Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved.

Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 1 of 16

1
Toward a Prototype Model of the Heritage
Language Learner

Understanding Strengths and Needs

EVE ZYZIK
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ

The difficulty of defining and characterizing the heritage speaker has been duly acknowledged in a
wide range of scholarly publications with both theoretical and pedagogical motivations. This
problem of definition is not unique to the heritage language (HL) context. In similar fashion, there
continues to be debate about the criteria for defining the native speaker, with questions centering on
whether a categorical distinction between the native speaker and the native user can be upheld (see
Davies 2013). Establishing the criteria for group membership (e.g., being a native speaker of
language X) is inherently problematic when there is variability within the group. Although we might
be tempted to think of native speakers as constituting a homogeneous group—that is, as having the
same mental grammar—research has begun to emphasize important differences among native
speakers stemming from levels of formal education (see Dąbrowska 2012). In the HL bilingual
context, the variability within the group is far greater than among monolingual native speakers (de
Swart 2013; Rothman and Treffers-Daller 2014).
The goal of this chapter is to move beyond definitions in order to better understand the varied
population of heritage speakers who, in the academic context, become HL learners. Traditionally,
this variability has been presented on a bilingual continuum: monolinguals of language A and
language B represent the two extremes, and HL learners are situated somewhere in between,
depending on their relative strength (i.e., dominance) in both languages (Valdés 2001, 2005). An
alternative way of understanding the diversity of HL learners is to situate the HL learner in a
category that exhibits prototype effects. This view of categorization is well known in cognitive
psychology (e.g., Rosch 1975) and is a fundamental tenet in cognitive linguistics (e.g., Taylor 2003).
In the prototype model of categorization, a given category can have fuzzy boundaries and be
internally graded, meaning that some members are more typical or central to the category than
others. For example, it has been shown that “chair” and “sofa” are better representatives of the
category “furniture” than are “telephone” or “lamp.” Instead of defining a concept based on a set of
discrete and necessary features, category membership is determined by approximation to the
prototype. In the realm of linguistic description, Taylor (2015) suggests that the prototype model
could be applied to elusive notions such as “native speaker” and “bilingual speaker.” In fact,
Escudero and Sharwood Smith (2001) developed a preliminary definition of “native speaker” along
these lines by considering both prototypical and peripheral features. The prototype model holds
promise for understanding the notion of HL learner as well. In such a model we dispense with
comparing the HL learner to the monolingual speaker or to the second language (L2) learner; instead
the HL learner is understood in relation to a central member of the category.

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 2 of 16

In constructing the prototype, a logical starting point is to examine the various attributes that
have been proposed in existing definitions. My review of existing definitions in oft-cited
publications, both classic and more recent (e.g., Benmamoun, Montrul, and Polinsky 2013; Polinsky
2015; Polinsky and Kagan 2007; Rothman and Treffers-Daller 2014; Valdés 2001; Van Deusen-
Scholl 2003), reveals the following recurring attributes of HL learners:

• Early exposure to the heritage language in the home

• Proficiency in the heritage language
• Bilingual to some degree
• Dominant in a language other than the heritage language
• Ethnic/cultural connection to the heritage language

Among the aforementioned attributes, proficiency is particularly salient: it has been emphasized
in all narrow definitions, thus excluding learners with a “heritage motivation” (Van Deusen-Scholl
2003, 222) but no functional ability in the language. Nevertheless, proficiency is by itself a poor
predictor of group membership; there are many proficient speakers of a language who are not HL
learners. In fact, L2 learners can match or surpass HL learners on standardized measures of
proficiency (see discussion below). Thus, we need an attribute that can serve to differentiate HL
learners from other types of proficient speakers. In this chapter, I outline a prototype model of the
HL learner that includes the attribute of implicit knowledge. Implicit knowledge has received
relatively little attention in the field of HL pedagogy but has become increasingly important in
experimental research (e.g., Montrul et al. 2014). Understanding the HL learner from the perspective
of implicit knowledge can also clarify why certain pedagogical methods and materials originally
designed for the L2 classroom may not be easily transferable to the HL context.

Core Issues: Proficiency and Implicit Knowledge

Proficiency

Proficiency has figured prominently in descriptions of HL learners although the construct has been
vaguely defined or simply assumed. Wu and Ortega (2013) explain that proficiency can be defined
either broadly or narrowly. In the realm of standardized testing such as the ACTFL oral proficiency
interview (OPI), proficiency is understood broadly as functional language ability, or “what
individuals can do with language in terms of speaking, writing, listening, and reading in real-world
situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed context” (ACTFL 2012, 3). In contrast, in research on
L2 and HL acquisition, proficiency is generally defined in a narrow sense, that is, focusing on basic
linguistic abilities (e.g., vocabulary and/or grammatical knowledge) rather than the full spectrum of
communicative competence.
To complicate matters further, the ways in which proficiency has been measured for research
purposes varies widely among studies and often differs from proficiency assessment for pedagogical
purposes. For example, research on HL learners has used a variety of proficiency measures,
including cloze tests (see Montrul and Foote 2014), speech rate (see Polinsky 2008), vocabulary
knowledge (see Fairclough 2011; Polinsky 2006), elicited imitation (see Wu and Ortega 2013), and
picture naming (see Montrul et al. 2014). In the pedagogical context, many studies report learners’
self-assessments of proficiency, sometimes in combination with a test of oral proficiency such as the
ACTFL OPI (see Kagan and Friedman 2003).

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 3 of 16

Although a theoretical discussion of proficiency is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Ilieva
and Clark’s chapter in this volume [2016]), there are recent definitions of this construct that are
particularly appealing for understanding the nature of HL learners. Jan Hulstijn (2011, 2012, 2015)
sets out to understand proficiency in both first language (L1) and L2 populations by drawing a
distinction between basic-level cognition (BLC) and higher-level cognition (HLC). In Hulstijn’s
view, BLC is limited to listening and speaking (it does not comprise reading or writing) and
subsumes all the high-frequency lexical items and frequent grammatical constructions that are used
in routine, everyday conversations. More precisely, BLC consists of three components (Hulstijn 2011
, 230):

1. The largely implicit, unconscious knowledge in the domains of phonetics, prosody,

phonology, morphology, and syntax;
2. The largely explicit, conscious knowledge in the lexical domain (form–meaning mappings);
and
3. The automaticity with which these types of knowledge can be processed.

In contrast, HLC is the extension of BLC: it includes low-frequency vocabulary, uncommon

morphosyntax, grammatically (more) complex sentences, and it comprises written discourse.
Hulstijn emphasizes that native speakers display large individual differences in HLC in accordance
with their intellectual skills, education, professional careers, and leisure-time activities. In contrast,
BLC is the language knowledge shared by all native speakers regardless of their educational
backgrounds or cultural profiles. Hulstijn (2011) further argues many established proficiency scales
(e.g., the Common European Framework of Reference, or CEFR) are, at the higher levels,
inseparable from HLC. As a consequence, the higher levels of proficiency (B2, C1, and C2 on the
CEFR scale) can only be attained by individuals with higher levels of education.
Hulstijn’s (2011, 2012) discussion of proficiency does not make specific reference to HL
learners although the applicability is rather straightforward: the prototypical HL learner’s language
proficiency is limited to BLC. It is precisely in this sense that HL learners are native speakers
because BLC is what all native speakers have in common (see Rothman and Treffers-Daller 2014
for additional arguments in favor of considering HL learners as native speakers). If this is on the
right track, we can predict that HL learners might be very similar to native speakers if tested with
conceptually simple oral/listening tasks involving highly frequent linguistic units. Taking the
comparison a step further, we might predict that HL learners’ performance on a range of tasks will
be comparable to native speakers who have limited formal education and do not use written
language in their daily lives.1 For most native speakers, however, BLC is only a part of their overall
language proficiency (Hulstijn 2011) while for HL learners it is typically the only component.
Recent research on the ACTFL OPI supports this line of reasoning: higher-level ratings (e.g.,
Superior) are related to and perhaps contingent on formal education in the language of testing. Elvira
Swender and colleagues (2014) analyzed the language samples of Russian and Spanish heritage
speakers who took the OPI, finding similar trends in both groups. The speakers rated as Advanced
could not reach the Superior level due to the limitations in the following areas: (a) inability to deal
with the topic abstractly, support an opinion, and/or hypothesize; (b) lack of extended discourse; and
(c) lack of precise vocabulary. Speaking about a topic from an abstract perspective posed a
considerable challenge for many of the participants: “When prompted to speak about topics beyond
self and their immediate environment, e.g., health policy, environmental issues, technology, or
politics, the participants tended to revert to personal experiences” (437). Swender and colleagues

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 4 of 16

also compared the participants’ OPI ratings with individual characteristics such as language use at
home and formal instruction in the heritage language. This analysis suggests a relationship between
explicit/formal instruction in the heritage language at the college level, reading and writing in the
heritage language, and higher levels of proficiency (see also Ilieva and Clark’s chapter in this
volume [2016]).
The results of Swender and colleagues (2014) can be understood in reference to HLC, a
component of language proficiency that is developed primarily as a result of language use in
academic and professional contexts (Hulstijn 2011). Consider the task of discussing issues (e.g.,
raising the federal minimum wage; building a desalination plant) from an abstract perspective,
which is one of the hallmarks of Superior-level proficiency on the ACTFL scale. Dealing with such
topics abstractly implies both being informed about the topic and being able to conceptualize the
issues from a number of competing viewpoints—that is, understanding the opposing sides in a
debate. Arguably, the ability to speak about issues abstractly is not only a matter of linguistic ability
but also taps intellectual skills. Margaret Malone and colleagues (2003) underscore this point in their
discussion of Superior-level proficiency: “Language alone is not sufficient to achieve a high level of
proficiency; high-level speakers must also possess high-level academic skills typical of those of an
educated person in the target culture” (4). Thus, although the OPI purports to measure functional
language ability “regardless of where, when, or how the language was acquired” (ACTFL 2012, 3),
an important caveat is in order: attaining a Superior rating is unlikely without some combination of
formal education and literacy in the language of testing.
To summarize, the preceding discussion reveals that the speaker’s academic background plays a
nontrivial role in attaining higher-level proficiency. In practice, what this means is that HL learners
and L2 learners can be matched in proficiency, giving the impression of comparable linguistic
ability. In some cases, an L2 learner may even outperform a HL learner on a proficiency test that
includes HLC tasks (e.g., discussing an issue from an abstract perspective). Hulstijn (2011) explains
that L2 learners are capable of acquiring HLC in their second language just like native speakers (yet
he questions whether L2 learners can ever fully acquire BLC in their second language). Although
proficiency assessments are certainly useful and necessary in some contexts, they likely obscure
important differences between the linguistic ability of HL learners and L2 learners.

Implicit and Explicit Knowledge

There is broad consensus that L1 acquisition is primarily an implicit process, meaning that children
learn the structural properties of their native language without a conscious intention to learn them
and without awareness of what they have acquired. The type of knowledge that underlies native
speakers’ ability to comprehend and produce language in spontaneous situations is considered
implicit. Recall that Hulstijn (2011) makes reference to implicit knowledge in his definition of BLC.
According to Rod Ellis (2005), implicit knowledge is procedural, unconscious, and involves
automatic processing. Furthermore, implicit knowledge is verbalizable only under certain
circumstances, that is, when it is made explicit. In other words, any attempt to verbalize what one
knows implicitly will involve first forming an explicit representation of it. In contrast, explicit
knowledge involves conscious awareness and controlled processing. Explicit knowledge is
declarative in nature (i.e., composed of facts about the language) and is potentially verbalizable.
Crucially, it is possible to verbalize one’s conscious knowledge about language without the use of
technical terms or metalanguage (e.g., verb, past tense). In other words, metalanguage is a secondary
and nonessential component of explicit knowledge (Ellis 2004).

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 5 of 16

The dichotomy between implicit and explicit knowledge, as well as the question of an interface
between these two types of knowledge, is a fundamental topic in the field of second language
acquisition (see Ellis 2011; Rebuschat 2013). Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to HL
learners in this context. The overarching goal of research on the linguistic competence of HL
learners has been on documenting what HL learners know rather than how they know it. This latter
question (how) has been largely overlooked, with the exception of a few studies that examine which
type of knowledge—implicit and/or explicit—contributes to HL learners’ performance on different
types of tasks.
Melissa Bowles (2011) included HL learners of Spanish in her replication study of Ellis (2005),
who had previously proposed different tasks for measuring implicit and explicit knowledge. Bowles
compared the performance of HL learners, L2 learners, and native speakers on five tasks: an elicited
imitation task, an oral narration, a timed grammaticality judgment task (GJT), an untimed GJT, and
a test of metalinguistic knowledge. The comparison between the L2 learners and HL learners is
especially revealing in that these two groups showed opposite patterns of performance on the five
tasks. Specifically, the L2 group registered the highest scores on tests that were designed to tap
explicit knowledge: the untimed GJT and the metalinguistic knowledge test. In contrast, the HL
learners fared much better on tests that measured implicit knowledge (the oral narration, oral
imitation, and timed GJT). The only test on which the HL learners showed a significant
disadvantage vis-à-vis the L2 learners was the metalinguistic knowledge test. It should be noted that
the metalinguistic knowledge test required participants to apply grammatical concepts such as finite
verb, subject pronoun, auxiliary verb, and indefinite article. Evidently, this type of test proved
difficult even for the native speakers, whose mean score (77 percent) was much lower than their
scores on the remaining tasks (all above 95 percent).
That HL learners have limited metalinguistic knowledge regarding their heritage language
should not be surprising. Nevertheless, Bowles (2011) highlights that, despite their relatively poor
performance on the test of metalinguistic knowledge, HL learners were very successful at the oral
narration task (mean score: above 95 percent). This outcome is consistent with the hypothesis that
HL learners have primarily implicit knowledge of their HL, which has little or no relation to the
specific type of explicit knowledge needed to recognize metalinguistic terminology. Additional
evidence comes from a study by Maite Correa (2011), who compared HL learners and L2 learners of
Spanish with respect to their metalinguistic knowledge and accuracy of use of the subjunctive.2 The
results indicate that, at all levels of instruction, HL learners outperform L2 learners in their accuracy
of the subjunctive. The exact opposite pattern is observed for metalinguistic knowledge: L2 learners
outperform HL learners at all levels. Moreover, there was a large and significant relationship
between metalinguistic knowledge and accuracy of use of the subjunctive for the L2 learners. In
contrast, for the HL learner groups, metalinguistic knowledge and subjunctive accuracy sometimes
yielded a negative (nonsignificant) correlation.
Taken together, the studies by Bowles (2011) and Correa (2011) suggest that HL learners’
knowledge is primarily implicit in nature, which is a consequence of having acquired the language
naturalistically in early childhood. Having implicit knowledge gives HL learners certain advantages
over L2 learners, which are maximized on oral/aural tasks as well as on tasks with an element of
time pressure. For example, Silvina Montrul and colleagues (2014) demonstrated that HL learners of
Spanish patterned differently from L2 learners on an implicit task that measured sensitivity to
gender agreement violations. Although HL learners have advantages over L2 learners on implicit
tasks, the opposite holds true on tasks that maximize explicit knowledge and metalinguistic
awareness. These findings echo Montrul’s (2009, 250) earlier statement that “early bilinguals [HL
Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 6 of 16

learners] appear to make substantially less use of explicit and metalinguistic knowledge than the
adult L2 learners.”
As a consequence, HL learners are at a disadvantage when exposed to materials that are intended
to teach grammar to L2 learners, especially if such instruction relies heavily on students’
metalinguistic awareness. Kim Potowski and colleagues (2009) compared HL learners and L2
learners who had been exposed to a pedagogical intervention of either traditional output-based
instruction or processing instruction that targeted the Spanish past subjunctive. Both instructional
treatments included a component with metalinguistic information about the target structure (i.e.,
how to form the past subjunctive, where to locate it in the sentence, and when to use it). Their
findings indicate that the L2 learners outperformed the HL learners overall and, moreover, that only
the L2 learners showed improvement in their grammaticality judgments. Thus, despite some modest
improvement in the HL learner group after the instructional treatments, Potowski and colleagues
suggest that HL learners may respond better to alternative methods that explicitly contrast
competing forms.
More recently, Julio Torres (2013) investigated how HL learners and L2 learners respond to a
task-based pedagogical intervention. The subjunctive in adjectival clauses was targeted through
simple and complex tasks that engaged participants in explaining the behavior of students living in a
university dorm. The task included images, written prompts, and corrective feedback but no
metalinguistic information (unlike the study of Potowski et al. [2009]). The results of the study
mirror those of Potowksi and colleagues in that L2 learners showed greater improvement, as
measured by gain scores, than HLs overall. In addition, Torres documents that these two groups of
learners approached the task in very different ways. The L2 learners were more focused on form and
recognized that the task presented contrasting forms of the subjunctive and indicative. In contrast,
the HL learners were oriented primarily to the content of the task; they were concerned with
interpreting the meaning of the prompts and made no metalinguistic comments in the exit
questionnaire. In short, it seems that HL learners processed the input provided by the task as
authentic content rather than directing their attention to establishing new form–meaning connections.
To conclude, the existing research on the effects of grammatical instruction strongly suggests
that the methods and materials originally designed for L2 learners are unlikely to provide the same
kind of benefit to HL learners. This has to do with the nature of the grammatical activities
themselves, which assume some experience with the study of language as a formal system. In other
words, grammar activities designed for L2 learners draw heavily on explicit knowledge even in the
absence of metalanguage. Classroom L2 learners are intimately familiar with exercises that ask them
to fill in the blanks, transform sentences from one type to another, and replace underlined forms.
Even if such mechanical activities are redesigned as meaningful or communicative (see VanPatten
1998), L2 learners are accustomed to completing them with the goal of applying previously learned
vocabulary or grammar. This is perhaps why the L2 learners in Torres’s (2013) study seemed
predisposed to noticing differences in form (e.g., subjunctive versus indicative) in what was
otherwise a communicative task. In contrast, HL learners who have primarily implicit knowledge
will take a communicative task at face value, that is, as an opportunity to communicate a message
using any combination of grammar and vocabulary they have at their disposal.

A Prototype Model of the HL Learner

Following the discussion of proficiency and implicit knowledge, we can revisit the attributes listed
in the introduction in order to construct a prototype of the HL learner category. First, the attribute of

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 7 of 16

proficiency is refined by limiting proficiency to what Hulstijn (2011) has labeled BLC. Second, we
add the attribute of implicit knowledge to the prototype, which serves to differentiate HL learners
from other types of proficient bilinguals. The remaining attributes from previous scholarly work are
included in the prototype, as shown in figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. Prototype Model of Heritage Language Learner

It should be noted that the individual attributes in figure 1.1 are scalar or gradient. Even those
attributes that may seem categorical, such as early exposure to the heritage language in the home,
are a matter of degree. For example, Tamar Gollan and colleagues (2015) recently demonstrated that
language ability among young heritage speakers is positively correlated with the number of different
speakers who regularly address them in the heritage language (also known as the “number-of-
speakers effect”). Although early exposure to the heritage language could be framed as a
dichotomous (yes/no) question, this would not capture the degree of exposure to the heritage
language, which can be quantified with various metrics (e.g., number of hours the heritage language
is spoken per week, percentage of time that adults in the home speak the heritage language).
Likewise, language dominance is often stated in categorical terms (e.g., an individual is dominant in
X language), but recent research emphasizes that dominance should be understood as a continuum
(see Gertken, Amengual, and Birdsong 2014). For example, although an HL learner and an L2
learner may both be English dominant, the degree of English dominance may be greater for the L2
learner. This could be ascertained with a language-dominance questionnaire such as the Bilingual
Language Profile (Birdsong et al. 2012), which measures dominance on four dimensions: language
history, use, proficiency, and attitudes. Finally, what I have labeled as ethnic/cultural connection in
figure 1.1 is actually a cluster of sociocultural variables that include attitudes, motivation, and social
and ethnic identity. Research on the sociocultural dimensions of HL learning has emphasized that
these attributes are not static or monolithic but rather emerge from interactions and social practice
(see He 2006, 2010).

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 8 of 16

Let us consider examples of learners who are distant from the prototype. Beaudrie (2009b)
describes a group of receptive bilinguals of Spanish who frequently overheard Spanish growing up
but had relatively few opportunities to participate directly in conversations with Spanish-speaking
relatives. These learners can produce sufficient language to engage in basic, everyday conversation
(Novice–high level on ACTFL scale). Moreover, these learners express a significant cultural and
personal connection to Spanish (90 percent of them agreed or strongly agreed that Spanish is an
important part of who they are). The prototype model accommodates these receptive bilinguals but
places them on the periphery. Even further removed from the prototype are the overhearers studied
by Terry Kit-Fong Au and colleagues (2002); these are individuals who had minimal exposure to
Spanish growing up and are currently “virtually monolingual in the majority language” (242).
Another example of a learner who is far removed from the prototype is the fictional profile of
“Robert” described by Erin Boon and Maria Polinsky (2014): Robert grew up in an English-
speaking family in Atlanta but retains some of the Spanish he learned as a child from his nanny.
Clearly, someone like Robert will have a lesser degree of personal and cultural connection to
Spanish than a prototypical heritage speaker. Finally, we should mention the case of late arrivals
such as “Luisa,” who is described in María Carreira’s 2004 work: Luisa was born in Argentina and
arrived in the United States at age fourteen; she speaks only Spanish at home, reads and writes
Spanish at grade level, and does not speak English well. Luisa is certainly a peripheral member of
the heritage speaker category because she is described as Spanish dominant. Nevertheless, in the US
university context, learners such as Luisa often enroll in courses for heritage language learners
despite having a very different profile from the prototypical HL learner.
There are many advantages to the prototype model of categorization shown in figure 1.1. It
shows that the HL learner, although difficult to define in terms of sufficient and necessary
characteristics, can be understood as exhibiting a cluster of attributes. Crucially, an individual need
not manifest each and every one of these attributes in order to belong to the category. However, an
individual that displays all of the attributes in figure 1.1 is seen as the “best” example of the
category. Collectively, these attributes serve to profile the prototypical heritage speaker and at the
same time recognize that membership in the category is a matter of degree. Finally, some attributes
might be viewed as more heavily weighted, meaning that their presence is a fairly reliable predictor
of category membership. I have argued in this chapter that having fairly robust implicit knowledge
(combined with minimal explicit knowledge) is a good diagnostic for HL learners because it
distinguishes them from L2 learners.3 Nevertheless, HL learners at the lower ends of the proficiency
spectrum (e.g., receptive bilinguals) may also have limited implicit knowledge, as evidenced by
lower accuracy and higher variability in their linguistic intuitions (see Sherkina-Lieber, Perez-
Leroux, and Johns 2011). Again, these speakers would be situated on the outer edges of the HL
learner category.

Practical Considerations and Examples for the Classroom

Pedagogical Implications

There are two main pedagogical implications for HL learners stemming from the preceding
discussion. The first is that materials designed originally for teaching grammar (syntax and
morphology) to a population of L2 learners will have limited applicability to the HL classroom. This
is because L2 materials usually capitalize on L2 learners’ explicit knowledge of the language. When
the same materials are used with HL learners, whose knowledge of the language is primarily

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 9 of 16

implicit, the results are less than desirable. In the best-case scenario, HL learners simply do not
benefit as much from these activities as a group of L2 learners would (see Potowski et al. 2009;
Torres 2013). In the worst case, HL learners become confused by explicit grammatical explanations
about aspects of the language they already know implicitly (see Beaudrie 2009a).
The second pedagogical implication is that L2 methods and materials targeting vocabulary will
be readily transferrable to the HL context. This hypothesis stems from the nature of vocabulary
knowledge, which is largely explicit. Hulstijn (2011) makes this point clearly in his definition of
BLC, noting that proficiency includes the explicit knowledge of form–meaning mappings. Although
some aspects of vocabulary representation are implicit (see Elgort and Warren 2014), Ewa
Dąbrowska (2014) explains that knowledge of word meaning is clearly explicit: “native speakers not
only know what words like cat or sit mean; they also know that they know and are able to provide a
rough definition” (207). If vocabulary knowledge is explicit for all speakers (including HL learners),
L2 vocabulary research can provide valuable direction for the HL context.
An immediate question that arises is why vocabulary should merit attention in the HL learner
classroom. Most practitioners who work in the HL context will concur with Kagan and Friedman
(2003) that HL learners have “an extensive everyday vocabulary” (536). Marta Fairclough (2011)
demonstrated that a yes/no vocabulary test based on 5,000 high-frequency words proved too easy for
most Spanish HL learners. The HL learners in the Fairclough study significantly outperformed L2
learners, recognizing nearly double the number of words (the mean for the HL learner group was
103.51 words, compared to 54.77 for the L2 learners). Fairclough concluded that most HL learners
already have a highly developed receptive vocabulary at the 5,000-word level. Thus, both classroom-
based observations and research identify vocabulary as one of HL learners’ strengths.
Although having receptive knowledge of the core vocabulary (5,000 words) in any language will
put HL learners at an immediate advantage over most L2 learners, it does not entail productive use
of vocabulary beyond the mid-frequency range. Indeed, one of the recurring themes in the data
presented by Swender and colleagues (2014) is that of the HL learners’ limited vocabulary and,
more specifically, the lack of precise vocabulary. Limited vocabulary was a major hurdle for
speakers rated at the Intermediate level: all of them lacked the vocabulary to sustain conversations
on topics beyond their everyday experience. At the Advanced-Low or Advanced-Mid level, limited
vocabulary impeded the speakers’ ability to handle topics abstractly (this was true for 77 percent of
the Spanish HL learners). In practice, this means that HL learner courses should include systematic
attention to vocabulary beyond the mid-frequency range—that is, vocabulary that HL learners are
less likely to know.4 In addition to simply learning more words (i.e., breadth of knowledge),
vocabulary instruction tailored to HL learners should focus on improving depth of vocabulary
knowledge. The ability to use a word productively involves many layers of knowledge beyond the
primary form–meaning link. In what follows, I provide specific pedagogical suggestions for
addressing lexical development in the HL learner classroom.

Examples for the Classroom

I. S. P. Nation (2001) provides a well-known framework for understanding the incremental nature of
learning vocabulary in a second language, distinguishing between knowledge of word form, word
meaning, and word use. These different dimensions of “knowing a word” also take into account the
difference between receptive and productive knowledge. Many HL learners have partial knowledge
of words, which means that they will not necessarily be able to use those words productively in the
appropriate context. For example, consider the word altivo (“arrogant”): a HL learner might know
Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 10 of 16

this word has negative meaning but have no ability to use the word in a sentence. The focus of
instruction should be on the meaning of the word in relation to other words the HL learner already
knows (e.g., orgulloso, “proud”) and also on collocations (e.g., actitud altiva, “arrogant attitude”).
Another complementary approach is to draw the learner’s attention to word parts (alto, “high” is the
root) and highlight the relation to other, related words with the same root (e.g., altanero,
“arrogant”). Teaching vocabulary for depth of knowledge means building on HL learners’ strengths,
specifically their knowledge of related (more generic or more frequent) words.
The approach described above should not be interpreted as simply recommending a good
dictionary or thesaurus to HL learners. I am suggesting a much more comprehensive and systematic
approach in order to develop the “expanded level of precise, sophisticated vocabulary” (439)
mentioned by Swender and colleagues (2014). The target vocabulary may appear initially in written
texts, but it cannot be assumed that learners will acquire these words incidentally. Although
vocabulary acquisition does occur from reading, many L2 studies have shown that the “pick-up” rate
of new words is relatively low and, more importantly, that incidental learning usually doesn’t lead to
productive mastery of the new words (see Schmitt 2008 for an overview). This calls for a combined
approach of exposure through texts reinforced with intentional learning tasks, which I illustrate
below with specific examples from the Spanish for Heritage Speakers (SPHS) program at the
University of California, Santa Cruz.
In this SPHS program, which consists of a three-quarter sequence, HL learners read several
authentic novels. One of the first novels is Aura by Carlos Fuentes (1962), which learners read
online with computerized glosses for potentially difficult vocabulary words. For example, in the first
chapter of Aura, the word advertencia (“warning”) is glossed. Learners can (optionally) consult the
gloss if they are unsure of the meanings of this word. In class, learners work in groups to answer
comprehension questions based on what they have read. Crucially, some of the target words are used
in the comprehension questions. For example, one question asks: ¿Qué advertencia hay en los
números de los edificios? (“What warning is on the numbers of the buildings?”). In this way,
knowing the meaning of the target word (advertencia) is vital to answering the question; learners are
encouraged to negotiate the meaning of words while working in groups. Finally, learners complete
an individual homework assignment that requires them to write original sentences with fifteen of the
target words. They receive feedback on their sentences, and if any of the words are used incorrectly,
they are asked to rewrite those sentences. This type of activity requires productive knowledge of the
vocabulary items and allows for critical follow-up in the case of false cognates (e.g., HL learners
might use advertencia incorrectly to mean “advertisement”).
To recap, consider the type of exposure that HL learners have to potentially new vocabulary
items in this instructional sequence:

1. First exposure: Incidental through reading; target words are glossed.

2. Second exposure: Postreading task with vocabulary targeted in comprehension questions.
3. Third exposure: Write original sentences with target words, demonstrating productive
knowledge.

The cycle ends with the provision of feedback, which constitutes a potential fourth exposure to
the target word. This type of instructional sequence is a perfect example of how incidental and
intentional vocabulary learning can work in sync, which is argued by some to be the most effective
way of increasing the possibility that vocabulary be learned to a productive level (Schmitt 2008).
It should be mentioned that incidental exposure followed by explicit attention to vocabulary is
not limited to reading but can also take place through listening exposure. For example, in an upper-
Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 11 of 16

division Spanish course,5 HL learners read the story of the Mirabal sisters as told through the
testimony of Dedé Mirabal (2009). While the reading is done outside of class, students listen to
segments of the audiobook in class with the goal of focusing explicitly on difficult vocabulary. For
example, students are given a list of twelve words or phrases to pay attention to as they listen. They
mark the words as they hear them and jot down the context in which they occurred. Subsequently,
the target words are discussed in small groups or with the entire class, clarifying definitions,
providing synonyms, and making note of collocations. This type of listening activity can be done
prior to the assigned reading, in which case it primes learners to notice the words while reading.
Another approach that holds promise for expanding the productive vocabulary of HL learners is
by targeting derivative forms and word families. N. Schmitt and C. B. Zimmerman (2002) showed
that English-language learners, even those enrolled in graduate-level courses, generally do not know
all members of a word family (e.g., that knowledge of an adjective like “precise” does not imply
productive knowledge of the noun “precision”). The same applies to HL learners, who may be
familiar with one or two members of a word family without awareness of derived forms. In
particular, pedagogical materials should emphasize creating abstract nouns from adjectives and
verbs (e.g. indignado—indignación, “indignant—indignation”), a process known as nominalization.
The importance of nominalization is that it permits the expression of abstract and complex concepts,
which is a hallmark of academic language (Nagy and Townsend 2012). HL learners can expand their
knowledge of word families by placing target words like exigir (“to demand”), exigente
(“demanding”), and exigencia (“a demand”) into the appropriate lexical category (verb, adjective,
noun). This type of sorting activity encourages learners to see derivational morphology as a tool for
creating new words and is a step toward developing metalinguistic awareness.

Concluding Remarks

This chapter developed a prototype model of the HL learner in order to better understand the traits
that characterize this heterogeneous group of bilinguals. I examined the construct of proficiency
since it figures so prominently in all narrow definitions, but I suggested that the particular
component of proficiency that is relevant to understanding the HL learner is basic language
cognition (Hulstijn 2011). In addition to proficiency, I argued for including implicit knowledge in
the prototype because it is this attribute that serves to distinguish HL learners from other proficient
bilinguals. The pedagogical implications presented in this chapter stem directly from the discussion
of implicit and explicit knowledge. Specifically, I argued that L2-geared grammatical materials and
methods, which presuppose explicit knowledge, should be applied with extreme caution or not at all
to the HL classroom. In contrast, the observations from L2 vocabulary research are not subject to the
same restriction because of the explicit nature of vocabulary knowledge. Specific examples of
activities that promote both incidental and intentional vocabulary learning were presented.
Still unanswered is the pressing question of how to approach the teaching of grammar in the HL
learner classroom. In other words, if we acknowledge that L2-designed methods and materials are
unlikely to bring about positive results with HL learners, what are the alternatives? Although a full
treatment of this complex question is not possible in this chapter, it seems clear that grammar itself
must be conceptualized as a meaning-making tool for HL learners. On this view, grammar is
harnessed as a resource for expressing a particular meaning rather than a collection of discrete forms
or lists of rules. In practice, this conceptualization of grammar is compatible with a content-based
approach in which the teacher’s grammatical interventions respond to the meanings that HL learners
are trying to express. For example, students might respond in writing to a prompt that relates directly

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 12 of 16

to content they are studying in class (e.g., what would happen if the minimum wage were raised to
$15/hour?). If HL learners struggle in formulating their responses because of difficulties with the
conditional, this might be the opportune moment for a brief grammar lesson to highlight how this
particular verb form can express outcomes and consequences.6 Metalanguage could be kept to an
absolute minimum (i.e., simply label the form) while drawing learners’ attention to the equivalent
construction in English, the dominant language for most HL learners. The key, however, is that this
focus on form (Doughty and Williams 1998) stems from a communicative need and, thus, meaning
is primary.
On the separate issue of building metalinguistic knowledge, this could be targeted through the
route of the dominant language. For example, HL learners could be encouraged to take a course in
English pedagogical grammar, which is generally a standard part of the curriculum at universities
with a TESOL or applied linguistics program. The benefit of this approach is that metalinguistic
ability would be targeted separately, that is, without the simultaneous pressure of working on their
skills in the heritage language. As demonstrated in Correa (2011), HL learners’ metalinguistic
knowledge in English and in Spanish was highly correlated. Thus, we can hypothesize that
strengthening their metalinguistic ability in English would yield positive effects for subsequent
grammar instruction in the heritage language. At this point, however, it remains an empirical
question and a potential area for future research.
In closing, the prototype model is one way of understanding the varied population of HL
learners. It does not reduce the variation within the group, nor does it minimize the complexities
surrounding the HL learner experience. As Peter de Swart (2013) eloquently states, “Each heritage
speaker seems to tell his own story” (256). In the prototype model, HL learners are being examined
in their own right, compared to the prototype rather than to the monolingual native speaker or the L2
learner.

Notes
I am grateful to the following individuals who assisted me in the preparation of this chapter: Mark Amengual,
who provided useful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter; María Victoria González-Pagani, who shared
her materials from the Spanish for Heritage Speakers program at UC Santa Cruz, which she directs; and Julio
Torres, who provided me with his latest manuscript. The comments of two anonymous reviewers were also
very helpful in preparing the final version of the chapter.

1. This is an important weakness of many empirical studies that compare heritage speakers to a monolingual baseline
group; often the monolinguals are highly educated native speakers who use the language in professional and/or
academic settings.
2. Metalinguistic knowledge was tested in both English and Spanish by means of two tests: a test of terminology and a
GJT. Accuracy of use of the subjunctive was tested with five different tasks, which were later combined to provide a
composite score.
3. This does not imply that L2 learners do not have implicit knowledge; L2 learners, especially those at more advanced
proficiency levels, undoubtedly have unconscious knowledge about their second language. However, for most L2
learners, this implicit knowledge exists in combination with highly developed explicit knowledge.
4. In vocabulary research, the first three thousand words are considered high frequency; the level between three thousand
and nine thousand is mid-frequency; words beyond nine thousand comprise the low-frequency category (Schmitt and
Schmitt, 2014).
5. The course being described here is Advanced Conversation and Composition, which is not part of the SPHS sequence,
but the majority of students are HL learners.

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 13 of 16

6. I offer this particular example because it reflects one of the observations made by Swender and colleagues (2014)
regarding the grammatical difficulties experienced by some of the Spanish HL learner participants, namely, the use of
the past subjunctive and conditional to speculate about outcomes and consequences.

References
ACTFL. 2012. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs
/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf.
Au, Terry Kit-Fong, Leah Knightly, Sun-Ah Jun, and Janet Oh. 2002. “Overhearing a Language during
Childhood.” Psychological Science 13, no. 3: 238–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00444.
Beaudrie, Sara. 2009a. “Receptive Bilinguals’ Language Development in the Classroom: The Differential
Effects of Heritage versus Foreign Language Curriculum.” In Español en Estados Unidos y otros contextos
de contacto: Sociolingüística, ideología y pedagogía, ed. Manel Lacorte and Jennifer Leeman, 325–46.
Madrid: Iberoamericana / Vervuert Verlag.
—. 2009b. “Spanish Receptive Bilinguals: Understanding the Cultural and Linguistic Profile of Learners from
Three Different Generations.” Spanish in Context 6, no. 1: 85–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sic.6.1.06bea.
Benmamoun, E., S. Montrul, and M. Polinsky. 2013. “Heritage Languages and Their Speakers: Opportunities
and Challenges for Linguistics.” Theoretical Linguistics 39: 129–181.
Birdsong, David, Libby Gertken, and Mark Amengual. 2012. “Bilingual Language Profile: An Easy-to-Use
Instrument to Assess Bilingualism.” COERLL, University of Texas at Austin. https://sites.la.utexas.edu
/bilingual/.
Boon, Erin, and Maria Polinsky. 2014. “From Silence to Voice: Empowering Heritage Language Speakers in
the 21st Century.” Dickens Quarterly 31, no. 2: 113–26.
Bowles, Melissa. 2011. “Measuring Implicit and Explicit Linguistic Knowledge: What Can Heritage
Language Learners Contribute?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, no. 2: 247–71. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1017/S0272263110000756.
Carreira, María. 2004. “Seeking Explanatory Adequacy: A Dual Approach to Understanding the Term
‘Heritage Language Learner.’” Heritage Language Journal 2, no. 1: 1–25.
Correa, Maite. 2011. “Heritage Language Learners of Spanish: What Role Does Metalinguistic Knowledge
Play in Their Acquisition of the Subjunctive?” In Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics
Symposium, ed. Luis Ortiz-López, 128–38. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012. “Different Speakers, Different Grammars: Individual Differences in Native Language
Attainment.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2, no. 3: 219–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01
dab.
—. 2014. “Implicit Lexical Knowledge.” Linguistics 52, no. 1: 205–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-
0060.
Davies, Alan. 2013. Native Speakers and Native Users: Loss and Gain. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022316.
de Swart, Peter. 2013. “A Single (Case) for Heritage Speakers?” Theoretical Linguistics 39, no. 3–4: 251–58.
Doughty, Catherine, and Jessica Williams. 1998. “Pedagogical Choices in Focus on Form.” In Focus on Form
in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, ed. Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams, 197–261.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elgort, Irina, and Paul Warren. 2014. “L2 Vocabulary Learning from Reading: Explicit and Tacit Lexical
Knowledge and the Role of Learner and Item Variables.” Language Learning 64, no. 2: 365–414. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/lang.12052.

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 14 of 16

Ellis, Nick. 2011. “Implicit and Explicit SLA and Their Interface.” In Implicit and Explicit Language
Learning: Conditions, Processes, and Knowledge in SLA and Bilingualism, ed. Cristina Sanz and Ron
Leow, 35–47. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 2004. “The Definition and Measurement of L2 Explicit Knowledge.” Language Learning 54, no. 2:
227–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x.
—. 2005. “Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of a Second Language: A Psychometric Study.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, no. 2: 141–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096.
Escudero, Paola, and Michael Sharwood Smith. 2001. “Reinventing the native speaker or ‘What you never
wanted to know about the native speaker so never dared to ask.’” In EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 275–86.
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fairclough, Marta. 2011. “Testing the Lexical Recognition Task with Spanish/English Bilinguals in the United
States.” Language Testing 28, no. 2: 273–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532210393151.
Fuentes, Carlos. 1962. Aura. Mexico: Ediciones Era.
Gertken, Libby, Mark Amengual, and David Birdsong. D. 2014. “Assessing Language Dominance with the
Bilingual Language Profile.” In Measuring L2 Proficiency: Perspectives from SLA, ed. Pascale Leclercq,
Amanda Edmonds, and Heather Hilton, 208–25. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gollan, Tamar, Jennie Starr, and Victor Ferreira. 2015. “More Than Use It or Lose It: The Number-of-
Speakers Effect on Heritage Language Proficiency.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22, no. 1: 147–55.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0649-7.
He, Agnes Weiyun. 2006. “Toward an Identity Theory of the Development of Chinese as a Heritage Language
.” Heritage Language Journal 4, no. 1: 1–28.
—. 2010. “The Heart of Heritage: Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Heritage Language Learning.” Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 30:66–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000073.
Hulstijn, Jan. 2011. “Language Proficiency in Native and Nonnative Speakers: An Agenda for Research and
Suggestions for Second-Language Assessment.” Language Assessment Quarterly 8, no. 3: 229–49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565844.
—. 2012. “The Construct of Language Proficiency in the Study of Bilingualism from a Cognitive Perspective
.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, no. 2: 422–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017
/S1366728911000678.
—. 2015. Language Proficiency in Native and Non-Native Speakers: Theory and Research. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lllt.41.
Ilieva, Gabriela, and Beth Clark-Gareca. 2016. “Heritage Language Learner Assessment: Towards Proficiency
Standards.” In Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching: A Practical Guide for the
Classroom, ed. Marta Fairclough and Sara M. Beaudrie, 214–36. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Kagan, Olga, and Debra Friedman. 2003. “Using the OPI to Place Heritage Speakers of Russian.” Foreign
Language Annals 36: 536–545.
Malone, Margaret, Benjamin Rifkin, Donna Christian, and Dora Johnson. 2003. “Attaining High Levels of
Proficiency: Challenges for Language Education in the United States.” In Proceedings Conference on
Global Challenges and US Higher Education. http://ducis.jhfc.duke.edu/archives/globalchallenges/pdf
/christian%20paper.pdf.
Mirabal, Dedé. 2009. Vivas en su jardín. New York: Vintage Español.
Montrul, Silvina. 2009. “Reexamining the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 31, no. 2: 225–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090299.

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 15 of 16

Montrul, Silvina, Justin Davidson, Israel De La Fuente, and Rebecca Foote. 2014. “Early Language
Experience Facilitates the Processing of Gender Agreement in Spanish Heritage Speakers.” Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 17, no. 1: 118–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000114.
Montrul, Silvina, and Rebecca Foote. 2014. “Age of Acquisition Interactions in Bilingual Lexical Access: A
Study of the Weaker Language of L2 Learners and Heritage Speakers.” International Journal of
Bilingualism 18, no. 3: 274–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006912443431.
Nagy, William, and Dianna Townsend. 2012. “Words as Tools: Learning Academic Vocabulary as Language
Acquisition.” Reading Research Quarterly 47, no. 1: 91–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011.
Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Polinsky, Maria. 2006. “Incomplete Acquisition: American Russian.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14, no. 2:
191–262.
—. 2008. “Gender under Incomplete Acquisition: Heritage Speakers’ Knowledge of Noun Categorization.”
Heritage Language Journal 6, no. 1: 40–71.
—. 2015. “When L1 Becomes an L3: Do Heritage Speakers Make Better L3 Learners?” Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 18, no. 2: 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000667.
Polinsky, Maria, and Olga Kagan. 2007. “Heritage Languages: In the “Wild” and in the Classroom.”
Language and Linguistics Compass 1, no. 5: 368–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00022.x.
Potowski, Kim, Jill Jegerski, and Kara Morgan-Short. 2009. “The Effects of Instruction on Linguistic
Development in Spanish Heritage Language Speakers.” Language Learning 59, no. 3: 537–79. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00517.x.
Rebuschat, Patrick. 2013. “Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Research.”
Language Learning 63, no. 3: 595–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12010.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories.” Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General 104, no. 3: 192–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192.
Rothman, Jason, and Jeanine Treffers-Daller. 2014. “A Prolegomenon to the Construct of the Native Speaker:
Heritage Speaker Bilinguals Are Natives Too!” Applied Linguistics 35, no. 1: 93–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1093/applin/amt049.
Schmitt, Norbert. 2008. “Review Article: Instructed Second Language Vocabulary Learning.” Language
Teaching Research 12, no. 3: 329–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921.
Schmitt, Norbert, and Diane Schmitt. 2014. “A Reassessment of Frequency and Vocabulary Size in L2
Vocabulary Teaching.” Language Teaching 47, no. 4: 484–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017
/S0261444812000018.
Schmitt, N., and C. B. Zimmerman. 2002. “Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners Know?” TESOL
Quarterly 36, no. 2: 145–171.
Sherkina-Lieber, Marina, Ana Perez-Leroux, and Alana Johns. 2011. “Grammar without Speech Production:
The Case of Labrador Inuttitut Heritage Receptive Bilinguals.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14,
no. 3: 301–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000210.
Swender, Elvira, Cynthia Martin, Mildren Rivera-Martínez, and Olga Kagan. 2014. “Exploring Oral
Proficiency Profiles of Heritage Speakers of Russian and Spanish.” Foreign Language Annals 47, no. 3:
423–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12098.
Taylor, John. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
—. 2015. “Prototype Effects in Grammar.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Ewa Dąbrowska and
Dagmar Divjak, 562–79. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-028.

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.
Copyright © 2016. Georgetown University Press. All rights reserved. Ebook pages 37-61 | Printed page 16 of 16

Torres, Julio. 2013. “Heritage and Second Language Learners of Spanish: The Roles of Task Complexity and
Inhibitory Control.” PhD diss., Georgetown University.
Valdés, Guadalupe. 2001. “Heritage Language Students: Profiles and Possibilities.” In Heritage Languages in
America: Preserving a National Resource, ed. Joy Kreeft Peyton, Donald Ranard, and Scott McGinnis, 37–
80. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
—. 2005. “Bilingualism, Heritage Language Learners, and SLA Research: Opportunities Lost or Seized?”
Modern Language Journal 89, no. 3: 410–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00314.x.
Van Deusen-Scholl, Nelleke. 2003. “Toward a Definition of Heritage Language: Sociopolitical and
Pedagogical Considerations.” Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 2, no. 3: 211–30. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0203_4.
VanPatten, Bill. 1998. “Perceptions of and Perspectives on the Term ‘Communicative.’” Hispania 81, no. 4:
925–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/345805.
Wu, Shu-Ling, and Lourdes Ortega. 2013. “Measuring Global Oral Proficiency in SLA Research: A New
Elicited Imitation Test of L2 Chinese.” Foreign Language Annals 46, no. 4: 680–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/flan.12063.

Innovative Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching : A Practical Guide for the Classroom, edited by Marta. Fairclough, and Sara M. Beaudrie, Georgetown University Press,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4713650.
Created from ufl on 2025-08-25 22:18:10.