (Weedon, 1997, Kramsch 2009), I attend to the ways in which participants differentially position themselves vis-à-vis language- related discourses, as well as how they differ with respect to marking their awareness of such discourses and perceived effects – an aspect that has thus far not received much attention. In particular, I will consider how participants’ positionings stand in relation to the monolingual

paradigm, for instance how their constructions are based on, address, and perpetuate the views constituting the paradigm on the one hand, and how they resonate with dynamic framings of multilingual experience on the other.

Moreover, based on the considerations in 4.1, my aim is to provide a perspective that de-emphasizes how heritage learners differ from ‘mainstream’ society. In placing multilingual subjectivity at the centre, I envision heritage learners within an inclusive framework of diversity. From this perspective, group identities are still considered potentially important to participants’ sense of self. However, I approach participants based on the understanding that group identity is not the only point of reference in people’s self-constructions, and for some, perhaps not even among the most important ones. Rather than assuming up-front that group identities are particularly relevant to heritage learners’ sense of who they are in relation with language(s) and culture(s), I explore whether, to what extent, and how individual participants use presumed group identities as reference points, as well as what other aspects, if any, they make relevant to their self-constructions beyond the group-level. In particular, I will pay attention to the ways in which they may refer to small-scale groups such as family cultures, as well as singular intersubjective relationships.

In examining participants’ self-constructions in the light of experience-based and dynamic models of multilingualism, my objective is not only to illuminate previously neglected dimensions of heritage learners’ subjectivities. My aim is also to complement the development of an ever-more precise image of the heritage learner prototype (Zyzik, 2016) by contributing to a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes (heritage) learner diversity and to consider implications for heritage language teaching and learning. I concur with Parra (2016b) that it is important to avoid a view that “assumes commonalities to be stronger than

the differences. By not paying attention to individual differences, we run the risk of disregarding the sometimes subtle, but nevertheless important, differences among our students” (p. 188).

Before I articulate the research questions that will guide my process of investigation, a word on how I define heritage learners for the sake of empirical inquiry is in order. Given my aim to problematize the notion and gain a nuanced perspective into the complexity of the phenomenon, the task of providing an adequate working definition is tricky. Acknowledging that the clarity we gain through definitions comes with the price of simplification, and in awareness that I am rather ‘operationalizing’ than identifying what constitutes the phenomenon, I will treat heritage learners as developing multilinguals whose family history relates to German language,17 _{or who have grown up speaking and/or hearing German in their} daily lives. Like those who follow Hornberger and Wang (2008), I place importance on heritage learners’ agency in the shaping of their subjectivities. However, rather than viewing them as individuals who exert their agency in determining if they are heritage learners of German, as Hornberger and Wang phrase it, my perspective on their agency is informed by Kramsch’s (2009) understanding of subjectivity: As users and creators of symbolic forms, heritage learners are social agents whose subjectivity arises from the ways in which they position themselves and how they are positioned within discourses related to language, heritage, culture, and learning.

On this basis, and in light of the considerations put forth in this chapter, I investigate how adults from German-speaking families in anglophone Canada construct their sense of self

as multilingual speakers in relation to narrated processes of learning German, guided by the following questions:

• How do individual participants construct their sense of self in relation to German, to (German) culture(s), and to heritage-related discourses?

• How do they differentially construct their experiences of learning German in institutional settings and beyond, as well as their positionalities as learners?

• How do individual participants construct their experience of being multilingual?

• How do participants’ self-constructions, their accounts of learning German, and of being multilingual relate to each other in their narratives?