Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers

Abstract

This paper integrates research on child simultaneous bilingual acquisition more directly into the heritage language acquisition literature. The child simultaneous bilingual literature mostly focuses on development in childhood, whereas heritage speakers are often tested at an endstate in adulthood. However, insights from child simultaneous bilingual acquisition must be considered in heritage language acquisition theorizing precisely because many heritage speakers demonstrate the adult outcomes of child simultaneous bilingual acquisition. Data from child simultaneous bilingual acquisition raises serious questions for the construct of incomplete acquisition, a term broadly used in heritage language acquisition studies to describe almost any difference heritage speakers display from baseline controls (usually monolinguals). We offer an epistemological discussion related to incomplete acquisition, highlighting the descriptive and theoretical inaccuracy of the term. We focus our discussion on two of several possible causal factors that contribute to variable competence outcomes in adult heritage speakers: input and formal instruction in the heritage language. We conclude by offering alternative terminology for heritage speaker outcomes.

Differences in use without deficiencies in competence: passives in the Turkish and German of Turkish heritage speakers in Germany

“…More recent work has challenged this assumption (e.g., Kupisch 2013; Kupisch and Rothman 2016;Pascual y Cabo 2013; Pascual y Cabo and Rothman 2012; Pires and Rothman 2009;Putnam and Sánchez 2013;Rothman 2007;Scontras, Fuchs and Polinsky 2015). These newer approaches argue that differential ultimate attainment in the HL is not a case of incomplete acquisition, but rather reflects alternative developmental paths that arise because of the variation HSs confront related to key factors that contribute to monolingual conformity.…”

“…Although it is not always the case that heritage speaker (HS) bilinguals differ from monolinguals of comparative ages (see, e.g., Kupisch and Rothman 2016), HS deviation from monolingual performances on experimental tasks-potentially representing bona fide differences in mental grammars-is not uncommon (see, e.g., Montrul 2008Montrul , 2016. It is important to define what we mean by HSs from the beginning.…”

“…The polar ends of the continuum are well represented; we know much about HS children from the fields of child simultaneous bilingualism and child L2 acquisition (since HS children are one or the other) and about adult HS grammatical outcomes as described by the overwhelming majority of studies for the past two decades. Since many child bilingual studies have provided evidence in favour of monolinguallike acquisition paths (see De Houwer 1995;Haznedar 2013;Meisel 2004but Meisel 2011 for an overview of 2L1 acquisition) despite some developmental delays, and adult HS studies most typically show significant endstate differences (see Benmamoun, Montrul and Polinsky 2013;Montrul 2016), Kupisch and Rothman (2016) are well positioned to argue that an important focus for HS studies moving forward must include the determination of exactly what is happening between late childhood and early adulthood. This age group is of crucial importance since this undetailed timeframe of HL development is precisely when exposure to both languages under a variety of conditions determines the extent to which HSs will become (im)balanced as regards their competence in the languages they speak as adults.…”

“…However, documenting a crucial timeframe is missing in the HS literature. As independently pointed out by Allberse and Hulk (2016) as well as Kupisch and Rothman (2016), we need to know what happens to HSs developmentally between the ages of young childhood (ages 2-9) and early adulthood (age 18 onwards). The polar ends of the continuum are well represented; we know much about HS children from the fields of child simultaneous bilingualism and child L2 acquisition (since HS children are one or the other) and about adult HS grammatical outcomes as described by the overwhelming majority of studies for the past two decades.…”

“…Rothman (2007), Pires and Rothman (2009) and Montrul and Sánchez Walker (2013) each investigate the role that qualitative differences in the input to which HS versus monolingual children are exposed (e.g., as a consequence of grammatical change/L1 attrition effects in the input) might better explain the path and ultimate attainment of particular grammatical properties. Kupisch and colleagues (see Kupisch and Rothman, 2016, for a review of studies) have compared HSs who have had the HS as a medium of instruction at school to those who have not. This work convincingly shows that HS differences effectively disappear when input qualities and quantities are comparable.…”