Heritage Language Policies around the World

Corinne A. Seals, Sheena Shah, Corinne A. Seals, Sheena Shah

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780367414719
• eBook ISBN: 9781317274049
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Heritage language policies define the context in which heritage languages are maintained or abandoned by communities, and this volume describes and analyzes international policy strategies, as well as the implications for the actual heritage language speakers.

This volume brings together heritage language policy case studies from around the world, foregrounding globalization by covering five regions: the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australasia. The countries profiled include the United States, Canada, Argentina, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Uganda, Namibia, Morocco, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, and Fiji. This volume also highlights an expanded definition of 'heritage language', choosing to focus on individual and community identities, and therefore including both Indigenous and immigrant languages.

Focusing specifically on language policy relating to heritage languages, the chapters address key questions such as

• 
  
  

• Are heritage languages included or excluded from the national language policy discourse?

• 
  
  

• What are the successes and shortcomings of efforts to establish heritage language policies?

• 
  
  

• What is the definition of 'heritage language' in official usage by the local/regional government and stakeholders?

• 
  
  

• How are these language policies perceived by the actual heritage language communities?

1 Introduction

A focus on heritage language policy

Corinne A. Seals and SheenaShah

Since the 1970s, heritage language research has been a rapidly growing area of interest for researchers, educators, policymakers, and individuals for whom this research resonates (Hornberger & Wang, 2008, p. 3). While initially popular in the Canadian context, heritage language research has since become popular in many countries around the world. Understandably, globalization has been a key factor in this increased focus on heritage language research. Specifically, increasing mobilization, whether from choice or necessity, has led to an increase in speakers of one language or of a set of languages moving to a place with a different majority societal language, therein leading them to become heritage language speakers. This is not only a recent occurrence, however, and as such, many heritage language speakers have lived in the same country now for generations. As explained by Faist (2010), while emigration/immigration was once seen as a trajectory in the singular sense, this movement is now viewed through the more fluid lens of transnationalism. Much of this movement has been fueled by political and social push factors, such as the current global refugee crisis and the recent events of Britain’s exit from the European Union (Brexit). Additionally, pull factors, such as an expansion in multinational businesses and increasing recruitment for international university students, have played a further role in facilitating transnational movement.

To meet the challenges of ever-increasing globalization, governments around the world have instituted a number of efforts related to social welfare, including the treatment of language, in the form of policy. While some governments institute policies to protect heritage languages, other governments impose policies meant to restrict or eliminate heritage languages. Some policies focus only on Indigenous languages, some focus only on immigrant/diaspora languages, and others focus on the two. Additionally, some governments have no explicit language policies at all. These policies also change across time even within the same context, as new parties come into power. However, varying terminology in different parts of the world means that it is not always a simple matter to identify heritage language policies. Rather, some countries prefer terms that are equivalent to minority language, community language, mother tongue, and so on, while other countries have no specific terminology for talking about the concept of heritage languages. Furthermore, the meanings of terms often vary across contexts, such that the same terms are used in different ways by different people (Seals & Berardi-Wiltshire, 2017). Therefore, it becomes difficult to search across contexts for comparative research, especially within official documents, such as those to do with language policy.

Even before beginning to look for terms related to heritage languages in policy documents, there is the issue of varying meanings of the term ‘heritage language’ itself in academia. A narrower definition has proved popular among educators, as it serves the practical purpose of determining into which classroom students should be placed – the foreign language classroom or one that is meant to serve the unique needs of heritage language speakers (e.g., Isurin & Ivanova-Sullivan, 2008; Polinsky, 2008). This definition has categorized heritage language speakers as those individuals raised in minority language speaking homes (minority languages determined by the context) and who are bilingual, at least to some extent (Campbell & Peyton, 1998; Valdés, 2001).

However, another broader definition has become popular in the recent past, emphasizing heritage language speaker identity (c.f. Kondo-Brown, 2003; Carreira, 2004) and individual agency in determining heritage speaker status: “individuals with familial or ancestral ties to a language other than English [or the dominant societal language] who exert their agency in determining if they are [Heritage Language Learner]s of that language” (Hornberger & Wang, 2008, p. 6). It is important to note that while Hornberger and Wang (2008) distinguish between heritage language learners and heritage language speakers for practical purposes (p. 6), Seals (2017) argues that the term ‘heritage language learner’ is often counterproductive, as individuals can end of being classed as both a heritage language learner and an English (or other dominant) language learner, therein denying them speaker status in any language. Rather, an all-encompassing use of the term ‘heritage language speaker’, ranging in meaning from those just beginning to learn their heritage language to those who are proficient speakers of the heritage language, serves a more positive positioning purpose.

Additionally, there is the consideration of which languages are included in the term ‘heritage language’. Is the focus on immigrant languages, Indigenous languages, a specific subset of minority languages, or all of the above? For the purposes of this volume, we hark back to the concept of heritage languages put forward by Fishman (1999, 2001). Hornberger and Wang (2008, p. 4) concisely summarize Fishman’s (1999, 2001) ideas as including the following classifications (albeit in the United States context):

1. 1 Indigenous languages spoken by Native American tribes that existed before the arrival of European settlers; many of these languages are now endangered;
2. 2 Colonial languages such as French, German, Italian, or Spanish, which earlier European settlers brought; and
3. 3 Immigrant languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, or Korean that came along with more recent influxes of immigrants.

The definitions of ‘heritage languages’ and ‘heritage language speakers’ in the current volume merge the ideas put forth by Hornberger and Wang (2008) and by Fishman (1999, 2001). That is, we define heritage language speakers as people who have a recent or ancestral connection to a language that is not the dominant societal language in their current region of residence. Furthermore, heritage language speakers use their agency to identify with the heritage language(s). Heritage language speakers may be at any level of proficiency. Additionally, a person may still identify with (a) particular heritage language(s) based on their personal background, without having to actually have proficiency in the language(s). Finally, given the importance of identity and agency in determining heritage languages, heritage languages include immigrant, Indigenous, and ancestral languages of either kind.

We have chosen to use an expanded definition of heritage languages, including Indigenous and immigrant/diaspora community languages, because of the recognition that languages do not have to be either one thing or the other; they can be both. That is, for example, a language does not have to be either an Indigenous language or a heritage language – it can be, and often is, both at once. We argue that because the term ‘heritage language’ focuses on identity, agency, and cultural history, it is a self-identifying categorization and one that is up to the individual and/or community to decide upon. This is reflected by many authors in this volume, where Indigenous languages are also considered to be heritage languages (see Chapters 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15). This is not to say that Indigenous and immigrant/diaspora languages experience the same challenges. Quite the contrary. We recognize the different challenges met by different languages and therefore acknowledge the usefulness of maintaining a more historical categorization alongside the term “heritage language.” Policies, then, need to address both the individual challenges experienced by Indigenous and immigrant/diaspora languages, as well as the shared challenges of these languages as heritage languages.

Furthermore, as evidenced by the well-known volume Heritage Language Education: A New Field Emerging (2008), edited by Donna Brinton, Olga Kagan, and Susan Bauckus, heritage language research has been popular across disciplines, such that there has been a multitude of research focusing on education, assessment, sociolinguistic identity, demographics, narratives, sociolinguistic variation, grammar, and so forth. However, an area that has received significantly less attention has been that of heritage language policy (see Lo Bianco, 2008, and King & Ennser-Kananen, 2013, in particular, for exceptions). Aside from filling a gap in the literature, what additional value does a volume focused on heritage language policy bring?

As discussed at length throughout the chapters of this volume, language policy responds to the current sociolinguistic and ideological climate of a given context, and it further shapes the use of and ideologies towards languages. However, despite the significant recursive relationship between language policy and access to and ideologies towards heritage languages, language policy regarding heritage languages is often only provided as background to heritage language research, if it is provided at all. When language policy is focused on in heritage language research, it is largely restricted to language-in-education policy (e.g., Duff, 2008; Seals & Kreeft-Peyton, 2016; Tucker, 2008; Willoughby, 2014). Yet policy, both explicit and implicit, relating to heritage languages occurs across sectors of society, from official national documents to local community mission statements. Furthermore, as currently mentioned, policies affecting heritage languages are often difficult to locate, as they rarely explicitly use the same terminology used by academics. However, given the recursive relationship between policy and practice, it is crucial to have an accurate understanding of the current state of affairs regarding heritage language policy around the world.

The current volume addresses these challenges by bringing together researchers who are experts in their respective heritage language and language policy contexts. In their work in these chapters, heritage language policy is discussed, including the current status of heritage languages and how (or if) heritage languages are addressed in official language policy. Adding to this, the researchers in this volume address the particular challenges faced by heritage languages in each context, as well as the practicalities of heritage language use despite (or often in spite of) any official language policy including them. As such, we hope that this volume provides insight into the different realities faced by heritage language stakeholders, especially in light of heritage language policy, around the world.

This volume is composed of five sections, in addition to this current stand-alone introduction chapter. We have chosen to group the chapters regionally so that researchers, students, and any other stakeholders who work with specific regional contexts and/or languages can most easily access the country case studies. The first section focuses on the Americas and includes case studies of the United States, Canadian, and Argentinian contexts. The following section is focused on Europe and includes Norway, Sweden, and Ireland. Then we move to the African context for the third section and include case studies of Morocco, Namibia, and Uganda. Section four focuses on Asia, looking to Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. Finally, the volume rounds out with a fifth section focused on Australasia, which includes New Zealand, Australia, and Fiji.

Beginning the first section on the Americas, Janet Fuller and Julio Torres analyze the situation of Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. Before discussing policy explicitly, they draw attention to the sociolinguistic status of Spanish in the United States. Fuller and Torres also mark the fact that continued use of the language is a result of steady immigration from Spanish-speaking countries into the United States, not a result of intergenerational language transmission. The authors then discuss the history of language policy in the United States, specifically highlighting how English has been promoted and how all other languages, especially local and Indigenous, have been suppressed through policy. This discussion includes policies and acts such as California Proposition 227, the Bilingual Education Act, and the No Child Left Behind Act, including how they were implemented and efforts made across many sectors to correct or overturn them.

The second chapter within this section is written by Suzanne Gessner, Tracy Herbert, and Aliana Parker and focuses on Indigenous languages in Canada. The authors consider the more than 60 Indigenous languages present in Canada and tell of the recent government efforts to make reparations for over 150 years of language loss caused by the residential schools system and assimilationist policies. The authors also draw attention to the fact that despite recent governmental efforts, Indigenous languages have been largely excluded from Canadian policy discourse, and previous national educational policies have hurt these language speakers more than helped them. However, Gessner, Herbert, and Parker point to the multiple local policy efforts by Indigenous community members that are effectively supporting each group’s heritage languages.

The final chapter of the first section (Chapter 4) comes from Cristina Banfi and presents a discussion of the variety of policies present in Argentina regarding heritage languages. Covering languages such as Arabic, Armenian, Basque, Catalan, Chinese, Galician, Italian, Japanese, Welsh, and Yiddish, among others, Banfi highlights how Argentina’s laissez-faire approach to heritage languages today (as opposed to assimilationist policies of the past) means that heritage language maintenance efforts are largely dependent upon the individual communities. The government’s approach to languages, combined with significantly different immigration policies determined by the government in charge at any given time, has resulted in many heritage languages in Argentina with widely varying statuses.

The second section of the volume, focused on Europe, begins with the status of Kven in Norway, as presented by Pia Lane and Anna-Kaisa Räisänen. Lane and Räisänen highlight Kven as a case of a heritage language in an area that has always been multilingual, which is a different focus than that often seen in heritage language literature. The authors detail the historic shift in Norwegian language policy from embracing the Kven people to then trying to assimilate them to again trying to revitalize the Kven language. Major influences on current heritage language policy in Norway, as highlighted by Lane and Räisänen, include the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The authors trace the influence of the Charter and Framework, as seen in other Norwegian policy documents, and address the current challenges for Kven as a heritage language today.

The second chapter in this section (Chapter 6), written by Lena Ekberg, considers the effects of Swedish language policy on Finnish, Meänkieli, Yiddish, Romany, and Sami. Similar to the preceding chapter, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages plays a major role in influencing Swedish heritage language policy. The languages focused on by Ekberg make up the five officially recognized minority languages in Sweden under the Charter, with Sami also recognized as an Indigenous language. Ekberg examines how heritage language rights are put into practice in Sweden and the impact of these policies on heritage language maintenance.

Muiris Ó Laoire brings us Chapter 7, and the final chapter of the Europe section, in which he focuses on heritage language policy in Ireland. In particular, Ó Laoire engages the reader in a discussion of the considerations to be made when using terms such as ‘heritage language’ or ‘minority language’ when talking about languages in Ireland, such as Irish Gaelic, Irish Sign Language, and Traveler Cant, and immigrant languages such as Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Ukrainian, and many more. Part of this consideration, as discussed by Ó Laoire, is how Ireland is to go about making a meaningful language policy while attempting to revive Irish Gaelic and to support an unexpected influx of multilingual immigrants from around the globe.

Section three takes us to the African continent. The first chapter in this section, presented by Yamina El Kirat El Allame and Yassine Boussagui, focuses on Amazigh (also known as Berber) in Morocco. The authors detail the change in Moroccan language policy from a widespread historic repression of the Indigenous Amazigh language to an uptake in revitalization efforts by the Institut Royal de la Culture Amazigh. El Kirat El Allame and Boussagui also trace the results of these efforts through to the recognition of Amazigh as an official language of Morocco in 2011, due in large part to the Amazigh Cultural Movement and the spread of human rights focused initiatives internationally.

Chapter 9, the second chapter in the Africa section, is written by Sheena Shah and Marianne Zappen-Thomson and focuses on German in Namibia. As they detail, Namibia was one of the few African countries colonized by the German Empire in the 19th century and is the only remaining African country to name German as a national language, despite its small population of German speakers. Shah and Zappen-Thomson detail the reasons for German’s status weakening over time, as it transitioned from an official language to a semi-official language to its current status as one of 13 national languages. The authors then examine the connections between policy and practice and end by examining the current status of German as a heritage language versus German as a foreign language in Namibian education.

The final chapter of this section, by Judith Nakayiza, focuses on Luganda in Uganda. Nakayiza focuses on Luganda’s status as the most widely spoken Indigenous language of Uganda, as well as its use as the country’s de facto official language, and she...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: a focus on heritage language policy
• Part I Americas
• Part II Europe
• Part III Africa
• Part IV Asia
• Part V Australasia
• Index