Reconceptualizing the HERITAGE LEARNER

In order to systematically discuss what it means to reconceptualize the phenomenon of

HERITAGE LEARNER within a framework of multilingual subjectivity, I will structure this section into two parts. In the first, I look at implications of viewing the HERITAGE LEARNER through the

lens of subjectivity at a general level. Moving on to look at implications of viewing heritage learners as multilingual subjects specifically, I discuss how subject-centred and dynamic models of multilingualism can extend our understanding of the phenomenon.

4.1.1 Subjectivity, positioning, discourse and the HERITAGE LANGUAGE LEARNER

In chapter 3, I introduced subjectivity as a dynamic conception of the self that focuses on the ways in which our sense of self and our perceived possibilities to act are continuously shaped as we position ourselves and are positioned by others through language. I outlined how the notion emphasizes the importance of discourses as frames of reference in light of which people interpret their experience. I explained that these frames of reference are not seen as deterministic – people are not ‘doomed,’ once and for all, to be what a certain discourse suggests. Discourses do not dictate positionings and subjectivity, but offer people certain ways of seeing themselves and others. I discussed how, as such, the notion of subjectivity marks peoples’ potential to exercise their agency as social beings. As utilizers of discourses, they can relativize or subvert a particular frame of interpretation by drawing on counter-discourses, or they can challenge the relevance of a specific discourse in a particular encounter. In short, from

this view, being a person entails continuously (re)defining oneself through acts of discursive positioning in particular social contexts and interpersonal encounters.

Looking at the phenomenon of HERITAGE LEARNER from this perspective has a number of implications. First, it expands the realm of what is relevant to examining the HERITAGE LEARNER in relation to language. From this perspective, heritage learners’ sense of self, their

perceived possibilities and aspirations as language users, as well as their experiences and behaviours as language learners do not merely depend on how well they master the heritage language (recall the half-full/empty glass) and on their ties to the heritage culture (recall the roots metaphor). How they experience themselves and are perceived by others, and to what extent they can use language towards intended purposes in a specific situation, is not merely shaped by their control of the heritage language as a system or their knowledge of cultural traditions. A subjectivity-based perspective rather forefronts how their sense of self and the way they relate to others depends on societal discourses, hence a very general implication is to pay attention to how their subjectivities are shaped, at the very least, through discourses surrounding heritage, language, and learning. New questions arise: What discourses are relevant to heritage learners’ experiences as speakers and language students in different environments they traverse? How do specific frames of reference shape individuals’ (perceived) possibilities to act in different contexts of language use? How do specific referential frames relate to their aspirations with the ‘heritage’ language?

Secondly and relatedly, the shift from viewing heritage learners as users of the heritage language system to viewing them as subjects, not only inscribed in, but also as utilizers of discourse, implies an agentive view on the HERITAGE LEARNER, echoing Hornberger and

heritage learners are constructed vis-à-vis particular discourses, but also how they draw on and act on specific discourses with which they are confronted or which they can make relevant in particular discursive environments in ways that serve their immediate purposes (see Doerr & Lee, 2013). In other words, the question arises how heritage learners position themselves vis-à- vis particular frames of reference, and with what effects (Makoni, 2018; Doerr & Lee, 2013; Kang, 2013; Abdi, 2011; Park, 2011; Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Jeon, 2010; He, 2006). One might consider, for instance, the native speaker ideal, given its central role in shaping how language users perceive and evaluate each other (see chapter 3). How do individual heritage learners utilize, challenge, or subvert the native speaker ideal? How do they deal with or perhaps also take advantage of being positioned as incomplete speakers of what is constructed as their own language in different situations?

Third, the notion that subjectivity emerges biographically from ongoing acts of positioning in the different contexts that we navigate does not only call for a closer examination of discourses vis-à-vis which heritage learners’ subjectivities are constructed. It also calls for a more sophisticated understanding of the different social spaces of interaction within which the heritage language is potentially relevant to the individual, and how respective language resources are made relevant in distinct spaces of interaction. I will further elaborate on this point in the two following sections that discuss the implications of viewing heritage learner subjectivity in light of dynamic, subject-centred models of multilingualism.

4.1.2 Reconceptualizing heritage learners as multilingual subjects

Chapter 3 discussed how dynamic models of multilingualism bring into focus that the language repertoire develops over time from individuals’ participation in multiple, changing spaces of

social activity. I explained how these models highlight the complexity of such spaces, especially in light of developments such as increased mobility, migration, and deterritorialized communication through digital media and mobile technologies. I explained how dynamic models differ from system-based, additive views of multilingualism in that they bring into focus what it means to experience the world through multiple symbolic lenses simultaneously, and how from this perspective, the notion that multilinguals transport, transform and mediate meanings across different linguistic and cultural environments is core to multilingual experience.

Looking at the HERITAGE LEARNER through this lens sheds light on aspects that have been neglected in traditional constructions of the phenomenon, but that are vital to heritage learners’ subjectivities, as I will argue. In the following, I will look at some of these aspects, beginning with implications of re-examining the phenomenon in light of dynamic multilingualism and the extended notion of language repertoire outlined in chapter 3.

4.1.2.1 Heritage learners as multilingual subjects I: From system-based to dynamic, subject-

centred views. If we consider ‘the heritage language’ part of a repertoire of mobile semiotic

resources, our attention shifts to the ways in which heritage learners are able, and in fact compelled to compare, transport and mediate ways of meaning making within and across the contexts they navigate. In fact, a radically dynamic view implies that comparison, translation, mediation, etc. are always taking place in the language user’s mind and practices. The perspective suggests that people with complex language repertoires are always engaged in probing, relating, re-interpreting, reconciling, and mediating alternative ways of organizing social practice and intersubjectivity through language and other symbolic forms. They do not

automatically lean back and simply ‘function according to pre-existing linguistic and cultural programming,’ so to speak, as soon as they are in a context where they know common customs and conventions or where they can safely assume that they know what is considered to be socially accepted. From this perspective, heritage learners are not merely (re)acquiring a ‘language of the home.’ They must be seen as constantly engaged in finding ways of being at home in translingual practice in a whole range of contexts, including discursive environments that foreground tradition and loyalty with a perceived community, as well as in environments that foreground diversity, change, internationalism, and so on.

Accordingly, and in line with the developments occurring across the broader area of Applied Linguistics that I outlined in the previous chapter, some scholars have marked the need to reframe heritage language education within a ‘multilingual perspective.’ Holguín Mendoza (2018) points to the need for heritage language curricula that “correspond to practices in the existing translingual communities” (p. 71). Toribio and Durán (2018) call to include the study and exercise of bilingual practices as a component in heritage language pedagogies. Drawing on García’s (2009) work, Gounari (2014) advocates for approaching heritage learners through a translanguaging framework, stressing that “’[h]eritage’ language must come alive in the multiple translanguaging practices of bilingual and multilingual students and their communities.” (p. 266). She elaborates:

‘[H]eritage language’ [...] must be reinvented to include a more fluid understanding of bilingualism/multilingualism, one that includes not just home languages and translanguaging but also the ways in which this translanguaging breaks the continuity and tradition of existing cultural norms. (p. 266)

In line with this, Scarino (2014b) argues for a need to conceptualize the teaching and learning of heritage languages “within a multilingual perspective that reflects and builds upon the learners’ language practices as they live in diversity” (p. 84). She insists that heritage language

education must assist learners in becoming “linguistic and cultural mediators, moving between […] linguistic and cultural systems, developing understanding and explaining different perspectives, reactions and responses to themselves and others” (p. 77). Similarly, Leeman und Serafini (2016) propose that instead of imposing one particular variety, approaches to heritage language teaching should “seek to prepare students to understand variation and to interact with speakers of familiar and unfamiliar varieties and styles […]” (p. 65).

It is worth noting that while these calls generally resemble the arguments that have been evolving across SLA, the endeavour of taking the ‘multilingual turn’ in heritage language education is further complicated by the impact of heritage-related discourses that promote linguistic purity and unity, for instance the idea that heritage communities must be “protected by hallowed and conscious sociocultural boundaries: values, rituals, traditions, belief-systems and a unifying […] vision of being an ‘Xman-via-Xish’, i.e. of using the traditional own- ethnicity-associated language for purposes of ethnic self-definition and association” (Fishman, 1991, p. 5). The idea that the ‘survival’ of heritage languages is threatened by the ‘dominance’ of English continues to be much alive, further supporting the view that heritage languages must be ‘kept pure’ and that ‘contamination’ must be avoided. In short, visions of dynamic multilingualism compete with heritage-related discourses that provide an ideal climate for the monolingual paradigm to thrive.

Another aspect that comes into focus when viewing the HERITAGE LEARNER through the

lens of multilingual subjectivity concerns the experiential dimension of language repertoire. The understanding of multilingualism-as-lived-experience introduced in chapter 3 highlights the affective dimension of linguistic repertoire. More specifically, the outline established that ways of speaking in specific contexts are not only always associated with feelings, but that

these sensations are bound to discourses that impact which norms and ideas shape individuals’ experience of living with language(s). This aspect allows us to think about affective experiences that have been associated with heritage learners in an extended way. As elaborated in chapter 2, the literature on heritage learners highlights a strongly-felt need to help them overcome feelings of insecurity. To reiterate, two ideas have prevailed: the idea that feelings of insecurity and “language shyness” (Krashen, 1998) should be countered by fostering knowledge of and pride in what is portrayed as students’ ‘heritage’ identity and culture on the one hand, and the idea that teaching the more prestigious standard variety, the correct use of formal registers etc. will enhance students’ self-confidence as users of the heritage language on the other. While much could be said about these ideas, I will limit the discussion to one aspect only, for the sake of staying focused: Implicit in these ideas is that the described negative feelings (insecurity, lack of self-confidence, etc.) largely result from not being a ‘full’ native speaker of the heritage language or of its most prestigious variety; not being a ‘full’ member of ‘the’ heritage community (and to some extent, from not being a ‘normal’ member of the ‘dominant’ society). The considerations outlined in chapter 3 allow for a more differentiated view of affective experience. It is not a direct result of an assumedly objective status quo, but rather mediated by discourses. Instead of discussing affective experience in terms of lack and pride of something the HERITAGE LEARNER does or does not have, we can ask and empirically investigate how individual learners relate their affective experiences to particular acts of positioning and of being positioned with respect to specific discourses.

Having addressed what comes into view when system-based perspectives on heritage learners’ language repertoires are replaced by dynamic and subject-centered models of

multilingualism, I will now discuss the implications concerning the conceptualization of linguistic and cultural spaces that heritage learners navigate.

4.1.2.2 Heritage learners as multilingual subjects II: From ancestral ties to lived experience.

Conceptualizing heritage learners as multilingual subjects does not only shed new light on how heritage learners perceive and act on the world through language within and across linguistic and cultural spaces. It also has implications for how these spaces are conceived. Traditionally, the HERITAGE LEARNER has been positioned within two kinds of contexts, both of which have been treated as though they were purely monolingual and clearly definable: ‘heritage’ contexts on the one hand – the family, community, country of origin, etc. – and ‘mainstream society’ on the other. Typically, the heritage language has been considered seriously relevant only to the former. However, if the semiotic resources in heritage learners’ repertoires are seen as mobile, we cannot assume that the only spaces in which the heritage language shapes the experiences and actions of an individual learner, are clearly defined spaces of monolingual heritage language use. At a very general level, this raises the question how heritage learners themselves define and construct different interactional spaces and discursive environments in which the heritage language plays a role, including larger and smaller groups, as well as relationships with single others; public and more intimate spaces; spaces of varying linguistic diversity, and so on. In short, the focus shifts from rooted identity in linguistically pure and bounded spaces to the lived experiences of heritage learners and to how the heritage language shapes who they can be, how they relate to others, or how they perceive the world around them in particular encounters. This would compel us to examine not only how heritage learners position themselves vis-à-vis what is constructed as their heritage language and culture, but to pay

attention to particular relationships and interactions that heritage learners make relevant to their sense of self in connection with language and culture – interactions, in which people with similar or divergent language biographies may come together.

The outlined considerations are in line with and informed by recent proposals that seek to promote the idea that heritage learners should be defined less by fixed ties to a heritage language and culture rather than through “the ways in which they shape their agency as they mediate ‘heritage’ in the ‘here and now’ […]” (Gounari, 2014, pp. 260-261; see also Makoni, 2018; Wong & Xiao, 2010; He, 2006). However, how heritage learners construct the ‘heres and nows’ in which the heritage language or background is relevant to their lives has not been extensively addressed, even in the body of research that aims to challenge traditional perspectives on heritage learners’ identities.

Another striking point regarding the ‘contexts’ that have been made relevant to heritage learners’ positionality concerns how they are often distinguished from what is referred to as ‘mainstream society,’ both within traditional and critical perspectives on heritage language education. Implicit in this construction of HERITAGE LEARNER is that variation among people is

conceptualized in terms of the relation between subordinate groups to a dominant norm. I would argue that a paradigm shift in the interest of a ‘multilingual turn’ would focus on promoting variation itself as the norm. Put differently, focusing on the learner as a multilingual rather than a ‘heritage’ person promotes the view that it is normal to ‘have a heritage language’ as a member of what we then can picture as an inclusive society. I will return to this point in the next section.

To synthesize, from the view point of subject-centred, dynamic multilingualism, the horizon of questions with which we can approach the phenomenon of HERITAGE LEARNER is broadened. In particular, if we accept that heritage learners’ language repertoires are ‘dynamic,’ that the spaces they navigate are linguistically complex rather than ‘pure,’ and if we see them as mediators of meaning rather than users of a heritage language system, the focus is no longer exclusively on ‘how full the glass is’ – i.e. how close heritage learners fall to the native speaker ideal, or how much they know about what is considered ‘their’ culture. A whole set of questions emerges: How does the heritage language become relevant to the individual’s sense of self, perceived possibilities, and behaviours

• in distinct and idiosyncratic ways that go beyond its conventional usage? • in concert with other languages?

• in encounters with people who have diverse language biographies?

• in spaces where nobody else is familiar with the heritage language, where some people are and others are not, or where everyone is, but based on very different trajectories and environments of acquiring ‘the’ language?

• in encounters in which it is not clear how others have been socialized?

• in diverse social constellations, including groups of varying size, as well as relationships with specific others such as friends?

• across a range of spaces dominated by distinct political interests and societal discourses surrounding language and culture (such as different institutions)?

• in interactions in public spaces, as well as in environments that may shape the most intimate relationships, such as with parents, partners, offspring?

• …

It is by exploring questions such as these that we can gain an understanding of how learning and living with a ‘heritage’ language or background figures into the broader experience of being multilingual, and so derive a more differentiated conceptualization of HERITAGE LEARNER.

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