1

UNIVERSIDAD DE CHILE
Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades
Departamento de Lingüística
Applied Linguistics
Prof. Ximena Tabilo
Francisco Becerra, Manuel Correa,
Nicolás Gálvez, Matías Valdés
August 14th, 2019

Revision: Instructed Heritage Language Acquisition

1.Introduction

In the chapter number 27 named “Instructed Heritage Language Acquisition” of the book The
Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, the authors Silvina Montrul and Melissa
Bowles discuss and review the barely sufficient existing research on Instructed Heritage
Language Acquisition –IHLA henceforth. The authors, in addition, address four different
questions along the whole chapter mainly regarding the contribution, benefits, and outcomes
of formal instruction in the linguistic development of heritage language (HL).

The present critical review, therefore, is going to be divided into three parts in which
the previously mentioned chapter will be examined in different ways. In first place, a complete
summary of what the chapter is about is going to be provided by presenting the most important
points of the text, as well as the findings and the conclusion given by the authors. Then, the
main key points are going to be discussed and the chapter is going to be evaluated both
positively and negatively in the critique section. Furthermore, we will also give our personal
opinion as a group. Finally, a brief conclusion will take place.

2. Summary.

In the following section, there is a summary of the main points dealt with in the text. The
central finding and conclusions will also be presented.

2.1. Empirical Evidence.

2.1.1. Instruction in HL development.

 2

In this section, the potential role of instruction in HL teaching is discussed. In the text, the
difference between L2 and HL acquisition is explained: the former mainly takes place in a
classroom setting, and the latter takes place in a naturalistic setting. However, both can have
the aid of instruction. There is a discussion that whether instruction is beneficial for the
learners. In instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), the question is what type of input
is the one to teach. The text claims that even though some authors argue that negative evidence
-– disconfirm incorrect hypothesis about how the language that they are learning works– should
not be taught, nevertheless, positive evidence may not always be good enough.

As HL instruction has not been largely researched, there emerges the question if it
actually helps to develop HSs use of the language. The comparison between two groups of HSs
—one receiving instruction (a) and the other not receiving instruction (b)— group (a) out-
performed group (b) on written grammaticality judgment test and written cloze test. Even
though this shows that instruction does facilitate the development, it is not something to draw
conclusions from since previous tests were not applied, so the improvement may be due to
external factors.

2.1.2. Beneficial Instruction Aspects for HL Learning.

This section talks about the beneficial aspects of instruction for HL learners. The first aspect
that this section discusses are studies that discuss how to deal with underdevelopment for HL
learners in order to improve their proficiency. Results from a study that worked with Korean
HL learners showed that children improve their language proficiency when teachers make a
special emphasis on teaching the areas that are harder for them to learn (Song et al. 1997).
Montrul and Bowles (2019) worked with Spanish HL and L2 learners, and their study showed
that explicit instruction and feedback were highly beneficial to HL learners.

Another aspect discussed in this section is which are the types of instruction most
beneficial for HL learners. The instruction types on the studies of Potowski, Jegersi, and
Morgan-Short (2009) and Torres (2013) were the processing instruction (PI) -based on rule
explanation, and the traditional instruction (TI) -based on output-focused practice. Results
showed that L2 learners were more committed with pre-test gains and feedback, while HL
learners rely mostly on implicit knowledge.

2.1.3. Shared Classroom Benefits and Pedagogical Implications.

 3

As the text presented, L2 learners were more focused on language forms, whereas HL learners
were focused on content and meaning-making in the tasks. Learner-learner interactions were
more beneficial to L2 learners than to their HL classmates. Tasks were more likely to be
resolved in the target language by L2-HL pairs than by L2-L2 pairs. Bowles (2011) says that
HL and L2 learners can work hand-by-hand for mutual benefit just if learners’ oral and written
tasks are balanced according to their proficiency levels.

Regarding pedagogical implications, the authors (Montrul and Bowles, 2017) say that even
though HL learners are weaker in reading and writing tasks, oral proficiency improves as a
result of instruction and that teachers should incorporate all four language skills (497).
Secondly, L2 and HL learners with complementary skills should be matched to encourage both
students’ potential (498). Concerning feedback, it appears that explicit corrective feedback in
response to both L2 and HL learners is more effective. The last aspect of this section says that
teachers should validate HL students’ colloquial language variety, making themselves aware
of preconceived notions about the students’ varieties before this can impact negatively on the
classroom environment.

3. Critique.

In the following section, a critique of the positive and negative aspects of the text will be
presented. This having in mind how through the account was and how accurate and trustworthy
the conclusion are.

3.1.The positive side of the chapter.

The authors give a good overall perspective of the field. They focused on key points that have
been researched on the field so far. Thus, a general perspective of the many branches of the
field are given. There are elements of this chapter that are worth highlighting: honesty and
thoroughness. Both applied to the presentation of the current literature and the conclusions that
could be possibly drawn.

Firstly, honesty is prominent in this chapter. When it came to showing the results, they
were transparent and acknowledged other authors’ work. Furthermore, this characteristic was
highlighted when it came to the possible conclusions that could be drawn. They were always
aware that due to the little research done on the topic, conclusions should not be taken as clear-
 4

cut. Furthermore, when the results of some studies suggested a positive conclusion regarding
IHLA, they quickly pointed out the shortcomings of the study being described.

Secondly, they were very thorough throughout the account they gave. In the chapter,
detailed account of the results is given. In order to explain the status of the field, they do an
outstanding job by providing us with an account of the results. This gives a strong foundation
to the claims they do later in the chapter. Their thoroughness in a field that is relatively new is
something that can make of this chapter a stepping stone in the development of the field. Thus,
these two characteristics are two very positive aspects of this chapter.

3.2.The negative side of the chapter.

There are many positive aspects to highlight, but there is also a negative side. Firstly, when it
they give direction for future studies, they mention instructed second language acquisition
(ISLA) as a starting point. However, they fail to mention exactly where to start. ISLA is as
broad as it gets and IHLA is a starting sub-discipline. There are few to none aspects to compare.
Therefore, they could have been more specific. It can be argued that they cannot be more
specific because they need give researches freedom. Nevertheless, they do suggest testing a
wider variety of HSs since most tests were applied to university students.

In addition to that, the problem of which test or tests are the most suitable is lacking.
Then there are many tests mentions, but there is not an account given to which could be the
better one to build up a reliable corpus for the field. Thus, it should be a central discussion in
the field. The chapter gives the idea that is does not matter what test is applied, the results
should be reliable. However, this is not always the case and an eye should be kept on this. The
discussion of what test and methodology should be used on this field should be central in this
developing stage of the sub-discipline.

4. Conclusion

The chapter provides a thorough account of research carried out in HL field. This account was
relied on four questions regarding contribution, benefits, and outcomes. Firstly, the different.
Instruction in HL development was discussed. The discussion merges from the problem if
instruction is beneficial for HL. Also, it arose a discussion regarding the type of input that
should be provided to HL learners. Nevertheless, the final questions has to do with whether
instruction is good or bad to HL learners´ development. Later on, a section concerning the
 5

beneficial instructions aspects for HL learning was given. This section emphasized two
different benefits that HL can obtain through instruction: learners improve their proficiency
when harder areas for them are highlighted; learners benefit from explicit instruction and
feedback. By the end of the section, it was discussed whether the PI or TI should be used.
Shared classroom benefits was also a section, in which it was concluded that L2 learners benefit
more than their HL peers. However, it is also said that HL and L2 learners can work side-by-
side in order to get mutual benefits from their strengths and weaknesses.

As for pedagogical implications, the authors stated that HL learners less skilled when
reading and writing tasks are done, despite oral proficiency, which is stronger than the two
mentioned skills. Thus, it was said that teachers should include all the four skills in their tasks.
Besides, the authors recommended match L2 and HL learners skills in other to benefit each
other. Finally, a strong emphasis on respecting HL´s language varieties was provided, so the
potential drawbacks of imposing a standard variety can be avoided or reduced.

Concerning the critiques there were two positive aspects: honesty and thoroughness.
Firstly, honesty was achieved through providing clear conclusions taken from the studies
accounted in the chapter. The authors were aware of the little amount of research carried out in
HL, thus conclusions should not be categorical and definitive. Secondly, thoroughness was a
virtue of the research, since the research results were provided clearly. Thus, a base for further
claims was set.

On the negative aspects, there is a failure in providing an accurate definition of ISLA.

There is no pinpoint from this field accounted in the chapter. Plus, IHLA is a newly-born sub-
discipline, which causes a lack of aspects to be compared. Thus, providing a more accurate
definitions would have set a better tone for the further development of this chapter. Moreover,
too many tests were mentioned, but there was a lack of suggestions on which is the most
suitable. This can lead the readers to think that it does not matter the nature of the test, all
results are reliables.

References
Bowles, M. (2011). Exploring the role of modality: L2 --heritage learner interactions in the
Spanish language classroom. Heritage Language Journal, 8, 30-65.
Montrul, S. & Bowles M. (2017). Instructed Heritage Language Acquisition. The Routledge
Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. 488-502. New York:
Routledge.
 6

Potowski, K., Jegerski, J. & Morgan-Short, K. (2009) The effects of instruction on linguistic
development in Spanish heritage language speakers. Language Learning, 59, 537-
579.
Song, M., O’Grady, W., Cho, S., & Lee, M. (1997). The learning and teaching of Korean in
community schools. In Y.-H. Kim (Ed.) Korean language in America 2, 111-127.
Honolulu, HI: American Association of Teachers of Korean.
Torres, J. R. (2013). Heritage and second language learners of Spanish: The roles of task
complexity and inhibitory control. Washington: Georgetown University.