Heritage Speakers of Spanish and Study Abroad 2020046951, 9780367256890, 9780429289163, 9780367752095

Citation preview

Heritage Speakers of Spanish and Study Abroad

“Heritage Spanish speakers are one of the fastest growing college demographics, yet just 7% of students who study abroad are Latino. This timely volume illustrates key themes within the growing linguistic, pre-professional, and identity-based aspects of what happens when heritage Spanish speakers study abroad. These understandings can help the profession develop study abroad programs best suited for heritage speakers’ needs, and ideally increase their participation in these lifechanging experiences.” Kim Potowski, University of Illinois at Chicago Heritage Speakers of Spanish and Study Abroad is an edited volume that provides emerging research on heritage speakers of Spanish in immersion contexts in theoretical, empirical, and programmatic terms. This edited collection seeks to expand our understanding of heritage speakers of Spanish by incorporating research on their linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic development during and after a sojourn abroad, by discussing the complexities of their identity formation and negotiation during immersive stays, and by highlighting programmatic innovations that could be leveraged to better serve diverse learners in study abroad contexts. This volume advances the fields of both heritage language education and research on immersion study in a variety of ways, and will be of interest to scholars of applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, and educational linguistics, especially those interested in study abroad programming and Spanish for heritage speakers. Rebecca Pozzi is an Assistant Professor of Spanish Language and Linguistics at California State University, Monterey Bay, USA. Tracy Quan is an Assistant Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, USA. Chelsea Escalante is an Assistant Professor of Spanish Linguistics at the University of Wyoming, USA.

Routledge Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics Series Editor: Dale Koike, University of Texas at Austin

The Routledge Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics series provides a showcase for the latest research on Spanish and Portuguese Linguistics. It publishes select research monographs on various topics in the field, reflecting strands of current interest. Titles in the series: Spanish in the United States Attitudes and Variation Edited by Scott M. Alvord and Gregory L. Thompson Spanish in Health Care Policy, Practice and Pedagogy in Latino Health Glenn A. Martínez Los castellanos del Perú historia, variación y contacto lingüístico Luis Andrade Ciudad y Sandro Sessarego (eds.) Language Patterns in Spanish and Beyond Structure, Context and Development Edited by Juan J. Colomina-Almiñana and Sandro Sessarego The Evolution of Spanish Past Forms Gibran Delgado-Díaz Sociolinguistic Approaches to Sibilant Variation in Spanish Edited by Eva Núñez Heritage Speakers of Spanish and Study Abroad Edited by Rebecca Pozzi, Tracy Quan, and Chelsea Escalante For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Studies-in-Hispanic-and-Lusophone-Linguistics/book-series/RSHLL

Heritage Speakers of Spanish and Study Abroad

Edited by Rebecca Pozzi, Tracy Quan, and Chelsea Escalante Series Editor: Dale A. Koike Spanish List Advisor: Javier MuñozBasols

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Rebecca Pozzi, Tracy Quan, and Chelsea Escalante; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Rebecca Pozzi, Tracy Quan, and Chelsea Escalante to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pozzi, Rebecca, editor. | Escalante, Chelsea, editor. | Quan, Tracy (Professor of Spanish), editor. Title: Heritage speakers of Spanish and study abroad / edited by Rebecca Pozzi, Tracy Quan and Chelsea Escalante. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York : Routledge, 2021. | Series: Routledge studies in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Heritage Speakers of Spanish and Study Abroad is an edited volume that provides emerging research on heritage speakers of Spanish in study abroad and other immersive contexts in theoretical, empirical, and programmatic terms”--Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020046951 | ISBN 9780367256890 (hardback) | ISBN 9780429289163 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Spanish language--Study and teaching (Higher) | Heritage language speakers--Education (Higher)--United States. | Spanish language--Acquisition. | Spanish language--Social aspects. | Hispanic Americans--Languages. | Foreign study. Classification: LCC PC4066 .H47 2021 | DDC 468.0071--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020046951 ISBN: 978-0-367-25689-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-75209-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-28916-3 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by MPS Limited, Dehradun

Contents

Introduction

1

R EBECC A POZ Z I , T RA CY Q UA N, AN D C H E LS E A E SCA LA NTE

SECTION I

Sociolinguistics 1 Sociolinguistic competence among heritage speakers of Spanish abroad: Key findings, critical gaps, and contributions to variationist theory

11

13

KIM BER L Y GE E SLI N , A AR N ES G U D M ES T AD , M AR IA HAS LE R BA RKE R , M A TTH E W K A N W I T , A VI ZI A Y. LO N G, AND M EGAN SO LON

2 The long-term impact of a sojourn abroad on heritage language learners of Spanish: The case of vosotros versus ustedes

33

A NGELA GE O R G E A N D F RA NCI S C O S A LG AD O- RO BLES

3 “Aquí el español es muy diferente”: Mexican Americans’ linguistic accommodation in social interactions with Spanish peers

51

M EGHANN M . P E A C E

4 Individual differences in dialectal accommodation: Case studies of heritage speakers volunteering in coastal Ecuador CHEL SEA ESCA LA N TE

77

vi Contents SECTION II

Pragmatics 5 Researching Spanish heritage language pragmatics in study abroad

99

101

R AC HEL L . S H I V ELY

6 The pragmatic development of heritage speakers of Spanish studying abroad in Argentina

117

REBECCA POZZI, CHELSEA ESCALANTE, AND TRACY QUAN

SECTION III

Identity 7 Heritage speakers of Spanish and study abroad: Shifting identities in new contexts

139

141

JENNIF ER L E EM A N AN D M E AG AN D R I VE R

8 The diverse experiences of heritage speakers at a Guatemalan language school: Linguistic agency in the contact zone

160

JULIA MEN A R D - W AR WI C K , S HA N N O N K E HOE, A ND DEBO R A H PA L M ER

SECTION IV

Linguistic development 9 Linguistic development of Spanish heritage learners in study abroad: Considerations, implications, and future directions

179

181

CHEL SEA E S CA L AN T E , C AR OLI N A V I ER A, AND M ELISSA PA TI Ñ O -V E G A

10 The impact of study abroad on Spanish heritage learners’ writing development LA URA MAR Q U É S- P AS C U A L

199

Contents

vii

SECTION V

Program design

217

11 Spanish heritage language learners abroad: Inclusive pedagogies for critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

219

CLA UDIA HO LG U Í N M E N D OZA A ND AN A LI S A TA YL OR

12 Enhancing readiness for the immersive experience: Spanish heritage language learners as conversation partners in predeparture sessions

236

SILVIA M A R IJU A N

13 An international service-learning experience for Spanish heritage speakers: The nursing home

254

A NTON IO F. JI M ÉN E Z JI M É N EZ

Afterword: Charting a path forward for Spanish heritage speakers in study abroad

276

CR ISTINA SA N Z

List of Contributors Index

285 292

Introduction Rebecca Pozzi, Tracy Quan, and Chelsea Escalante

Due to the tremendous growth of the Latinx population in the United States over the last few decades, the country is now home to the second-largest number of Spanish speakers in the world (Escobar & Potowski, 2015). There are approximately 48.6 million Spanish speakers in the United States, placing it second to Mexico, which has about 121 million speakers (Escobar & Potowski, 2015). Although California, Texas, and Florida – the states that have historically been home to large Latinx communities – still top the chart in terms of the highest number of Spanish speakers, states not traditionally associated with large Hispanic populations – e.g., North Carolina, Kentucky, and Georgia – are witnessing the fastest growth (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Even universities with traditionally low Latinx student populations have witnessed an increasing number of bilingual Spanishspeakers on campus. Despite this increase in numbers, on- and off-campus programming, including study abroad (SA) programs, still lag behind in being inclusive to linguistically and culturally diverse students. Riegelhaupt and Carrasco’s (2000) eye-opening article on heritage speakers (HSs) of Spanish in an SA context illustrated the ways in which HSs are treated abroad based on their variety of Spanish, social class, and race, among other factors. They described the experiences of Lidia, a bilingual Chicana and aspiring teacher, who studied in Mexico: [Lidia] broke down and cried and said she wanted to return to her hometown, Yuma, Arizona. A few days later, when we interviewed her [host] family members, they revealed their dismay about her Spanish. They indicated that they could not understand how an educated individual, especially a teacher, could talk like this [...] The family felt that a “Mexican” person (whether from Mexico or from the United States) who spoke Spanish in such a manner was not really welcome in their home. Yet, the Euro-American guest in the same home, although she committed far more errors, was accepted and welcomed with open-arms. We recall the documented comment by one member of Lidia's family: “¡Ay Dr. Carrasco! Mándenos la próxima vez una rubia, con ojos azules”. [“Oh, Dr. Carrasco! Next time send us a blonde with blue eyes”.] (p. 408)

2 Rebecca Pozzi et al. Since this account of Lidia’s story, research on HSs in SA remains limited. Twenty years later, how are HSs experiencing and interpreting their SA experiences? How are HSs received and supported in immersion programs? How do HSs’ linguistic development, awareness, and attitudes shift during and after their sojourn abroad? This volume addresses these questions through research that brings to the forefront HSs’ “voices in all of their complexity and diversity” (Parra, 2016, p. 197) and explores who HSs are as well as “how they see, perceive, interpret, present and represent themselves” abroad (Hornberger & Wang, 2008, p. 6). SA has been a burgeoning field of scholarship within applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) since Barbara Lafford published the edited volume Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context in 1995. Yet to date, the majority of SA research has focused primarily on second language (L2) learners, typically middle/upper-class, white, monolingual English speakers, and their socioaffective experiences and L2 development abroad (Kinginger, 2011; Marijuan & Sanz, 2018). Meanwhile, there has been an increase in the number of HSs in US-based Spanish language classrooms, which has led to the establishment of heritage language programs and research. It is no surprise, then, that the number of HSs of Spanish who study abroad has also gone up in recent years, a number that is expected to continue to climb. According to the Institute of International Education’s (2019) Open Doors Report, the past ten years has seen an increase in SA students who identify as Hispanic/Latinx: from 6% in 2007–8 to 10.6% in 2017–18. While these numbers are encouraging, the majority of undergraduates who study abroad are still predominantly white: 70% in 2017–18 (Institute of International Education, 2019). This lack of diversity in SA programs may be attributed to logistical challenges; some students are unable to go abroad due to financial reasons, immigration status, physical or mental health, or familial responsibilities. For diverse individuals who do go abroad, SA curricula and research have not always been inclusive of the lived experiences of racialized, multilingual, and multicultural students (e.g., Anya, 2017; Goldoni, 2017). HSs in particular tend to have varied experiences in immersion contexts depending on the host communities in which they choose to live and/or study as well as their own interpretations of their ethnolinguistic identities and motivations. Research on HSs of Spanish studying abroad in a predominantly Spanishspeaking country has demonstrated positive and negative experiences and differing linguistic and identity outcomes (Shively, 2018). On the one hand, HSs of Spanish may return from SA with increased awareness of dialectal variation, reaffirmed ethnolinguistic identities, and greater confidence in their Spanish abilities and language practices (Chang, 2015; Quan, 2021; Quan, Pozzi, Kehoe, & Menard-Warwick, 2018). On the other hand, HSs of Spanish may also encounter negative reactions from host communities based on race, ethnicity, social class, and language knowledge; for example, the expectation that they should speak a standardized variety of Spanish or

Introduction

3

exhibit monolingual cultural and linguistic norms (Moreno, 2009; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000; Shively, 2016). As such, HSs of Spanish may question their identities, which also influences their language use and acquisition while abroad (Shively, 2016). Some HSs of Spanish become part of local social networks (George & Hoffman-González, 2019), while others spend more time with US peers and English-speaking internationals (Collentine & Freed, 2004; Moreno, 2009). HSs studying in a non-ancestral country, or a country with which they have no direct cultural, ethnic, or familial ties, may choose to reinforce their heritage identity by rejecting regional features or to reinvent themselves by adopting or switching between the local and home varieties depending on the context, the interlocutors, and their imagined communities (George & Hoffman-González, 2019; Moreno, 2009; Pozzi & Reznicek-Parrado, 2021). In sum, an SA context has the potential to broaden HSs’ knowledge and awareness of the plurality of the Spanish language and Hispanic cultures, and to encourage them to reflect on their family histories and lived experiences. Most research on HSs in SA to date has primarily focused on identity work, personal and professional growth, and the development of metalinguistic and sociolinguistic awareness, while other aspects, such as HSs’ pragmatic and linguistic development and SA program design, remain largely underexplored (Shively, 2018). In response, this volume explores various US-based HS populations in immersion contexts across several different national contexts – Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Spain – and focuses on sociolinguistic acquisition, pragmatics, identity, linguistic development, and curricular considerations for HSs in SA settings.

Terminology Although we use the term heritage speaker (HS) throughout this introduction, the term itself and its definition are debated in the field (e.g., Beaudrie & Fairclough, 2012; Pascual y Cabo, 2016; Potowski & Lynch, 2014). The many definitions of HSs in the US context center around two elements: (1) a certain degree of language proficiency in the heritage language, and (2) a personal or familial connection to the heritage language. For educational contexts, researchers have often turned to Valdés’ (2000) definition, which states that an HS is an individual “who is raised in a home where a nonEnglish language is spoken. The student may speak or merely understand the heritage language and be, to some degree, bilingual in English and the heritage language” (Valdés, 2000, p. 1). This definition, however, has been criticized as too narrow because it excludes those who lack proficiency in the heritage language. In contrast, Fishman (2001) provides a broader and more inclusive definition: an HS is an individual who has a personal or familial connection to a non-majority language. This definition highlights this population’s shared connection to a heritage language, whether they speak, understand, or simply view it as part of their background. Meanwhile, the

4 Rebecca Pozzi et al. term heritage learner (HL) is employed to refer to those who have chosen to study their heritage language (Polinsky & Kagan, 2007). Researchers (e.g., Montrul & Bowles, 2017) have also distinguished between instructed and non-instructed HLs – those in academic/classroom contexts versus those who have learned the language in naturalistic settings. Overall, HSs and HLs of Spanish are a linguistically and culturally diverse group characterized by generation in the United States, education in English and Spanish, amount of contact with Spanish/English speakers, heritage language variety, proficiency level in Spanish, attitudes toward Spanish, ethnolinguistic identity, and cultural competence (Beaudrie & Fairclough, 2012; Potowski & Lynch, 2014). While scholars commonly employ the term HS, as we do in this volume, it references an identity that (1) has been constructed largely by researchers, educators, and administrators, and (2) has been assigned to a group of individuals, rather than originating with them (Leeman, 2015). As Hornberger and Wang (2008) note, debates around the definition of the term HS fail to consider how learners see themselves or their relationship with the language and culture in question. Such terminology is further problematized by García (2005), who contests the use of the word “heritage” when referring to this population since it associates their identity, language, and culture with the past instead of the present and the future. Moreover, the use of the term HS rather than “bilingual”, “multilingual”, or “native speaker” suggests that these terms are mutually exclusive, thereby reproducing ideologies that equate nativeness, complete linguistic acquisition, and legitimacy with monolinguallike standards (García & Otheguy, 2014; Potowski, 2018). Nevertheless, if nativeness is defined as acquisition of a language (largely) naturalistically in early childhood and bilingualism can be conceived of on a continuum, then HSs should be considered both natives and bilinguals (Rothman & TreffersDaller, 2014). Despite the validity of these critiques and the implications of any choice regarding nomenclature, the authors of the chapters in this volume used the terminology of their choice when referring to this population.

Overview of the volume Considering that many SA programs have yet to incorporate knowledge from the field of heritage language education into their programming, curriculum, and training of local instructors and host families, this volume explores issues pertinent to heritage language education and SA in order to inform program and research design. We hope that this edited collection will lead to much needed conversations among administrators, practitioners, and academics regarding the ways in which they might better support Latinx students and HSs in their pursuit of immersion experiences that take their unique characteristics and backgrounds into account. This volume consists of five sections, which are summarized below: (1) sociolinguistic acquisition, (2) pragmatics, (3) identity, (4) linguistic development,

Introduction

5

and (5) program design. Although each section focuses on a broad theme, there is overlap in several chapters. Examples of this include the intersection of sociolinguistic acquisition and pragmatics in chapter 2 by George and Salgado-Robles on HS retention of vosotros versus ustedes, the relationship between sociolinguistic acquisition and identity in chapter 3 by Peace on HS accommodation to Peninsular Spanish, and the implications of the findings from chapter 10 by Marques-Pascual regarding HS writing development in semester and year-long sojourns for SA program design. Each section begins with a theoretical overview of the theme as it pertains to HSs in SA, followed by one to three empirical chapters. Section I: Sociolinguistic acquisition The first section of the volume explores how HSs of Spanish develop sociolinguistic competence and critical language awareness of variation during and after a period abroad. In addition to examining speakers’ awareness of regional features, the chapters in this section highlight the extent to which HSs of Spanish may choose whether to align themselves linguistically with the host communities and the implications of this choice. The section begins with chapter 1, a theoretical chapter by Geeslin, Gudmestad, Hasler Barker, Kanwit, Long, and Solon, which discusses sociolinguistic competence as it pertains to HSs, reviews empirical research on the development of sociolinguistic competence in an SA context, generates hypotheses for how HSs may encounter dialectal variation, and articulates a plan for future research in this area. In chapter 2, George and Salgado-Robles investigate the retention of the ability to style shift between the second person plural vosotros and ustedes among HSs of Mexican descent who returned to the United States after studying in Madrid, Spain. The study finds that the HSs who completed an SA program that included a service-learning component retained the style-shifting ability longer than those who had completed a traditional SA program, perhaps due to stronger connections made with madrileños during service learning. In chapter 3, Peace explores the extent to which HSs of Mexican descent studying abroad in central Spain adopt local features in conversations with Spanish university students. In these conversations, HSs not only rarely accommodate to Peninsular Spanish, but they also avoid stigmatized features of their home variety of the language, presenting themselves as educated speakers of a Mexican variety of Spanish. In chapter 4, Escalante examines the individual differences in accommodation to /s/-weakening in coastal Ecuador among three HSs based on language background and use of Spanish at home, the communities of practice cultivated during the sojourn abroad, and the participants’ awareness of /s/-weakening. Using case-study methodology, Escalante analyzes how those differences may have led to the variable adoption of /s/weakening among the three focal participants.

6 Rebecca Pozzi et al. Section II: Pragmatics This section offers an overview of theoretical and empirical research on pragmatics, or “how-to-say-what-to-whom-when” (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013, p. 68), during an SA experience. Specifically, it addresses (1) the challenges HSs may face when certain linguistic phenomena (such as speech acts and politeness) of the host variety differ from that of the HSs’ home variety and (2) the varying ways members of the host community might perceive HSs based on their pragmatic choices. The section begins with a theoretical discussion in chapter 5 in which Shively proposes a research agenda for heritage language pragmatics in SA. This chapter identifies key research questions, state-of-the-art methods, and theories pertaining to HS pragmatics in SA, and discusses how pragmatics instruction can meet the needs of HSs of Spanish. In chapter 6, Pozzi, Escalante, and Quan explore the impact of such pragmatics instruction related to requests, apologies, and the use of vos on the pragmatic competence of two HSs of Mexican descent studying abroad in Mendoza, Argentina. The study finds that, following explicit instruction, the focal HSs expanded their pragmatic repertoires through increasing their metapragmatic awareness with respect to the use of vos while abroad. Section III: Identity This section explores key theoretical issues, empirical research, and pedagogical implications of HS identity in SA. Chapter 7, the theoretical chapter by Leeman and Driver, presents sociocultural frameworks that regard identity as fluid, socially constructed, and negotiated, as well as the ways in which this framework is particularly relevant for HSs in SA. It focuses on issues such as the racialization of Latinx students, attitudes toward linguistic variation and “non-standard” varieties, and tensions between claimed and ascribed ethnoracial, linguistic, and national identities. It concludes with recommendations for SA program design based on critical approaches. Chapter 8 by Menard-Warwick, Kehoe, and Palmer examines how three HSs exercise agency during classroom interactions in a Guatemalan language school through challenging existing teaching materials, participating actively in classroom discourse, and presenting on topics relevant to their career aspirations. This chapter highlights the successes and challenges faced by HSs as Latinx students studying in Spanish-speaking countries, emphasizing the multiple and shifting affiliations HSs hold (and are perceived to hold) as they use their heritage language in new Spanish-dominant contexts. Section IV: Linguistic development This section addresses the understudied and undertheorized area of linguistic development of HSs during a sojourn abroad in a Spanish-speaking

Introduction

7

context. Chapter 9, the theoretical chapter by Escalante, Viera, and PatiñoVega, begins by describing the different approaches used for studying language learners’ linguistic development, particularly the development of their oral and writing skills. The authors then review empirical research in these areas for HSs and L2s in SA and at-home contexts and recommend fertile areas for future studies on writing and orality in SA. Chapter 10 by Marques-Pascual examines the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of the writing of 22 advanced HSs after a semester or a year abroad in Spain. Findings indicate that although HSs did not expand their lexical diversity during SA, they did increase their syntactic complexity and fluency in written narratives. In addition, participants in year-long programs improved their grammatical accuracy. While these results suggest that SA may be beneficial for the improvement of HSs’ writing abilities, additional work is needed to better understand the linguistic development of HSs abroad overall. Section V: Program design This section provides innovative ideas for incorporating pedagogical interventions, such as conversation partners and service-learning opportunities, that leverage and include the linguistic and cultural knowledge of HSs of Spanish prior to and during SA. Chapter 11, the theoretical chapter by Holguín Mendoza and Taylor, addresses the need for SA programs to consider the unique abilities and perspectives of HSs in SA program design, especially with respect to language proficiency and the use of non-standard language varieties. They propose strategies for applying a critical language awareness framework to SA programming in order to create critical, experiential learning opportunities in order to foster students’ interactions with real-world social justice issues while providing them with tools to negotiate racial and social ideologies related to language use. Chapter 12 by Marijuan proposes the implementation of pre-departure interactions in which HSs act as conversation partners for L2 learners and HSs who are preparing to study abroad. She argues that such sessions provide a critical space of dialog between minority and majority students and among minority students themselves, which may benefit both HSs who study abroad and those who stay home. In chapter 13, Jiménez Jiménez finds that HSs who participated in service learning at a nursing home in Spain increased their linguistic awareness through expanding their knowledge of vocabulary and idiomatic expressions and gaining appreciation for register and dialectal variation. In addition, he finds that HSs expanded their understanding of the history and culture of the host country while gaining a sense of civic engagement. These chapters demonstrate the positive influence that programmatic innovations designed to enhance HSs’ experiences abroad may have on both HSs and the host communities in which they are immersed.

8 Rebecca Pozzi et al. Afterword This volume concludes with an afterword written by renowned scholar of SLA and SA, Cristina Sanz, who contextualizes the volume’s chapters within past and current findings regarding HSs in SA, points out trends and challenges of conducting such research, and proposes future directions for exploring topics pertaining to linguistically and culturally diverse students, particularly HSs, in immersion contexts.

Conclusion This edited collection includes emerging research on HSs of Spanish in SA contexts. It seeks to represent the diversity of the Spanish heritage speaking population regarding their backgrounds and abilities, as well as the diversity of the immersion experiences they pursue, through exploring SA programs of varying lengths and types in different host destinations. This volume addresses how immersion programs can improve curricular design and policies to better serve the growing Spanish HS population, and thus will be useful for shifting notions of SA programming from models that favor primarily monolingual, English-speaking students to those that are inclusive of students of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Overall, this edited collection bridges the fields of heritage language education and SA in a single volume, balancing theoretical and empirical work on topics relevant to the intersection of these areas of study, and providing a valuable resource for researchers, students, administrators, and instructors alike.

References Anya, U. (2017). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil. New York, NY: Routledge. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86. Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2015). Heritage language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill. Beaudrie, S., & Fairclough, M. (2012). Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Chang, A. (2015). “Call me a little critical if you will”: Counterstories of Latinas studying abroad in Guatemala. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16, 1–21. Collentine, J., & Freed, B.F. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 153–171. Escobar, A.M., & Potowski, K. (2015). El español en los Estados Unidos. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Fishman, J. (2001). 300-plus years of heritage language education in the United States. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. García, O. (2005). Positioning heritage languages in the United States. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 601–605.

Introduction

9

García, O., & Otheguy, R. (2014). Spanish and Hispanic bilingualism. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics (pp. 639–658). New York: Routledge. George, A., & Hoffman-González, A. (2019). Dialect and identity: US heritage language learners of Spanish abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 4(2), 252–279. Goldoni, F. (2017). Race, ethnicity, class and identity: Implications for study abroad. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(5), 328–341. Hornberger, N.H., & Wang, S.C. (2008). Who are our heritage language learners? Identity and biliteracy in heritage language education in the United States. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 3–35). New York, NY: Routledge. Institute of International Education. (2019). Profile of U.S. study abroad students, 2005/06–2017–18. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/opendoors. Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learning in study abroad. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 58–73. Lafford, B. (Ed.). (1995). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Leeman, J. (2015). Heritage language education and identity in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 100–119. Leeman, J. (2020, June 17). Hispanic or Latino? A sociolinguistic perspective [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://channelviewpublications.wordpress.com/2020/06/17/ hispanic-or-latino-a-sociolinguistic-perspective/?fbclid=IwAR0rFjNlihvtQkyyWP FayFhoCMRlZO9KzlNChg25dlB6Fz8KjhjmTNh7-Jc. Marijuan, S., & Sanz, C. (2018). Expanding boundaries: Current and new directions in study abroad research and practice. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 185–204. Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2017). Instructed heritage language acquisition. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 488–502). New York, NY: Routledge. Moreno, K.H. (2009). The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity. (Doctoral dissertation) Austin, Texas: University of Texas. Parra, M.L. (2016). Understanding identity among Spanish heritage learners: An interdisciplinary endeavor. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 177–204). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pascual y Cabo, D. (Ed.). (2016). Advances in Spanish as a heritage language. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Polinsky, M., & Kagan, O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild’ and in the classroom. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5), 368–395. Potowski, K. (Ed.) (2018). The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language. New York, NY: Routledge. Potowski, K., & Lynch, A. (2014). Perspectivas sobre la enseñanza del español a los hablantes de herencia en los Estados Unidos. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 1(2), 154–170. Pozzi, R., & Reznicek-Parrado, L. (2021). Problematizing heritage language identities: Spanish HL speakers of Mexican descent studying abroad in Argentina. Manuscript submitted for publication.

10

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

Quan, T. (2021). Study abroad as a transformative translanguaging space for heritage speakers of Spanish. In W. Diao & E. Trentman (Eds.), Language learning in study abroad: The multilingual turn. New York, NY: Multilingual Matters. Quan, T., Pozzi, R., Kehoe, S., & Menard-Warwick, J. (2018). Spanish heritage language learners in study abroad across three national contexts. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 437–451). New York, NY: Routledge. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 405–421. Rothman, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2014). A prolegomenon to the construct of the native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are natives too! Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 93–98. Shively, R.L. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Shively, R. (2018). Spanish heritage speakers studying abroad. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 403–419). New York, NY: Routledge. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). American Community Survey. Retrieved from https:// www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/. Valdés, G. (2000). Introduction, In Spanish for native speakers, Volume I. AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16. New York: Harcourt College.

Section I

Sociolinguistics

1

Sociolinguistic competence among heritage speakers of Spanish abroad Key findings, critical gaps, and contributions to variationist theory Kimberly Geeslin, Aarnes Gudmestad, Maria Hasler Barker, Matthew Kanwit, Avizia Y. Long, and Megan Solon

Introduction Communicative competence encompasses the ability to create well-formed utterances and to exchange meaning effectively with different interlocutors. This ability must be contextually situated, and “meaning” must include social and situational information communicated and interpreted through written, signed, or spoken language. Thus, we explore the construct of sociolinguistic competence (i.e., abilities related to producing and interpreting social information in language) and its development by heritage speakers (HSs) of Spanish in the context of study abroad (SA). Sociolinguistic competence influences a speaker’s access to input across a range of situations, shapes interlocutor expectations, reveals politeness and solidarity, expresses identity, and conveys language attitudes and social norms (see Geeslin & Long, 2014, for an overview). Though second-language (L2) learners’ development of sociolinguistic competence during SA has been widely investigated, HSs attending the same programs abroad remain understudied. Nevertheless, HSs stand to provide essential information about the role of SA (and language exposure) in patterns of use and thus warrant considerable additional attention. Building on discussions of sociolinguistic competence, its development across learning contexts, and the skill set that HSs bring to the SA experience, we review empirical research on the development of sociolinguistic competence in the SA context. We focus our review on HSs of Spanish in the United States (US). We readily acknowledge, however, that expanding research to explore other heritage languages and/or speakers based in other regional or sociopolitical contexts (see, e.g., work by Nagy and colleagues [Łyskawa & Nagy, 2019; Nagy, 2018; Nodari, Celata, & Nagy, 2019] on variation in various heritage languages in Toronto or Drummond [2012] on Polish HSs in England) will only further our understanding of the complex relationship among heritage language learning, sociolinguistic competence,

14

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

and SA. Examining the SA context allows us to view the influence of language exposure under specific conditions that are generally more intensive and more monodialectal than other learning contexts. Where possible, we include HS studies as we explore research on a range of languages and linguistic abilities in the SA context. With this focused review as a foundation, we generate hypotheses for HSs abroad and articulate a plan for future research. Where research is lacking, we use current knowledge about HSs to suggest possible outcomes of SA. This line of work can lead to increased understanding of (a) SA’s role in shaping language experience, (b) the degree to which changes in language-use patterns are universal, and (c) the interdependent roles of speaker-related factors, learning context, and specific structures in shaping language patterns.

Sociolinguistic competence Sociolinguistic competence finds its roots in communicative competence (e.g., Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972), which proposed a skill set that would give language learners the tools necessary to participate fully in an L2. Scholars concluded that learners need to do more than follow native syntax rules or use appropriate vocabulary; language must also fit the social and interactional setting. That is, sociolinguistic competence encompasses the abilities that allow speakers to interact in situationally appropriate ways. Sociolinguistic competence, then, describes language users’ ability to reflect speaker identity, to vary language patterns in response to different contexts of interaction, and to acquire and interpret geographic norms of interaction. Sociolinguistic variation, or the variable patterns of use that occur across speakers or contexts of interaction, is an important aspect of sociolinguistic competence and is a tool for measuring language acquisition. Sociolinguistic variation provides a framework for examining differences in patterns of language use related to speaker characteristics, listener characteristics, conversation topics, and interactional contexts. Generally, variationist sociolinguists study language by calculating the frequency of a particular form or set of forms and identifying linguistic and social factors that predict usage patterns. For example, a sociolinguist might examine how frequently speakers use overt and null subjects (e.g., yo hablo vs. hablo for “I speak”) and the factors that contribute to that use (e.g., comparing first- and third-person contexts to predict different rates of overt pronoun occurrence). Because sociolinguistic variation is one important component of sociolinguistic competence, variationist research has led the way in investigating the development of sociolinguistic competence across speaker populations and learning contexts. However, we do not limit our review of previous research on situationally appropriate interaction to sociolinguistic variation; we also incorporate other research traditions, such as those focused on pedagogical interventions, language learning, and formal properties of grammar.

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 15 As we turn our attention to research on the development of sociolinguistic competence in the SA context, we underscore the centrality of this construct in learners’ language development and experience. Sociolinguistic abilities allow learners increased access to input across a range of situations, shape interlocutor expectations, reveal politeness and solidarity, express identity, and convey (and help interpret) language attitudes and social norms (Geeslin & Garrett, 2018). The benefits of SA for L2 learners in developing sociolinguistic competence are well documented for a variety of languages, and we will begin our review with a summary of key findings in that body of work. Nevertheless, HSs, who often attend the same programs, remain understudied (though see Escalante, 2018; George & Hoffman-González, 2019, for two recent exceptions). Consequently, little is known about what types of changes (if any) occur in HSs’ sociolinguistic competence during SA, and thus our overarching goal is to highlight these gaps in our knowledge to provide directions and an imperative for future work. As we will address in greater detail later, research findings allow us to improve our curricular planning and development and, additionally, to demonstrate how this broader perspective afforded through research on HSs abroad ultimately improves the depth and versatility of the curricular interventions for L2 learners who share those programs as well.

Sociolinguistic competence in the SA context While outcomes do vary, previous SA research shows that learners may make gains in overall proficiency, fluency, and grammatical properties during a sojourn abroad (see Collentine, 2009; Freed, 1995). However, as research methods have shifted from a focus on overall proficiency to careful examination of singular features of pronunciation, morphosyntax, vocabulary, or pragmatics, we see that SA experiences may benefit some abilities more than others. For example, Díaz-Campos (2004) found that SA and at-home students generally made equal progress on phonetic variables. Similarly, Collentine (2004) reported that SA learners did not improve as much as at-home learners on Spanish verb conjugations and subordinating conjunctions after a semester abroad. However, SA learners produced more semantically dense language and had more advanced narrative abilities. Not only do the benefits of SA on language development vary by linguistic structure, we see that the role of individual characteristics, such as age and motivation, and SA program characteristics, such as length of stay, place of residence, and program requirements, all mediate the effects of SA (see Llanes, 2011). Despite variability in gains attested generally, there is consistent evidence that sociolinguistic competence develops during SA. In the review that follows, we summarize key findings in three areas: development of markers of informality, acquisition and use of regional variants, and measurement and change in learner attitudes resulting from SA.

16

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

For multiple target languages, including Spanish, research has shown that SA fosters the development of markers of informality. In their study of Irish learners of French before and after a year in France, Regan, Howard, and Lemée (2009) document changes in several markers of informal language, including increased deletion of the negative particle ne and, to a lesser extent, increased deletion of /l/ and increased use of the pronoun on instead of nous. Likewise, Adamson and Regan (1991) found that learners of English in Philadelphia acquired variable use of the informal -in’ (vs. -ing), eventually showing knowledge of linguistic (e.g., greater use of the informal variant with progressive) and social (e.g., greater use with male speakers than female) patterns of use. In Spanish, there is a growing body of research on variants that differ in distribution by dialect and context (e.g., Kanwit, Geeslin, & Fafulas, 2015 for progressive, past time reference, and the copula contrast; Kanwit & Solon, 2013 for future time reference). Nevertheless, we see a need for research on the development of informality, especially for HSs, because they may start the SA experience with higher linguistic proficiency, broader cultural knowledge, and more comprehensive naturalistic experience with the target language than their L2 counterparts (Shively, 2018). While L2 learners’ exposure to features of regional variation in Spanish prior to SA may be limited, research demonstrates that learners can modify their frequency of use of phonetic variants, such as the interdental fricative /θ/ associated with central Spain, or zheísmo/sheísmo, as found in Argentina (George, 2014; Knouse, 2012; Pozzi, 2017), and morphosyntactic variants, such as the present perfect, leísmo, the progressive, second-person plural vosotros forms (Geeslin, García-Amaya, Hasler-Barker, Henriksen, & Killam, 2010; Geeslin et al., 2012; George, 2018; Geeslin Geeslin 2012; Kanwit et al., 2015; Salgado-Robles, 2014), and the second-person vos form in Argentina (Hoffman-Gonzalez, 2015; Pozzi, 2017). Likewise, we know that learners improve in their abilities to interpret these variants over time, although this body of work remains less robust than studies of production or form selection (see, e.g., Schmidt, 2009). Improved interpretive abilities tend to follow exposure, but increased production of a variant following SA is mediated by a host of other factors related to learner identity and experiences, social networks, and exposure to other varieties of Spanish (e.g., Fernández, 2013; George, 2018; Pozzi, 2017; Ringer-Hilfinger, 2012). This sets the stage for fruitful research with Spanish HSs, whose personalized relationship with the target language, mediated by their cultural heritage, ethnic identity, and other factors (Potowski, 2012; Shively, 2016, 2018), is likely to influence the adoption of patterns of regionally-conditioned variation. L2 learners and HSs may possess particular attitudes toward the target language globally or toward certain variants of the target. Research on the intersection of language attitudes, SA, and sociolinguistic competence demonstrates that L2 learners can develop abilities to distinguish between different varieties of the target language and to evaluate these differentially on subconscious attitudinal measures (Geeslin & Schmidt, 2018). SA can

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 17 shift a learner’s orientation more positively toward the target variety or it can lead to a more negative orientation over time (Isabelli-García, 2006; Lybeck, 2002). This body of research also provides a foundation for innovative research on HSs abroad, as previous work might have operated under the assumption that HSs come to SA with more fully developed target-language attitudes, but without understanding these attitudes as potentially complex, rather than simply positive or negative overall. In fact, current research demonstrates that HSs vary on a number of dimensions, including their attitudes, and that they bring a range of implicit and explicit knowledge to the SA context (Shively, 2018). We turn now to a discussion of the existing research on HSs' language competence.

HSs, language competence, and the SA context In this section, we offer a brief overview of research on sociolinguistic competence among HSs in their communicative contexts both at home and abroad. In the review that follows, we make an intentional distinction between HSs and heritage learners (HLs), where the latter is a subset of the former and refers specifically to HSs enrolled in classes that provide formal instruction in their heritage language, in either at-home or abroad academic settings. We review research on variation in HS Spanish, followed by a closer look at HL pragmatics. Finally, we turn to investigations of HL attitudes and identity. We see that while these areas remain relatively understudied, the important work that has been done so far is helpful in laying the foundation for a growing research agenda in this area. Variationist investigations of Spanish HSs point to some contrasts between HSs and other speaker groups. For example, Cuban and Puerto Rican Spanish are known to exhibit variable /s/-weakening. Miami-born speakers of these varieties also exhibit /s/-weakening in their speech. Nevertheless, HSs of Cuban Spanish exhibit lower rates of aspiration or deletion than speakers from Cuba, whereas Puerto Rican HSs delete /s/ more than speakers from Puerto Rico (Lynch, 2009; Ramos Pellicia, 2012). Likewise, in comparison to Mexican-born Spanish speakers, HSs born in Los Angeles and Houston exhibit higher rates of use of variable estar “to be”, especially with certain adjectives such as grande “big” and viejo “old” (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2003). Similarly, research on HSs’ variation in the use of null and overt subject forms in Spanish has found that HSs may use more overt subjects than monolingual Spanish speakers or late Spanish-English bilinguals (e.g., Hurtado, 2005; Otheguy, Zentella, & Livert, 2007). Despite these attested differences in rates of use of a particular form, HSs are generally sensitive to the same constraints on patterns of use as adult native speakers are. For example, linguistic factors, such as grammatical person and discourse connectedness, are found to influence overt pronoun use across speaker groups (e.g., Abreu, 2009; Otheguy et al., 2007). In the case of subject expression, HSs’ patterns of use are mediated by geographic

18

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

origin. Otheguy et al. (2007) found that in New York City, HSs of Caribbean origin used more overt subject pronouns than those of nonCaribbean origin, reflecting the tendencies for speakers from those regions. However, the Caribbean and non-Caribbean HSs diverged somewhat from their origin-country compatriots, showing evidence of dialectal convergence within the Spanish-speaking community of New York. In summary, the study of variable structures among HSs has shown that the same methods applied to other speaker groups are equally appropriate for HSs, and that much remains to be studied in this area. Turning now to HS pragmatics, Pinto (2012) provides an overview of the handful of studies in this area, most of which focus on speech acts and discourse markers. For example, Pinto and Raschio (2007, 2008) compared Spanish HLs’ explicit knowledge of request and complaint strategies with that of monolingual English speakers and monolingual Spanish speakers using a written discourse-completion task. They found that monolingual English speakers preferred indirect strategies, while monolingual Spanish speakers preferred direct strategies. Spanish HLs’ preferences fell along a continuum of directness between the monolingual groups. Their findings suggest that at least some Spanish HLs have a heightened awareness of the tension between politeness orientations in Spanish (i.e., involvement/directness) and English (i.e., independence/indirectness; Pinto, 2012; Scollon, Scollon, & Jones, 2012). However, Pinto and Raschio (2007, 2008) also found that HLs qualitatively resembled L2 learners of Spanish in that they wrote lengthier requests and complaints. This is perhaps because HLs employed more speaker-oriented strategies (e.g., ¿Es posible que use tus notas? “Is it possible that I use your notes”?) than hearer-oriented strategies (e.g., Préstame tus notas. “Lend me your notes”.). Showstack (2016) also found that second-generation HSs’ Spanish apologies were longer than those written by first-generation Spanish speakers who were born in Mexico and arrived to the US after age 15. The range in results and the lack of performance-based studies (e.g., oral discourse-completion tasks, role-plays, or, ideally, spontaneous conversation) highlight the need for additional work. HLs may have more access to Spanish discourse markers than L2 learners. Pinto (2012) focused on several frequent discourse markers in US varieties of Spanish: nomás “only/just”, como “like”, entonces “so”, así que “so”, o sea “that is”, no sé “I don’t know”, and este “this”. This work centers on codeswitching and borrowing because English discourse markers such as so, like, and you know often appear in HS Spanish, increasing with each generation in the US (e.g., Arias-Álvarez, 2018; Flores-Ferrán, 2014; Torres & Potowski, 2008). In addition to using English discourse markers in Spanish, HLs may use Spanish discourse markers differently than monolingual Spanish speakers, according to the existing body of research. For example, Sánchez-Muñoz (2007) found that HLs frequently used como as a quotative marker or a hesitation device, suggesting that the use has transferred from English like.

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 19 The wide variation in results for HS Spanish discourse markers further emphasizes the heterogeneous nature of this group of learners. The preceding overview of HS sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence highlights several types of knowledge that HLs may bring to communicative contexts. The ability to use language appropriately in context demonstrates HLs’ connection to their home/heritage cultures. Regarding HLs in SA contexts, research should consider the nature of cultural or personal connections to the SA site. For example, investigating the perception of coda /s/weakening by L2 speakers and HSs of Spanish, Escalante (2018) found that three HSs (among 14 total participants) exhibited differential rates of perceiving coda /s/ in nonce words following a one-year volunteer stay abroad in Ecuador, with the HS of Ecuadorian background (though of the largely /s/-conserving Quiteño variety) accurately identifying /s/ at the highest rate of the 14 participants both before and after the stay abroad, and the two HSs of Colombian and Mexican (i.e., /s/-conserving) backgrounds identifying /s/ among the bottom three participants at both times. Regression analysis confirmed that the Ecuadorian HS most favored accurate perception, whereas the other two HSs disfavored accurate perception more than all but one other participant. Some HLs purposely chose sites that allowed them to explore or possibly revisit their heritage. Petrucci (2007) employed the term heritage scholar to refer to learners who study in their ancestral homeland, and cites the ability to communicate in a variety of conversational exchanges and a sense of “returning home” as advantages. Petrucci also pointed out that heritage scholars have the opportunity to connect meaningfully with people and places in the ancestral homeland (p. 276). However, an SA experience may also be high-stakes for an individual’s identity and language, which is apparent in SA research on HLs of other languages. For example, Trentman (2015) examined patterns of Arabic and English language use and the impact of identity negotiation on language use in six HLs of Arabic studying abroad in Egypt for either a semester or an academic year. Service encounters comprised the main interactions in Arabic, and Trentman found notable individual variation in language use. Additionally, learners of Egyptian descent (all but one of the participants) reported use of Arabic with their families’ social networks on weekends. While these learners reported being pushed by their families to use Arabic, their interactions with younger family members involved more English than Arabic use. With respect to identity negotiation, Trentman found that learners leveraged or negotiated their heritage identities to establish familiarity with Egyptians, use Arabic, and haggle for lower prices. However, at times learners resisted their heritage identities, resulting in avoidance of Arabic and refraining from participation in gendered cultural practices (e.g., acting like a “typical Egyptian girl”, p. 152). These learners also tried to avoid feeling ashamed in front of Arabic speakers who expected them to speak the language fluently.

20

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

Identity development among HLs who choose to study in their ancestral homeland is also seen in work by Jing-Schmidt, Zhang, and Chen (2016), who investigated the experiences of four Chinese HLs who studied abroad for one year in China. Based on extensive qualitative analysis of biweekly ejournal entries, they found wide individual variation in identity development. However, two participants shared similar motives and goals for studying abroad: to learn new things and gain experience. The other two participants experienced racial bias, which led one to “reclaim her American-ness” (p. 13) and the other to express disappointment and ambivalence toward the local community. In spite of these distinct identity experiences, all four learners achieved a Superior rating in their postprogram Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs). Another study on identity and accent during SA in China by Diao (2017) examined three HLs’ use of a single, nonstandard sociolinguistic variable in Mandarin – the dental/retroflex merger. Using a variety of research methods, she found that all three participants produced the merger in their speech at higher frequencies than their Chinese hosts. One used the merger to express positive orientation toward Shanghainese people and accent. Another, who used the merger least, reported correction from her teachers and roommate and expressed the desire to speak the standard variety as a result of her experiences. The third, who used the merger most frequently, also reported experiencing correction from his Mandarin instructor and insistence from his roommate to use the standard variety. However, prior experience with and memory of the nanny who taught him Mandarin was valuable enough to him to resist use of the standard and reinforce his identity. Across each speaker, the extent of use of the merger and its reported meanings and interpretations differed greatly. In contrast, George and Hoffman-González (2019) analyzed four HLs of Spanish sojourning in regions that differed from those of their ancestors. They analyzed production of zheísmo/sheísmo and theta among two HLs studying in Argentina and two sojourning in Spain, respectively. Three of the four HLs demonstrated changes in production of regional features over the course of the semester abroad. These changes were tied to shifts in identity, along with concomitant increases in proficiency and contact with local native speakers. In this section, we offered a selective overview of the types of knowledge that HLs bring to their communicative contexts, both at home and abroad. While the body of existing research shows disparate results, there is evidence that HSs show phonetic and morphosyntactic variation conditioned by contextual factors that affect other speaker groups. Additionally, both in US-based classrooms and abroad, HLs may bring more fully developed pragmatic knowledge to the interactional context than L2 learners (e.g., Pinto, 2012; Pinto & Raschio, 2007, 2008). Finally, the identities of HLs influence language use across communicative contexts with different interlocutors. In the following section, we outline an agenda for research on HLs abroad with a focus on the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence, as it touches on each of these areas.

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 21

Moving forward: why study HLs abroad? Our brief review has demonstrated a considerable need for additional study of HLs studying abroad, both because we have insufficient knowledge of this particular case of language development and because the implications of such research are far-reaching (see Potowski, 2012). L2 acquisition research has often investigated whether L2 learners progress toward a native-speaker target or a prescriptive norm (for criticism of this tradition, see Cook & Wei, 2016; Ortega, 2014), and L2 variationist research aligns with this orientation. Variationist studies that have investigated L2 learners during SA have often compared learners’ linguistic behavior to that of native speakers from the same speech community (e.g., Gudmestad & Edmonds, 2016; Kanwit et al., 2015). The underlying expectation in this research tradition is that learners become more like native speakers with whom they interact while abroad. In what follows, we demonstrate that the study of HLs will push us beyond these assumptions. We argue that the overarching question for research on HLs’ sociolinguistic competence during SA is not whether they develop the sociolinguistic patterns of the community, but rather to what extent their linguistic system changes or remains stable while abroad. We suggest three general, possible outcomes for HLs. One is that they approximate the sociolinguistic norms of the SA community and move away from their native variety. The second is that they gain (or further develop) bidialectal competence (Siegel, 2010), showing sociolinguistic features of their native and SA varieties (though the extent to which the features of each variety are used and in which contexts may differ widely). Third, HLs may maintain the sociolinguistic patterns of their native variety and not adapt to norms of the SA environment (although they may acquire greater awareness of certain SA-environment patterns). Answering this overarching question entails investigating a range of linguistic phenomena, including phonetic, morphosyntactic, lexical, and pragmatic structures that are variable in the HLs’ native variety and/or the SA variety. Speakers could, of course, demonstrate more than one outcome, especially when multiple variable structures are examined. Given that researchers will likely find variability among sociolinguistic phenomena and individuals (Davidson & Lekic, 2012), they should also investigate related factors that may help explain change or stability in the linguistic system. To account for diversity among HLs (see Beaudrie & Fairclough, 2012), researchers should also examine individual learner characteristics. We propose several questions here. First, in what ways are HLs more or less likely to change their linguistic behavior, and why? Researchers can compare different sociolinguistic phenomena (e.g., phonetic, morphosyntactic, lexical, and pragmatic) to identify features that are more or less susceptible to change and examine constraints on linguistic behavior. Since variable structures are governed by linguistic and social factors, HLs may be more likely to modify social constraints on language use than linguistic

22

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

constraints, particularly if social cues are strong in the SA community. A second question pertains to how proficiency mediates sociolinguistic competence during SA. Third, what role does the choice of SA location play in sociolinguistic competence? As previously mentioned, HLs may study in their family’s country of origin or in a country that is not connected to their ancestry, and the choice of SA location can affect the degree to which HLs integrate into the SA community and, consequently, their sociolinguistic competence (Shively, 2018). Fourth, what other extralinguistic factors are connected to how an SA experience shapes HLs’ sociolinguistic competence? Factors worthy of investigation include motivation for studying abroad (e.g., integrative, instrumental; Gardner & Lambert, 1972), identity, attitudes about language, and demographic factors such as gender and socioeconomic status (cf. Shively, 2018). All of these issues are important for fully understanding HLs’ sociolinguistic competence, and perhaps the best way to answer these questions is through mixed-methods research, in which different types of data are collected and analyzed through qualitative and quantitative approaches.

A model study Although research on HLs participating in SA has lagged behind that on L2 learners, recent research has provided a blueprint for how acquisitionists interested in variable structures might consider a more diverse set of learners in the same analysis. Raish (2015) presents a model study by including HLs and L2 learners of Arabic studying abroad in Cairo. For the target variable structure, Raish analyzes the production of the Arabic character ‫ ﺝ‬jīm, which is produced as [dʒ] or [ʒ]1 in most dialects of Iraq and urban varieties of Syria and Palestine but as [g] in Cairo. The study’s participants were 21 American college students enrolled in SA programs at the American University in Cairo, 11 of whom were enrolled for a full academic year, with the other 10 enrolled for one semester. Participants were four HLs and 17 L2 learners. HLs identified as speakers of either Egyptian Arabic (n = 2) or Levantine Arabic (n = 2, one each of Lebanese and Palestinian varieties). Participants completed a Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI), in which an interviewer recorded question prompts which were then played for the interviewee at the beginning (i.e., pre-SOPI) and end (i.e., post-SOPI) of their SA sojourn. Recorded prompts were delivered using Modern Standard Arabic and included the [dʒ], rather than the local Cairo [g], production. Results revealed that, overall, learners produced the nonlocal variant [dʒ] at high rates during the pre-SOPI (61%), before switching to a preference for the local variant [g] at the post-SOPI (62%), with test time yielding significance in the predictive regression model. Nevertheless, not all participants increased production of [g] on the post-SOPI. In fact, speaker type was the most significant predictor of [g], with the L2 learners, Egyptian HLs, and Levantine HLs demonstrating very different patterns of use. L2 learners

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 23 produced [g] slightly more than half of the time (53%) when both SOPIs were considered. Egyptian HLs produced [g] at very high rates across the two SOPIs (93%), whereas Levantine HLs produced [g] only 9% of the time. Thus, L2 learners adapted to the local variant, with rates of [g] eventually exceeding those of the more regionally diffuse [dʒ], but HLs maintained the preference of their heritage dialect.

Additional considerations From Raish (2015), we see that prior experience with a particular variable structure plays an important role in conditioning the extent to which learners may adapt to regional norms during SA. In this case, L2 learners generally approximated the local target; HLs, in contrast, used the regional variant only when it was consistent with the heritage variety. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether, for HLs, morphosyntactic variables may be more likely to undergo change during SA and whether other phonological variants may be equally impervious to change. Another key takeaway from the study is the importance of including and enabling self-identification of HLs in participant samples, and of having HLs and L2 learners perform the same tasks for the sake of comparability. Had HLs been unable to self-identify, been excluded, or not performed the same task as the L2 learners, the important differential findings reported in the preceding section would have been overlooked. Accordingly, we call for subsequent work that considers phonological and morphosyntactic variants across HL and L2 learner populations. We encourage researchers to return to past data sets in which they may have collected data from HLs which were then excluded from analyses. If heritage participants yield a sufficient number of tokens, we recommend that researchers run new predictive models (i.e., statistical tests that identify the relevant social and linguistic factors that influence patterns of use) that include language background (i.e., heritage language or L2) as an independent variable. If token counts from heritage participants are low, we encourage researchers in subsequent (and revisited) studies to report descriptive information about rates of variant production across language background (i.e., overall rates of use of variants according to language background) and within the other independent variables of interest (e.g., rates of present perfect use over the preterit for each language background according to the temporal distance of the past event or state). Recognizing and including HL participants in SA research can bring to the forefront several central methodological considerations. For example, predeparture linguistic proficiency is a widely recognized individual difference factor, both anecdotally and empirically (e.g., Collentine, 2009; Issa & Zalbidea, 2018), that influences SA outcomes. Although previous research has documented gains for learners across a spectrum of proficiency levels (see Issa & Zalbidea, 2018), documenting learners’ predeparture knowledge

24

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

and/or abilities is important for understanding the types and degree of gains that can be expected during SA. Not only does proficiency directly affect learners’ developmental readiness for the acquisition of certain structures or patterns, it also likely mediates their access to input and interaction opportunities during SA (e.g., Freed, 1995). Nevertheless, proficiency assessment presents numerous challenges, including consistency across studies, interpretability, efficiency, and sensitivity (e.g., Bowden, 2016; Hulstijn, 2012). For HLs, many of these challenges are heightened given that traditional assessment tools (e.g., the OPI; the Diploma del español como lengua extranjera [DELE]) were designed specifically for L2 learners and often prioritize formal language use and/or metalinguistic knowledge (e.g., Carreira & Potowski, 2011). Employing a proficiency measure that adequately captures the full range of HLs’ language abilities is crucial for documenting the role of SA in linguistic development and change. As researchers study HLs’ acquisition of variable structures, they must consider (a) the learners’ pre-SA global proficiency; (b) the learners’ (non-) use and/or perception of (or attitude toward) the variants under examination; and (c) the properties of the learners’ heritage variety that may be relevant to their (non-)use and/or perceptions of the variants. RingerHilfinger (2012), for example, found that L2 learners’ adoption (or not) of the Peninsular Spanish /θ/ during SA in Spain varied according to the varieties spoken by the native speakers with whom the learners were in contact prior to and following SA. As illustrated by the patterns exhibited by HLs in Raish (2015), such questions of contact, exposure, and attitude become all the more necessary to explore when participants have a personal or cultural connection to the language being studied, but not always or necessarily to the culture or dialects of the SA destination. Thus, interactions between heritage-language proficiency, familiarity with and use of specific variants, learner identity, and attitudinal factors present crucial avenues for investigation. Such considerations are especially crucial for work on HSs of Spanish in the US, given wide diversity in terms of HSs’ contact with other speakers of Spanish (other HSs, newly arrived immigrants, etc.) depending on the region of the US in which an HS resides. Existing work on Spanish in the US can provide important background information about the characteristics of the varieties HLs may speak or encounter (e.g., especially when a speaker’s variety of origin may be different from the predominant dialectal variety in a particular region or when a speaker’s background is mixed; see Lamanna [2012] for work on Colombian Spanish in North Carolina, where Mexican Spanish is predominant; see Potowski [2016] for an in-depth analysis of MexiRicans in Chicago). Thus, considerations beyond a speaker’s variety of origin are necessary for understanding, for example, why a speaker may or may not use a particular variant in a certain context. Prioritizing the study of HL development during SA has the potential to broaden the scope of SA research, particularly research on the acquisition of

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 25 sociolinguistic competence during SA, in important ways. For L2 learners, SA is often thought of as a “crucial step in the development of ability to use a language in a range of communicative settings” (Kinginger, 2009, pp. 4–5) and as a prime opportunity to depart from the formal classroom environment and develop an informal register in the target language within a highly communicative learning context (Collentine, 2009). HLs, in contrast, often arrive to the language classroom with an established informal register and with linguistic proficiency that favors oral and aural abilities. The goals of heritage-language education, then, often focus on the development of more formal registers and of heritage-language reading and writing skills (e.g., Valdés, 2006). Such differences in linguistic and cultural background, thus, should push researchers to reflect upon the goals and expected outcomes of SA for HLs. In fact, observing and interpreting HLs’ experiences and linguistic outcomes abroad through lenses traditionally applied to L2 learners in SA research threaten to overlook, simplify, misinterpret, or potentially devalue aspects of language development that are unique to HLs. Thus, investigators undertaking SA research with HLs must reflect on expected outcomes and approach research in a way that ensures the collection of the linguistic, individual background, and/or attitudinal or perception data needed to adequately and appropriately interpret outcomes.

Implications of research on HLs abroad Research on HLs and sociolinguistic competence has the potential to advance variationist theory as it pertains to multilingualism more broadly in important ways. We highlight two here. The first pertains to the need to explore further social constraints on additional-language acquisition. While studies of L2 learners’ development of variable structures have examined the influential role that both linguistic and extralinguistic factors play in language behavior and acquisition, linguistic factors have received much more attention. This may be because researchers have considered linguistic features as more important in L2 acquisition than extralinguistic ones (Preston, 1989), but there are gaps in our knowledge about how social factors affect additional-language sociolinguistic competence. As is clear from the previously discussed agenda for research, however, we and others believe that exploring the influence of extralinguistic factors is vital for furthering our understanding of HLs’ sociolinguistic competence. Thus, scholarship that centers on issues such as identity and language attitudes and how they influence HLs’ sociolinguistic competence during SA has the potential to contribute important theoretical insights about language variation. Second, research on HLs’ language background can contribute to variationist theory. Most additional-language research on sociolinguistic variation has examined native speakers of English who are not HSs of the target language under investigation (for a recent exception, see Long, 2016, investigating native speakers of Korean). Expanding scholarship to investigate learners of

26

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

more diverse language backgrounds – including HLs – is crucial for assessing the universality of claims in existing research. By directing our empirical focus to HLs who are participating in a range of programs abroad in increasing numbers (Kagan & Dillon, 2008), there are also several considerations for program development that must be addressed. First, we must consider the nature of SA programs, particularly whether program development has anticipated a diverse learner population. As discussed throughout this chapter, HLs and L2 learners differ in their language-related needs, and this must be addressed for HLs participating in SA programs. For L2 learners, SA is often lauded for its potential to provide communicative contexts for language learning outside of/in addition to the formal classroom. Nevertheless, if HLs come to the context with such registers largely intact, researchers and educators must then consider additional properties of SA that may (or may not) contribute to the development of sociolinguistic competence by these speakers. For example, are HLs studying abroad presented with opportunities to expand their existing registers in ways most fruitful for their own linguistic development (e.g., to include more formal language use in context)? Are there ways to adjust the nature of the SA environment to maximize such opportunities for HLs? Kagan and Dillon argue for inclusion of appropriate curricular models, placement and assessment, and instructor training. In the case of institutions that have heritage-language programs, Burgo (2018) argues for a curriculum that mirrors the home institution and for instructor training in (Spanish) SA programs. In addition to program design, Kagan and Dillon (2008) advocate for preparing heritage students for an SA experience. While linguistic gains from SA have been the focus of research on L2 learners abroad, most research has examined the experiences and identities of HLs. In this chapter, we discussed several examples of research into the effect of SA on heritage identities or identity negotiation (e.g., Diao, 2017; Jing-Schmidt et al., 2016; Trentman, 2015). We know that heritage scholars (Petrucci, 2007) in particular may face challenges abroad that force them to question or assess their identities in ways that influence their use of the heritage language. In light of existing research on HLs studying abroad, SA programs that include HLs (or SA programs designed specifically for HLs) would do well to consider individual learner identities and to facilitate learners’ awareness of expectations prior to SA. Burgo (2018) further argues for advising and preand post-program workshops to inform and guide reflection, respectively.

Conclusion Research on SA remains central to our understanding of the role of the learning context, broadly speaking, on the development and use of language. As noted by Hymes (1972), knowledge about language in context is shaped by how both language and context are systematically related. Research on

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 27 SA has been instrumental to this investigative enterprise, and in this chapter we have argued that a focus on HLs in this context not only is key to this line of inquiry but also deserves more attention than it has received. A better understanding of this particular group of speakers will improve our understanding of bilingualism, sociolinguistic competence, and the role of input and interaction in the changing patterns of language use within and between individuals.

Note 1 Raish (2015) collapses productions of [dʒ] and [ʒ] to [j] in his article. Here we collapse the productions to [dʒ] rather than [j], to maintain IPA systematicity.

References Abreu, L. (2009). Spanish subject personal pronoun use by monolinguals, bilinguals and second language learners (Publication No. AAI3400219) (Doctoral dissertation), University of Florida, Gainesville. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Adamson, H.D., & Regan, V.M. (1991). The acquisition of community speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second language: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0272263100009694. Arias-Álvarez, A. (2018). So … you know … marcadores pragmáticos en las comunidades puertorriqueña y dominicana de Massachusetts [So…you know… pragmatic markers in the Puerto Rican and Dominican communities of Massachusetts]. Hispania, 101(1), 69–88. Beaudrie, S., & Fairclough, M. (2012). Spanish as a heritage language in the United States. Georgetown University Press. Bowden, H.W. (2016). Assessing second-language oral proficiency for research: The Spanish elicited imitation task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 647–675. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000443. Burgo, C. (2018). The impact of study abroad on Spanish heritage language learners. Journal of Latinos and Education, 19(3), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431. 2018.1518139. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Carreira, M., & Potowski, K. (2011). Commentary: Pedagogical implications of experimental SNS research. Heritage Language Journal, 8(1), 134–151. Collentine, J. (2004). The effects of learning contexts on morphosyntactic and lexical development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 227–248. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0272263104262040. Collentine, J. (2009). Study abroad research: Findings, implications and future directions. In M.H. Long & C.J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 218–233). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315 783.ch13. Cook, V. & Wei, L. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multicompetence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107425965.

28

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

Davidson, D.E., & Lekic, M.D. (2012). The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: Comparing learning outcomes and target-language utilization in the Russian flagship. Russian Language Journal, 62, 47–78. https:// www.jstor.org. Diao, W. (2017). Between the standard and non-standard: Accent and identity among transnational Mandarin speakers studying abroad in China. System, 71, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.013. Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 249–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104262052. Drummond, R. (2012). Aspects of identity in a second language: ING variation in the speech of Polish migrants living in Manchester, UK. Language Variation and Change, 24(1), 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000026. Escalante, C. (2018). ¡Ya pué[h]! Perception of coda-/s/ weakening among L2 and heritage speakers in coastal Ecuador. E-JournALL, EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.8.12. Fernández, J. (2013). A corpus-based study of vague language use by learners of Spanish in a study abroad context. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 299–332). John Benjamins. https:// doi.org/10.1075/lllt.37. Flores-Ferrán, N. (2014). So pues entonces: An examination of bilingual discourse markers in Spanish oral narratives of personal experience of New York City-born Puerto Ricans. Sociolinguistic Studies, 8(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/ 10.1558/sols. v8i1.57. Freed, B. (1995). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.9. Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Newbury House. Geeslin, K.L. (2020). Variationist perspective(s) on interlocutor individual differences. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Interlocutor individual differences: Cross-theoretical explorations (pp. 127–157). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.53.06gee. Geeslin, K.L., García-Amaya, L., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N., & Killam, J. (2010). The SLA of direct object pronouns in a study abroad immersion environment where use is variable. In C. Borgonovo, Español-Echevarría, M., & Prévost, P. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 246–259). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Geeslin, K., García-Amaya, L.J., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N.C., & Killam, J. (2012). The L2 acquisition of variable perfective past time reference in Spanish in an overseas immersion setting. In K. Geeslin & M. Díaz-Campos (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 14th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 197–213). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Geeslin, K.L., & Garrett, J. (2018). Variationist research methods and the analysis of second language data in the study abroad context. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 17–35). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315639970-1. Geeslin, K.L., & Long, A.Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition: Learning to use language in context. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780 203117835.

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 29 Geeslin, K.L., & Schmidt, L.B. (2018). Study abroad and L2 learner attitudes. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 385–405). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315639970. George, A. (2014). Study abroad in Central Spain: The development of regional phonological features. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10. 1111/flan.12065. George, A. (2018). The development of a regional morphosyntactic feature by learners of Spanish in a study abroad setting: The case of vosotros. Hispanic Studies Review, 3(1), 101–125. https://hispanicstudiesreview.cofc.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2018/04/07-HSR-Vol3-No1-2018-George.pdf. George, A., & Hoffman-González, A. (2019). Dialect and identity: US heritage language learners of Spanish abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 4(2), 252–279. https://doi.org/10.1075/sar. 17013.geo. Gudmestad, A., & Edmonds, A. (2016). Variable future-time reference in French: A comparison of learners in a study-abroad and a foreign-language context. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 61(3), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1353/cjl.2016.0024. Gutiérrez, M.J. (2003). Simplification and innovation in US Spanish. Multilingua, 22(2), 169–184. Hoffman-Gonzalez, A.C. (2015). Language use or non-use in study abroad as an indicator of community membership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Madison: University of Wisconsin. Hulstijn, J.H. (2012). The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000678. Hurtado, L.M. (2005). Syntactic-semantic conditioning of subject expression in Colombian Spanish. Hispania, 88, 335–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/20140954. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin Press. Isabelli-García, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In M. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 231–258). Multilingual Matters. Issa, B., & Zalbidea, J. (2018). Proficiency levels in study abroad: Is there an optimal time for sojourning? In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 453–463). Routledge. Jing-Schmidt, Z., Zhang, Z., & Chen, J.-Y. (2016). Identity development in the ancestral homeland: A Chinese heritage perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 797–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12348. Kagan, O., & Dillon, K. (2008). Issues in heritage language learning in the United States. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd edition, Volume 4: Second and foreign language education (pp. 143–156). Springer. Kanwit, M., Geeslin, K.L., & Fafulas, S. (2015). Study abroad and the SLA of variable structures: A look at the present perfect, the copula contrast, and the present progressive in Mexico and Spain. Probus, 27(2), 307–348. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/probus-2015-0004. Kanwit, M., & Solon, M. (2013). Acquiring variation in future-time expression abroad in Valencia, Spain and Mérida, Mexico. In J.E. Aaron, J. Cabrelli Amaro,

30

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

G. Lord & A. de Prada Pérez (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 206–221). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. Palgrave Macmillan. Knouse, S.M. (2012). The acquisition of dialectal phonemes in a study abroad context: The case of the Castilian theta. Foreign Language Annals, 45(4), 512–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2013.12003.x. Lamanna, S.G. (2012). Colombian Spanish in North Carolina: The role of language and dialect contact in the formation of a new variety of U.S. Spanish: (Publication No. AAI3494372) (Doctoral dissertation). Bloomington: Indiana University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Llanes, À. (2011). The many faces of study abroad: An update on the research on L2 gains emerged during a study abroad experience. International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(3), 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2010.550297. Long, A.Y. (2016). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence by Korean learners of Spanish: Development and use of the copula, subject expression, and intervocalic stops (Publication No. 1814215501) (Doctoral dissertation). Bloomington: Indiana University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Lybeck, K. (2002). Cultural identification and second language pronunciation of Americans in Norway. The Modern Language Journal, 86(2), 174–191. https://doi. org/10.1111/1540-4781.00143. Lynch, A. (2009). A sociolinguistic analysis of final /s/ in Miami Cuban Spanish. Language Sciences, 31(6), 766–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.08.002. Łyskawa, P., & Nagy, N. (2019). Case marking variation in heritage Slavic languages in Toronto: Not so different. Language Learning 70(S1), 122–156. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/lang.12348 Nagy, N. (2018). Linguistic attitudes and contact effects in Toronto’s heritage languages: A variationist sociolinguistic investigation. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(4), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918762160. Nodari, R., Celata, C., & Nagy, N. (2019). Socio-indexical phonetic features in the heritage language context: VOT in the Calabrian community in Toronto. Journal of Phonetics, 73, 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.12.005. Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). Routledge. Otheguy, R., Zentella, A.C., & Livert, D. (2007). Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language, 83(4), 770–802. Petrucci, P.R. (2007). Heritage scholars in the ancestral homeland: An overlooked identity in study abroad research. Sociolinguistic Studies, 1(2), 275–296. https:// doi.org/10.1558/sols.v1i2.275. Pinto, D. (2012). Pragmatics and discourse: Doing things with words in Spanish as a heritage language. In S. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 121–138). Georgetown University Press. Pinto, D., & Raschio, R. (2007). A comparative study of requests in heritage speaker Spanish, L1 Spanish and L1 English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069070110020101.

Sociolinguistic competence of HSs abroad 31 Pinto, D., & Raschio, R. (2008). Oye, ¿qué onda con mi dinero? An analysis of heritage speaker complaints. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(2), 221–249. https://doi.org/ 10.1558/sols.v2i2.221. Potowski, K. (2012). Identity and heritage learners: Moving beyond essentializations. In S. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 179–199). Georgetown University Press. Potowski, K. (2016). IntraLatino language and identity: MexiRican Spanish. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.43. Pozzi, R. (2017). The acquisition of regional features during a semester abroad in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Publication No. 10285756) (Doctoral dissertation). Davis: University of California, ProQuest Dissertation Publishing. Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Basil Blackwell. Raish, M. (2015). The acquisition of an Egyptian phonological variant by U.S. students in Cairo. Foreign Language Annals, 48(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10. 1111/flan.12140. Ramos Pellicia, M.F. (2012). Retention and deletion of /s/ in final position: The disappearance of /s/ in the Puerto Rican Spanish spoken in one community in the US Midwest. International Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest, 31(1), 161–175. Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. Multilingual Matters. Ringer-Hilfinger, K. (2012). Learner acquisition of dialect variation in a study abroad context: The case of the Spanish [θ]. Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 430–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01201.x. Salgado-Robles, F. (2014). Variación dialectal por aprendientes de español en un contexto de inmersión en el extranjero: Un análisis cuantitativo del uso leísta en el discurso oral y escrito [Dialectal variation for learners of Spanish in a context of immersion abroad: A quantitative analysis of the leísta use in oral and written discourse]. Lenguas Modernas, 43, 97–112. Sánchez-Muñoz, A. (2007). Style variation in Spanish as a heritage language: A study of discourse particles in academic and non-academic registers. In K. Potowski & R. Cameron (Eds.), Spanish in contact: Policy, social and linguistic inquiries (pp. 153–171). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.22.13san. Schmidt, L.B. (2009). The effect of dialect familiarity via a study abroad experience on L2 comprehension of Spanish. In J. Collentine (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 11th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 143–154). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Scollon, R., Scollon, S.W., & Jones, R.H. (2012). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Shively, R. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 260–289). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil. 49.14shi. Shively, R. (2018). Spanish heritage speakers studying abroad. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 403–419). Routledge. Showstack, R. (2016). La pragmática transcultural de los hablantes de herencia de español: Análisis e implicaciones pedagógicas [The cross-cultural pragamtics of heritage speakers of Spanish: Analysis and pedagogical implications]. Journal of

32

Kimberly Geeslin et al.

Spanish Language Teaching, 3(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2016. 1251784. Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511777820. Torres, L., & Potowski, K. (2008). A comparative study of bilingual discourse markers in Chicago Mexican, Puerto Rican, and MexiRican Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 12(4), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006908098571. Trentman, E. (2015). Arabic heritage learners abroad: Language use and identity negotiation. Al-’Arabiyya: Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Arabic, 48(1), 141–156. Valdés, G. (2006). Making connections: Second language acquisition research and heritage language teaching. In R. Salaberry (Ed.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 206–212). Georgetown University Press.

2

The long-term impact of a sojourn abroad on heritage language learners of Spanish The case of vosotros1 versus ustedes Angela George and Francisco SalgadoRobles

Introduction According to the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2014), one reason stu­ dents study abroad is to connect with their heritage. In spite of the growing number of heritage language learners (HLLs) who study abroad, research is needed to determine the impact of study abroad (SA) on this heterogeneous and under-researched group (López-Navarro, 2017; Marijuan & Sanz, 2018). Additionally, there is an increasing demand for SA programs to accommodate the needs of the growing population of HLLs. Very little is known about the development of linguistic or sociolinguistic competence of HLLs abroad (Shively, 2018). HLLs who sojourn to nonancestral Spanish-speaking destinations (e.g., a Mexican American HLL of Spanish studying in Spain) are sometimes hesitant to develop regional fea­ tures, and some of these HLLs have stated that the reason for this is a fear of being ridiculed back home by their family and friends (George & HoffmanGonzález, 2019; Moreno, 2009). While some HLLs produce geographically variable dialectal features while abroad (i.e., George & Hoffman-González, 2019), it is unclear if they continue producing them a year after they return to their home communities. Because participants in the current study remained in contact with their host community via group mobile chats (e.g., WhatsApp), there was some chance to retain features gained while living in the community. To complicate the matter further, there is no need for HLLs to adopt geographically variable features for communicative purposes or to increase proficiency level. Since the speakers in this study are of Mexican descent and have been raised in the United States, they probably do not use and would not be expected to produce geographically variable features from Spain. However, general awareness of such features and their usage may be beneficial when communicating with speakers who use them. An additional complexity that this study adds is the long-term impact of international service learning (ISL)2 on the production of geographically variable dialectal features by HLLs. ISL has resulted in the development of such features by second language learners (L2Ls) abroad (i.e., Salgado-

34

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

Robles, 2018). For example, a short-term effect was found on the production of a geographically variable dialectal feature by HLLs who participated in a four-month SA program with a service-learning (SL) component (SalgadoRobles & George, 2019). In the next section, we describe the development of geographically vari­ able features by L2Ls and HLLs, the retention of such features gained abroad, and the effects of an added ISL component to the traditional SA program. First, we review previous literature on HLLs abroad, in particular their use of regional features. Then we discuss the development of socio­ linguistic competence, or the ability to choose between one or more forms as appropriate to the context given the relationship among the speakers and within society (Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; van Ek, 1986). To address this, we examine the acquisition of morphosyntactic geographically variable features by L2Ls in order to expand the review of relevant literature, since so little is available on this topic regarding HLLs abroad. Next we explore the retention of such geographically variable features following a period of time at home after the experience abroad, followed by a discussion of SL, SL abroad, and SL by HLLs both abroad and at home. Finally, we present the feature under study in this chapter in more detail, along with previous studies on this topic. The section ends with the research questions relevant to this study.

Background Developing regional features abroad HLLs of Spanish arrive abroad to a language variety that may not match their home dialect, and they can be faced with a decision of adopting fea­ tures of that variety, maintaining the ones of their home dialect, or some combination of both (Escalante, 2018). While we could consider the devel­ opment of geographically variable features as second dialect acquisition (see Siegel, 2010), we consider it to be style-shifting and possibly a step toward bidialectalism (cf. Coupland, 2007; Eckert & Rickford, 2001). Siegel (2010) has noted the difficulty in determining if a speaker, whether first or second language, has developed a second dialect, indicating the necessity of dis­ tinguishing between two varieties. In the case of our study and previous studies, oftentimes only one feature is measured, making it difficult to determine the type of acquisition. Instead, we confirm that it is a type of optional style-shifting. As Ortega (2013) indicates, “[b]oth [second language and second dialect] learning may position learners as linguistic minorities who learn a socially more powerful language/variety spoken by the sur­ rounding majority speech community” (p. 11). To complicate the matter further, the HLLs in the current study maintained contact with madrileños (i.e., people from Madrid) via mobile group chats upon return, with whom they may wish to style-shift by producing the geographically variable feature

The case of vosotros versus ustedes 35 under study. At the same time, they would not be expected to use this feature with family members. The majority of the available research on the linguistic development of HLLs abroad does not consist of empirical data based on participants’ speech (Shively, 2016). For example, three studies that discuss the devel­ opment of geographically variable features by HLLs studying in a Spanishspeaking country are based on self-reported data from participants in both Mexico and Spain, with most participants reporting adopting some features (McLaughlin, 2001; Moreno, 2009; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). Studies that utilize production data from HLLs abroad have found higher uses of geographically variable forms by most participants, attributing this mainly to increased contact with local speakers who used these features (Escalante, 2018; George & Hoffman-González, 2019; Salgado-Robles, 2020; SalgadoRobles & George, 2019). More specifically, George and Hoffman-González (2019) investigated two participants’ use of the distinction between /θ/ and /s/ in Spain and two participants’ use of sheísmo in Argentina. They found that all but one participant in Spain increased their use of these geo­ graphically variable patterns, most likely due to closer connections made with speakers of the dialects exhibiting the geographically variable features under study. These connections were made via participating in clubs and internships. Escalante (2018) examined the perception of /s/-aspiration in three HLLs while volunteering abroad in Ecuador. Two participants increased significantly in their perception after one year abroad, whereas the third increased slightly but demonstrated higher rates of /s/-aspiration perception at both times. Quan, Pozzi, Kehoe, and Menard-Warwick (2018) investigated the iden­ tities of three HLLs studying in Argentina, Guatemala, and Spain primarily through interviews and journals. The HLL in Argentina – whose family was of Mexican origin – despite wanting to sound Argentine, did not quite adapt to this new dialect, and by the end of his 11-week sojourn in Mendoza he returned to sounding Mexican American. The HLL in Córdoba, Spain, reported using lexical items from the region, but not vosotros, in spite of sounding Latin American to others. The HLL in Guatemala reinforced her Honduran roots and embraced the regional variety, but it is unclear whether or how her accent changed. These three HLLs demonstrate how some are more willing to use common geographically variable features and some others are not, leaving unclear what happens after the return home. Salgado-Robles and George (2019) investigated the effects of a servicelearning component on HLLs participating in a four-month SA program in Spain. The results showed an increased use of vosotros for the participants with the SL component. The participants in the SL-enhanced group also reported significantly more contact with madrileños – a finding that was supported by their increased use of vosotros and decreased use of ustedes during the four months abroad. In addition to production, one study has found that HLLs of Spanish demonstrate greater awareness of language

36

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

variation common to the Castilian speech community in an SA context (López-Navarro, 2017). In a similar vein, a relationship between the type of SA program (SL-enhanced or traditional), intercultural competence, and increased use of leísmo by Spanish HLLs after one semester in Madrid was found in Salgado-Robles (2020). An additional study found similar increases in awareness of the linguistic diversity of certain varieties of Spanish in three HLLs in Spain, Argentina, and Guatemala (Quan et al., 2018). These studies show that HLLs are perceptive to geographically variable dialects but may exhibit resistance to adopting geographically variable features for a variety of reasons, which could include a desire to assert their identity by main­ taining their original dialect, the inappropriateness of using a feature not typically included in their home dialect, and a fear of being ridiculed by their home community. Because research on the development of geographically variable mor­ phosyntactic features of HLLs abroad is rather scarce, we now turn to a discussion of the research on the development of these features by both HLLs and L2Ls abroad. This research has included studies on the devel­ opment of the present perfect versus preterit, synthetic versus periphrastic future, vosotros versus ustedes, leísmo, and laísmo. Studies have mainly focused on L2Ls abroad, with the exception of Salgado-Robles and George (2019) and Salgado-Robles (2020), who focused on HLL development of the distinction between vosotros and ustedes, and leísmo, respectively. Regarding the use of variable past time,3 Geeslin, Fafulas, and Kanwit (2013) and Whatley (2013) found that in spite of individual variation, some L2Ls approached native-like norms of usage and predictors of use after only seven weeks abroad in Spain or Mexico. Concerning the variable uses that represent future time, Kanwit and Solon (2013) found that L2Ls abroad in both Mexico and Spain approached target-like norms for the present in­ dicative use of the future but overgeneralized the use of the periphrastic future in both Spain and Mexico, as well as the use of the synthetic feature in Mexico. Regarding variable object pronoun use, studies investigating laísmo and leísmo in learners studying in Spain have shown movement toward re­ gional target-like norm usage (Geeslin, García-Amaya, Hasler-Barker, Henriksen, & Killam, 2010; Salgado-Robles, 2011, 2014a, 2014b, 2018; Salgado-Robles & Ibarra, 2012). These studies indicate a shift in usage of geographically variable features by L2Ls abroad along with individual variation. Long-term linguistic gains from study abroad Research on the long-term effects of SA has mainly been conducted with L2Ls. This research has demonstrated prolonged gains in vocabulary (Pizziconi, 2017), grammar (Howard, 2009; Regan, 2005), writing (PérezVidal & Juan-Garau, 2009; Sasaki, 2011), and some measures of oral fluency (Huensch & Tracy-Ventura, 2017; Llanes, 2012). With regard to Spanish

The case of vosotros versus ustedes 37 L2Ls, Ringer-Hilfinger (2012) published the only study known to us investigating the retention of dialectal features after a prolonged period following the sojourn. She investigated the retention of both the production and awareness of the distinction between /θ/ and /s/ six months after re­ turning from a semester abroad in Spain. While all four students who completed the delayed posttest demonstrated awareness of the feature, only one out of the four produced it. Furthermore, it was only produced once in more spontaneous speech and five times in read speech. This chapter ad­ dresses the retention of geographically variable features by HLLs one year after returning from a semester abroad, a topic not addressed by previous studies. It will provide us with a better image of HLLs’ sociolinguistic competence, and more specifically their ability to style-shift, as it relates to their bidialectal abilities. Service learning for HLLs We now turn to SL. While SL typically occurs within the local community, ISL occurs in a location abroad. Local SL in the US context has resulted in positive outcomes for learners of Spanish (Clifford & Reisinger, 2019; see Salgado-Robles and George, 2019, for a more detailed discussion). The first research published on ISL focused on the learning of Spanish via the Peace Corps, noting positive effects on the development of Spanish (Guntermann, 1995). Research on ISL up until Salgado-Robles and George (2019) focused primarily on the outcomes achieved by L2Ls from the United States. These outcomes included increased cultural and linguistic competencies with so­ journers in Ecuador (Brown & Purmensky, 2014), improved speaking techniques by participants in Panama City compared to their at-home counterparts in the United States (Cubillos, 2013), increased production of the L2 by learners in an ISL program compared to learners in regular SA programs (Martinsen, Baker, Dewey, Bown, & Johnson, 2010), and socio­ linguistic development in the usage of leísmo and laísmo by participants in an SL program in Spain (Salgado-Robles, 2018). Overall, this previous research indicates that immersion abroad can be advantageous to producing features that can vary according to geographic region. These studies also demonstrate that HLLs’ experiences abroad are not monolithic, with some adopting regional speech patterns in order to please their interlocutors and feel more at home while abroad and others asserting their identity by not adopting such features. This individual var­ iation regarding the (non-)production of regional features is dependent on many factors, such as the dynamic identity of the learner, proficiency level, and the quantity and quality of contact with speakers who exhibit the geographically variable features under study. SL and increased quality contact with speakers who exhibit geographically variable features while abroad might facilitate the development of awareness and production of geographically variable features. But it remains unclear whether these

38

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

patterns continue after a prolonged period following immersion. This knowledge would advance our understanding of the style-shifting that HLLs may produce upon returning from their studies abroad. This ability to styleshift, something often overlooked in HLLs’ linguistic profiles, contributes to their linguistic repertoires. We now turn to a brief description and discussion of the feature under investigation. Feature under study Castilian Spanish distinguishes between vosotras/vosotros for the familiar second-person plural, used between family and friends, and ustedes for the formal second-person plural, used as a sign of respect or to address older people (Fontanella de Weinberg, 1999). Most Latin American Spanish varieties use ustedes for both the familiar and formal second-person plurals. However, Morgan and Schwenter (2016) indicate that the system is not always uniform or symmetrical, finding that of the dozen Spaniards they interviewed, many used vosotros for both the familiar and formal secondperson plurals, opting to never employ ustedes even in situations where they would have used usted with one of the interlocutors in the group. Of the 256 first language Spanish speakers who responded to the online questionnaire in that study, ustedes was still the preferred form for the formal secondperson plural, although some uses of vosotros were also found. Furthermore, Spaniards considered ustedes to be used primarily by Latin American Spanish speakers living in Spain. Given the prominence of vosotros in northcentral Spain and what little is known about the linguistic repertoires of HLLs who study abroad, this chapter presents research on the investigation of the long-term effects of SA by examining the production of the secondperson plural forms one year after returning home. It is worthwhile to study the retention of vosotros by HLLs who return home to the United States, since many of the HLLs in this study (US-born of Mexican descent) remain in contact with Spaniards, and, as shown in previous studies, some continue to use the regional features they developed while abroad with their Peninsular interlocutors. Previous studies have shown that both L2Ls and HLLs can adopt this feature (vosotros for second-person plural familiar) to varying degrees. For example, Reynolds-Case (2013) found increased use of vosotros on a written task by intermediate and advanced L2Ls after only four weeks spent in Spain. Ringer-Hilfinger (2012) found a similar increase in the written use of vosotros by beginning L2Ls after 14 weeks abroad. George (2018) found that 29% (7/24) of intermediate and advanced L2Ls increased their oral pro­ duction of vosotros after six weeks abroad and 33% (8/24) after 12 weeks, with 33% (8/24) never producing vosotros at any time while abroad. SalgadoRobles and George (2019) found that ten HLLs who participated in an SL-enhanced SA program in Spain increased their use of vosotros by 79.99 percentage points (from 2.86% to 82.85%) during a four-month SA

The case of vosotros versus ustedes 39 program, while those in the non-SL-enhanced program increased their use by 36.92 percentage points (from 1.42% to 38.34%). Research questions This chapter discusses HLLs’ decision to use a geographically variable feature (vosotros) not found in their home dialect one year after returning home from SA in Spain. The continued use of this feature would indicate the HLLs’ prolonged ability to style-shift between two (or more) dialects, demonstrating an increase in their sociolinguistic competence. The chapter seeks to answer the following research question: What differences do participants in two distinct SA programs (SL-enhanced and traditional) display in their use of the second-person plural pronominal system (i.e., production of vosotros and ustedes) one year after returning from a semester abroad in Spain, as evidenced in an oral production task?

Methods As shown in Table 2.1, the participants consisted of 20 university HLLs (10 in the SL-enhanced SA program and 10 in the traditional program) who completed a four-month semester program offered by the Council on International Educational Exchange and the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. At the beginning of their sojourn, the participants in both groups were classified by their program directors as Intermediate-Mid (IM) or Intermediate-High (IH)4 Spanish HLLs (based on a proficiency test given by the SA program), were (double) majoring or minoring in Spanish at US universities, were between ages 19 and 23, and were abroad for the first time for four months. The participants were considered HLLs because they re­ ported speaking Spanish at home, to varying degrees, while growing up. All were of Mexican descent. All participants resided with host families while abroad and were enrolled in 12–16 credits, 30% of which were offered in the center with professors from Madrid and US classmates, and the remaining 70% of which were dispersed between SL and classes offered at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid with Spanish and European exchange students. There were five men and five women in each group. The SL-enhanced SA program consisted of a course in which the parti­ cipants completed three hours per week of service in the community. Some examples include nonprofit organizations working with school-aged children and associations for refugees, women, or disabled people. In the SL course, students discussed their experiences and wrote reflections, a critical part of experiential learning. Students in the traditional SA program did not par­ take in the SL course, replacing it with a course that did not require inter­ acting with the local community. In spite of this, students in both programs participated in weekly conversations with their conversation exchange partners, who were madrileños, so a minimum level of contact with the local

40

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

Table 2.1 Participants’ backgrounds SA program type (N)

Self-reported Proficiency ethnicity (N) level (N)

Selfreported gender (N)

Academic degree (N) Age

Traditional (10)

Mexican American (10)

IM (2) IH (3)

Female (5)

IM (1) IH (4)

Male (5)

IM (1) IH (4)

Female (5)

IM (1) IH (4)

Male (5)

Spanish (3); Spanish and business (1); Spanish and anthropology (1) Spanish (1); Spanish and education (2); Spanish and history (1); Spanish and psychology (1) Spanish (2); Spanish and education (1); Spanish and finance (1); Spanish and psychology (1) Spanish (2); Spanish and business (1); Spanish and economics (1); Spanish and sociology (1)

SLenhanced (10)

Mexican American (10)

19–23

20–23

19–22

19–23

community in the form of conversation partners and host-family members was evidenced in both groups. To measure the use of vosotros, the participants completed an oral dis­ course completion task (ODCT) in which they responded to six written scenarios, each comprising five situations, by recording their answers into a digital recorder. Each scenario consisted of three valid and two invalid (distractor) situations. Salgado-Robles and George (2019), in an earlier version of this study, utilized the same ODCT with the same participants. Participants took between 30 and 40 minutes to complete this task. An example of a scenario and its situations used on the ODCT is “Your last week in Madrid”: A. You meet up with your friends Carmen and David at Rodilla Restaurant. After talking for 20 minutes about your plans for your last week in Madrid, you suggest that they should go with you to Sevilla and attend La Feria de Abril.

The case of vosotros versus ustedes 41 B. After excusing yourself, you step outside to make a call to a hotel in Sevilla. The receptionist answers and you proceed to tell her how long you are going to stay and with whom you are going. C. Once you get back, you notice that Carmen and David are not there. You ask an old couple sitting on a table next to yours if they have seen where your friends went. D. The couple said that they were not sure. Suddenly, you see the waiter coming. You ask him for a drink and proceed to ask him questions regarding your friends. E. You have been waiting for ten minutes and your friends finally show up. You thank the old couple for their time that they spent talking with you. In this scenario, the participants following the norms of the majority of speakers in Madrid were expected to produce vosotros in situation A and ustedes in situations C and E. We note here that some madrileños may produce vosotros in situations C and E and that the participants understood that Carmen and David were madrileños. The distractors are B and D, where the singular second person, tú or usted, was expected. While the pre- and posttest were administered face-to-face, the delayed posttest utilized online technology (i.e., Skype) to meet with the participants individually. Each interviewee was notified that the session was being recorded, that the recordings would be accessible only to the researchers, that the re­ cording transcripts would be used to inform the study analysis, and that any excerpts from the interviews would be associated with pseudonyms. Similar to the pre and posttest, the allotted time per participant for the delayed posttest was 30–40 minutes. Participants were provided up to one minute (maximum) to read the prompt and answer the situation to the best of their ability. The current study adds to that of Salgado-Robles and George (2019) by examining the production of vosotros one year after the participants re­ turned from their four months abroad in Spain to determine if the effect of SL remains true during a delayed posttest. Analysis The semi-spontaneous oral production from the ODCT was transcribed by the second author using the guidelines provided by Du Bois (2006) in order to extract examples that included vosotros versus ustedes. Each sample was coded as vosotros, ustedes, or other and recorded in a spreadsheet for quan­ titative analysis. The scores generated from the codification of the tokens, ranging from 0 to 100, were produced for each participant, independently of the others, so that a given participant could display high usage of both vo­ sotros and ustedes, earning a score of 100 on each. Following this, a series of multilevel models (MLMs) – a subclass of linear mixed-effects regression modeling (Wang, Xie, & Fischer, 2012) – were conducted to compare the differences in percentages of vosotros and ustedes use by time (pretest, end of

42

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

Table 2.2 Mean ustedes use at each time interval by program type Pretest Mean (min–max)

Group

N

No Service Learning Service Learning Total

10 98.2 (90.9–100) 10 98.2 (90.9–100) 20 98.2 (90.9–100)

End of semester One year later S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. (min–max) (min–max) 3.8 3.8 3.7

80.9 (45.5–100) 82.7 (45.5–100) 74.1 (45.5–100)

20.3 92.7 (81.8–100) 21.9 82.7 (54.5–100) 21.7 87.7 (54.5–100)

7.2 16.3 13.3

Table 2.3 Mean vosotros use at each time interval by program type End of semester One year later S.D. Mean S.D. Mean (min–max) (min–max)

S.D.

10 1.4 (0–14.3)

4.5

38.3 (0–57.1)

21.9 16.0 (0–45.8)

16.0

10 2.9 (0–14.3)

6.0 2.1

11.3 49.8 (28.6–71.4) 28.4 32.9 (0–71.4)

14.9

20 5.2 (0–14.3)

82.9 (71.4–100) 60.6 (0–100)

Group

N

No Service Learning Service Learning Total

Pretest Mean (min–max)

23.1

semester, one year later) and group (SL-enhanced vs. non-SL-enhanced), as well as interactions between time and group.

Results The results illustrate the extent to which HLLs in an SL-enhanced SA program retained the use of vosotros one year after a semester abroad, and show the effect of the affordances for language learning associated with each kind of program type on such usage. The production of ustedes is shown in Table 2.2 and the production of vosotros in Table 2.3, with each table divided by group (SLenhanced and non-SL). In both tables, N is the number of participants (in each group and in total) Table 2.3. Each participant was measured for their use of ustedes and vosotros at each of the three time points, and their scores reflecting the use of these two address forms are shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. In the initial MLM for ustedes, there was a significant interaction between group (SL and non-SL) and time (pretest, end of semester, and one year later): those who participated in the SL-enhanced program showed different uses of ustedes over the course of the study. Finding a significant effect in this initial MLM justified looking more closely for where exactly the difference between the groups occurred. Looking then for differences from the pretest to the end of the semester, an

The case of vosotros versus ustedes 43 100

Mean Percent Ustedes Usage

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pretest

End of Semester

One Year Later

Time No Service Learning

Service Learning

Figure 2.1 Ustedes use by time and group.

Mean Percent Vosotros /Vosotras Usage

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pretest

End of Semester Time No Service Learning

Figure 2.2 Vosotros use by time and group.

Service Learning

One Year Later

44

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

additional MLM found a significant effect of group in the production of ustedes. Specifically, those who participated in the SL experience tended overall to use ustedes less than those who did not participate in it. There was a significant interaction between group and time for the use of ustedes: those who participated in the SL program used it less than those who did not. After SA, ustedes production significantly increased – i.e., HLLs began to revert to preprogram levels. However, the group differences persisted: those who participated in the SL program used it less frequently. Those who participated in the SL program showed fewer reversions to preprogram levels than those who participated in the non-SL program. Perhaps the most insightful comparison is whether the participants did indeed wholly revert back to preprogram levels. We find that they did not: there was still a significant overall difference between usage at pretest and one year later. The MLM investigating this difference found this through all effects – an overall difference between pretest and one-year-later levels, overall between groups, and between the “reversion trends” of the groups (such that those in the SL program reverted less.) The results for vosotros mirrored those for ustedes, except more pro­ nounced. Among the analyses comparing pretest and end of semester, the MLM found significant main effects for both group membership and time, and a significant interaction between them. The effect of the program is very clear: those who participated in the SL program tended to use vosotros much more frequently than those who participated in the non-SL program. There are strong differences both overall from the end of the semester versus one year later (everyone used vosotros less frequently a year later) and between the groups. The MLMs found that the reversion rates were stronger among those who participated in the non-SL program. The MLM did not find that vosotros usage was any different (overall) one year later from at the time of the pretest. It found that those in the SL program resisted reversion to preprogram levels more than those in the non-SL program. While both groups increased their use of ustedes from the end of the se­ mester to one year after their sojourn (11.8% in the non-SL group and 13.6% in the SL group) and decreased their use of vosotros (22.3% in the non-SL group and 33.1% in the SL group), the SL group retained vosotros more (a 50% production rate) than the non-SL group (16%). This suggests an effect of program type on the production of the geographically variable feature vosotros. The SL group continued to use vosotros more than the non-SL group. This retention is most likely because the SL group produced vosotros more at the end of the semester.

Discussion This is the first study of its kind to measure style-shifting of HLLs one year after their return from Spain. While all of the participants used ustedes in

The case of vosotros versus ustedes 45 high percentages, the participants in the SL group produced vosotros sig­ nificantly more one year after returning from abroad compared to the participants in the non-SL group. The closer connections made with madrileños during the additional SL component could have ultimately led to this increased use even one year later. A future study could involve inter­ viewing participants to determine the specifics surrounding their vosotros use once back in the United States, which could include the use of this feature in group chats. In addition, some participants may have been more willing to adopt geographically variable features than others, as occurred in the study by Quan et al. (2018), and this certainly could have affected the retention rates. The decrease in the production of vosotros by both groups is not sur­ prising. While there is no evidence from Spanish speakers in the United States, Morgan and Schwenter (2019) found that Spanish speakers in Latin America considered the use of vosotros in Latin America to be from the 19th century, to be found in formal discourse such as inauguration spee­ ches, and to be used by speakers wanting to sound more prestigious. Therefore, producing vosotros in US Spanish-speaking communities could be viewed negatively. With regard to the production of phonological geographically variable features, George and Hoffman-González (2019) found that their HLL participants reported not wanting to use the geo­ graphically variable features upon returning home due in part to how strange it would sound to Spanish speakers in their home communities. Furthermore, HLLs may mimic L2Ls, in terms of both individual variation in the retention of the feature and the overall decrease in production, as found in Ringer-Hilfinger’s (2012) delayed posttest regarding the distinc­ tion between /θ/ and /s/. This study also suggests the possible long-term effects of an international SL component, adding to the many benefits of this type of programmatic innovation on participants in terms of choosing to use geographically variable features when prompted to converse with madrileños. The quantity and quality of the exposure that this service learning provided participants affected them, to a lesser degree, even one year after they returned home. The fact that some participants were still producing vosotros provides fur­ ther evidence of the lasting impact of their ability to style-shift between vosotros and ustedes in Spain, since they used vosotros instead of ustedes when prompted to imagine speaking with a group of their Spaniard peers.

Conclusions The main conclusion of this chapter is the impact of SL-enhanced SA on the production of geographically variable patterns after both four months abroad and a further year at home. In spite of this contribution, the study does come with some limitations. First, the investigation of additional in­ dependent variables beyond the type of SA could shed light on the

46

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

production of this feature, which could also affect future SA programs. For example, investigating the quality and quantity of contact with different varieties of Spanish and English could demonstrate that those participants with little contact with speakers who utilize vosotros may have also been the ones who stopped using vosotros. In addition, the goals and motivations of the participants are unclear. Some may have desired to return to Spain, which could contribute to promotion of the maintenance of vosotros, while others may have wished to assert their identities as Mexican American Spanish speakers and therefore did not maintain the vosotros–ustedes dis­ tinction. Finally, there may be connections between language-variety atti­ tudes and the use of the vosotros–ustedes distinction. A future study could benefit from investigating this further. This study confirms that HLL participants who engaged in an SL-enhanced SA program for one semester still produced, although to a lesser degree, the distinction between vosotros and ustedes one year after returning to the United States. This is most likely due to the fact that they were still using vosotros in mobile-phone group chats with Spaniards. Those participants who participated in the traditional SA program produced vosotros significantly less than the other participants at the end of the semester and also one year later. These findings have implications for HLLs who want to study abroad and for SA program personnel who may want to encourage SL in order to enhance the experience of HLLs studying abroad. For prospective HLL sojourners, it is possible to broaden their linguistic repertoires with the use of geographically variable features while still maintaining their home dialects. For SA program directors and personnel, SL could be advertised to students who wish to pro­ mote exposure to geographically variable features.

Notes 1 Throughout this chapter, the use of vosotros is a blanket term for the generic masculine that denotes vosotras and vosotros. 2 International service learning differs from service learning abroad because it implies that the entire program abroad is devoted to service learning. Contrarily, when an SA program includes an SL component, it is referred to as SL abroad or an SA program with an SL component (see Ogden and Hartman, 2019, for a review). 3 While Geeslin et al. (2013) included preterit versus present perfect, Whatley (2013) examined the use of preterit, present perfect, and imperfect. 4 These levels are based on proficiency guidelines from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

References Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Brown, A.V., & Purmensky, K. (2014). Spanish L2 students’ perceptions of com­ munity service: A case study from Ecuador. The International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 2(1), 78–94.

The case of vosotros versus ustedes 47 Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London, UK: Longman. Clifford, J., & Reisinger, D.S. (2019). Community-based language learning: A fra­ mework for educators. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cubillos, J.H. (2013). Community engagement and proficiency gains in short-term study abroad programs. The NECTFL Review, 71, 17–33. Davidson, D.E., & Lekic, M.D. (2013). The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: Comparing learning outcomes and target-language utilization in the Russian flagship. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 88–114. Eckert, P. & Rickford, J. (Eds.). (2001). Style and variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Escalante, C. (2018). ¡Ya pué[h]! Perception of coda-/s/ weakening among L2 and heritage speakers in coastal Ecuador. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(1), 1–26. Fontanella de Weinberg, M. B. (1999). Sistemas pronominales de tratamiento usados en el mundo hispánico. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 1399–1425). Madrid, Spain: Espasa Calpe. Geeslin, K. L., Fafulas, S., & Kanwit, M. (2013). Acquiring geographically-variable norms of use: The case of the present perfect in Mexico and Spain. In C. Howe, M. Lubbers & S. Blackwell (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 15th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 205–220). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Geeslin, K. L., García-Amaya, L., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N., & Killam, J. (2010). The SLA of direct object pronouns in a study abroad immersion en­ vironment where use is variable. In C. Borgonovo, M. Español-Echevarría & P. Prévost (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 246–259). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. George, A. (2018). The development of a regional morphosyntactic feature by learners of Spanish in a study abroad setting: The case of vosotros. Hispanic Studies Review, 3(1), 101–125. George, A., & Hoffman-González, A. (2019). Dialect and identity: U.S. heritage language learners of Spanish abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 4(2), 251–277. Guntermann, G. (1995). The Peace Corps experience: Language learning in training and in the field. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 149–169). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Howard, M. (2009). Short- versus long-term effects of naturalistic exposure on the advanced learner’s L2 development: A case-study. In E. Labeau & F. Myles (Eds.), The advanced learner variety: The case of French (pp. 93–123). Oxford, UK: Peter Lang. Huensch, A., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017). Understanding L2 fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in L1 fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 755–785. Kanwit, M., Geeslin, K.L., & Fafulas, S. (2015). The role of geography in the SLA of variable structures: A look at the present perfect, the copula contrast, and the present progressive in Mexico and Spain. Probus, 27(2), 307–348.

48

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

Kanwit, M., & Solon, M. (2013). Acquiring variation in future time expression abroad in Spain and Mexico. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, G. Lord, A. Prada Pérez & J. E. Aaron (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 206–222). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Llanes, A. (2012). The short- and long-term effects of a short study abroad experi­ ence: The case of children, System, 40, 179–190. López-Navarro, J. (2017). Development of sociolinguistic competence by Spanish heritage language learners in a study abroad context (Unpublished master’s thesis). Sevilla, Spain: Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Marijuan, S., & Sanz, C. (2018). Expanding boundaries: Current and new directions in study abroad research and practice. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 185–204. Martinsen, R.A., Baker, W., Dewey, D.P., Bown, J., & Johnson, C. (2010). Exploring diverse settings for language acquisition and use: Comparing study abroad, service learning abroad, and foreign language housing. Applied Language Learning, 20(1–2), 45–69. McLaughlin, T.R. (2001). Perspectives on learning Spanish as a heritage language in Mexico: Four Chicana case studies (Unpublished master’s thesis). Puebla, México: Universidad de las Américas. Moreno, K.H. (2009). The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Austin, TX: University of Texas. Morgan, T., & Schwenter, S.A. (October, 2019). Pronouns in foreign lands: Vosotros in Latin America and ustedes in Spain. In Paper presented at Hispanic Linguistics Symposium 2019, El Paso, Texas. Morgan, T.A., & Schwenter, S.A. (2016). Vosotros, ustedes, and the myth of the symmetrical Castilian pronoun system. In A. Cuza, L. Czerwionka & D. J. Olson (Eds.), Inquiries in Hispanic linguistics: From theory to empirical evidence (pp. 263–280). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Ogden, A., & Hartman, E. (2019). To hell and back with good intentions: Global service-learning in the shadow of Ivan Illich. In A. Paczyńska & S. Hirsch (Eds.), Conflict zone comfort zone: Ethics, pedagogy, and effecting change in field-based courses (pp. 221–241). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(Supplement 1), 1–24. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2009). The effect of study abroad (SA) on written performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9, 269–295. Pizziconi, B. (2017). Japanese vocabulary development in and beyond study abroad: The timing of the year abroad in a language degree curriculum. Language Learning Journal, 45, 133–152. Quan, T., Pozzi, R., Kehoe, S., & Menard-Warwick, J. (2018). Spanish heritage language learners in study abroad across three national contexts. In C. Sanz & A. Morales Front (Eds.), Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 437–451). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Regan, V. (2005). From community back to classroom: What variation analysis can tell us about context of acquisition. In J. M. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 191–209). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

The case of vosotros versus ustedes 49 Reynolds-Case, A. (2013). The value of short-term study abroad: An increase in students’ cultural and pragmatic competency. Foreign Language Annals, 42(2), 311–322. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R.L. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 405–421. Ringer-Hilfinger, K. (2012). The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation by study abroad students: The case of American students in Madrid (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Albany, NY: University at Albany—State University of New York. Salgado-Robles, F. (2011). The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation by learners of Spanish in a study abroad context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Salgado-Robles, F. (2014a). Variación dialectal por aprendices de español en un contexto de inmersión en el extranjero: Un análisis cuantitativo del uso leísta en el discurso oral y escrito. Revista Lenguas Modernas, 43(1), 97–112. Salgado-Robles, F. (2014b). Los efectos del aprendizaje-servicio en la adquisición de la variación regional por aprendices de español en un contexto de inmersión: El caso del leísmo vallisoletano. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 13(1), 233–258. Salgado-Robles, F. (2018). Desarrollo de la competencia sociolingüística por apren­ dices de español en un contexto de inmersión en el extranjero. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. Salgado-Robles, F. (2020). Relación entre tipo de programa académico en el ex­ tranjero, competencia intercultural y adquisición del leísmo por aprendices de español como lengua de herencia. In P. Taboada-de-Zúñiga Romero & R. Barros Romero (Eds.), Actas del XXIX Congreso Internacional de ASELE: Perfiles, fac­ tores y contextos en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de ELE/EL2 (pp. 1013–1026). Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Santiago de Compostela University Press. Salgado-Robles, F., & George, A. (2019). The sociolinguistic impact of servicelearning on heritage learners sojourning in Spain: Vosotros versus ustedes. Heritage Language Journal, 16(1), 71–98. Salgado-Robles, F., & Ibarra, C.E. (2012). “Les voy a echar de menos cuando re­ grese a los Estados Unidos”: Adquisición de la variación dialectal por apren­ dientes de español en un contexto de inmersión. Ogigia: Revista Electrónica de Estudios Hispánicos, 11, 61–77. Sasaki, M. (2011). Effects of varying lengths of study-abroad experiences on Japanese EFL students’ L2 writing ability and motivation: A longitudinal study. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 81–105. Shively, R.L. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Shively, R.L. (2018). Spanish heritage speakers studying abroad. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 405–422). New York, NY: Routledge. Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

50

Angela George and Francisco Salgado-Robles

UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2014). Global flow of tertiary-level students. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-studentflow-viz.aspx. van Ek, J.A. (1986). Objectives for foreign language learning. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Wang, J., Xie, H., & Fischer, J.H. (2012). Multilevel models: Applications using SAS. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. Whatley, M. (2013). The acquisition of past tense variation by L2 learners of Spanish in an abroad context. In J. Cabrelli Amaro, G. Lord, A. Prada Pérez & J.E. Aaron (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 190–205). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

3

“Aquí el español es muy diferente” Mexican Americans’ linguistic accommodation in social interactions with Spanish peers Meghann M. Peace

Introduction Study abroad (SA) provides students with the opportunity to develop their language skills and enact new identities through linguistic choices. A considerable body of work focuses on second language (L2) speakers’ experiences in Spain (e.g., Geeslin & Gudmestad, 2008; George, 2014, 2018; Pope, 2016; Reynolds-Case, 2013; Ringer-Hilfinger, 2012, 2013). Heritage speakers of Spanish are an understudied population of SA students, although the limited research on their experiences in Spain shows them to be a diverse group (e.g., Moreno, 2009; Quan, 2018), and their minimal accommodation to Peninsular Spanish seems to be driven by different reasons (e.g., George & Hoffman-González, 2014, 2019; Kentengian & Peace, 2019). Only one study (Kentengian & Peace, 2019) has examined heritage speakers’ interactions with local peers. If identity performance varies in response to context, then research cannot be limited to their interactions with professors and host family members. Interactions with peers must be considered as well. This chapter examines the linguistic choices and identity stances of five Mexican Americans who spent a 16-week semester in Spain. Data collected through multiple measures shows their language use and accommodation to their peers’ Peninsular dialect. The participants accommodated in different ways, for different reasons, and to enact different identities. These results show the multiple possibilities inherent in a small but growing SA population.

Background Language, accommodation, and identity Accommodation theory states that speakers can use language to reduce differences between themselves and their interlocutors by adopting their interlocutors’ linguistic features. Conversely, they may choose to accentuate speech differences that exist between them and their interlocutors (e.g.,

52

Meghann M. Peace

Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991). Such convergence or divergence is driven in part by a speaker's particular sense of identity. This chapter employs the perspective of identity as something that is variable (e.g., Bucholtz & Hall, 2004; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004) and constructed in interaction (e.g., Mori, 2012). Through language, individuals enact identities, choosing features that correspond with the image they wish to present. The identity that individuals choose to present may be affected by their particular ethnicity, if they wish to highlight it, if they wish to hide it, or if they feel that it is threatened by their interlocutors or by society (e.g., Gallois & Callan, 1991; Giles et al., 1991; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). Identities can be organized across space and time, as speakers select linguistic forms and features that correspond not only to a certain place but also to a certain time (e.g., Blommaert & De Fina, 2017). They may enact identities in line with the local community or present identities that correspond to imagined future communities to which they would one day like to belong (e.g., Kinginger, 2004; Norton, 2013). The idea of one’s identity being variable is further explored in Bucholtz and Hall’s (2004) tactics of intersubjectivity, or “the relations that are created through identity work” (p. 382). Several tactics – adequation and distinction, and authentication and denaturalization – establish relations of, respectively, similarity and difference, and genuineness and artifice (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 383). Speakers use language to establish with their interlocutors the particular relations that they desire. Linguistic accommodation is, therefore, a complicated social behavior, driven by issues of identity, relationships, ethnicity, and the temporal and spatial particularities not only of the interaction but also of moments considered important to the interlocutors. SA offers a context in which accommodation to the local language, and the reasons for it, may be examined. Study abroad in Spain Spain is the third most-visited SA destination among US students (Institute of International Education, 2018), and a number of studies have examined their experiences there. Results are mixed as to whether or not SA students accommodate to Peninsular Spanish. These studies examine learners’ accommodation to phonological and morphological features (/θ/, /χ/, and vosotros). The interdental fricative /θ/ is salient in Peninsular Spanish, which should make it especially susceptible to accommodation (e.g., Trudgill, 1986). However, L2 students tend not to use it. In research by Geeslin and Gudmestad (2008), nine out of 130 participants produced the variant in a monologic role-play task. Their rate of [θ] ranged from 8% to 100% in the task. Of the 209 contexts in which it could have been used in a study by RingerHilfinger (2012), it was produced six times. Seven out of 15 participants in a

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

53

study by Knouse (2013) produced [θ], but at low rates (36/2,119 occurrences across the group). The highest rate of [θ] production in a study by George (2014) was 30%, but the majority of her participants produced it 2% of the time. Of Pope’s (2016) four participants, two accommodated to [θ], one used it half of the time, and the fourth avoided it. Accommodation was observed in students who had more social connections with Spaniards, whereas students with more Latin American connections avoided the phoneme. The uvular fricative /χ/ has shown similar results. The majority of George’s (2014) participants produced it 2% of the time, but students who had social connections with Spaniards produced it more frequently. Another salient feature of Peninsular Spanish is the second-person plural pronoun vosotros. Reynolds-Case’s (2013) participants showed an increase in vosotros use with age peers throughout the semester. In a study by RingerHilfinger (2013), half of the participants produced vosotros 33% of the time. The highest rate observed by George (2018) was 25%, and a third of the participants never produced vosotros; those who used it tended to spend more time involved in the local community. These studies indicate that accommodation is possible, though not necessarily likely, among L2 learners. Those who accommodate to Peninsular Spanish are the minority. These studies suggest that SA participants who accommodate to Peninsular Spanish have more local connections and more positive opinions of Spaniards. Heritage speakers in study abroad Although most students who study abroad are white, the percentage of Hispanic students studying abroad grew from 6.0% in 2006/2007 to 10.2% in 2016/2017. That said, Hispanics currently represent the second largest racial/ ethnic group in study abroad (Institute of International Education, 2018).1 Research on these students presents mixed results regarding their accommodation of local features, with added complications attributed to racial and linguistic discrimination. A Mexican American in a study by Moreno (2009) said that he “worried that the Spaniards would look down on his border Spanish and think he was butchering the language” (p. 99). In a study by Quan (2018), a Mexican American and African American student in Spain chose to distance herself from the local community due in part to her belief that “her host mother was positioning her as an incompetent Spanish user” (p. 39). In an SA program in Mexico, a Mexican American’s use of nonstandard expressions in Mexico led her host family to view her as lower-class and to prefer white students (Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). Members of the host community may hold heritage speakers to higher standards than they would hold L2 learners, while at the same time negatively judging them (e.g., Shively, 2016). In one of the few studies on heritage speakers’ language use, George and Hoffman-González (2019) examined accommodation to local pronunciation

54

Meghann M. Peace

during study in Spain and Argentina. Of the two Mexican American participants in Spain, the one who accommodated to [θ] had more social connections with Spaniards, while the other avoided the phoneme. Both Mexican Americans in Argentina accommodated to Argentine [ʃ]/[ʒ], and both had positive relationships with locals. George and Hoffman-González (2014) examined the same speakers’ accommodation to local pronouns in Spain and Argentina. Again, one participant in Spain used vosotros 27% of the time, perhaps due to her stated desire to identify more with Castilian Spanish. The other participant preferred to maintain her Mexican dialect and identity. Of the two participants in Argentina, only one accommodated to the second-person singular pronoun vos. The authors conclude that heritage speakers do not differ from L2 learners in regards to accommodation rates, but that “the why, however, may be different” (George & Hoffman-González, 2014, p. 21). The aforementioned studies analyzed heritage speakers’ language with host family members, professors, and researchers, whom students might consider social superiors. The relative status of the interlocutor matters in interethnic accommodation, as “norms in formal situations where status is unequal are more constraining than where status is equal” (Gallois & Callan, 1991, p. 264). These constraints of politeness and reserve may have affected students’ linguistic choices. These choices have not been examined, however, in interactions with age peers and interlocutors of equal status. Given that identity is variable and can be expressed through language in interaction, changing the particulars of the interaction may affect whether or not heritage speakers choose to accommodate. Only one study (Kentengian & Peace, 2019) has examined interactions among heritage speakers and Spanish age peers. The two participants showed minimal accommodation to Peninsular Spanish, but for different reasons. Valentina, a Mexican American with strong ties to Mexico, avoided Peninsular features. She employed only certain Peninsular lexical items when it was clear that locals did not understand the Mexican variants. In general, she used language to present herself as an educated Mexican. The other participant, Rosa, felt less connected to her Peruvian heritage. However, she did not accommodate to local norms either, using a more global Spanish instead to establish common ground with her Spanish interlocutor. These two represent Bucholtz and Hall’s (2004) tactics of distinction and adequation, respectively. Valentina highlighted salient differences between herself and her Spanish interlocutors, whereas Rosa chose to employ features that both she and her interlocutor shared. Their experiences show that heritage speakers do not necessarily enact the same identities in study abroad. Rather, their sense of connection to their heritage might affect the identities that they present through their linguistic choices. In order to better understand the variety of Mexican American heritage speakers’ language use with Spanish age peers, this chapter examines five students of different backgrounds who participated in a semester-long SA

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

55

program in Spain. These five participants had different proficiency levels in Spanish and different experiences with Spanish, and were of different immigrant generations. Taking the perspective that “identity inheres in actions” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 376), the following questions guided the research: 1.

2.

Do Mexican American heritage speakers studying abroad in Spain show any evidence of phonological, morphosyntactic, and/or lexical accommodation to Peninsular Spanish, particularly in conversation with local Spanish age peers? What role does their identity play in their linguistic choices?

Methodology Participants The participants were five female Mexican Americans who were enrolled in a 16-week SA program in Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain. Approximately 80% of the city is ethnically Spaniard, and Mexicans represent less than 0.01% of the population (Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, 2015). The Peninsular dialect predominates in the city, and the inhabitants do not seem familiar with Mexican Spanish; locals in studies by Kentengian and Peace (2019) and Peace (2019) indicated that they did not understand certain Mexican lexical items used in conversations and service encounters by SA students. Table 3.1 introduces the participants. Claudia had the strongest connection to Mexico. She was born there, before moving to the Texas side of the border at age four. She has lived in majorityHispanic and majority-Mexican areas her entire life, and she visits Mexico regularly to see family and celebrate holidays. She uses Spanish exclusively with her parents and siblings. She was the only participant who had taken advanced-level Spanish courses at her home university before going to Spain. Dani was born in Arizona, her family moved to Sinaloa when she was an infant, and she returned to Arizona at age five. Since then, she has returned only three times to Sinaloa, and she prefers to use English with her family, speaking in Spanish only with her grandmother. Dani had also studied Spanish at her home university, having taken intermediate-level courses. Denisse was born in and attended university in majority-Hispanic and majority-Mexican areas. However, between ages nine and 18 she lived in Houston, where Hispanics are a minority (US Census Bureau, 2019). She had gone to Mexico regularly to visit family until age eight, but not since then. Her family speaks primarily English, although she uses a small amount of Spanish with her mother. Denisse, like Dani, had taken intermediate-level courses in Spanish at her home university. Julia is the only participant who lived her entire life in areas in which Hispanics and Mexicans are a minority. She visited Mexico only twice

60% Hispanic, of which 89% are Mexican Medium, private, Hispanic-serving institution Intermediate Intermediate-level coursework

60% Hispanic, of which 89% are Mexican Medium, private, Hispanic-serving institution Novice

Intermediate-level coursework

Spanish proficiency level4 Formal instruction in Spanish prior to semester abroad

University

Immigrant generation Location of home university Demographics of university county

22 McAllen, TX 92% Hispanic, of which 96% are Mexican Fourth San Antonio, TX

22 Dallas, TX 40% Hispanic, of which 83% are Mexican Third San Antonio, TX

Age Birthplace Demographics of birthplace county3

Denisse

Nancy

Name2

Table 3.1 The participants

Advanced-level coursework

60% Hispanic, of which 89% are Mexican Medium, private, Hispanic-serving institution Advanced

Second San Antonio, TX

21 Tamaulipas, Mexico N/A

Claudia

Intermediate-level coursework

37% Hispanic, of which 89% are Mexican Large, public, Hispanic-serving institution Advanced

19 Tucson, AZ 37% Hispanic, of which 89% are Mexican Second Tucson, AZ

Dani

No university-level coursework

16% Hispanic, of which 11% are Mexican Medium, public, non-Hispanicserving institution Advanced

19 New Brunswick, NJ 20% Hispanic, of which 20% are Mexican Second Ewing, NJ

Julia

56 Meghann M. Peace

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

57

during her childhood. Despite her limited exposure to Mexicans, she has had considerable exposure to the language. Spanish was her first language, and she uses it with her parents, aunts, and uncles. With her siblings, she prefers English. Julia had not studied Spanish at her university; before Spain, her most recent formal instruction in Spanish had been in elementary school. The final participant, Nancy, had almost no exposure to either Spanish or Mexico. Her parents did not teach her Spanish; they thought it was unnecessary, and they did not want her to face discrimination in their white neighborhood. Nancy went to Mexico once for three days when she was eight, but she said during data collection that it “doesn’t count”. Nancy had also taken intermediate-level courses at her home university, but these courses did not translate to intermediate-level proficiency on her part. Data collection Data was collected from each participant via one interview and three tasks with the researcher. The tasks done with the researcher were followed by a conversation with a Spanish conversation partner. These tasks were conducted in weeks 8–10 of the 16-week semester, in order to give the participants time to adjust to the new environment. The first interview, done with the researcher, lasted approximately one hour and explored the participants’ family, linguistic, and educational backgrounds, their sense of cultural identity, their experiences in Spain, and their perceptions of Peninsular and Mexican Spanish. This interview helped to establish a sense of the participants’ language use. Denisse and Nancy’s interviews were conducted in English, as they were not comfortable speaking with the researcher in Spanish, or their proficiency level prevented them from doing so. They then completed a reading task, a lexical identification task, and a role play task. The reading task provided 21 words to read aloud. They included words that differ in Mexican and Peninsular Spanish, focusing specifically on the Peninsular fricatives /θ/ and /χ/, as well as distractors (based on George, 2014).5 The goal was to identify any influences from Peninsular Spanish in their pronunciation, and it offered them the opportunity to produce formal speech. The lexical identification task presented 14 pictures of items whose names vary among dialects, based on Zentella (1990), Potowski and Torres (unpublished manuscript, cited in Escobar & Potowski, 2015), and an earlier pilot study.6,7 The participants provided the word(s) that they use for each item, as well as other words with which they were familiar. This gauged their baseline lexical knowledge, as well as any knowledge they had of Peninsular words. The role play asked them to imagine four scenarios (based on Reynolds-Case, 2013); they greeted Spanish 20-somethings, offered to run errands for their host parents, told their host grandmother about their day, and discussed the climate in the United States with Spanish friends. These scenarios evaluated their use of second-person pronouns with Spanish interlocutors of different ages.

58

Meghann M. Peace

The fifth task, completed 1–4 weeks later, was an hour-long informal conversation with a female Spaniard. The interlocutors discussed topics that most interested them, such as family, classes, travel, and comparisons between the United States and Spain. The conversations were held in cafés, and the researcher was not present, to help ensure a comfortable environment between peers. These conversations were conducted in Spanish, although Nancy’s limited proficiency meant that she used mostly English. The Spanish conversation partners were local university students. Table 3.2 provides their information. Four of the participants had been born in and lived their entire lives in central Spain, but Marta was from Extremadura, a dialectal region that does not necessarily incorporate the same features (e.g., Hernández-Campoy & Villena-Ponsoda, 2009). However, in her conversation with Julia, she employed /θ/ regularly and /χ/ on occasion. She did not use any second-person plural pronouns in the conversation, neither vosotros nor ustedes. The other four Spaniards all used /θ/ and /χ/ regularly. Diana and Alicia employed vosotros rather than ustedes, but Tamara and Milagros did not use any second-person plural pronoun. All five produced lexical items associated with Peninsular Spanish (e.g., coche, coger, guay, vale). In general, the conversation partners spoke in a manner typical of central Spain. The interview was examined for comments about dialects, linguistic attitudes, and experiences speaking in Spain. The responses on the three tasks were collected and used to establish the specifics of each participant’s variety, as well as their knowledge of Peninsular Spanish. The conversation with the Spanish age peer was examined for any instances in which the participants accommodated to the local dialect. Also recorded were any misunderstandings or language-related comments that they or their conversation partners made. The use of multiple instruments sought to determine any modifications the Mexican Americans made to their speech when conversing with Spanish peers, as well as any identity-based reasons for their linguistic choices.

Results This section presents the results organized by participant. It provides their awareness of phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical features of Peninsular Spanish, as well as any accommodation or lack thereof to these features. Table 3.2 Spanish conversation partners Name

Age

Place of birth

Mexican American partner

Milagros Diana Tamara Alicia Marta

19 18 18 18 18

Madrid Madrid Castilla-La Mancha Madrid Extremadura

Nancy Denisse Claudia Dani8 Julia

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

59

Claudia To restate, Claudia had lived her entire life in majority-Mexican areas. Of the participants, she used the most Spanish with her family. She had studied Spanish at the university level for the longest time and at the highest level. In her interview with the researcher, when asked for her perceptions of Peninsular Spanish, she did not mention any phonological features, although she expressed general admiration. “Me encanta el acento … Quisiera tenerlo”. [I love the accent … I’d like to have it.] (Claudia, Interview).9 She admitted that she would probably not acquire the accent, given that she would need years in Spain to do so. Her belief was well-founded; she never produced any Peninsular phonological features in any of the tasks or the conversation with Tamara. Claudia did not mention any Peninsular morphosyntactic features. The role play provided a means of examining the participants’ use of dialectspecific second-person pronouns, and here, also, Claudia did not show any indication of Peninsular features. In the three situations that addressed plural interlocutors, she did not use or mention vosotros. In the conversation, she used tú to refer directly to Tamara, and ustedes to refer to Tamara and other Spaniards. The lexicon was the area in which Claudia showed the most awareness and also the most accommodation. She provided the researcher with a number of differences that she had noticed10 – padre/guay [cool], agarrar/coger [to grab], ¿mande?/¿qué? [what?], refrigerador/frigorífico [refrigerator], and durazno/melocotón [peach]. More examples appeared in the lexical identification task – pluma/bolígrafo [pen], carro/coche [car], camarones/gambas [shrimp], traje de baño/bañador [bathing suit], lentes/gafas [eyeglasses], and pastel/tarta [cake]. She indicated on the lexical identification that she used only the Mexican words; she was aware of but did not use the Peninsular variants. Claudia’s high level of awareness of Peninsular lexical items showed in her conversation with Tamara; she accommodated frequently. In the following quotes, the relevant words are given in bold. “Yo estoy dando tutoría a una chava de, a una chica de dieciséis años”. [I’m tutoring a girl who’s, a girl who’s 16.] “Tío, que yo la verdad soy, eso de maquillarme así, pues, como ves, me maquillo todos los días”. [Dude, the thing about me is, wearing make-up, well, what you see here, this is how I make myself up every day.] “No hay otra manera, porque claro, verdad, andar en autobús, ay no”. [There’s no other way, because, of course, going by bus, no way.] (Claudia, Conversation). Claudia switched from Mexican chava to Peninsular chica partway through the utterance. She also used tío in a Peninsular manner, to informally direct speech to Tamara. In her lexical identification task, she wrote both autobús and camión to reference a bus. With Tamara, she selected the more global autobús rather than the specifically Mexican camión. Claudia did not consistently maintain Peninsular words, however, as seen in the following excerpt.

60

Meghann M. Peace

CLAUDIA:

Me robaron mi móvil. Me robaron el móvil. No fue la mejor experiencia … me llegó un correo de Apple diciéndome que ya habían localizado mi celular … en Marruecos. TAMARA: Madre mía, qué fuerte. Pues es que cuando me pasó … me dio un ataque de nervios. CLAUDIA: Sí, no, es que es eso. No es tanto, bueno, lo material, claro, vale, el móvil es muy caro. [Claudia: They stole my phone. They stole my phone. It was not the best experience … Apple sent me an email telling me they had found my phone … in Morocco. Tamara: Oh my God, how awful. Well, when that happened to me … it gave me a panic attack. Claudia: Yes, no, that’s exactly it. It’s not so much, OK, the material aspect, of course, OK, a phone is pretty expensive.] (Claudia, Conversation) While discussing a frightening event, Claudia switched from Peninsular móvil to Mexican celular and back to móvil. The final turn above shows another switch, from bueno to vale, a word that Claudia used four times in the conversation. Although Claudia stated that bueno and OK were what she used in her own variety, she made a concerted effort while in Spain to switch to vale. This frequent use of vale may be because, according to Claudia’s friend Julia, who also participated in this study, Claudia’s host mom had told her that OK sounded unfriendly and slightly aggressive. Claudia decided to use vale thereafter. She told the researcher that she had even started using vale with her parents, much to their bemusement, as they responded, “¿Te crees española?” [“You think you’re a Spaniard?”] (Claudia, interview). Dani Dani, like Claudia, had lived in Mexico as a very young child, but she had less exposure to Spanish, she had fewer years of formal study of Spanish, and she preferred to use English. She thought that Peninsular Spanish was the best variety, because “se originó aquí y es más formal, no tanto slang, como allá en México que se usa. A mí me gusta el español de aquí” [“It originated here, and it’s more formal, not as much slang, like we do in Mexico. I like the Spanish here”] (Dani, Interview). Dani’s belief that Peninsular Spanish is more formal than her variety is one that is shared among other heritage speakers in Spain (e.g., Kentengian & Peace, 2019; Moreno, 2009). One of Dani’s goals in Spain was “hablar más formal” [“to speak more formally”] (Dani, Interview). When asked about her perceptions of Peninsular Spanish, Dani said that she had noticed the interdental and uvular fricatives, /θ/ and /χ/. She was unfazed, stating that, “Pensaba que todo el español era igual, español es español, pero no, es muy diferente … pero ya como que me estoy

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

61

acostumbrando y estoy agarrando el rollo” [“I thought that all Spanish was the same, Spanish is Spanish, but no, it’s pretty different … but now I’m getting used to it and getting the hang of it”] (Dani, Interview). Nevertheless, she never produced these phonemes. Like Claudia, Dani did not mention any morphosyntactic features. In the role play, she never produced vosotros. Her conversation had two interlocutors – the Spaniard Alicia and the Peruvian American Rosa – but Dani did not use vosotros, selecting either ustedes to address both, or tú to direct speech to one or the other. A morphological feature of traditional Mexican American Spanish is the use of ha as a non-standard variant of the first person form of haber (e.g., yo ha hablado, rather than yo he hablado [I have spoken]) (Bills, 1997). Dani showed variation between standard he and non-standard ha. The following excerpts show the verb forms, including in parenthesis when in the conversation they occurred. ALICIA:

Una vez fui a Nueva York … DANI: Yo no he ido a New York City … ROSA: Me encantan los todos partes … hay una parte … es como un parque … DANI: What’s it called? ROSA: Manhattan High Line. DANI: Oh, OK. No, I’m, yo nunca he ido. Yo empiezo a hablar inglés. Ah, nunca he ido. [Alicia: Once I went to New York … Dani: I haven’t gone to New York City … Rosa: I love all of it … there’s one part … it’s like a park … Dani: What’s it called? Rosa: Manhattan High Line. Dani: Oh, OK. No, I’m, I’ve never been. I’m starting to speak English. Ah, I’ve never been.] (Dani, Conversation, 3:10–4:07) ALICIA:

Es como la coliflor, eh, cabbage? Pero morada. DANI: ¡Oh! Sí, sé lo que esta es. Pero nunca la he probado. [Alicia: It’s like cauliflower, um, cabbage? But purple. Dani: Oh! Yes, I know what that is. But I’ve never tried it.] (Dani, Conversation, 20:29–20:42) ALICIA: ¿Qué asignaturas tienes? … DANI: Pues todo que tiene que ver con

el ambiente … y luego comunicación … y comunicación es más, no sé, no ha tomado clases de comunicación.

62

Meghann M. Peace [Alicia: What classes are you taking? … Dani: Well everything that has to do with the environment … and then communication … and communication is more, I don’t know, I haven’t taken any communication classes.] (Dani, Conversation, 22:06–22:56)

ALICIA:

Y americanos vienen un montón, en vacaciones un montón de americanos. DANI: Yo no ha hablado con nadie que me diga, pues, los americanos … [Alicia: And there are a ton of Americans who come, during break a ton of Americans. Dani: I haven’t spoken with anyone who’s said to me, well, those Americans …] (Dani, Conversation, 31:14–31:22) Dani used standard he and non-standard ha to discuss a variety of topics. The reason for the variation may have to do with when they were used. The earlier use of he suggests an initial effort on Dani’s part to maintain standard Spanish, which she then lost as she became more comfortable speaking with Alicia and Rosa and began to use the non-standard variant. Dani mentioned one lexical difference – lonche/almuerzo [lunch] – and wrote no Peninsular words on the lexical identification task. However, Peninsular words appeared in the conversation. DANI:

Se hizo ceviche, pero sin, no usó el ALICIA: ¿Limón? DANI: No, el, ah, shrimp, el, gamba, ¿es gamba? [Dani: She made ceviche, but without, she didn’t use the Alicia: Lemon? Dani: No, the, ah, shrimp, the, shrimp. Is it shrimp?] (Dani, Conversation) Dani already knew the Mexican word for shrimp, having written camarón on the lexical identification task. However, she did not use camarón with Alicia. Rather, she used English until she could recall gamba, the word typically used in Peninsular Spanish, suggesting knowledge of and accommodation to the Peninsular lexicon. Another example follows. DANI:

Yo tengo dos hermanos. ALICIA: ¿Mayores? DANI: Sí. Y yo soy la más chica. Uh, la más pequeña. [Dani: I have two brothers.

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

63

Alicia: Older? Dani: Yes. And I’m the youngest. Uh, the youngest.] (Dani, Conversation) DANI:

Cuando primero llegué y entré al baño, y digo, ay, qué chiquito, todo bien pequeñito se me hizo el baño.

[Dani: When I first got there and went to the bathroom, and I said, oh, how small, it’s all so small, the bathroom seemed to me.] (Dani, Conversation) Dani’s switch from chico to pequeño suggest attempts to accommodate to the lexical item that was used in the target culture. Alicia’s use of pequeño throughout the conversation might have been the impetus for Dani’s switches. Denisse Denisse never lived in Mexico, and had only made regular visits there until she was eight years old. She spoke little Spanish at home, she had studied intermediate Spanish at the university, and her proficiency was intermediatelevel. When asked which dialect she believed to be the best, she said “I like Spain. I always heard Spain is the best” (Denisse, Interview). She disparaged her own variety with her conversation partner, Diana. “No hablamos muy bien … un mezcla de inglés y español … se habla por la calle, no es como proper Spanish” [“We don’t speak very well … a mix of English and Spanish … we speak it in the streets, it’s not like proper Spanish”] (Denisse, Conversation). Like Dani, Denisse saw her home variety as inferior and too informal, particularly in comparison to Peninsular Spanish. In terms of phonological features, Denisse mentioned the interdental /θ/. She did not particularly like it, saying, “My last name López, I keep hearing it like [lopeθ] … [a professor] was like, ‘What’s your name?’ … and then I was like [lopes], and she’s like [lopeθ] … I can’t even pronounce my last name now” (Denisse, Interview). Denisse’s struggle to pronounce /θ/ meant that her own name was changed, a source of frustration and a potential challenge to her identity. There was no evidence of phonological accommodation in any of her tasks. With respect to morphosyntax, Denisse stated noticing the second-person singular pronouns tú and usted. She mentioned in the interview having been chastised by her host family for using formal usted with her 27-year-old host brother. She behaved similarly in the tasks. In the role play situation in which she greeted 20-somethings, she initially used usted, then switched to informal tú. With Diana, her first and second turns of conversation consisted of usted forms, following which she used tú throughout the rest of the conversation.

64

Meghann M. Peace

Denisse showed lexical awareness. She mentioned noticing vale and commented that she had been scolded in a bakery for not knowing the name of a pastry. On the lexical identification task, she provided pluma/bolígrafo [pen], aretes/pendientes [earrings], and carro/coche [car], stating that only the Mexican ones were part of her speech. She showed lexical accommodation with Diana. DENISSE:

Hay muchos, ¿cómo se dicen? Como transportes. Y no tenemos eso allá. Es muchos coches.

[Denisse: There are many, how do you say it? Like public transportation. And we don’t have that at home. It’s a lot of cars.] (Denisse, Conversation) DIANA:

En Estados Unidos, ¿cómo son las casas? ¿Es edificios como aquí? ¿O son casas solas? DENISSE: No, depende. Si vives como en un ciudad grande, como Nueva York o algo así, hay muchos, uh, apartamentos, o, ¿qué es aquí? ¿Pisos? DIANA: Sí, pisos. DENISSE: Sí, pisos … en un ciudad grande, va a ser muchos, um, pisos. [Diana: In the US, what are the houses like? Are they buildings like here? Or are the individual homes? Denisse: No, it depends. If you live like in a big city, like New York or something like that, there are many, uh, apartments, or, what is it here? Apartments? Diana: Yes, apartments. Denisse: Yes, apartments … in a big city, it’s going to be many, um, apartments.] (Denisse, Conversation) DIANA:

Con dos veces que vayas allá y coges el bus aquí, es que ya lo tienes. DENISSE: O también puedes coger el metro. [Diana: If you go twice and take the bus from here, you’ve got it. Denisse: Or you could also take the metro.] (Denisse, Conversation) Denisse provided both Mexican carro and Peninsular coche on the lexical identification task, but she limited herself to coche with Diana. She was also aware that apartmento was not the preferred word in Spain; once receiving confirmation from Diana, Denisse continued to use piso throughout the conversation. She also followed Diana’s use of Peninsular coger, rather than agarrar or tomar, as would be more likely in her dialect.

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

65

Julia Unlike the other participants, Julia had never lived in a majority-Mexican area, she had not spent much time in Mexico, and she had not taken any university-level Spanish classes. However, she was judged to have advancedlevel proficiency in Spanish, likely as a result of using it with her parents, aunts, and uncles. Julia, like Dani and Denisse, preferred Peninsular Spanish; unlike Denisse, she liked interdental /θ/. “Me gusta el de Madrid … porque me gusta escuchar el lisp” [“I like [Spanish] from Madrid … because I like to listen to the lisp”] (Julia, Interview). However, she stated that she would not use it. “Como ya tengo de México, entonces me acostumbré … mejor si tengo más tiempo aquí, la agarro, pero no creo” [“Since I already have [Spanish] from Mexico, so I’m used to it … maybe if I spend more time here, I’ll get it, but I don’t think so”] (Julia, Conversation). She also mentioned uvular /χ/, but she did not have any strong feelings about it. As she expected, no phonological accommodation was observed. Julia, like Denisse, mentioned differences in the distribution of tú and usted and had also been chastised for using the inappropriate pronoun. “Algunos profesores no le gustan que le diga usted. Dicen, ‘Me hace sentir más mayor’. Pero mi amá se enoja cuando le diga tú” [“Some professors don’t like when I call them usted. They say, ‘It makes me feel old’. But my mom gets mad when I call her tú”] (Julia, Interview). Julia knew that using usted with professors in Spain was considered inappropriate, but the lessons that she had learned from her mother were too ingrained. As for other pronouns, she never used vosotros, and she used tú with her conversation partner, Marta. Like Dani, Julia varied between standard he and non-standard ha. “Lo que yo no ha ido, he ido es, um, ir a las playas” [“What I haven’t gone, haven’t gone, is, um, to go to the beaches”] (Julia, Interview). “Ha es-, he escuchado alberca, pero no es común” [“I have hea-, I have heard alberca, but it’s not common”] (Julia, Interview). “Yo um, no ha, no he, yo nomás hablo el español en la casa, pero desde la primaria, no ha, no ha tomado una clase de español” [“I um, I haven’t, I haven’t, I only speak Spanish at home, but since elementary school, I haven’t, I haven’t taken a Spanish class”] (Julia, Conversation). Julia’s attempts to use he suggests an awareness that ha was non-standard. She was not, however, entirely successful; ha was used more often than he. Julia’s lexical identification task showed no items specific to Peninsular Spanish. In the interview, she mentioned several differences that she had noticed in Spain – enchinador/rizador [curling iron], lisadora/plancha de pelo [hair straightener], and sombrilla/paraguas [umbrella]. She also provided an example of semantic extension that had confused her host mother. Le dije a mi host mom, ‘Voy a ir a la librería’, y eran como las ocho. Me dice, ‘Está cerrada’. Y yo digo, ‘Oh no, yo voy a la de la escuela, de 24 horas’, y ella me dijo, ‘Oh, tú dirías la biblioteca’.

66

Meghann M. Peace I told my host mom, ‘I’m going to go to the library/bookstore,’ and it was like 8:00. She told me, ‘It’s closed’. And I said, ‘Oh no, I’m going to the one at the school, the 24-hour one,’ and she said, ‘Oh, you would say the library’. (Julia, Interview)

Julia’s host mother used the word librería strictly to refer to a bookstore, reserving biblioteca for a library. In Julia’s speech, perhaps due to influence from the phonetically similar English word, librería meant a library, hence the misunderstanding as to where she would go at 8:00 PM. Julia showed almost no lexical accommodation with Marta, using Mexican words such as agarrar [to grab], extrañar [to miss], and nomás [only]. At the end of the conversation, when the researcher came to retrieve the recorder, she asked Julia if she felt she had changed her manner of speaking. Julia responded, “Creo que sí … no ha usado chido” [“I think so … I didn’t use [the Mexican word] cool”] (Julia, Conversation). However, she had in fact used chido with Marta. There was only one Peninsular word in the conversation. MARTA:

Uno delante de todos tomaba una foto con el móvil. JULIA: Eso hace mucho aquí en España, ¿a qué no? ¿Por qué eso? ¿Sabes? MARTA: No lo sé … Aquí la gente copia como si JULIA: ¿Nada? … allá hay un examen que tomas en high school para entrar al colegio … los móviles y mochilas se dejan en otro sitio. [Marta: Someone took a picture with their phone in front of everyone. Julia: That happens a lot here in Spain, doesn’t it? Why is that? Do you know? Marta: I don’t know … Here people copy as if it were Julia: Nothing? … at home there’s a test that you take in high school to get into college … phones and bags are left in another room.] (Julia, Conversation) Julia’s single use of the word móvil (perhaps primed by Marta’s earlier móvil) was her only example of lexical accommodation. Nancy Nancy had had almost no exposure to Spanish or to Mexico. She did not speak Spanish with her family or friends, and she spent virtually no time in Mexico. Although she had taken intermediate-level classes at the university, her proficiency was judged to be novice-level. She felt little connection to Spanish, and she avoided it so as not to feel different at home. Her study abroad semester was the first time in her life in which she used Spanish with any regularity.

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

67

Nancy noticed the interdental fricative /θ/, in part because she found it especially appealing. Unlike the other participants, she used it. In the reading task, she pronounced chorizo as [tʃoriso], then added, “But in Spain they would say [tʃoriθo]”. She then pronounced the next word zapatos as [θapatos]. She also used [θ] in the conversation with the server at the café, “[graθias, graθias]” (Nancy, Conversation). Spelling helped Nancy learn /θ/, with both her host mother and Milagros. “My host mom had made bi[θ]cocho [sponge cake] … she kept telling me bi[θ]cocho, bi[θ]cocho, and I was like, ‘What?’ I told her to spell it for me, and she put a zee in it. I was like, ‘Oh, bi[s]cocho,’ but I forgot that they have the lisp when they say it, so bi[θ]cocho … it’s catching on to me now”. (Nancy, Interview) NANCY: How do you say them? ¿Cómo MILAGROS: Nue[θ], nue[θ]. [Nut, nut.]

se dice en español?

NANCY:

Nue[s]? MILAGROS: Yes, in singular. And nue[θ]es is in plural. NANCY: Spell it for me. MILAGROS: En, u, ee, and zed. NANCY: … nue[s]. MILAGROS: And if you use the plural, is with cee. En, u, ee, cee, ee, ess. NANCY: Como ve[s], ve[s]es. [Like time, times.] MILAGROS: Yeah. Ve[θ]es. Yeah. These are the ones, nue[θ] de Castilla … NANCY: Nue[s] de Castilla … so nue[s] de Castilla son, OK, let’s see. Nue[s] de Castilla. I swear! … MILAGROS: And this is the one that you have showed me, the pecan. NANCY: Ah, nue[s] pecana. And this, nue[s] de Castilla. (Nancy, Conversation) These excerpts demonstrate Nancy’s focus on learning through spelling. Despite her comment that she was catching on to /θ/ and Milagros’ many examples, she did not consistently use it. In general, she varied between Peninsular [θ] and Latin American [s], even in careful speech. Her occasional accommodation may have been an explicit choice driven by her appreciation for and growing understanding of the interdental phoneme. Nancy made no comments regarding morphosyntactic features of Peninsular Spanish, and her low level of Spanish meant that she struggled in the role play and used mostly English in the conversation. The few verb forms that she produced were tú, whether she referenced single or multiple individuals, and regardless of the age of the individuals. Nancy was the only participant whose lexical identification showed a Peninsular word that she actually used in speech. She identified the picture of earrings as pendientes, which she used throughout the interview; she never wrote or mentioned the Mexican word aretes. This may have been due to her

68

Meghann M. Peace

personal experiences; she loved shopping for earrings in Alcalá. Although her conversation was almost entirely in English, she used the Peninsular word vale seven times, usually in response to Milagros’ corrections. MILAGROS:

Es mejor que digas que por mucho calor, tú tomabas mucho helado. NANCY: Vale, vale. [Milagros: It’s better if you say that because it was so hot, you ate a lot of ice cream. Nancy: OK, OK.] (Nancy, Conversation) Like Claudia and Denisse, Nancy was aware of vale. Like Claudia, she chose to use it, rather than bueno or OK.

Discussion Accommodation to Peninsular Spanish Previous research shows that Mexican American heritage speakers do not accommodate to salient Peninsular features such as /θ/ and vosotros. Any observed accommodation seems to be driven by social factors, but, even among the small number of participants, very different motivations were observed. This suggests that heritage speakers abroad compose a heterogeneous group, one that merits continued investigation. The five participants in this study showed awareness of Peninsular Spanish features. However, and perhaps unsurprisingly due to the short duration of the study abroad program, they did not accommodate to everything that they noticed. They showed almost no accommodation to the salient phonological and morphosyntactic features seen in previous work. Rather, their use of Peninsular features suggests different avenues of research. The most salient phonological feature was interdental /θ/, suggesting that it is perhaps the sound most emblematic of Peninsular Spanish. Despite this awareness, only Nancy produced it. In comparison to the L2 learners in George (2014) and Pope (2016) particularly, these heritage speakers were less likely to show phonological accommodation. Surprisingly, no participant mentioned vosotros, nor did they produce it in any task. Their avoidance of the pronoun might relate to minimal positive contacts with Spaniards (e.g., George, 2018; Reynolds-Case, 2013; RingerHilfinger, 2013). In the case of Nancy, who seemed to have the most positive connections with Spaniards, her limited proficiency may have kept her from being able to use vosotros in speech. Denisse and Julia mentioned the use of tú and usted with older interlocutors, a morphosyntactic feature that is not mentioned in the research on

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

69

heritage speakers studying in Spain. They had been chastised by Spaniards for using usted, with a host brother and professors, respectively. Julia had been taught by her mother to use usted with elders, so she was uncomfortable using tú. Denisse defaulted to usted, even initially with Diana. Her use of the formal pronoun with an age peer who is a stranger mirrors L2 learners in France (Kinginger, 2008), who inappropriately selected the formal pronoun vous to address classmates with which they were not acquainted, citing this lack of acquaintance as their reason. Although Denisse was not an L2 learner of Spanish, her use of usted with Diana may have been driven by similar reasoning. Variation between standard he and non-standard ha has also not been mentioned in the literature. The two participants who showed such variation did not indicate any explicit knowledge of he versus ha. However, Dani’s initial use of he and Julia’s corrections from ha to he suggest awareness of ha as inappropriate in Spain. Neither participant, however, was able to maintain he completely throughout the conversation. More accommodation was observed in the lexicon than at any other level, despite the fact that previous research has tended to focus on phonological and morphosyntactic accommodation. Claudia, Dani, and Denisse produced Peninsular words with their conversation partners, seemingly deliberately, as they all showed switches from Mexican to Peninsular words in the middle of an utterance. Interestingly, several of Claudia’s switches back to Mexican lexical items occurred when she was discussing the robbery of her phone. Although the conversation was not a sociolinguistic interview, this topic resembles the danger of death question, which would be likely to elicit the most unmonitored speech (Labov, 1972). The fact that Claudia struggled to maintain Peninsular words in unmonitored speech suggests that her accommodation was a deliberate choice. Even Nancy, who spoke mostly in English, used Peninsular words. There were exceptions, however. Julia maintained Mexican lexical items throughout the conversation, despite her belief that she had limited them. Language and identity Spanish-speaking heritage speakers who study abroad in Spanish-speaking locations may have to navigate issues of identity and language. Complicating factors include their proficiency in the heritage language, judgments toward their home dialect, their sense of connection with the local community, their interactions with locals, and their race/ethnicity (e.g., George & HoffmanGonzález, 2014, 2019; Kentengian & Peace, 2019; Moreno, 2009; Quan, 2018; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000; Shively, 2016). The host community may have certain expectations of heritage speakers; Shively (2016, p. 268) suggests that heritage speakers “may be held to monolingual norms […] and expected to behave accordingly according to the cultural expectations of the host country”. However, they can circumvent those expectations, using language

70

Meghann M. Peace

to enact identities that they see as more appropriate (e.g., Kentengian & Peace, 2019). Previous research on heritage learners studying abroad in Spain suggests that they have little desire to fit in, at least in a linguistic sense, in that they do not accommodate. Interviews show that they do not interact much with locals, either members of their host family or local peers (e.g., George & Hoffman-González, 2014, 2019; Kentengian & Peace, 2019; Quan, 2018). This suggests a general disconnect between heritage speakers and the study abroad community. The present study somewhat contradicts this, in that these heritage speakers showed more accommodation with Spanish age peers. This accommodation was principally at the lexical level, something not observed in previous work. However, the amount of accommodation observed differed. Nancy accommodated, to the extent that her limited proficiency allowed it. Claudia, Dani, and Denisse varied between their dialect and Peninsular Spanish, and Julia accommodated the least. They demonstrate the multiple ways in which identity can be enacted through language in interaction, and how speakers can either claim or refuse identities through their linguistic choices. Of the five participants, Claudia likely had the strongest connection to Mexico; however, she did not maintain Mexican Spanish. As in Riegelhaupt and Carrasco (2000), negative reactions from Spaniards and corrections from her host mother lead her to make a concerted effort to incorporate Peninsular lexical items into her speech. This suggests to the researcher that Claudia wished to present herself not as a Mexican, but rather as a worldly, transnational Spanish speaker, capable of adjusting to new situations. Dani and Denisse also accommodated to Peninsular Spanish, but for a different reason. They believed that Peninsular Spanish was more formal and correct than their own variety. Moreover, they had spoken little Spanish during their childhood and felt that their abilities were limited. In fact, both stated that they did not consider themselves to be Mexican. Dani considered herself American, and Denisse struggled to identify herself. I’ve always been confused as to what I consider myself … I’ve always been told, ‘You don’t look Hispanic’ … I guess the reason why I never really spoke Spanish was cause I was embarrassed … or I was always being corrected … I’m still trying to come to terms with what I am. (Denisse, Interview) Dani and Denisse used language to distance themselves from a Mexican heritage to which they did not feel connected and from a variety that they considered too informal for Spain. Nancy showed the most accommodation to Peninsular Spanish, at least within what her limited proficiency would allow. She felt disconnected from her heritage, largely because she had limited proficiency in Spanish,

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

71

which she had not been taught so as to avoid discrimination from Anglos. Her resulting monolingualism had brought censure from Mexicans as well. “The whole society, like, ‘Oh, you’re Hispanic, you don’t speak Spanish, what a shame’ … it prevents me from even wanting to start” (Nancy, Interview). Nancy felt that she did not belong in either the Mexican or the Anglo community. Spain offered her a chance to reinvent herself. She could ask Spaniards for translations, spellings, and corrections, and they did not judge or embarrass her. Thus, she used language to present an identity more connected to Spain than to a home in which she felt she did not belong. Bucholtz and Hall’s (2004) tactics of intersubjectivity, or ways in which language can be used to create relationships, provide a framework through which the participants’ identity work can be understood. Four tactics of interest to this study include: adequation, “the pursuit of socially recognized sameness”; distinction, in which “difference is underscored rather than erased”; authentication, in which language is used to “provide a sense of cohesion and unity”; and denaturalization, which “[highlights] the artificiality and non-essentialism of identity” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, pp. 382–386). Adequation was used by four participants. Denisse and Dani felt that Peninsular Spanish was superior to Mexican American Spanish, Denisse and Nancy had been judged by US Hispanics for not speaking Spanish well, and Claudia was judged by Spaniards for speaking too much like a Mexican. For these reasons and through their linguistic choices, they de-emphasized differences between themselves and Spaniards. Conversely, Julia maintained her home dialect. The data suggest that her maintenance of her home dialect was related to her sense of connection with her family and her desire to speak in a way approved by them. Additional evidence came from her answer to how she would say “cool”. “No me gusta decirlo, como yo siempre hablo con gente mayor en español … cuando yo estoy en la casa, vivo con dos de mis tíos y mis papás … yo nunca les digo así que son cool” [“I don’t like saying it, since I always speak with older people in Spanish … when I’m at home, I live with my aunt and uncle and my parents … I never tell them that they’re cool”] (Julia, Interview). Julia’s association of Spanish with family may have affected how she spoke in Spain. She may not have wished to speak any differently than what her close-knit Mexican family would prefer. Julia’s language showed distinction, but it does not seem to have been done consciously. Rather, these differences were likely the result of authentication. Julia’s linguistic choices seem to have been guided by her sense of unity with her family in New Jersey and her idea of herself as a Mexican American. She felt more connected with her home community than with the study abroad community, and her language use reflected this. The opposite tactic, denaturalization, sheds additional light on Nancy’s choices. Whereas authentication focuses on genuineness, denaturalization

72

Meghann M. Peace

challenges it. Julia’s language use was the natural result of her Mexican heritage; however, Nancy’s actions refute the idea that there is a natural way for a Mexican American to speak. She challenged the idea that speaking Mexican Spanish was an essential part of her identity and, rather, emphasized a stronger connection with Peninsular Spanish. Nancy’s relatively low proficiency in Spanish and her inability to fully complete the tasks in Spanish might suggest removing her from the analysis. However, the results argue in favor of including her, as they present a way of interacting with the host culture that differed greatly from the other participants, from previous research, and from what might therefore have been expected. Nancy’s performance, as well as the other variety observed in the results, underscore the importance of avoiding essentialist definitions of heritage speakers, their language use, and their identities. Essentialism refers to the “position that maintains that those who occupy an identity category [such as Mexican Americans who study abroad in Spain] are both fundamentally similar to one another and fundamentally different from members of other groups (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 374). Rather, heritage speakers are individuals who enact different identities in interactions and position themselves both spatially and temporally (e.g., Blommaert & De Fina, 2017; Kinginger, 2004; Norton, 2013). Some may look backwards in time, presenting an identity that connects to their family and heritage. Others may look forward, distancing themselves from a less-prestigious heritage. Others may desire to claim a global and cosmopolitan identity. Finally, as a result of past discrimination, heritage speakers may refuse the identity of their heritage and instead seek to adopt the language and culture of the study abroad destination. Limitations The conclusions in this study can only be considered tentative, as they were not triangulated with the participants. The data analysis was conducted after data collection, at which point it was not possible to contact all participants for further interviews. Future studies that analyze the ways in which heritage speakers interact with locals in the study abroad community might include post-hoc interviews with the participants, in order to more fully understand their linguistic choices and identity work. Similarly, the conclusions presented here come from only five participants. While case studies provide rich description, the results cannot be generalizable to all heritage speakers who study abroad. It is hoped that the diversity of experiences presented through these five participants bring about additional and more in-depth research on a greater number of heritage speakers abroad. Finally, this paper examined heritage speakers’ linguistic choices through the lens of accommodation. However, accommodation is only one

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

73

explanation. Another one is priming, in which exposure to a stimulus provokes a response. Priming effects have been found on a number of linguistic levels (Cameron & Flores-Ferrán, 2004). The participants’ use of Peninsular lexical items may have been the replication of forms heard earlier in the speech of their Spanish conversation partners. Future studies might consider priming as a potential explanation for the speech of heritage speakers abroad.

Conclusions This study explored the experiences of five Mexican Americans who spent a semester in Spain and the linguistic choices that they made in conversation with a local age peer. Additional data collected via an interview and three tasks were used to examine participants’ dialectal awareness, language use, and identity positioning. Participant accommodation to Peninsular features mostly occurred in lexical items, although one participant, Nancy, attempted phonological accommodation as well. Notably, several participants chose to avoid certain Mexican American lexical and morphological features and instead to adopt features of the host community. This study explores the different ways in which the participants used language to enact their identities. While Julia presented an identity that was authentically connected to her family and heritage, Claudia’s identity was more forward-looking and transnational, and Denisse and Dani sought to distance themselves from a background that seemed too informal and inappropriate in Spain. Nancy’s negative experiences as a heritage speaker in the US seem to have played a role in her rejection of her heritage language and her embracing, rather, of Peninsular Spanish. George and Hoffman-González (2014) surmised that heritage speakers’ reasons for accommodating or not might differ from those of L2 speakers. This study suggests that, even among heritage speakers of the same ethnic background and in the same study abroad location, the “why” is very different. Heritage speakers who study abroad have experiences, needs, and identities that differ from not only L2 students, but also from other heritage speakers. As Quan (2018) states, research on underrepresented students is necessary so that faculty, staff, program directors, and members of the study abroad community can better understand and help them. These five participants present additional evidence of the possibilities inherent in a growing and diversifying study abroad population.

Notes 1 The Institute of International Education conflates race and ethnicity in its data, categorizing study-abroad students’ backgrounds as “Hispanic or Latino(a)”, “White”, “Asian or Pacific Islander”, “Black or African-American”, “American Indian or Alaska Native”, or “Multiracial”.

74

Meghann M. Peace

2 All names are pseudonyms. 3 Demographic information comes from the US Census Bureau (2019). 4 Proficiency was assessed informally by the author, using the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages oral proficiency rating scale as a basis. 5 Reading task words: veces, beber, torrija, naturaleza, estadio, otra, zapatos, grande, joyas, ciudad, especialmente, julio, rebaja, tostada, jamón, chorizo, sopa, quejado, pureza, vieja, and plazas. 6 Lexical identification task pictures: pen, pool, earrings, car, hair, bus, shrimp, apartment, bathing suit, boy, roll of tape, eyeglasses, jacket, and cake. 7 The pilot study was employed in preparation for Peace (2019), in which Peninsular Spanish speakers indicated whether or not they were familiar with certain Mexican lexical items, among these alberca, aretes, camarones, carro, chamarra, lentes, pluma, and traje de baño. 8 Dani’s conversation included a third interlocutor, Rosa (see Kentengian & Peace, 2019). However, only Dani’s contributions are analyzed here. 9 “Interview” references the interview with the researcher. “Conversation” refers to the conversation with the Spanish conversation partner. 10 In the lexical differences, the Mexican item is given first, followed by the Peninsular variant.

Acknowledgment The author would like to thank the Edward and Linda Speed Peace and Justice Fellowship and the Faculty Research Grant at St. Mary’s University for their generous funding that made this research possible.

References Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares. (2015). Evolución de la población de Alcalá de Henares 1.996-2.015. Retrieved from http://www.ayto-alcaladehenares.es/ portalAlcala/RecursosWeb/DOCUMENTOS/1/3_6867_1.pdf. Bills, G. (1997). New Mexican Spanish: Demise of the earliest European variety in the United States. American Speech, 72(2), 154–171. Blommaert, J., & De Fina, A. (2017). Chronotopic identities: On the timespace organization of who we are. In A. De Fina, J. Wegner & D. Ikizoglu (Eds.), Diversity and super-diversity: Sociocultural linguistic perspectives (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369–394). Oxford: Blackwell. Cameron, R., & Flores-Ferrán, N. (2004). Perseveration of subject expression across regional dialects of Spanish. Spanish in Context, 1(1), 41–65. Escobar, A.M., & Potowski, K. (2015). El español de los Estados Unidos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gallois, C., & Callan, V.J. (1991). Interethnic accommodation: The role of norms. In H. Giles, J. Coupland & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 245–269). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geeslin, K.L., & Gudmestad, A. (2008). The acquisition of variation in secondlanguage Spanish: An agenda for integrating studies of the L2 sound system. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 137–157.

“Aquí el español es muy diferente”

75

George, A. (2014). Study abroad in central Spain: The development of regional phonological features. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 97–114. George, A. (2018). The development of a regional morphosyntactic feature by learners of Spanish in a study abroad setting: The case of vosotros. Hispanic Studies Review, 3(1), 101–125. George, A., & Hoffman-González, A. (2014, September). Heritage and L2 speakers abroad: The use of regional morphosyntactic features. In Paper presented at the 43rd meeting of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest, San Diego, CA. George, A., & Hoffman-González, A. (2019). Dialect and identity: US heritage language learners of Spanish abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 4(2), 252–279. Giles, H., Coupland, J. & Coupland, N. (Eds.). (1991). Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hernández-Campoy, J.M., & Villena-Ponsoda, J.A. (2009). Standardness and nonstandardness in Spain: Dialect attrition and revitalization of regional dialects of Spanish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 196–197, 181–214. Institute of International Education. (2018). Open doors report 2018. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors. Kentengian, I.M., & Peace, M.M. (2019). “Mi idioma”: Heritage speakers’ language varieties and identity stances in study abroad. In G.L. Thompson & S.M. Alvord (eds.), Contact, community, and connections: Current approaches to Spanish in multilingual populations (pp. 83–108). Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press. Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity reconstruction. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 219–242). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 1–124. Knouse, S.M. (2013). The acquisition of dialectal phonemes in a study abroad context: The case of the Castilian theta. Foreign Language Annals, 45(4), 512–542. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell. Moreno, K.H. (2009). The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Austin, TX: The University of Texas. Mori, J. (2012). Tale of two tales: Locally produced accounts and memberships during research interviews with a multilingual speaker. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 489–506. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.) (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Peace, M.M. (2019). ¿Jugo de durazno o zumo de melocotón?: The socialization of Mexican-American students in service encounters in Spain. In G.L. Thompson & S.M. Alvord (eds.), Contact, community, and connections: Current approaches to Spanish in multilingual populations (pp. 323–352). Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press. Pope, J. (2016). The role of social networks in the acquisition of a dialectal features during study abroad. In S. Sessarego & F. Tejedo-Herrera, Spanish language and sociolinguistic analysis (pp. 177–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

76

Meghann M. Peace

Quan, T. (2018). Language learning while negotiating race and ethnicity abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 30(2), 32–46. Reynolds-Case, A. (2013). The value of short-term study abroad: An increase in students’ cultural and pragmatic competency. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2), 311–322. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R.L. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 405–421. Ringer-Hilfinger, K. (2012). Learner acquisition of dialect variation in a study abroad context: The case of Spanish [θ]. Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 430–446. Ringer-Hilfinger, K. (2013). The acquisition of sociolinguistic variation by study abroad students: The case of American students in Madrid (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Albany, NY: The University of Albany. Shively, R.L. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. New York: Basil Blackwell. US Census Bureau. (11 July 2019). American FactFinder. Retrieved from http:// factfinder.census.gov. Zentella, A.C. (1990). Lexical leveling in four New York City Spanish dialects: Linguistic and social factors. Hispania, 73(4), 1094–1105.

4

Individual differences in dialectal accommodation Case studies of heritage speakers volunteering in coastal Ecuador Chelsea Escalante

Introduction Despite the growing body of research on the acquisition of Spanish socio­ linguistic variation by second language learners (L2Ls) who participate in a stay abroad (e.g., Escalante, 2018a, 2018b; Geeslin, García-Amaya, HaslerBarker, Henriksen, & Killam, 2010; Geeslin et al., 2012; Geeslin & Gudmestad, 2011; George, 2013; Kanwit, Geeslin, & Fafulas, 2015; Knouse, 2012; Pozzi, 2017; Ringer-Hilfiger, 2012; Salgado-Robles, 2014), relatively little is known regarding how heritage speakers (HSs) encounter dialectal variation while participating in similar programs. In other words, to what extent do HSs produce features different from those of their home dialect when they spend time immersed in other language varieties? Results from L2L studies suggest that learners can modify their linguistic systems to align more closely with the host variety at both the phonological and morpho­ syntactic levels, and that these modifications are mediated by a range of linguistic and extralinguistic factors. However, less is known regarding how the linguistic systems of HSs adapt to the local variety or resist change while abroad. One of the challenges in exploring these questions is the diversity of HSs, as they are a heterogeneous group with a wide variety of experiences ac­ quiring and using the heritage language (see Beaudrie, Ducar, & Potowski, 2014, for a description of the dimensions of diversity among HSs). In exploring how the linguistic systems of HSs change or resist change during a stay abroad, however, it is not only the diversity of each individual HS that comes into play but additional factors related to the individual program – such as the location of the stay abroad, the social network of the speaker in the host community (Shively, 2016), and the HS's individual experiences – that affect to what extent their linguistic systems adapt to the host variety. Because of the complexity of factors and the diversity of the HS experience, rather than attempting to identify how HSs as a group respond to socio­ linguistic variation while abroad, I focus on individual differences, examining the ways in which language background and use of Spanish at home, the communities of practice cultivated during the stay abroad, and

78

Chelsea Escalante

the participants’ consciousness of a particular regional variable may affect their adoption of the local form. This study examines three focal participants, all of whom are HSs of different varieties of Spanish (highland Ecuadorian, highland Colombian, and Mexican), who participated in a one-year, religiously affiliated huma­ nitarian volunteer program in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The variable in question is a frequent phonological marker of the region: syllable-final /s/-weakening, or the aspiration or complete elision of /s/ in syllable-final position, as in the production of casco, “helmet”, as [′kah.ko] or [′ka.ko]. In this chapter, I briefly present the methodology and results of the longitudinal, quantitative aspect of the study. Then I turn to the main goal of the chapter, which is to analyze the individual variation seen in the quanti­ tative results through qualitative case studies in order to highlight how the unique experiences, abilities, motivations, and attitudes of the participants may play a role in their desire to accommodate to local varieties.

Background HSs in immersion contexts Compared to research on the adoption of variable features by L2Ls, there is relatively little information regarding how HSs confront new dialects in immersion contexts and none on how they respond to /s/-weakening in particular. Unlike L2Ls, who typically enter an immersion zone as new­ comers, HSs who participate in immersion experiences in their ancestral country or region may already have some degree of familiarity with the language and culture of the host community, due to their family back­ ground (Shively, 2016). HSs may have a personal connection to the host country and may choose that location in order to learn more about their roots, explore their own cultural identities, reconnect with family mem­ bers, or improve their heritage language skills (e.g., Moreno, 2009; Rubin, 2004; Van Der Meid, 2003). Furthermore, HSs are more likely to begin their immersion experience with stronger linguistic and cultural knowl­ edge than L2Ls, as well as greater familiarity with using their heritage language outside of the formal classroom setting, due to their family background (Davidson & Lekic, 2013; Petrucci, 2007; Potowski, 2002, 2013; Shively, 2016). However, research has suggested that HSs may encounter an even more complex dilemma in their experience with a secondary dialect than L2Ls do. Since HSs often arrive at the immersion zone with an established home dialect, they may face conflicting desires to position themselves as an HS of that particular dialect (maintaining their home features) while also wanting to integrate themselves into the host community vis-à-vis accommodation to local features. For example, Hoffman-González (2015) has reported on an HS of Mexican descent, Jessica, studying abroad in Argentina, and found

Individual differences

79

that she was torn in her desire to adopt local features. While in Buenos Aires, Jessica lived with an Argentine host family but cultivated friendships mostly with Colombians and Mexicans. With her host family, she used Argentine phonological features, but with her friends she tended to maintain those of her home dialect. This suggests that Jessica employed different forms in order to position herself in diverse ways with different speakers. Not only do HSs have to navigate the production of the new features themselves (for example, learning to replace certain instances of [s] with [θ] when studying in Spain), they also must navigate the social ramifications of the use of those new features. Since not all Spanish dialects are of equal prestige, an HS's home variety, depending on their background, may be stigmatized in the immersion zone, resulting in possible confrontation with linguistic discrimination (Moreno, 2009; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). Conversely, HSs may enter a dialect that is characterized by different ver­ nacular features than the home dialect. They may also be held to monolingual norms, assumed to have insider cultural knowledge, and expected to behave according to the cultural expectations of the host country. If they do not meet these expectations, there may be negative consequences, such as judgments of social error (Petrucci, 2007; Shively, 2016). Thus, the extent to which HSs accommodate to local forms depends not only on the linguistic and extra­ linguistic constraints of the variable itself (as analyzed in studies of variation among native speakers [NSs]) but also on factors such as identity, attitude, and positionality toward both the home and new dialects. That said, for HSs, participation in the immersion zone is mediated not only by identity and investment in the new dialect, as it is for L2Ls (Menard-Warwick & Palmer, 2012; Norton, 2001), but also by identity and investment in their home dialect (see George & Hoffman-González, 2019; Pozzi & Reznicek-Parrado, 2021; Quan, Pozzi, Kehoe, & Menard-Warwick, 2018). Syllable-final /s/-weakening By far the most common modification of Spanish coda consonants involves aspiration to [h], deletion, and other instances1 of weakening of coda /s/ (Lipski, 2011, p. 73). Today, weakening appears to some extent in many regions of the Spanish-speaking world including southern Spain, the Canary Islands, the Caribbean zone, regions of coastal Mexico, Central America, and most lowland zones of South America (Lipski, 1994). In fact, it is so widespread that only a handful of varieties consistently maintain a sibilant in this context in spontaneous, informal speech, including those of the majority of Mexico and Guatemala, central and northern Spain, and the highlands of the Andean region. Although /s/-weakening may be best described as a gradient or continuous variable (see Erker, 2010), analyses of /s/-weakening that have used both discrete and acoustic coding methods have generally found the same lin­ guistic and social factors constraining the variable. By far the strongest

80

Chelsea Escalante

linguistic predictor of weakening is phonological context, with pre­ consonantal position generally favoring weakening more than prevocalic or prepausal positions (Lipski, 1999; Terrell, 1981). Other factors have also been found to affect weakening, including the grammatical category of /s/, where plural /s/ favors deletion more than word-final lexical /s/ (Cepeda, 1995; Minnick Fox, 2006); lexical frequency, where higher-frequency words favor lenition (Brown & Torres Cacoullos, 2003; Bybee, 2000; File-Muriel, 2007; Minnick Fox, 2006); and socioeconomic status, where aspiration and deletion are generally considered markers of social class, with speakers of lower socioeconomic class displaying higher levels of reduction (Lafford, 1986; Terrell, 1981). Although to my knowledge there have not been any large-scale empirical studies on /s/-weakening in coastal Ecuador, according to a small-scale study of /s/-weakening in the same communities that host the volunteers, wea­ kened variants appeared in the sociolinguistic interviews of NSs at a rate of approximately 65% (Escalante, 2016). This rate serves as the best approx­ imation of the input that the volunteers would receive during their stay abroad, although weakening would likely be present at an even higher rate in less formal situations and more spontaneous speech. Theoretical frameworks The first theoretical construct used in the examination of the data is that of community of practice (CoP). A CoP can be defined as a process of social learning and development that occurs when a group of people with a common interest collaborate over an extended period of time with the goal of sharing ideas and strategies, working toward determined goals, and building innovations together (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This construct is re­ levant to the study because the participants dedicated themselves to this particular nongovernmental organization (NGO) as volunteers due to its mission and programming, not out of economic interest or academic requirements, and therefore can be considered to have intentionally entered into an international volunteer CoP. Volunteers also construct additional CoPs during their stay abroad depending on the social networks in which they participate. Within their discussion of CoPs, Lave and Wenger (1991) develop the idea of legitimate peripheral participation, wherein newcomers become members of a CoP initially by participating in simple and low-risk tasks that further the goals of the community. Through participation in these “peripheral activities”, novices become acquainted with the tasks, goals, and organizing principles of the community’s practitioners and through continued partici­ pation can gradually become “old-timers” with a recognized level of mas­ tery. This framework suggests that membership in a CoP is mediated by the possible forms of participation to which newcomers have access, both physically and socially. Empirical studies focusing on CoPs during study

Individual differences

81

abroad have suggested that learners’ language outcomes depend in part on their access to different CoPs during their sojourn and their participation and investment in those communities (see Song, 2012; Trentman, 2013; Umino & Benson, 2016). The third theoretical construct used in the data analysis is the noticing hypothesis, which argues that input does not transition to intake for language learners unless it is noticed – that is, consciously registered (Schmidt, 1990, 2001). In other words, people tend to learn about the things that they attend to and do not learn much about the things they do not attend to. While salient linguistic variants are easily picked up by the listeners, those that are not as salient, even if they also show complex social stratification, may go unnoticed (Racz, 2013). Although this hypothesis is typically tested within the context of L2Ls, it is relevant to the study of HSs encountering new dialectal features, especially ones that are considered less perceptually salient, which is arguably the case for coastal Ecuadorian /s/-weakening. In a comparison of learner acquisition/accommodation to coastal Ecuador /s/-weakening versus Argentine sheísmo, Escalante and Pozzi (2017) found that the majority of participants in the Ecuador program reported no awareness of /s/-weakening even after a year of immersion in the dialect, whereas the participants in the Argentine program reported awareness of sheísmo within the first months of their program. The noticing hypothesis, therefore, is relevant to the current study because unless participants notice /s/-weakening as a dialectal marker, they may not be able to incorporate it into their linguistic repertoire, however invested in the host community they may be.

Methods Context of immersion The three participants were HSs of Mexican, highland Colombian, and highland Ecuadorian varieties of Spanish (further information regarding each participant’s background is discussed in the “Case studies” section). Participants spent one calendar year serving as humanitarian volunteers with a religiously affiliated NGO in low-income communities outside of Guayaquil, Ecuador, alongside 11 other volunteers who were L2Ls of Spanish and whose data is not considered in this chapter. The NGO that hosted the volunteers emphasized community involvement and prioritized relationship building between volunteers and Ecuadorian community members. It required volunteers to live in an intentional community2 (with five or six other volunteers as housemates) and hold job assignments in educational and social-service sectors where there was substantial interac­ tion in Spanish between the volunteers and speakers of the local dialect. The program was not tied to an academic institution, and participants received no language instruction nor academic credit during the immersion.

82

Chelsea Escalante

Quantitative methods To collect data on the production of coda /s/, sociolinguistic interviews in Spanish were conducted at six different intervals during the volunteer year. Interval 0 was completed one week prior to departure to Ecuador, with each additional interval another eight to ten weeks later. I conducted the first and last interviews, and a native speaker of Ecuadorian Spanish – a member of one of the communities in which the volunteers lived and worked who was trained in sociolinguistic interview methodology – car­ ried out the interviews at intervals 1–4. Following sociolinguistic meth­ odology (Tagliamonte, 2006), the interview was designed to encourage the use of the vernacular through its progression from general, impersonal, nonspecific topics and questions to more specific, personal ones (p. 38), asking participants to share what Labov (1984) refers to as optimal topics for eliciting natural speech: narratives of personal experiences. Participants were asked about their individual backgrounds, daily rou­ tines, jobs and communities, and events that had occurred during the two months between intervals. After collection of data, a total of 533 tokens of coda /s/ across the three participants were extracted from the corpus. Using Praat (Boersma & Weenick, 2017), each token was analyzed aurally for weakening and then confirmed visually according to the amount of periodicity in the waveform and the presence of high-frequency frication on the spectrogram. Tokens were coded as either maintained /s/ or wea­ kened /s/ (aspirated or deleted).3 Figure 4.1 gives an example of variable production of /s/. In the figure, which represents the phrase dos pájaros, “two birds”, the first /s/ demonstrates high-frequency energy (8000 Hz) and aperiodicity in the waveform, signaling maintenance, whereas the second /s/ demonstrates lower-frequency energy and more periodicity in the wave form. In addition to the elicitation of /s/, the Versant Spanish Test was ad­ ministered to the participants at interval 0, just prior to their arrival in Ecuador, in order to approximate their preprogram proficiency level. Based on Levelt’s (1989) model of speech production, the test uses spoken prompts in Spanish of NSs from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries to elicit oral responses from students. Within five minutes of test completion, it provides students with an overall score and an equivalent score on other proficiency tests. Although the Versant test was not designed specifically for HSs, it was chosen for this study due to its nearly instantaneous, objective, and reliable results regarding students’ abilities to speak and understand spoken Spanish (Pearson Education, Inc., 2011). Qualitative methods According to Merriam (2009), case studies are one way to account for the complexity of processes in language learning in immersion contexts,

Individual differences

83

Figure 4.1 Gustavo’s variable /s/ production: /s/ in dos is maintained, whereas in pájaros it is aspirated.

because they allow for the investigation of multifaceted social situations that consist of numerous variables of potential importance in the un­ derstanding of a phenomenon. Case-study methodology used in previous study abroad research has been able to highlight reasons for individual differences among participants and illuminate why some students return with greater language gains than others (e.g., Isabelli-García, 2006; Kinginger, 2008; Menard-Warwick & Palmer, 2012). The case-study data for the current study is drawn from the participants’ narratives provided during their sociolinguistic interviews. These narratives were analyzed using top-down analysis and deductive coding (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999), which implies choosing a set of concepts first and then sorting out the data to determine which of the concepts it fits best. The concepts of interest were identified based on previous research on CoPs (Eckert, 2006; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and the noticing hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 2001). In considering CoPs, I looked for participants’ narrations of whom they spent time with and descriptions of activities they participated in both inside and outside the volunteer house. For the noticing hypothesis, I sought examples of how the participants

84

Chelsea Escalante

characterized the Spanish of the community as well as how they described their experience with language (both Spanish and English) while in Ecuador. Data was triangulated to determine how patterns emerging from the narratives of one participant related to those of the others and how this data could account for the variation found in the quantitative analysis.

Results and analysis Quantitative results of /s/-weakening Out of the three participants, only Gustavo, the HS of highland Ecuadorian Spanish, demonstrated consistent use of local variants throughout the stay abroad. At interval 0, just days before leaving the United States, his speech already contained coda /s/ lenition at a rate of 21.3%. From interval 0 to interval 3, his use of the local variants increased, reaching a pinnacle at interval 3 (78.3%), at a rate higher than the average lenition rate (65%) of local Ecuadorian NSs from the same community (Escalante, 2016). After interval 3, his rate dropped to 58.1% and then increased again to 65.3% at the last interval, almost exactly mirroring the average rate of weakening among his native Ecuadorian counterparts. Comparatively, Amalia (the HS of highland Colombian Spanish) and Bianca (the HS of Mexican Spanish) demonstrated less consistent use of local variants. A limited amount of /s/-lenition was present in the speech of Amalia at interval 0, but once in-country, she categorically retained all coda /s/ during the next two intervals, not exhibiting any lenition again until interval 3 (4.5%). Interval 4 was the only time that she exhibited more substantial use of the local variants (19%), but by the last interval her use decreased again to nearly match the original rate of weakening present before she left the country (4.5%). Coda /s/-weakening was absent from Bianca’s speech during intervals 0–3. At interval 4, approximately nine months into the stay abroad, she exhibited /s/-lenition at a rate of 10% – still not approximating the community norm – but it dropped to 6.4% during the last interval. Figure 4.2 illustrates the presence of the variable in the speech of the three focal participants throughout their stay abroad, as well as the overall rate of /s/-weakening present among NSs of the same community, as reported by Escalante (2016). As the figure illustrates, Gustavo’s behavior in terms of coda /s/ was quite divergent from that of Amalia and Bianca. In order to explore possible reasons for the different choices of the HSs, individual analyses of the so­ ciolinguistic interviews were completed. Since the sociolinguistic interviews took place in Spanish, I have translated all quotations from the participants included in this section into English.

Individual differences

85

Figure 4.2 Percentage of weakened /s/ tokens produced by individual and exposure interval.

Case studies Bianca. Bianca was adopted at age four into a mixed family living in Los Angeles; she describes her mother as Mexican American (herself an HS of Spanish) and her father as a white first-language English speaker who ac­ quired Spanish as a second language. Bianca reported mostly English being spoken at home, although her mom would occasionally speak to her and her siblings in Spanish and ask them to respond in the same language. Bianca did speak Spanish with her Spanish-monolingual maternal grandmother, who lived with the family during her early childhood, which is where she reported gaining most of her Spanish proficiency. She also reported that she may have been exposed to Spanish by her (Latina) birth mother and/or birth father from birth to four years; however, she was unsure of the quantity and quality of that possible input, as well as the dialect used. Growing up in Los Angeles, Bianca was exposed to Spanish outside of her home to some extent, mostly Mexican and Mexican American varieties (typically /s/-maintaining varieties). She also traveled to Mexico with her family during her childhood to visit family members who lived there, but the trips were usually not longer than one week. Her initial Versant score of 58 out of 80 (correlating to an American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language [ACTFL] Oral Proficiency Interview [OPI] rating of Intermediate High) was the lowest among the three HSs. Bianca attended a private Catholic university in the Midwest region of the United States, where she majored in sociology and peace studies. She noted that there was a lack of diversity at the school and that at times she felt like she had more to contribute during class discussions on topics of social justice, stemming from her experiences growing up in Los Angeles, than her classmates who came from more privileged backgrounds or more

86

Chelsea Escalante

homogenous communities. However, at the same time, she noted feeling somewhat conflicted about identifying as a student of color because of her self-reported light complexion, height, and “non-Hispanic last name” (in­ terval 5 interview). Bianca decided to volunteer with the NGO because she was interested not just in going abroad but also in working with issues of social justice and being able to integrate her faith into the experience. She was inspired by a six-day immersion experience that she had participated in during college in El Salvador (where she likely was exposed to /s/-weakening, albeit for a short time). She explained that volunteering abroad was a way to put her academic pursuits into action and that she was attracted to the NGO because of its mission and vision, but she reported being open to other organizations in other parts of the world as well (interval 0 interview). In fact, she noted that it wasn’t the NGO’s location in Ecuador per se that was the most attractive to her but its focus on faith, social justice, and community involvement (interval 0 interview). Once in Ecuador, she began her job assignments in social services and educational programming as well as her outreach to local families. She stated that arriving with proficiency in Spanish allowed her to integrate faster into the community than her L2L counterparts, but she still demon­ strated some insecurity related to her language skills. “When I arrived,” she said, “I did know how to speak Spanish … but I did not have confidence, and my vocabulary was very simple and I had to think a lot about what I was going to say” (interval 3 interview). She also noted some hesitation in visiting neighborhood families, because she felt perceived as an outsider: “At the beginning, I felt like a foreigner, like a gringa. It’s kind of hard to enter [neighbors’ homes], and I don’t know, it’s like, what do I say? Or what should we talk about?” (interval 3 interview). By month six, however, she felt more comfortable in her environment and said that her Spanish had improved significantly, which gave her confidence to participate more fully in interactions with locals: “Now I feel like I can express myself better, without having to say things in such a simple way. … Since my Spanish has improved and I am also more used to Ecuadorian culture, my visits with neighbors are more natural and not as forced” (interval 3 interview). These comments suggest that her integration into the community was more tied to her overall communicative abilities and an understanding of the local culture rather than the use of a local dialectal feature. Although Bianca spoke positively about her involvement in her commu­ nity, describing friendships with certain local families (mostly women) and encouraging experiences at her work sites (interval 2 interview), she also expressed enthusiasm for developing the smaller, volunteer CoP, where in­ teractions took place almost exclusively in English. She often talked about “community nights” where they shared meals, meditations, discussions, and spiritual activities, and spoke positively of retreats and group trips where they increased bonds with the other volunteers. She also discussed her friendships back home, mentioning that she typically called, wrote, or

Individual differences

87

messaged friends back home about once a week (interval 3 interview). Around midyear, she hosted a ten-day visit from her dad, which included travel outside of the local community. These comments and experiences suggest that she was invested in balancing different types of CoPs – she was dedicated to her local Ecuadorian community, as evidenced by the priorities she placed on building relationships with her coworkers and neighbors, but she was also interested in developing a CoP among her fellow volunteers inside the volunteer house and in maintaining the networks she had at home. Her desire to balance these different CoPs and networks may have played a role in her lack of use of the local form. One additional experience that differentiated Bianca from the other vo­ lunteers was that she left the local community and returned home at two different times during her stay abroad. Typically, the volunteers are not allowed to visit home during the year; however, for health reasons Bianca traveled home approximately two months into the stay and again ap­ proximately eight months into the stay. The disconnection from the local community and the reconnection to her more familiar, English-dominant context may have influenced her nonuse of /s/-weakening. In addition to these experiential factors, a simple lack of consciousness of /s/-weakening may have played an important role in her lack of use of the dialectal marker. During the interval 5 interview, Bianca was asked to de­ scribe the local Ecuadorian dialect. She remarked that the overall speech rate was faster than in her home dialect and that “it was hard to understand people at first because they were running their words together”. She also mentioned intonational differences, citing that people “hang onto words longer”. Lastly, she noted that coastal Ecuadorian Spanish “sounds more aggressive, but not in a negative way”. Not only did she not mention any­ thing related to /s/-weakening in her own characterization of the dialect, but even when I told her about /s/-weakening at the end of the final interview, she reported not having noticed it at all. According to the noticing hy­ pothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 2001), input is not typically converted into intake without noticing. Although Bianca did produce a handful of weakened /s/ tokens in intervals 4 and 5, they may have been the result of consonant reduction related to gaining a faster speech rate rather than a conscious effort to produce the local dialect marker. Amalia. Amalia’s mother was born in Cali, Colombia (an /s/-conserving dialect), and her father was born in the United States to an English-speaking white family. Growing up in New York City, Amalia spoke almost ex­ clusively in Spanish when she was just with her mom, but when her dad was present the family spoke in English, since he did not speak the language. Her mother was a university-educated former teacher of English as a second language and court interpreter, which indicates that she maintained superior bilingual skills and was familiar with standard and prestigious Spanish varieties characteristic of the educational and judicial contexts of her pro­ fession. As a family, they spent some summers in Cartagena, Colombia (an

88

Chelsea Escalante

/s/-weakening dialect), when Amalia was young, but as she got older, she recalled fewer family trips. For her undergraduate studies, she attended a private Catholic institution in the Northeast, where she participated in a study-abroad program to Alcalá de Henares, Spain (an /s/-maintaining dialect), for five months. Her initial Versant oral proficiency score was in the middle of the three participants' scores in this study, at 68 out of 80 (corresponding to an ACTFL OPI rating of Advanced Low). Amalia joined the volunteer program because she had wanted to spend time abroad since graduating high school but never did so, and felt that the time was right after graduating college. She stated being attracted to the mission of the organization and its Latin American location (interval 1 interview). She had been involved in organizations that supported interna­ tional students at her university and wanted to continue her involvement in community engagement within a Latin American context. Once in Ecuador, she began her positions in educational and adminis­ trative services, and during each interview, she reported positive experiences. She, like Bianca, was dedicated to the cultivation of the volunteer CoP, noting that she enjoyed living in a community with other volunteers and that she got along with them well: “I really like living in community. The work is divided among everyone and we do a lot of things together” (interval 2 interview). By the interval 3 interview, she expressed that she and her housemates were growing close. “I think we are growing more like a family as time goes on”, she stated. “We are opening our hearts to tell each other what’s going on, things that are hard to talk about, and so I think that we’re going to have a really tight-knit community at the end of the year if we keep doing the same thing”. She also found that her Spanish skills and knowledge of Latin American culture allowed her to integrate into the local community: “It helps that I can already speak Spanish, plus I’m kind of used to seeing the things we see here, like from my travels, so the transition has not been that hard” (interval 2 interview). She mentioned eight families whom she went to visit frequently, naming the women of each household specifically when she described her closest relationships in the local community. This suggests that she developed CoPs with local women more than with men. This may be due to a combi­ nation of factors, including the fact that more women were at home during the day than men (which is when Amalia would visit) and that culturally it was more acceptable to cultivate same-sex friendships. However, since women tend to use fewer stable, stigmatized variables than men (Labov, 1990), and because /s/-weakening is understood to be stigmatized in this community (Escalante, 2016), she was likely exposed to less /s/-weakening in these conversations than she would have been in conversations with men. One event that affected Amalia’s experience was the magnitude 7.8 earthquake that hit Ecuador’s coast on April 16, 2016, which was about nine months into the volunteer year. Although none of the volunteers suffered injuries, after the event Amalia described feeling anxious about

Individual differences

89

earthquakes occurring and noted that she began talking to her parents more often, even as often as every day for the first few weeks after the quake (interval 4 interview). She noted in the same interview that she began staying home more often on the weekends and not participating as much in local community events because of her anxiety, perhaps with­ drawing slightly from local CoPs. At the same time, however, the interview where she described the earthquake had the highest instances of /s/weakening of the entire year abroad (19%), supporting Labov’s (1984) observation that narratives of personal experience, especially instances of fear, capture the closest approximation to the vernacular of unmonitored speech. Like Bianca, Amalia did not notice /s/-weakening at all, even after being immersed in the dialect for an entire year. When asked about dif­ ferences that she noticed from her home dialect (Colombian), Amalia noted the use of usted and some individual lexical items but did not mention any phonological differences. Even at the end of the interview, when I shared examples of /s/-weakening with Amalia and described it as a characteristic of the local dialect, she reported no consciousness of it, which, according to the noticing hypothesis, may explain why it was not incorporated into her speech to a greater extent. Gustavo. Gustavo was born in Quito, Ecuador. His mother is half Ecuadorian, half Italian, but was born and raised in the United States and learned (highland Ecuadorian) Spanish as a heritage language at home. As a young adult, she migrated to Ecuador, where Gustavo was born. Although Gustavo’s father, who was highland Ecuadorian, was not a part of his life, Gustavo spent time with family members on both his maternal and paternal sides during his childhood in Quito. He always spoke English at home with his mother while living in Ecuador (as English was her dominant language), but acquired Spanish – likely a variety of highland Ecuadorian (/s/maintaining) Spanish – simultaneously through contact with family mem­ bers and then later upon entering school. When he was nine, Gustavo and his mother left Ecuador and migrated to California, where he began schooling in English. Gustavo often spent summers in Quito visiting family members, whom he describes as upper-middle-class professionals, and considers himself to maintain close relationships with his Ecuadorian family. His initial Versant score was 70 out of 80 (corresponding to an ACTFL OPI rating of Advanced Low), which was the highest score among the three participants. He expressed confidence in his Spanish language abilities but described his Spanish as “agringado”, or English influenced, because of bilingual aspects of his context of acquisition. While attending college – a private Catholic institution on the West Coast – he participated in a semester-long study abroad program in El Salvador, a dialect that is characterized by radical /s/-lenition. He also had spent time in the Dominican Republic (radically /s/-weakening), Nicaragua (/s/-weakening), Mexico (/s/-maintaining), and Guatemala (/s/-maintaining). Because some degree of /s/-weakening was present in Gustavo’s speech in his initial

90

Chelsea Escalante

interview, before he even set foot in Guayaquil, it is likely that both his high proficiency in Spanish, given his unique context of learning, and his knowl­ edge of different dialects of Ecuadorian Spanish, perhaps due to media influences and his contact with other varieties of Spanish (including extended contact with Salvadorian Spanish), may have led to his use of the weakened variant. Gustavo was attracted to the NGO because of its focus on social justice – he noted that one of the only things he did not like about his university was that he felt many students were privileged and lacked a social conscience (interval 0 interview). He was also attracted to the NGO because of its lo­ cation in Ecuador in particular, since he was interested in reconnecting with his heritage: I want to take this opportunity to find out more about my roots … My mom was gringa, well, in the way she acted, so I grew up inside the home and I noticed that my mom acts differently from my Ecuadorian family, and I always felt a little bit more Ecuadorian than my mom. In addition to suggesting that Gustavo already felt an inherent connection to his country of birth, his sentiments promote the idea that someone can be “more” or “less” of a particular nationality than another person. By mentioning that he felt “more Ecuadorian” than his mother, he suggests that identity can be tied to performance, which may have prompted him to use /s/-weakening as a type of performance of his identity as a participant moving from peripheral to legitimate participation (see Lave & Wenger, 1991). Once in Ecuador, Gustavo incorporated himself quickly, but for him assimilation was based not only on language ability but also on shared practice. When asked in the interval 5 interview about how he perceived his own integration into the community, he stated: Compared to the other volunteers, I integrated very easily, but when I was with them as a group it was a bit harder. … Only when I would go visit [the neighbors], talking with them, they realized that I am Ecuadorian. They would ask me, ‘What is your favorite food?’ and I would say, ‘Locro’, and they would say, ‘Locro?! What do you know about locro?’ I played soccer, I act very Ecuadorian too, so people saw in my actions that I am Ecuadorian. … I began to talk like them, the spices, the [foods], I went anywhere, I ate anything. … I think that helped me to enter more into the life of the neighbors. His descriptions emphasize that although locals did not expect him to be such a cultural insider, he was able to leverage his cultural knowledge to more quickly integrate.

Individual differences

91

Over time, Gustavo seemed to strengthen his allegiance to local CoPs as opposed to the volunteer CoP. He often criticized the activities that the volunteers were obligated to participate in, such as retreats and spirituality nights, and spoke more favorably of the time that he spent with locals. He stated that he tried “as much as possible to avoid seeming gringo. … One, because of safety; two, to be more at peace; and three, to find the Ecuadorian inside of me” (interval 5 interview). He expressed frustration with some of the rules of the NGO, which did not allow certain practices that to him seemed to conflict with local cultural practices, such as not al­ lowing locals to ride in the NGO’s vehicles or not being allowed to accept a beer at a neighbor’s home if offered. Gustavo also said that he was perceived differently than the other volunteers, explaining that he felt like the locals accepted him more than the others: “A lot of neighbors confided in me, and they would say things to me that they wouldn’t say to the other volunteers” (interval 5 interview). He mentioned that neighbors were more openly cri­ tical of the rules and practices of the NGO – expressing their frustrations to him but not to other volunteers. Additionally, Gustavo mentioned that he spent a significant amount of time with the guard of their house, “Enrique”, a working-class man around the age of 45. In his interviews, Gustavo described Enrique’s experience of growing up on the streets of Ecuador and being an expert on “un español callejero” [street Spanish]. Thus, ac­ cording to the CoP framework, the relationship between Gustavo and Enrique can be considered one of mentor and mentee, where Gustavo may have learned from and been motivated to accommodate to local features used by Enrique. By the end of the volunteer year, Gustavo felt like he had attained his goals of finding the Ecuadorian inside of himself and of understanding what it was like to be Ecuadorian. In fact, he reported that he understood the reality of being Ecuadorian much more than his family members who were born in and have lived in Ecuador their entire lives. According to Gustavo, the privilege of their professional-class experiences does not allow them to truly understand what it means to be Ecuadorian: “Now I know – even though I don’t sound like it – I am more Ecuadorian than my Ecuadorian family, like I know more of the reality than my family [in Quito]. They live in a cloud … they live a very gringo lifestyle” (interval 5 interview). His sentiments reiterate his support of working-class commu­ nities and his devotion to local CoPs. Gustavo was the only participant to identify the reduced /s/ as characteristic of local speech without being prompted. Perhaps because of his experience with other dialects, he was also more aware of linguistic variation than the other participants. For example, he noted other types of consonant reduction and described the local Spanish dialect as having a Caribbean influence. In addition, he was able to make comparisons to highland Spanish, describing the coastal variety as sounding “less formal and less like un español castellano [a Castilian Spanish] than in the highlands” and adding that “the language has

92

Chelsea Escalante

more flavor on the coast”. Lastly, he understood the linguistic concept of stylistic variation, noting that he had learned how to vary his speech when talking to different neighbors based on factors such as power, social distance, and the level of formality present in the encounter. His awareness of several different linguistic phenomena related to the target dialect may have supported his ability to integrate them into his own speech. Summary Despite the fact that the three HSs were speakers of a non-/s/-aspirating dialect, all had one parent who was not an NS of the heritage language, and all were college-educated speakers of approximately the same age, there were several differences in their language backgrounds, exposure to other /s/-weakening varieties of Spanish, reasons for entering the program, culti­ vation of CoPs, and consciousness of /s/-weakening that may have con­ tributed to Gustavo accommodating to the local feature much more than Amalia and Bianca did. While Amalia and Bianca were drawn to the NGO because of their interest in social justice within a Latin American context, Gustavo was perhaps more motivated to integrate himself into local Ecuadorian CoPs – especially those that embraced vernacular forms – be­ cause of his family ties and his personal goals of finding the Ecuadorian within himself. While Amalia and Bianca related positively to their identity as volunteers, Gustavo resented being seen as an international volunteer, as he felt that it positioned him as an outsider rather than an Ecuadorian. Gustavo’s high language proficiency, previous exposure to other /s/weakening dialects, and ability to notice the phenomenon likely provided him with the tools to acquire /s/-weakening, and his status as a young man may have provided him with access to domains where /s/-weakening was considered a valuable asset. All of these factors combined likely contributed to Gustavo adopting /s/-weakening more consistently than Bianca and Amalia did.

Conclusions The goal of this chapter was to explore individual differences in accom­ modation to coastal Ecuadorian /s/-weakening by three HS volunteers who were participating in a year-long international humanitarian volunteer program. Data suggested that Gustavo adopted /s/-weakening quickly and used it to an extent similar to (and at one interval, even greater than) local NSs from the same community, whereas Amalia and Bianca exhibited /s/weakening less consistently and did not approximate local norms. Case studies were conducted with the goal of highlighting how the diverse backgrounds of the HSs, as well as their varied experiences in-country, may have contributed to their desire to adopt local forms or maintain the variant characteristic of their home dialect.

Individual differences

93

The study contributes to discussions of HSs in several ways. First, it adds to the limited research on sociolinguistic variation of Spanish HSs in a stayabroad context. Only a handful of studies have discussed how HSs encounter linguistic diversity, and none to my knowledge have included /s/-weakening as the variable in question. The results of this study, although limited by the number of participants, suggest that HSs encounter /s/-weakening very dif­ ferently, with some adopting it to the same degree as NSs in the community and others maintaining the variant characteristic of their home variety. This study therefore reaffirms that accommodation of a dialectal feature is medi­ ated by a range of linguistic, social, and experiential factors. Particularly important in the case of HSs in stays abroad are motivations, attitudes, and experiences within the local community, corroborating similar qualitative studies of L2Ls and HSs in study abroad (George & Hoffman-González, 2019; Pozzi & Reznicek-Parrado, 2021; Quan et al., 2018). Second, this study underscores the heterogeneity of HSs, especially in how they encounter dialectal variation in immersion contexts. Because one of the central goals of an heritage language course is to expose students to different registers of the language, particularly more formal registers used in academic settings, understanding the diverse needs and abilities of these speakers will help instructors to better prepare them to be able to perceive or produce alternative forms that are characteristic of different dialects and registers.

Notes 1 Although aspiration and deletion are the most common forms of /s/-lenition, other manifestations of weakening include glottalization, shift of preconsonantal /s/ to the rhotic tap, and compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel or gemina­ tion of the following consonant along with deletion of /s/ (Lipski, 2011, pp. 73–74). 2 For this organization, “intentional community” is defined on their website as a shared home where volunteers live in simplicity with one another, sharing meals, gathering for prayer and reflection, and supporting and encouraging one another in the mission of the NGO. 3 For an acoustic, multivariate (logistic regression) analysis, see Escalante (2018b).

Acknowledgment I would like to thank the UC Davis Department of Spanish and Portuguese and the Wyoming Institute for Humanities Research for generously sup­ porting this project.

References Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice. New York: McGraw Hill. Boersma, P., & Weenick, D. (2017). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program] version 6.0.23. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/. Accessed 01.01.17.

94

Chelsea Escalante

Brown, E.L., & Torres Cacoullos, R. (2003). Spanish /s/: A different story from beginning (initial) to end (final). In R. Núñez- Cedeño, L. López & R. Cameron (Eds.), A Romance perspective in language knowledge and use. Selected papers from the thirty-first Linguistic Symposium of Romance Languages (pp. 21–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. (2000). Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In M. Broe & J. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Laboratory phonology V: Language acquisition and the lexicon (pp. 250–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cepeda, G. (1995). Retention and deletion of word-final /s/ in Valdivian Spanish. Hispanic Linguistics, 6(7), 329–353. Davidson, D.E., & Lekic, M.D. (2013). The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: Comparing learning outcomes and target-language utilization in the Russian Flagship. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 88–114. Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. In Brown, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 683–685). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Erker, D. (2010). A subsegmental approach to coda /s/ weakening in Dominican Spanish. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 203, 9–26. Escalante, C. (2016, April). Tracking a shifting target: A longitudinal exploration of s-weakening among L2 speakers of coastal Ecuadorian Spanish. In Paper presented at the Eighth International Workshop of Spanish Sociolinguistics, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Escalante, C. (2018a). ¡Ya pué[h]! Perception of coda-/s/ weakening among L2 and heritage speakers in coastal Ecuador. E-JournALL, EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(1), 1–26. Escalante, C. (2018b). The acquisition of a sociolinguistic variable while volunteering abroad: s-weakening among L2 and heritage speakers in coastal Ecuador (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (Accession Order No. AAT 10826363). Escalante, C., & Pozzi, R. (2017, Oct). ¿Parezco uno de ellos?. The role of stigma, saliency, and stability in the accommodation to local variable features in two immersion contexts. In Paper presented at the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Texas Tech University. File-Muriel, R. (2007). The role of lexical frequency and phonetic context in the weakening of syllable-final lexical /s/ in the Spanish of Barranquilla, Colombia (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data­ base (Accession Order No. AAT 3278205). File-Muriel, R., & Brown, E. (2010). The gradient nature of s-lenition in Caleño Spanish. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16(2), 46–55. Geeslin, K.L., García-Amaya, L.J., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N.C, & Killam, J. (2010). The SLA of direct object pronouns in a study abroad immersion environment where use is variable. In C. Borgonovo et al. (Eds.), Selected pro­ ceedings of the 12th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 246–259). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Geeslin, K.L, García-Amaya, L.J., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N.C., & Killam, J. (2012). The L2 acquisition of variable perfective past time reference in Spanish in an overseas immersion setting. In K. Geeslin & M. Díaz-Campos (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 14th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 197–213). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Individual differences

95

Geeslin, K., & Gudmestad, A. (2011). The acquisition of variation in secondlanguage Spanish: An agenda for integrating studies of the L2 sound system. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 137–157. George, A. (2013). The development of /θ/, a variable geographic phonetic feature, during a semester abroad: The role of explicit instruction. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th pronunciation in second language learning and teaching conference, August 2012 (pp. 120–128). Ames, IA: Iowa State University George, A., & Hoffman-González, A. (2019). US heritage language learners of Spanish abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 4(2), 252–279. Isabelli-García, C.L. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In E. Churchill & M. DuFon (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 231–258). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kanwit, M., Geeslin, K.L., & Fafulas, S. (2015). Study abroad and the SLA of variable structures: A look at the present perfect, the copula contrast, and the present progressive in Mexico and Spain. Probus, 27(2), 307–348. Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–124. Knouse, S.M. (2012). The acquisition of dialectal phonemes in a study abroad context: The case of the Castilian Theta. Foreign Language Annals, 45(4), 512–542. Labov, W. (1984). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics (pp. 28–53). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2, 205–254. Lafford, B. (1986). Valor diagnóstico-social del uso de ciertas variantes de /s/ en el español de Cartagena, Colombia. In R.A. Núñez Cedeño, I.P. Urdaneta & J.M. Guitart (Eds.), Estudios sobre la fonología del español del Caribe (pp. 53–75). Caracas: La Casa de Bello. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. LeCompte, M.D., & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lipski, J. (1994). Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman. Lipski, J. (1999). The many faces of Spanish /s/-weakening: (re)alignment and ambisyllabicity. In J. Gutierrez-Rexach & F. Martínez-Gil (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic Linguistics (pp. 198–213). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Lipski, J. (2011). Socio-phonological variation in Latin American Spanish. In M. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 72–97). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Menard-Warwick, J., & Palmer, D. K. (2012). Bilingual development in studyabroad journal narratives: Three case studies from a short-term program in Mexico. Multilingua, 31, 381–412. Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

96

Chelsea Escalante

Minnick Fox, A.M. (2006). Usage-based effects in Latin American Spanish syllablefinal /s/ lenition (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (Accession Order No. AAT 3211069). Moreno, K.H. (2009). The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (Accession Order No. AAT 3408572). Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159–171). Harlow, England: Pearson Education. Pearson Education, Inc. (2011). Versant Spanish Test: Test description and validation summary. http://www.versanttest.com/technology/VersantSpanishTest Validation.pdf. Petrucci, P.R. (2007). Heritage scholars in the ancestral homeland: An overlooked identity in study abroad research. Sociolinguistic Studies, 1, 275–296. Potowski, K. (2002). Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. ADFL Bulletin, 33, 35–42. Potowski, K. (2013). Heritage learners of Spanish. In K.L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 404–422). New York, NY: Wiley. Pozzi, R. (2017). The acquisition of regional features during a semester abroad in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (Accession Order No. AAT 10285756). Pozzi, R., & Reznicek-Parrado, L. (2021). Problematizing heritage language iden­ tities: Spanish HL speakers of Mexican descent studying abroad in Argentina. Manuscript submitted for publication. Quan, T., Pozzi, R., Kehoe, S., & Menard-Warwick, J. (2018). Spanish heritage language learners in study abroad across three national contexts. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 437–451). New York, NY: Routledge. Racz, P. (2013). Salience in sociolinguistics. A quantitative approach. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R.L. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 405–421. Ringer-Hilfiger, K. (2012). Learner acquisition of dialect variation in a study abroad context: The case of the Spanish [θ]. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 430–446. Rubin, K. (2004). Going home to study. International Educator, 13, 26–33. Salgado-Robles, F. (2014). Variación dialectal por aprendientes de español en un contexto de inmersión en el extranjero: Un análisis cuantitativo del uso leísta en el discurso oral y escrito. Lenguas Modernas, 43, 97–112. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shively, R. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo, Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Individual differences

97

Song, J. (2012). Imagined communities and language socialization practices in transnational space: A case study of two Korean “study abroad” families in the United States. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 507–524. Tagliamonte, S.A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terrell, T. (1981). Diachronic reconstructions by dialect comparison of variable constraints: s-Aspiration and deletion in Spanish. In D. Sankoff & H. Cedergren (Eds.), Variation omnibus (pp. 115–124). Carbondale, IL: Linguistic Research Inc. Trentman, E. (2013). Imagined communities and language learning during study abroad: Arabic learners in Egypt. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 545–564. Umino, T., & Benson, P. (2016). Communities of practice in study abroad: A fouryear study of an Indonesian student’s experience in Japan. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 757–774. Van Der Meid, J.S. (2003). Asian Americans: Factors influencing the decision to study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 71–110.

Section II

Pragmatics

5

Researching Spanish heritage language pragmatics in study abroad Rachel L. Shively

Introduction Pragmatics focuses on the meaning of utterances in their physical, social, and linguistic context and includes phenomena such as speech acts, politeness expressions, humor, and discourse structure (e.g., Crystal, 1997). Given that pragmatic norms vary considerably from place to place, Spanish heritage speakers (SHSs) who travel abroad are likely to find that their use of pragmatics in Spanish differs in certain ways from that of local people (e.g., Félix-Brasdefer & Placencia, 2019). Even when SHSs do study in their family’s country of origin, given their bi-/multilingual backgrounds, their pragmatic practices may be hybridized, thereby differing from monolingual norms (e.g., Díaz, Taulé, & Enríquez, 2018; Pinto & Raschio, 2007). Pragmatics is a particularly interesting area of study because aspects such as politeness have the potential to be especially consequential for social interaction; for example, a particular way of formulating a request may be polite in one variety of Spanish, but impolite in another (e.g., Curcó, 1998). When there is a mismatch in pragmatic norms, SHSs may risk being impolite when they want to be polite, be unable to present themselves in desired ways, or misinterpret the intended meaning of an utterance. While a considerable literature exists on second language (L2) pragmatic development in study abroad (SA), little is known about SHS pragmatics abroad. We can expect that L2 learners and SHSs will differ in their language development. For example, if SHSs grew up speaking Spanish in their home and community, they may have acquired pragmatic norms for those settings. L2 learners, in contrast, typically do not have extensive experience using Spanish outside the classroom before SA. At the same time, growing up in a society where Spanish is a minority language, SHSs may not have had the opportunities to develop their heritage pragmatic abilities in a wide variety of settings, and therefore they may be able to expand their repertoire because of SA. Furthermore, if SHSs go abroad with advanced proficiency, they may be better equipped to notice and adopt new pragmatic resources more easily than L2 learners with lower proficiency.

102

Rachel L. Shively

Drawing from literature on pragmatics, SA, heritage language learning, and second dialect acquisition, the goal of this chapter is to highlight areas for future research concerning SHS pragmatics in SA. The chapter will suggest how this focus can contribute to new insights in the field and will identify key research questions, methods, and theoretical frameworks. This discussion will begin by providing an overview of existing research on pragmatic development in SA, will continue by outlining what is known about SHSs in SA and SHS pragmatics, and will conclude by proposing four research strands related to SHS pragmatic development in SA that deserve attention.

Learning pragmatics in SA Pragmatic competence has been defined as “the ability to communicate your intended message with all its nuances in any socio-cultural context and to interpret the message of your interlocutor as it was intended” (Fraser, 2010, p. 15), which includes aspects such as politeness expressions, nonliteral implied meanings, conversational norms, and speech acts (e.g., apologies, compliments, refusals, requests, showing gratitude). Pragmatic abilities can be categorized as either pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic. The former refers to the ability to link language forms to their functions, meanings, and uses in specific contexts, whereas the latter relates to familiarity with the social norms regarding when and with whom particular forms are appropriate (e.g., Thomas, 1983). Given the lack of scholarship on SHS pragmatic development, this section will discuss key issues from L2 studies, which can inform future research concerning SHSs. Existing studies suggest that L2 learners often develop their pragmatic abilities naturalistically as a result of SA in an L2-speaking region (e.g., PérezVidal & Shively, 2019). In contrast to the foreign language classroom – where most L2 learning at home is assumed to occur – the SA environment offers L2 learners the opportunity to interact in a variety of settings, with different interlocutors, and for various purposes. This immersion means exposure to and practice with contextually appropriate L2 use and, consequently, the possibility for learners to enhance their pragmatic competence. However, there is considerable individual variation in terms of pragmatics learning outcomes in SA, which is related to micro- and macro-level factors such as: length of SA; amount of L2 contact; composition of social networks; nature of the input to which students are exposed; positioning of students by local people; and students’ own identities, histories, dispositions, and agency (for reviews of SA research, see, e.g., Kinginger, 2009; Pérez-Vidal & Shively, 2019; for L2 pragmatics research more generally, see, e.g., Kasper & Rose, 2002; Taguchi, 2019; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). There are also some limitations to learning L2 pragmatics naturalistically in SA. Some pragmatic features do not occur frequently in daily life, so students may not have many opportunities to observe how local people

Spanish heritage pragmatics abroad 103 employ those features. Even if a pragmatic feature is common, however, students may not notice cross-cultural differences in pragmatic norms. Previous research further suggests that expert speakers of the L2 may not provide corrective feedback about pragmatic infelicities to SA students (e.g., Hassall, 2013). Given these challenges to learning pragmatics naturalistically, some have advocated and researched pragmatics instruction in SA (e.g., Hernández & Boero, 2018; Morris, 2017; Shively, 2010). The majority of such studies indicate that instruction in pragmatics can be effective in accelerating learning and in supporting SA students in increasing their L2 pragmatic competence. It can be hypothesized that many of the trends observed in the literature on L2 pragmatic development in SA will be relevant to understanding shifts in pragmatic practices among SHSs during SA. First, similar to L2 learners, the amount of contact that SHSs have with local people in SA is likely to influence the pragmatic norms they employ. Support for this idea comes from Davidson and Lekic (2013), who discovered that for both L2 learners and heritage speakers of Russian alike, those who reported more out-ofclass contact with Russian during SA made greater gains in speaking. Identity and agency are also factors that are expected to impact pragmatic development abroad for SHSs. In research on SHSs who studied abroad in non-ancestral Spanish-speaking countries, George and Hoffman-González (2019) observed that the extent to which SHSs adopted regionally specific phonological, morphological, and lexical features of their SA host community was related to whether individual students identified with the local community in SA and desired to accommodate to that dialect. Indeed, some SHSs rejected features of the local variety of Spanish because they felt that they would be distancing themselves linguistically from their heritage community. The agency to make choices about language use and the awareness about how language practices index identity are likely to be operative for SHSs with regard to pragmatics as well. Chang (2017), for instance, reported that an SHS who studied in Guatemala resisted adopting the local practice of bargaining for goods in markets because she was afraid that doing so would create an exploitative relationship between economically disadvantaged Guatemalans and a more privileged person like herself. Despite potential similarities between L2 learners and SHSs in SA, these two groups may also experience SA differently, which may have implications for their pragmatic development. Further, for advanced-proficiency SHSs, pragmatic development as a result of SA in a non-ancestral country may be better understood as second dialect acquisition rather than second language acquisition. These aspects are considered in the following two sections.

SHSs in SA Previous research indicates that SHSs may have different experiences than L2 learners in SA resulting from their bi-/multilingual and bi-/multicultural

104

Rachel L. Shively

background, both in terms of how they are received by local people and in the competencies that they bring to SA. Regarding the former, if SHSs have a familial connection to the host country, they may be viewed as in-group members rather than foreigners (e.g., Petrucci, 2007; Quan, Pozzi, Kehoe, & Menard-Warwick, 2018; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). L2 learners, in comparison, are typically perceived as cultural outsiders. Existing studies suggest that a potentially positive outcome of being positioned as an insider is the possibility of gaining greater access to local social networks (e.g., George & Hoffman-González, 2019; Moreno, 2009; Van Der Meid, 2003). Conversely, a potentially negative outcome of perceived in-group membership is that SHSs may be judged by monolingual standards (e.g., Petrucci, 2007; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). If SHSs grew up bi-/multilingually, they are likely to speak a contact variety of Spanish characterized by lexical borrowing, calques, and code-switching – bi-/multilingual practices that may be viewed negatively due to prevalent language ideologies that value monolingualism over bi-/ multilingualism (e.g., Showstack, 2018). Further, language ideologies that elevate some varieties of Spanish over others may result in linguistic discrimination against SHSs if they speak a non-prestige variety, such as those associated with working class people or certain regional varieties like Dominican Spanish (e.g., Carter, 2018; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). If SHSs are students of color, they may also face racial discrimination that many L2 learners do not encounter, since the overwhelming majority of the latter group are white (e.g., Goldoni, 2017; Moreno, 2009; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000; Twombly, Salisbury, Tumanut, & Klute, 2012).1 Additionally, SHSs may possess different competencies than L2 learners when they go abroad. If they grew up speaking Spanish at home and in their communities, they may demonstrate stronger linguistic proficiency in Spanish and greater cultural knowledge of the Spanish-speaking world than L2 learners (e.g., Chang, 2017; Davidson & Lekic, 2013; George & Hoffman-González, 2019). SHSs who belong to ethnic minority groups in their home country and/or experienced transnational migration may also demonstrate global competencies (see, e.g., Lambert, 1996) before going abroad that many L2 learners lack, such as cultural awareness, a keen understanding of racial and class hierarchies and privilege, and familiarity with moving between different cultures (e.g., Chang, 2017; Diao, 2017; Doerr, 2018). Moreover, while SA is typically the first time that L2 learners of Spanish have the opportunity for extensive use of Spanish outside the classroom, SHSs may be accustomed to using Spanish with family, friends, and other community members, meaning that SA may not be their first experience in a Spanish immersion environment.

SHS pragmatics Relatively little is known about the pragmatic practices of heritage and bi-/ multilingual speakers, but a handful of studies indicate that hybridization of

Spanish heritage pragmatics abroad 105 pragmatic norms in Spanish is typical (e.g., Díaz et al., 2018; Pinto, 2018; Pinto & Raschio, 2007). That is, the pragmatic behaviors of bilingual speakers tend to display influences from both of their languages. Pinto and Raschio observed, for instance, that SHSs in the US performed requests similarly to monolingual Spanish speakers in some respects, but also displayed some differences (e.g., greater indirectness) that could be traced to the influence of English. Indeed, several authors have argued that in language contact situations, pragmatics may be the first area impacted by transfer from one language to another (e.g., Blum-Kulka & Sheffer, 1993; Vann, 1998). Pinto (2018) argues that one reason for the permeability of pragmatics is that, unlike phonology or morphosyntax, there are no straightforward prescriptive pragmatic norms, even in a single speech community, due to the myriad of factors related to the physical, social, and linguistic context that influence speakers’ use of language in any given interaction. While initial findings from research suggest that SHSs’ pragmatics are likely to be hybridized at the time they go abroad, what is still unknown is whether living abroad in either an ancestral or a non-ancestral country will result in pragmatic shifts. A number of outcomes are possible. For instance, if SHSs study in their family’s country of origin and are exposed to primarily monolingual Spanish speakers, they could potentially shift in the direction of adopting the monolingual pragmatic norms of their own Spanish variety. On the other hand, if SHSs go to a non-ancestral country (e.g., a Mexican American student who studies in Spain), they might shift in their pragmatic practices to accommodate to the pragmatic norms of speakers of a different dialect of Spanish (e.g., Kluge, 2007). As an example, Spaniards tend to be more informal and direct when making requests in certain contexts than speakers of some Latin American dialects (e.g., Placencia, 1998). If Mexican American SHSs go to Spain for SA, some could potentially shift their levels of informality and indirectness to adjust to local norms, either because they develop an identification with the host community, they want to fit in, or they want to facilitate communication. In either of these two scenarios, however, some SHSs might also choose to resist change and maintain their own bi-/multilingual pragmatic norms. These divergent patterns are evident in research on perceptions of politeness among Latin American immigrants living in Spain: Molina Martos (2010) observed that while many participants did choose to adopt Peninsular politeness norms in order to integrate into Spanish society, some resisted linguistic convergence with Spaniards and continued to employ politeness strategies associated with their country of origin. In terms of the process by which SHSs would acquire new pragmatic behaviors during a stay abroad in a non-ancestral country, for advanced proficiency SHSs it may be more appropriate to conceive of that process in terms of second dialect acquisition (SDA), rather than second language acquisition (SLA; Fairclough, 2016). Although SDA is often thought of in

106

Rachel L. Shively

cases when speakers of a nonstandard language variety acquire a standard variety, it can also take place when individuals adopt characteristics of a different regional dialect of the same language (e.g., Siegel, 2010). One finding from previous SDA research is that even when speakers become aware of the differences between their own and another dialect, it may be difficult to incorporate new language practices in an automatic way into everyday interactions (e.g., Siegel, 2010). Further, unless speakers’ attention is drawn to dialect differences, if the two dialects are similar, those differences may go unnoticed and, consequently, be unlikely to be acquired (e.g., Fairclough, 2016). Highlighting parallels with SLA, Fairclough also notes that the progress of SDA may be slow for advanced speakers. Following the model of the inverted pyramid developed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, if a student (L2 or heritage) begins with a low level of proficiency in the target language, progress will be rapid at the early stages. However, at higher levels of proficiency, the rate of acquisition slows, as what is left to be acquired is increasingly complex and nuanced. Research with Latin American immigrants in Spain suggests another possible similarity between SLA and SDA: overgeneralization. Kluge (2007) described how Argentine immigrants accommodated to local Peninsular Spanish norms by replacing the second person pronoun vos with tú, but they overgeneralized the use of tú in situations in which the formal pronoun usted would have been more pragmatically appropriate. Additionally, as with SLA, a number of factors can influence SDA, including identity and motivation, social networks with second dialect speakers, salience of dialectal features, and whether maintaining a first dialect feature inhibits communication with second dialect speakers (e.g., Siegel, 2010). Finally, instructed pragmatics for heritage speakers is an area in its infancy, and existing studies are not conclusive regarding learning outcomes. Kim, Lee, and Kim (2018) discovered that providing instruction about Korean honorifics to a mixed class of L2 learners and heritage speakers produced positive results for both groups of students. Conversely, Barros and Bachelor (2018) taught Spanish requests to a similarly mixed group of L2 learners and SHSs and reported positive learning outcomes for the former but not for the latter. While more research is needed, a possible interpretation of these seemingly contradictory initial results is that perhaps the SHSs had already acquired requests in everyday settings, whereas the Korean heritage speakers had not yet mastered honorifics. Indeed, when planning pragmatics instruction for SHSs, an important first step is to conduct a needs assessment to determine what aspects of Spanish pragmatics they have already mastered and what areas they may benefit from learning. Further, in teaching SHSs features of a second dialect – particularly if that second dialect is a prestige or standard variety of Spanish – Fairclough (2016, p. 155) argues for an approach that “critically analyzes and challenges language policies and ideologies that exclude certain varieties” and “raises students’ awareness of the relationship between language and power within

Spanish heritage pragmatics abroad 107 the dominant society and offers them some agency in their learning”. Pinto (2018) further points out that nonstandard or contact varieties of Spanish spoken by SHSs should not be positioned as inferior to prestige or monolingual varieties, nor should SHSs be expected to emulate the pragmatics of other varieties. An awareness-raising approach that draws students’ attention to differences in pragmatic norms between their first and second dialects and empowers them to choose for themselves the norms that they will follow is consistent both with effective practices for teaching second dialects and for teaching pragmatics (e.g., Fairclough, 2016; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Showstack, 2016; Siegel, 2010).

Researching SHS pragmatics in SA As the previous sections indicate, little attention has been paid as of yet to SHS pragmatics, and even less to SHSs’ pragmatic development in Spanish during SA. This lack of research is certainly related to the fact that SHSs make up only a small percentage of the SA population. No statistics on the number of SHSs are available, but with growing participation of US-based Latino/a university students in SA (e.g., Chang, 2017), we can predict that a growing proportion of US SA students will be SHSs. This situation offers an opportunity for future researchers to explore various issues related to heritage language pragmatics and the SA experiences of diverse students. SHSs may be different than many US-based L2 learners both in having considerable transnational experiences before going abroad and in possessing more advanced oral proficiency in Spanish. Further, research that focuses specifically on SHSs in SA has the potential to contribute to the fields of bi-/multilingualism and heritage language studies. In the same way that much of what is currently known about L2 pragmatic development has been generated through research in SA, research on SHSs in SA can help fill the gap in our knowledge about the pragmatic practices of transnational and bi-/multilingual speakers, their development of pragmatic abilities, and how crucial factors such as quantity and quality of input, density of social networks, and learner agency and identity relate to the use and learning of pragmatics. While there are many directions for future research, I develop four strands here related to the following topics: uninstructed SHS pragmatic development in SA, instructed pragmatics in SA, the role of intercultural competence (IC), and long-term impacts of SA. Research strand 1: uninstructed pragmatic development in SA Basic questions that researchers can ask to advance our understanding of SHSs’ pragmatic development in SA include the following: In what ways do SHSs shift in their pragmatic practices during SA in a Spanish-speaking society? In what ways do they expand their heritage language repertoire of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic skills in Spanish after SA? Do they

108

Rachel L. Shively

develop multidialectal pragmatic competence in SA and, if so, in what ways? What factors facilitate and detract from pragmatic development? Considering the first question, if SHSs participate in SA in their family’s country of origin, they are likely to share at least some pragmatic norms in common with local people, although as already noted, their pragmatic practices may be hybridized and diverge from monolingual norms. One possible (but not necessarily desirable) outcome of exposure to monolingual pragmatic norms is that SHSs may shift in their pragmatic behaviors and accommodate to local people either to index affiliation with the local community or to enhance communication. Regarding the latter, for example, if SHSs employ politeness expressions when making requests that are transferred from English to Spanish, as Pinto and Raschio (2007) reported, those request formulas may not have the desired effect of communicating politeness to monolingual Spanish interlocutors. If SHSs notice this difference in bilingual and monolingual Spanish politeness expressions, they may decide to accommodate to local practices to better express their intended level of politeness. SHSs who study in a non-ancestral Spanish-speaking region may also shift their behaviors to accommodate to local pragmatic norms. In either ancestral or non-ancestral settings, another possible outcome is that SHSs choose to resist changing certain pragmatic aspects of their heritage language. With regard to the second question, SHSs may expand their repertoire of pragmalinguistic forms and refine their sociopragmatic skills as a result of SA. Through participation in SA, they may be able to learn, among other things, new routine expressions for realizing speech acts, as well as refine their abilities to match linguistic expressions according to the setting, register, and relationship with the interlocutor. SHSs may also develop new interactional resources to express their intended meanings and to participate fully in conversation, such as showing alignment, demonstrating active listenership, managing topics, and engaging in humor. In addition, the third proposed research question considers whether advanced-level SHSs become multidialectal in pragmatics as a result of SA – whether that be a different regional variety of Spanish or the standard monolingual variety from their family’s country of origin – in an additive way that does not displace pragmatic norms associated with their heritage language community (e.g., Fairclough, 2016). Finally, the fourth research question addresses what micro- and macro-level factors (e.g., length of stay abroad, initial proficiency, identity, agency) influence SHSs’ pragmatic development in SA. In terms of research design, these research questions can be addressed with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches (see, e.g., Culpeper, Mackey, & Taguchi, 2018; Jucker, Schneider, & Bublitz, 2018). Case studies, for instance, can provide rich description about individual SHSs’ experiences interacting with others abroad and how factors such as identity, relationships, and participation in everyday interactions can enhance or detract from the learning of pragmatics. In contrast, quantitative

Spanish heritage pragmatics abroad 109 studies that involve larger numbers of participants allow researchers to make generalizations about what pragmatic skills students tend to gain from a stay abroad, in addition to the factors (e.g., length of stay, linguistic proficiency, degree of social contact) that can help account for learning. A mixed-methods approach has the advantage of combining the potential for quantitative statistical analysis with more in-depth qualitative data, which can help to understand and interpret what aspects of the SA experience contribute to the learning of pragmatics (e.g., Taguchi, 2016). Questionnaires are a common means to collect data to assess L2 learners’ receptive and productive pragmatics skills, and they could also be employed with SHSs. The discourse completion task (DCT), for instance, provides students with scenarios from everyday life that elicit a specific pragmatic feature – typically a speech act – which respondents then provide in writing or orally (e.g., Ogiermann, 2018). If the goal is to assess SHSs’ oral skills, an oral DCT is preferable because it represents a more direct and valid measure. Role plays (i.e., simulated oral interactions) can also be employed to collect production data, and they have an advantage over DCTs in being more interactive (e.g., Félix-Brasdefer, 2018). Further, collecting audio or video recordings of naturalistic interactions between SHSs and local people allows researchers to observe how SHSs use the language in the real world and examine the input and reception by locals in those interactions. Challenges of collecting naturalistic data include gaining access to real-life settings and the fact that some pragmatic features are infrequent in daily life (e.g., Shively, 2018). Interviews, journals, and retrospective verbal reports are additional methods that can provide participants’ own perspectives about their learning and address issues of agency and identity. Many previous studies have measured pragmatic development in SA using a pretest/ posttest design, but including multiple data collection points during SA, and delayed posttests can offer insights into developmental paths in the first case, and retention of learning in the second. Finally, various theoretical frameworks that have been applied fruitfully to understand L2 pragmatic development in SA could be employed with SHSs. For example, a cognitive-psychological theory such as Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis posits that learners must pay attention to pragmatic features in the input in order for learning to occur (see also, Li, 2018). Socially oriented theories such as language socialization theory and Vygotskian sociocultural theory help in understanding the crucial role of social interaction in the development of pragmatic competence (e.g., van Compernolle, 2018). Research strand 2: instructed pragmatics in SA Teaching Spanish pragmatics in SA has the potential to raise SHSs’ awareness about how languages and dialects can vary pragmatically, provide them with information about pragmatic features that are infrequent in everyday life, present a broader picture of pragmatic norms in the host

110

Rachel L. Shively

community than each individual’s experiences permit, and offer insights into the meanings that local people attribute to various linguistic behaviors. A small but growing body of studies indicates that pragmatics instruction can be beneficial in supporting L2 speakers in their learning of pragmatics in SA (e.g., Pérez Vidal & Shively, 2019), but the question remains whether the same is true for SHSs. A further question that research can address concerns the instructional needs of SHSs, which may be different from those of L2 learners. How to effectively deliver pragmatics instruction and how to differentiate instruction for mixed groups of L2 learners and SHSs or for groups of SHSs with diverse linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds (e.g., Beaudrie & Fairclough, 2012) are additional issues that deserve attention from researchers. In designing a study that investigates pragmatics instruction in SA, researchers would do well to begin with a needs assessment of SHSs, to determine areas of pragmatics already mastered. A needs assessment can involve testing SHSs’ pragmatic knowledge and skills prior to SA, as well as asking students, instructors, and SA program administrators about SHSs’ needs (see, e.g., Morris, 2017). Reviewing previous research on the pragmatic norms of different varieties of Spanish can also point to areas where pragmatic variation is likely to result in miscommunication (e.g., Márquez Reiter & Placencia, 2005), which can be targeted in instruction. In terms of designing pragmatics-focused pedagogical interventions for SHSs, the backward design process of identifying learning objectives, creating assessments, and then planning learning activities may be a useful approach (e.g., Shively, 2020). Finally, including a control group of SHSs who participate in SA but do not receive the pragmatics intervention is advantageous because it allows researchers to tease apart the role of instruction from incidental learning in SA. Research strand 3: IC and pragmatic development Researchers have only begun to explore the relationship between IC and pragmatic development with L2 students in SA (e.g., Taguchi, Xiao, & Li, 2016; see also, Taguchi & Collentine, 2018), and no work in this area has been conducted with SHSs. It may be particularly insightful to examine this issue by working with SHSs because this group of SA students may be more likely – although certainly not guaranteed – to begin their sojourn abroad with greater IC than many L2 learners due to many SHSs’ position as members of racial/ethnic minorities in US society and/or as people with transnational experiences as a result of migration and ties to two or more cultures (e.g., Doerr, 2018). Research questions that address this strand include: What is the relationship between the development of intercultural and pragmatic competence during SA? Does IC facilitate the learning of pragmatics (or vice versa), and if so, in what ways? IC has been defined in various ways that relate to attitudes toward other cultures and the necessary knowledge and skills to take different perspectives,

Spanish heritage pragmatics abroad 111 identify potential misunderstandings, and interact effectively across cultures. Hammer (2013, p. 26), for instance, describes IC as “the capability to shift cultural perspective and appropriately adapt behavior to cultural difference and commonalities”. Byram (1997) outlines his framework for IC, which includes culture-specific and culture-general knowledge, skills to interpret meanings and to discover new information about other cultures, and attitudes involving openness and curiosity.2 Having intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes may facilitate the learning of pragmatics directly, or the relationship may be indirect in that students with greater IC may be more interested and/or successful in developing relationships with local people in SA. This in turn may lead to greater social contact and increased learning opportunities (e.g., Taguchi et al., 2016). It is also possible that the reverse is true – that is, that learning about pragmatics can help students increase their IC. The IC theory chosen will determine measurement, since quantitative instruments have been developed in accordance with theoretical constructs. For instance, the Intercultural Competence Assessment (2004) measures IC in relation to Byram’s framework, while the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003) is based on Bennett’s model. Questionnaires such as these can be employed in conjunction with assessments that target receptive or productive pragmatic skills in crosscultural contexts. Taguchi and Collentine (2018) recommend multiple data collection points during SA for instruments that target both linguistic competence and IC, in order to observe whether the two competencies develop separately or in conjunction. Qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, journals) can also provide in-depth insights into students’ experiences and perceptions in relation to the development of IC and how that may intersect with pragmatic development (e.g., Edmonds, 2010). Research strand 4: long-term impact of SA As Kinginger (2019) points out, little is known about the long-term impact of SA. Although several large-scale studies have gathered data from former SA students years after their time abroad, the results do not focus on language (e.g., Paige, Fry, Stallman, Josic, & Jon, 2009). Key questions include: What are the long-term effects of SA for SHSs in terms of Spanish pragmatic competence? How does what SHSs learn about pragmatics in SA impact their identity, life goals, and interpersonal relationships at home and abroad? Future research on this topic can contribute to understanding not only the short-term achievements that arise from SA but also the impact on SHSs long after they return home. Data can be gathered using methods such as questionnaires and life history interviews, as suggested by Kinginger (2019). An example of a life history narrative that speaks to the long-term impact of living abroad comes from the radio show Radio Ambulante, whose host, Daniel Alarcón, is a US-based SHS. Alarcón began the March 12, 2019,

112

Rachel L. Shively

episode with audio recordings in which his young son León was speaking to his little brother in Spanish. Alarcón had recently implemented a Spanishonly rule to encourage León not to lose his heritage language, and was delighted that León was speaking Spanish rather than English. The story then turned to Alarcón’s own history with Spanish. He described speaking Spanish at home while growing up, but indicated that by young adulthood his Spanish skills were diminishing. A very specific experience – having to do with pragmatics – compelled him to go abroad to improve his Spanish, as he recounted (my translation): [Some Spanish-speaking friends] brought me a gift. I don’t remember what it was, but what I said to them when I accepted that gift I’ve never forgotten. I wanted to say “Thanks so much! You shouldn’t have gone to the trouble!” But I said, “I appreciate it a lot although I don’t go to the trouble!” They gave me a perplexed look and I blushed. I knew I had said something wrong, but I didn’t know how to fix it because I didn’t have the words. … From that moment, I decided I had to start seriously studying Spanish so as not to have to go through another embarrassing moment like that one. That experience of pragmatic failure in showing gratitude, as Alarcón told it, was the impetus for him to decide to spend a year improving his Spanish in Peru, his family’s country of origin (my translation): I went to Lima and quickly realized several things. First, the slang I used was my father’s, in other words, from the 1960s in Arequipa...and second, I didn’t know any formal Spanish...I had the feeling I was constantly making a bad impression on others. It was a feeling of helplessness, of not having the tools necessary to demonstrate that I wasn’t an idiot. But due to pure stubbornness I didn’t give up. I swallowed my humiliation and continued on...and well, by the end of that year, I spoke like just another guy from Lima. I felt really proud. In the episode, Alarcón pointed to his time in Peru as helping him develop his own Spanish skills, which in turn were crucial in his desire and ability to pass Spanish on to the next generation of his family. Although Alarcón apparently did not participate in a formal SA program in Peru, his story suggests a possible long-term impact of language learning abroad: maintenance of Spanish as a minority language in the US.

Conclusions This chapter has argued that pragmatic competence is a crucial area of language ability that deserves attention in research on SHSs in SA. Being able to express and comprehend intended meanings in social interaction has implications for self-presentation, harmony in social interactions, and

Spanish heritage pragmatics abroad 113 developing relationships with members of the host country. Currently, little is known about SHS pragmatics more generally and SHSs’ pragmatic development in SA more specifically. Research on how SHSs choose to manage the inevitable pragmatic variation that they confront in SA can inform not only research on SA and pragmatics but also heritage language, SDA, bi-/multilingualism, and intercultural-education studies. SHSs who have advanced proficiency in Spanish and transnational experiences have a unique profile compared to the majority of US-based L2-speaking SA students. Examining SHSs’ pragmatic development in SA will not only diversify and enrich research in various fields, it also has the potential to offer insights into ways that SA programs and heritage language instruction can better meet the needs of SHSs.

Notes 1 Quan (2018) also points out that US-based students of color may experience less racism in other countries than they do in the US. 2 Although these theories of IC have been employed widely, they have also been criticized as Western-centric (e.g., Aman, 2017).

References Aman, R. (2017). Decolonising intercultural education. London: Routledge. Barros, M.J., & Bachelor, J. (2018). Pragmatic instruction may not be necessary among heritage learners of Spanish: A study on requests. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 3, 163–193. Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Beaudrie, S. & Fairclough, M. (Eds.). (2012). Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blum-Kulka, S., & Sheffer, H. (1993). The metapragmatic discourse of AmericanIsraeli families at dinner. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 196–224). New York: Oxford University Press. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Carter, P. (2018). Spanish in U.S. language policy and politics. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 36–52). New York: Routledge. Chang, A. (2017). “Call me a little critical if you will”: Counterstories of Latinas studying abroad in Guatemala. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16, 3–23. Crystal, D. (Ed.). (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research. New York: Routledge. Curcó, C. (1998). ¿No me harías un favorcito?: Reflexiones en torno a la expresión de la cortesía verbal en el español de México y el español peninsular.

114

Rachel L. Shively

In H. Haverkate, G. Mulder & C. Maldonado (Eds.), Diálogos hispánicos (pp. 129–171). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Davidson, D., & Lekic, M. (2013). The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: Comparing learning outcomes and target-language utilization in the Russian Flagship. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 88–114. Diao, W. (2017). Between the standard and non-standard: Accent and identity among transnational Mandarin speakers studying abroad in China. System, 71, 87–101. Díaz, L., Taulé, M., & Enríquez, N. (2018). Being polite at the railway or bus station: How a role-play can illustrate the differences between study abroad groups vs. heritage students and at-home groups of Spanish L2 university learners. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 102–118). New York: Routledge. Doerr, N. (2018). ‘Global competence’ of minority immigrant students: Hierarchy of experience and ideology of global competence in study abroad. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1, 83–97. Edmonds, M. (2010). The lived experience of nursing students who study abroad: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 545–568. Fairclough, M. (2016). Incorporating additional varieties to the linguistic repertoires of heritage language learners. In M. Fairclough, S. Beaudrie, S. Roca & G. Valdés (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 143–165). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Félix-Brasdefer, C. (2018). Role plays. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Methods in pragmatics (pp. 305–331). Berlin: De Gruyter. Félix-Brasdefer, C., & Placencia, M.E. (2019). Pragmatic variation in service encounter interactions across the Spanish-speaking world. New York: Routledge. Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch & S. Schneider (Eds.), New approaches to hedging (pp. 15–34). Bingley, UK: Emerald. George, A., & Hoffman-González, A. (2019). US heritage language learners of Spanish abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 4, 252–279. Goldoni, F. (2017). Race, ethnicity, class, and identity: Implications for study abroad. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16, 328–341. Hammer, M. (2013). A resource guide for effectively using the intercultural development inventory. Berlin, MD: IDI. Hammer, M., Bennett, M., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1–17. Hernández, T., & Boero, P. (2018). Explicit intervention for Spanish pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: An examination of learner request production and cognition. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 389–510. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A.D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. Harlow: Longman. Jucker, A.H., Schneider, K.P. & Bublitz, W. (Eds.). (2018). Methods in pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Spanish heritage pragmatics abroad 115 Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kim, M., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (2018). Learning of Korean honorifics through collaborative tasks: Comparing heritage and foreign language learners. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim, Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 27–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kinginger, C. (2019). Four questions for the next generation of study abroad researchers. In M. Howard (Ed.), Study abroad, second language acquisition and interculturality (pp. 263–278). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kluge, B. (2007). La acomodación lingüística en la migración: el nivel pragmático. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 5, 69–91. Lambert, R. (1996). Parsing the concept of global competence. In R. Lambert (Ed.), Educational exchange and global competence (pp. 11–24). New York: Council on International Educational Exchange. Li, S. (2018). Cognitive approaches in L2 pragmatics research. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 113–127). New York: Routledge. Márquez Reiter, M., & Placencia, M.E. (2005). Spanish pragmatics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Molina Martos, I. (2010). Procesos de acomodación lingüística de la inmigración latinoamericana en Madrid. Lengua y migración, 2, 27–48. Moreno, K. (2009). The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Austin, TX: University of Texas. Morris, K. (2017). Learning by doing: The affordances of task-based pragmatics instruction for beginning L2 Spanish learners studying abroad (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Davis: University of California. Ogiermann, E. (2018). Discourse completion tasks. In A.H. Jucker, K.P. Schneider & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Methods in pragmatics (pp. 229–255). Berlin: De Gruyter. Paige, R., Fry, G., Stallman, E., Josic, J., & Jon, J. (2009). Study abroad for global engagement: The long-term impact of mobility experiences. Intercultural Education, 20, 29–44. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Shively, R. (2019). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad settings. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 355–371). New York: Routledge. Petrucci, P. (2007). Heritage scholars in the ancestral homeland: An overlooked identity in study abroad research. Sociolinguistic Studies, 1, 275–296. Pinto, D. (2018). Heritage Spanish pragmatics. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 190–202). New York: Routledge. Pinto, D., & Raschio, R. (2007). A comparative study of requests in heritage speaker Spanish, L1 Spanish, and L1 English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 135–155. Placencia, M.E. (1998). Pragmatic variation: Ecuadorian Spanish vs. Peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 2, 71–106. Quan, T. (2018). Language learning while negotiating race and ethnicity abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 30, 32–46. Quan, T., Pozzi, R., Kehoe, S., & Menard-Warwick, J. (2018). Spanish heritage language learners in study abroad across three national contexts. In C. Sanz &

116

Rachel L. Shively

A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 437–451). New York: Routledge. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 405–421. Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shively, R.L. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 105–137. Shively, R.L. (2018). Naturalistic data in L2 pragmatics research: Challenges and opportunities. In A. Gudmestad & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Critical reflections on data in second language acquisition (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shively, R.L. (2020). Pragmatics instruction and assessment in study abroad research. In D. Koike & C. Félix-Brasdefer (Eds.), Handbook of Spanish pragmatics. New York: Routledge. Showstack, R. (2016). La pragmática transcultural de los hablantes de herencia de español: análisis e implicaciones pedagógicas. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 3, 143–156. Showstack, R. (2018). Spanish and identity among Latin@s in the U.S. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 92–106). New York: Routledge. Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taguchi, N. (2016). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the study abroad research. Language Teaching, 51, 124–137. Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. New York: Routledge. Taguchi, N., & Collentine, J. (2018). Language learning in a study-abroad context: Research agenda. Language Teaching, 51, 553–566. Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S. (2016). Effects of intercultural competence and social contact on speech act production in a Chinese study abroad context. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 775–796. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112. Twombly, S.B., Salisbury, M.H., Tumanut, S.D., & Klute, P. (2012). Who studies abroad and who does not. In K. Ward & L. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 38 (pp. 37–65). San Francisco: Wiley. van Compernolle, R. (2018). Vygotskian cultural-historical psychology in L2 pragmatics. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 145–160). New York: Routledge. Van Der Meid, J. (2003). Asian Americans: Factors influencing the decision to study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 71–110. Vann, R. (1998). Pragmatic transfer from less developed to more developed systems: Spanish deictic terms in Barcelona. In A. Schwegler, B. Tranel & M. UribeEtxebarria (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 307–317). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

6

The pragmatic development of heritage speakers of Spanish studying abroad in Argentina Rebecca Pozzi, Chelsea Escalante, and Tracy Quan

Introduction When it comes to pragmatics in the Spanish-speaking world, sociocultural norms underlying what is considered appropriate to say to whom and in what situation vary considerably from region to region. Study abroad (SA) students who enter a community with different norms than their own are faced with the challenge of acquiring pragmatic competence, or “the ability to say the right things in the right way at the right time” (Pinto, 2002, p. 20), in the target language and culture. Such knowledge allows them to use culturally and situationally appropriate structures, particularly when it comes to address forms and speech acts. These structures, however, are often acquired slowly in naturalistic environments (Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985) and tend to remain imperceptible to uninstructed SA students (Barron, 2003; Bataller, 2010; Cohen & Shively, 2007). While explicit instruction may enhance the pragmatic competence of second language (L2) learners abroad (Shively, 2011, 2015), such instruction for heritage speakers (HSs) has been underexplored. Pragmatics is important for HSs in SA since they may face certain challenges when studying in a Spanish-speaking country, such as choosing whether to adopt the pragmatic norms of the local variety, particularly if they study in a non-ancestral country (e.g., Mexican Americans studying in Argentina) in which the norms differ from their home variety and in which they may be judged as rude or impolite due to their pragmatic choices (see Shively, chapter 5, this volume). In addition, HSs’ Spanish language variety, accent, and/or race may influence how others perceive their pragmatic practices. Research on this topic may therefore benefit from expanding its focus to examine not only HSs’ pragmatic choices but also the reasons for those choices and how they relate to HSs’ SA experiences. Studies may also explore the ways in which HSs desire to communicate particular social intentions, convey certain identities, or challenge predominant assumptions about how language and identity influence their choice to adopt or reject the pragmatic norms of the host community. HSs may have acquired norms used among Spanish speakers in their families and/or communities in the United States but may not have

118

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

developed pragmatic abilities or competence across a range of settings (Gironzetti & Koike, 2017; Shively, chapter 5, this volume). It may thus be beneficial for HSs to study and practice the way language is used across social contexts in order to better understand the connection between context and meaning and the ways in which language use is associated with social value (Colombi, 2009). An SA context, in which HSs are likely to encounter a variety of situations in Spanish, and in which they may receive explicit pragmatics instruction, could provide them with an opportunity to expand their pragmatic competence and metapragmatic awareness. Employing a case study approach, this chapter investigates the impact of a one-week instructional treatment about a regional address form, vos (second-person singular informal pronoun and its corresponding conjugations), on the pragmatic choices and metapragmatic awareness of two Mexican American HSs enrolled in an 11-week Argentine culture course in Mendoza, Argentina. Prior to embarking on the SA sojourn, participants had not been exposed to vos, which is a highly frequent, salient (Schreffler, 1994), stable prestige norm (Fontanella de Weinberg, 1992) used uniformly in place of tú across social levels in Argentina (Lipski, 1994). We present data regarding the two focal participants’ use and metapragmatic understanding of vos in order to highlight individual patterns and suggest correlations between these results and participants’ backgrounds, goals, and experiences during their sojourn.

Previous research Sociolinguistic and ideological concerns in heritage language pragmatics As Showstack and Wilson (2020) have noted, pragmatics research on HSs should not ignore the complex sociolinguistic and ideological factors at play in bilingual communities, such as the role of language contact and the ideologies surrounding the idealized native speaker. HSs possess a wide repertoire of discursive practices unique to their experiences and contexts of acquisition, including code-switching and borrowing (Garciá & Wei, 2014; Zentella, 1997). Yet because pragmatics research is so tightly intertwined with the idea of contextual appropriateness, value judgments regarding what is deemed appropriate to say to whom in what context vary depending not only on the situation but also on the stance and varieties of the interlocutors or judges of appropriateness. Although previous criticism of appropriateness models has focused primarily on pedagogical approaches that consider some varieties to be more appropriate for use in certain contexts, the premise of this criticism remains the same for judging appropriateness in pragmatics research. Using an appropriateness model might prescribe which language varieties are appropriate in a particular context, thus propagating hegemonic discourses regarding the legitimacy of particular varieties over others (Fairclough, 1992; Leeman, 2005; Showstack, 2010). The use of such

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

119

a model to examine HSs’ pragmatic choices is particularly problematic, since interlocutors in the host community or judges of appropriateness may not be familiar with the contact phenomena present in US Spanish and may hold biases against hybrid linguistic practices or the use of innovative features from HSs’ home varieties. Consequently, this may lead to negative judgments of HSs’ pragmatic competence. Moreover, comparing a learner’s pragmatic choices to those of an idealized monolingual native speaker, as has traditionally been the basis for L2 acquisition studies (Firth & Wagner, 1997), fails to account for individual variation and for differences between monolingual speakers and multilingual speakers such as HSs (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007; Ortega, 1999). Showstack and Wilson (2020) remind us that pragmatic competence in a bilingual context requires speakers to have the dexterity necessary to express and respond to a particular discourse in a contextually appropriate way given local pragmatic norms. With this in mind, they join Pinto (2012), Showstack (2016), and Villa (2002) in cautioning against comparing HSs’ practices to those of their relatives living in the region of their heritage, since the strategies used in each context may not be contextually appropriate in the other and such comparisons run the risk of positioning HSs as deficient speakers. Lastly, as other chapters in this volume indicate (see Escalante, chapter 4; Geeslin et al., chapter 1; Shively, chapter 5), HSs may resist the adoption of features characteristic of Spanish varieties other than their home variety. Thus, their use of pragmatic strategies from their home dialect in a different context such as SA does not necessarily indicate that they are not acquiring local forms but instead might suggest that they do not choose to use the host variety. The pragmatic systems of Spanish HSs While many studies have explored the syntactic and lexical features of HSs of different speech communities in the United States (Moreno, 2007; SilvaCorvalán, 1994), relatively few have examined the pragmatic systems of such speakers and how they carry out speech acts in different contexts (see Escalante, 2017; Finestrat & Potowski, 2016; Pinto & Raschio, 2007; Showstack, 2016). Of these studies, Showstack (2016) found that HSs used an intercultural style that incorporates pragmatic strategies of both the majority and minority language varieties. For example, although HSs used apology expressions (e.g., lo siento, “sorry”) to a greater degree than more Spanish-dominant speakers, they used more hearer-oriented apologies (e.g., perdóname, “pardon me”) and recognized their responsibility in offenses (e.g., Cometí un error, “I made a mistake”) more than English dominant L2 speakers (p. 151). In addition, there has been some exploration of speakers’ metapragmatic awareness, or the knowledge and awareness of the ways in which variable forms index social meaning. The Spanish address system is often used in such

120

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

analyses (see Brown, 1975; Escalante, 2017), as its pronouns tú, usted, and vos serve as options to express the second-person singular, with each indexing different dynamics of power and social distance within a given speech community. Kagan (2012) has suggested that HSs may lack the ability to adjust their speech to a conversational partner who is not a relative or a friend, citing an anecdote in which an HS of Russian addressed his professor as “Uncle Sasha”, which is the way Russian children address older male relatives and family friends, but not professors. Other research has suggested that HSs are not monostylistic (see Escalante, 2017) but rather that they are sensitive to shifting dynamics of power and social distance, as evidenced by the way in which their terms of address change depending on the context, generally mirroring the forms of address used by speakers in the region of their heritage. However, Escalante (2017) also found that HSs in her study tended to produce inconsistencies in their forms of address to a greater extent than natives of the region of their heritage, for example, using usted in an opening greeting but then switching to tú later in the discourse. The findings of these studies suggest a wide range of pragmatic choices and degrees of metapragmatic awareness among HSs, which reflects this population’s diversity of origins, backgrounds, individual experiences, and competencies. As several authors have noted (see Belz & Kinginger, 2002, 2003; Kinginger, 2000), the address form systems of many Romance languages are “inherently ambiguous” (Kinginger & Farrell, 2004) and cannot be acquired as a set of straightforward rules. Instead, such acquisition is a matter of language socialization, which involves prolonged exposure to a speech community and a wide variety of social situations and interactions. Research suggests that explicit pragmatics instruction can help all language learners – L2 learners and HSs alike – to notice cross-cultural pragmatic norms and equip themselves with the tools to communicate their messages successfully given the many contextual variables present in naturalistic settings (Gironzetti & Koike, 2017). Many studies related to explicit pragmatics instruction focus on the context of SA as an ideal vehicle for pragmatic development (Cohen and Shively, 2007; Félix-Brasdefer, 2013; Sessarego, 2007, 2009; Shively, 2010, 2011, 2015). In fact, the SA context may be particularly rich for exploring the extent to which HSs are aware of their pragmatic choices and what those choices index in the host community, especially when they study in a nonancestral country. Examining these questions allows researchers to move away from determining “appropriateness” of pragmatic choices and instead move toward a better understanding of HSs’ choices and their reasoning for those choices in light of their experiences, goals, intended social meanings, and desired identities. With this in mind, this study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1.

How does the use of tú, vos, and usted and metapragmatic awareness of this use change among two Spanish HSs of Mexican descent during an 11-week SA program in Mendoza, Argentina?

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina 2.

121

How are participants’ pragmatic choices and metapragmatic awareness with respect to address forms related to their backgrounds, goals, and experiences abroad?

Methodology Context and participants We conducted case studies on two HSs of Mexican descent: Leticia and Cristina. Both were university students who identified as females and studied abroad in Mendoza, Argentina for 11 weeks as part of an SA program organized in conjunction with their large public home institution in the United States. Their background information is displayed in Table 6.1. All names are pseudonyms, and all procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board. Although the program consisted of 20 students total – 14 L2 learners and six HSs from their home university in California – only three HSs elected to participate in this study. We focused on two of those students since their backgrounds, goals, and experiences abroad varied, resulting in distinct case studies. Students in the program were placed in beginning, intermediate, or advanced tracks based on the level of classes they had previously taken at their home university. Courses offered in the program were taught by instructors from the host or the home university. The first author of this chapter was an instructor for an advanced course on Argentine culture in the program. The two HSs who participated in this study were in the advanced track, and thus took that course. Nevertheless, as seen in Table 6.2, their approximate proficiency levels – as indicated by the Versant test at the beginning, the end, and four months after the sojourn – varied from Intermediate High to Very Advanced/Superior. Although the Versant test was not designed to assess HSs’ proficiency, it was used to better understand students’ abilities in Spanish due to its external scoring, short administration time, and high correlation with the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages proficiency levels. The individual Versant results are discussed further in the case studies. Table 6.1 SHS background information Pseudonym

Age

Birthplace

Heritage

Age of arrival in US

Childhood home

Leticia

19

Salinas, CA

20

Mexican American Mexican American

Age 5

Cristina

Irapuato, MX Sacramento, CA

N/A

Sacramento, CA

122

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

Table 6.2 Participants’ Versant scores Participant

Pre-SA Versant score

Post-SA Versant score

Versant score 4 months after SA

Leticia Cristina

76 (Advanced Mid) 59 (Intermediate High)

74 (Advanced Mid) 80 (Very Advanced, Superior)

78 (Advanced Mid) 80 (Very Advanced, Superior)

With the aim of fostering students’ linguistic development during the sojourn, all students in the SA program stayed with host families, and Argentine conversation partners from the host university in Mendoza were invited to attend program events. However, the number of conversation partners present at each gathering varied, and they were not paired with specific SA students. Although the program’s policy was for students to speak exclusively in Spanish, they often resorted to speaking English among themselves outside of class. Explicit pragmatics instruction The Argentine culture course was meant for advanced L2 learners and HSs. It incorporated explicit pragmatics instruction in an effort to raise awareness regarding pragmatic norms in the host community without excluding students’ home varieties (see Fairclough, 2016; Shively, chapter 5, this volume) and it sought to encourage students to exercise agency in their linguistic choices (see Fairclough, 2016; Shively, chapter 5, this volume; Showstack, 2016; Siegel, 2010; Showstack 2016). The explicit instruction on vos (adapted from Shenk, 2014) was carried out during the sixth week of the course. As part of this instruction, students first learned about the use of vos in the Spanish-speaking world, including the various social values it has carried and the diverse ways it has been used in different locations historically. Afterward, the instruction involved requests and apologies (adapted from Maximizing Study Abroad; Shively, 2018), including the use of address forms. Written apologies and requests were elicited from students, followed by homework that required them to write down (a) how their host families said they would respond to the same situations and (b) all of the apologies and requests they heard outside of class, comparing these findings with their own responses. Based on a request from an HS student who wanted to learn how to conjugate vos, the course also incorporated explicit instruction on the formation of vos conjugations in Argentina (i.e., present indicative and command forms),1 including communicative activities using those forms (see Bracken 2007; Shenk, 2014). Nevertheless, the instructor explained that students would not be expected to use the forms after these activities, as the instruction solely intended to promote understanding of how to form the conjugations if students wanted to use them. Moreover, as part of this

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

123

instruction, students reflected on the reactions they had received from Argentines (e.g., host family, conversation partners) about their use of address forms, and discussed potential implications of their dialectal and pragmatic choices across contexts. In this way, students examined the power dynamics at play in their interactions in the host community and reflected on how their linguistic choices allowed them to “conform with or contest sociolinguistic conventions” (Leeman, 2005, p. 41). Following this instruction, students completed a homework assignment in which they (a) interviewed an Argentine about their use of vos and (b) wrote a reflection on their own address form choices as language users outside the classroom and how those choices might reflect their identities in diverse contexts. The objectives of this instruction were to further develop HSs’ abilities to style shift in different situations and contexts, expand their bi- or multidialectal abilities, and “promot[e] [their] agency in accommodating or contesting the norms of any speech community” (Leeman, 2005, p. 42), with the ultimate goal of arming them with the metalinguistic knowledge necessary to be able to defend their linguistic choices. Instruments We administered several instruments, including a written background questionnaire in English based on George (2013) and Kennedy (2012) at the beginning of the sojourn. In addition, the first author carried out approximately 20-minute semi-structured interviews with each participant in Spanish at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, and four months after SA,2 regarding their experiences abroad, their identities, and their pragmatic choices, among other topics that emerged during the discussions. To elicit HSs’ pragmatic choices and metapragmatic awareness, we implemented an adaptation of a written pre and post discourse completion task (DCT) in Spanish (see Appendix), which provided scenarios (two apologies and four requests) and asked participants to respond as a student studying abroad in Argentina (see Pinto, 2002). Although written DCTs are not authentic or interactive (Taguchi, 2016), they are widely used in interlanguage pragmatics research and they provide control and comparability across speakers (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013). The scenarios were ordered differently in the pre and post DCTs, and they varied with respect to the relationship to the interlocutor, social distance, and the severity of the situation for apologies (Cohen, Shively, Emert, & Hoff, 2005). In contrast with traditionally used DCTs in interlanguage pragmatics research, ours elicited metapragmatic awareness of address forms after each scenario by asking which address form participants would use for each situation and why3 (see Kinginger, 2008). The components of the explicit instruction and the instruments included in this study were delivered according to the schedule shown in Table 6.3.

124

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

Table 6.3 Schedule for data collection and explicit instruction Data collection schedule

Instruments

Week 1 (pre-SA)

Background questionnaire (English) Preprogram interview (Spanish) Written pre DCT (Spanish) Versant test Mid-program interview (Spanish) Versant test Explicit instruction on vos (Spanish) Post-program interview (Spanish) Written post DCT (Spanish) Versant test Delayed-post interview (Spanish) Versant test

Week 5 (mid-SA) Week 6 Weeks 10–11 (post-SA) 4 months after SA (delayed-post)

Analysis Data on focal HSs were examined through case studies, which provide insight on “students’ dynamic motivations, perceptions, and choices of activity as well as the diverse ways in which they are received within host communities” (Kinginger, 2008, p. 3). Within each case, we employed a mixed-methods approach to explore how participants’ address form choices and metapragmatic awareness were related to their backgrounds, goals, and experiences abroad. With respect to the quantitative analysis, the first author categorized and counted the address forms used by each HS participant in the pre and post DCT responses. Then, we used this information to determine the percentage of the time each address form was used by each participant pre- and postSA. We also calculated the percentage of the time students effectively explained their address form choices in their metapragmatic explanations on the pre and post DCTs, in order to show whether each participant’s metapragmatic understanding increased during the sojourn. Students’ use of address forms in each DCT response was categorized as tú, vos, usted, uncertain, or not applicable (N/A). With respect to the coding of tú and vos, we adhered to the following guidelines based on Kinginger (2008): •

•

•

Each instance of vos, even if both the pronoun and conjugation were used, was counted as one use. Even if the conjugation was incorrect, if it was used with the vos pronoun, then it counted as one use of vos. Vos conjugations were only counted in the present indicative and the command form. Vos was not counted for possessive adjectives, indirect object pronouns, or other verb tenses unless accompanied by the vos pronoun. If both the tú pronoun and/or conjugation and the vos pronoun and/or conjugation were used, one instance of both tú and vos was counted.

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

125

Responses were coded as uncertain if the verb form could not be determined without explicit use of the pronoun (e.g., das, “you give”, informal – same conjugation in the tú and vos forms; disculpame,“ excuse me”, informal – with an accent mark this would be the tú form, and without it this would be the vos form, but since HSs often omit accent marks, such responses were counted as uncertain). Responses were coded as N/A when an address form pronoun or conjugation was not included in the response (e.g., “Lo siento mucho se me hiso tarde”,4 “I’m really sorry I lost track of time”). Regarding the qualitative analysis, metapragmatic information provided on the DCTs that showed which address form participants would use for each scenario and why was carefully considered in relation to the use of an address form in each scenario’s written response. Only those DCT responses that most clearly illustrated participants’ pragmatic and metapragmatic development are highlighted in the analysis. Information about HSs’ backgrounds, goals, and perceptions of their experiences abroad was gathered via background questionnaires and interviews and compared with the DCT results in order to better understand the relationship among these aspects of SA, address form choices, and metalinguistic explanations.

Case studies Leticia Leticia was a 19-year old sophomore psychology major. She was born in Irapuato, Mexico and moved to Salinas, California at the age of five. She chose to study abroad because she grew up speaking Spanish but reported that she had not yet mastered it. Because her university offered programs in Argentina and Spain, and she wanted to study in Latin America, she decided to study in Argentina. According to the Versant test, Leticia’s overall proficiency level was Advanced Mid throughout and following the sojourn. She wanted to become fluent in order to use Spanish in her career, and her goal was to speak like a Mexican because she is from Mexico (background questionnaire). Similar to the case of Lidia in the study by Riegelhaupt and Carrasco (2000), Leticia was corrected by her Argentine host family for using variants from her home variety (e.g., ya tengo aquí una hora, “I have been here for an hour”, as opposed to the way it is often said in Argentina: hace una hora que estoy acá) and was made fun of by conversation partners for the same reason (using ahorita, “right now”, which is often said as ahora mismo in Argentina). These experiences may have affected Leticia’s perception of Argentines, who she described as picky and unaccepting of her Spanish variety. Nevertheless, she indicated that she used vos in order to adapt to the target culture and avoid communication problems, saying “uso el vos pero no voy a andar por la calle diciendo che … creo que usar el vos y como usar el vocabulario de acá es suficiente” (“I use vos but I’m not going to walk down the street saying che ['hey']. … I think that using vos and like using the vocabulary from here is enough”; post-

126

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

program interview). As seen here, Leticia used vos to appease Argentines and ensure that they understood her, but she avoided using other lexical markers of Argentine identity, such as che (see Bracken, 2007, for further details regarding the term che). DCT analysis As seen in Table 6.4, on the pre DCT Leticia did not use tú, although it is the informal form used in her home dialect, but she did not use vos either. Instead, she tended to use usted, avoid the use of address forms altogether (as suggested in the N/A row, which shows that she did not use an address form 50% of the time), or use forms that could not be determined without the use of a pronoun (as indicated in the Uncertain row). On the posttest, while Leticia still did not use the tú form, she used both the vos and usted forms a great deal, which aligns with her aforementioned comment that she used vos in order to facilitate communication while in Argentina. With respect to Leticia’s metapragmatic awareness, on the pretest she often indicated the appropriateness of the use of multiple address forms but demonstrated that she did not understand the contexts in which vos is used in Mendoza. For example, in response to Situation 2, in which Sara, who is studying abroad in Mendoza, arrives 15 minutes late to a meeting with a professor, Leticia indicated that she would use “vos o usted para demostrar respecto” (“vos or usted to demonstrate respect”). However, since vos is the informal address form used in Argentina, usted would be the term of address used there to demonstrate respect. With this in mind, as seen in Table 6.5, Leticia effectively explained why she would use address forms 50% of the time on the pretest, and this increased to 80% of the time on the posttest.

Table 6.4 Leticia’s use of address forms on DCTs Address form

Pretest

Posttest

Tú Vos Usted Uncertain N/A

0% 0% 17% 33% 50%

0% 33% 50% 0% 17%

Table 6.5 Leticia’s metalinguistic understanding

Demonstrated metalinguistic understanding of reasons for use of address forms

Pretest

Posttest

50%

80%

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

127

We now turn to an analysis of two of Leticia’s pre and post DCT responses and metalinguistic explanations. In Situation 4 (see Appendix), Sara, who is studying abroad in Mendoza, goes to a restaurant to meet with friends and asks an older woman at a nearby table if she can use her extra chair. In order to elicit metapragmatic awareness, a follow-up question asked whether Sara would use tú, vos, or usted in this situation and why. As seen in her pre DCT response in Table 6.6, Leticia avoided the use of an explicit address form. Then, in her metalinguistic explanation, she indicated the appropriateness of the use of vos or usted but demonstrated that she did not understand the contexts in which vos is used in Mendoza when, similar to her response to Situation 2, she wrote that she would use vos or usted to be more respectful. In Argentina, vos is used in place of tú, and thus it is not used to indicate respect for an older, unknown person. On the posttest, however, Leticia indicated that she would use usted, not vos, due to the woman’s age, which demonstrated her metapragmatic understanding of the use of usted in contrast with vos. In Situation 6 (see Appendix), Sara misses class one day because she is sick and asks a classmate for the notes the next day. On Leticia’s pre DCT, as seen in Table 6.7, she used me podrías, “could you” (informal), which could be the tú or the vos form of the verb, since the conditional conjugations are the same for both. In her reasoning, she accurately explained that tú or vos would be appropriate because those address forms are used when there is an informal situation or relationship among interlocutors. On the posttest, however, she not only used the vos conjugation of the verb correctly, including the accent mark (me prestás, “would you lend me”, informal), but also her metapragmatic explanation became more nuanced: vos is used because they know each other and they are the same age. Thus, Leticia’s use of vos and the demonstration of her metapragmatic understanding of vos on the post DCT aligns with her comment in the post-SA interview that she used vos in Mendoza in order to adapt and to facilitate communication. Her pre/post responses also suggest that she moved toward using vos in lieu of tú in her DCT responses while abroad, which may be related to the criticism she endured for using variants from her home variety in Mendoza. Table 6.6 Leticia’s pre and post DCT responses to Situation 4 Pretest

Posttest

Answer: Buenos dias! Estuviera bien si pudiera usar esta silla? [Good morning! Would it be OK if I could use this chair?] Reason: vos o usted para que sea más respetuoso [vos or usted to be more respectful]

Answer: Podría usar esta silla por favor? [Could I use this chair please?] Reason: Usted – la señora es mayor [usted – the woman is older]

128

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

Table 6.7 Leticia’s pre and post DCT responses to Situation 6 Pretest

Posttest

Answer: Estuve muy mala ayer me podrías prestar los apuntes por favor. [I was very sick yesterday could you please lend me the notes.] Reason: tú o vos porque es una situación informal. [tú or vos because it’s an informal situation.]

Answer: Me prestás los apuntes de ayer por favor? [Would you please lend me the notes from yesterday?] Reason: Vos – se conocen y son de la misma edad [Vos – they know each other and they’re the same age]

Overall, Leticia reported using vos to facilitate communication in the host community – which was reflected in her written DCTs, in which she used vos 0% of the time at the beginning and 33% of the time at the conclusion of SA. Moreover, her metapragmatic understanding of the use of address forms increased by 30% during the sojourn, from 50% effective metapragmatic explanations at the beginning to 80% at the end. A closer look at Leticia’s DCT responses revealed not only that she was able to use both vos and usted pronouns and conjugations by the end of the sojourn but that this use was accompanied by a more nuanced understanding of why these forms are not used interchangeably. Cristina Cristina was a 20-year-old junior international relations major. She was born and raised in Sacramento to parents from Mexico who were committed to speaking Spanish at home. She wanted to study Spanish in order to formally learn the language she spoke, and her goal was to prepare herself to become an immigration lawyer. She chose to study in Argentina because she preferred to study in Latin America as opposed to the other university-run program in Spain. According to the Versant test, Cristina’s proficiency level went from Intermediate High at the beginning of SA to Very Advanced/ Superior post-SA. Nevertheless, the first author attributed Cristina’s initial score to her lack of familiarity with the test, since she mentioned that she misunderstood the instructions in one of the test sections and her course performance, first interview, and observational data suggested that she began SA with advanced abilities in Spanish. Although Cristina sought to speak Mexican Spanish based on her familial background (background questionnaire), she indicated that while in Argentina she used vos to facilitate communication, sound more native-like, and avoid judgment. Nonetheless, she did not want her use of vos to interfere with her cultural heritage: “quería usar [vos] acá pero también no quería perder la cultura … con la que crecí” (“I wanted to use [vos] here but

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

129

I also didn’t want to lose the culture … I grew up with”; post-program interview). During SA, Cristina seemed to find a way to embrace the maintenance of her own variety of Spanish while learning a new variety of the language through recognizing the benefits of expanding her bilingual range: “me siento más well-rounded porque no solo conozco el español de un país pero el español de dos, y de varias regiones” (“I feel more well-rounded because I not only know the Spanish of one country but the Spanish of two, and from different regions”; post-program interview). DCT analysis As seen in Table 6.8, Cristina’s use of address forms on the pre DCT indicates that she began employing vos right away in Mendoza, using it in place of tú 50% of the time. In addition, she used usted 33% of the time, and an address form could not be determined without the explicit use of a pronoun 17% of the time. Nevertheless, in her posttest responses Cristina often wrote both tú and vos conjugations in her answers, for a combined total of 50% of the time. Moreover, she used usted 25% of the time, and no address form was used 25% of the time. With respect to her metapragmatic awareness, as seen in Table 6.9, Cristina was able to effectively demonstrate metapragmatic understanding for the use of address forms 100% of the time at the beginning and end of the sojourn. This suggests that she was able not only to quickly begin using vos in Argentina (at least on the DCT) but also to understand why it is used and in which contexts, along with the other address forms she was already familiar with prior to SA. Moreover, on the post DCT, in addition to using both tú and vos in a variety of situations, she was able to explain why either form would be appropriate. These responses seem to index her “well-roundedness” based on her ability to use both the home and host varieties, which she expected to prepare her well for her future career as an immigration lawyer in California. In Situation 6 (see Appendix), Sara, who is studying abroad in Mendoza, asks her classmate if she can borrow her notes from the previous class session. As seen in Table 6.10, in Cristina’s pretest response she used vos appropriately (the conjugation das is the same in the tú and vos forms) and she effectively explained that she would use vos in this situation because it Table 6.8 Cristina’s use of address forms on DCTs Address form

Pretest

Posttest

Tú Vos Usted Uncertain N/A

0% 50% 33% 17% 0%

25% 25% 25% 0% 25%

130

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

is informal. On the posttest, however, not only did Cristina use the correct tú and vos conjugations, but her metapragmatic explanation became more nuanced, as she explained that either form is appropriate because the interlocutor is a classmate and the relationship is informal. Similarly, in her responses to Situation 5 (see Table 6.11) – in which Sara asks her roommate to clean the bathroom – Cristina wrote the vos pronoun and conjugation correctly on the pretest (the conditional conjugation is the same in the tú and vos forms) and both the tú and vos pronouns followed by their respective conjugations on the posttest. Moreover, her reasons shifted over time: on the pretest she explained that vos would be used with a roommate, whereas on the posttest she indicated the respective country in which tú or vos would be used. Table 6.9 Cristina’s metalinguistic understanding Pretest Demonstrated metalinguistic understanding of reasons for use 100% of address forms

Posttest 100%

Table 6.10 Cristina’s pre and post DCT responses to Situation 6 Pretest

Posttest

Answer: Me das vos los apuntes de ayer? [Would you give me (informal) the notes from yesterday?] Reason: Vos porque es informal [Vos because it is informal]

Answer: Me puedes/podés prestar tus apuntes? [Can you (tú form)/(vos form) lend me your notes?] Reason: Tú o vos porque es una compañera – no formal [Tú or vos because she is a classmate – not formal]

Table 6.11 Cristina’s pre and post DCT responses to Situation 5 Pretest

Posttest

Answer: Podrías vos limpiar de nuevo porque estoy muy ocupada. [Could you (informal) clean again because I’m very busy.]

Answer: Puedes/Podés limpiar el baño de nuevo y yo lo lavo después por una semana? [Can you (tú form)/(vos form) clean the bathroom again and I will wash it after that for a week?] Reason: Tú en Estados Unidos y vos en Argentina [Tú in the United States and vos in Argentina]

Reason: Vos porque es compañera [Vos because she is a roommate]

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

131

Although this use of both the tú and vos forms in her post DCT responses is not ideal for the purposes of quantifying address form use on written DCTs, and such responses would not have been possible in real-time oral discourse, Cristina’s responses incorporating both forms were striking because they are in line with her post-SA statement about how she used vos to communicate with Argentines but not at the expense of her cultural heritage, which she upheld through her use of tú. In this way, Cristina demonstrated how she elected to position her variety not as inferior to that of the host culture but rather as parallel to it, through purposely using both forms alongside each other. Thus, she exercised agency in making linguistic choices that aligned with her “well-rounded” identity that permits her to use both varieties (see Fairclough, 2016; Shively, chapter 5, this volume; Showstack, 2016; Siegel, 2010). Overall, during SA, Cristina aimed to speak Mexican Spanish due to her familial background, but she also reported using vos in order to facilitate communication. She reconciled this through coming to appreciate her ability to use both the home and host varieties of Spanish, which she expected to serve her well as a bilingual immigration lawyer in the United States. In addition, Cristina was able not only to use vos correctly from the beginning of the sojourn but she was also able to effectively explain why she would use it. She may have been able to do this because, as the first author suggests based on observations and the initial interview, Cristina seemed to begin SA with Very Advanced/Superior proficiency, despite initial Versant results to the contrary. This high proficiency level may have permitted her to recognize, understand, and use vos appropriately, even without explicit instruction. Finally, in Cristina’s post-SA DCT responses, she wrote the pronouns and correct conjugations of both tú and vos for the informal situations and justified these choices with nuanced explanations, thus indexing her “well-rounded” ability to employ multiple varieties of Spanish through her pragmatic choices. Explicit instruction may have (1) deepened Cristina’s development of metapragmatic awareness (seen in her more nuanced metapragmatic explanations post-SA) and (2) affected her strategic use of pragmatic choices to index a particular identity (seen in her use of both tú and vos post-SA).

Discussion In response to the first research question regarding how the use of address forms and metapragmatic awareness of this use changed throughout the sojourn, Leticia’s DCT responses suggest that she expanded her understanding of how, when, and why to use vos in Mendoza; however, since Cristina was able to correctly use and effectively explain her use of vos at the beginning of SA, her gains seemed to be related to metapragmatic awareness and making intentional pragmatic choices in order to index her desired “well-rounded” identity. Explicit instruction likely played a role in the pragmatic development of both participants, particularly with respect to the

132

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

increase in metapragmatic understanding indicated through more nuanced metapragmatic explanations in both participants’ post-SA responses. This finding aligns with previous L2 Spanish pragmatics research in SA contexts, in which a combination of explicit instruction and naturalistic interaction aids in pragmatic development (Shively, 2011, 2015). In regards to the second research question regarding how participants’ backgrounds, goals, and experiences were related to their pragmatic choices and metapragmatic awareness, participants’ decisions to use vos were related to their personal and professional identities and their goals for the use of Spanish while abroad in Argentina and in the future. The participants embarked on an SA program in order to develop their overall Spanish abilities for future professional use (Leticia for her future career and Cristina to better serve diverse Spanish-speaking clients as an immigration lawyer). Their enhanced metapragmatic awareness aligned with those goals; yet they also chose to maintain their home varieties of Spanish and their Mexican heritage. For both participants, this meant purposefully using vos while in the host community in order to facilitate communication. Moreover, they gained metapragmatic awareness regarding which address form to employ (tú, vos, or usted) and why. In this way, they seemed to broaden their pragmatic competence through expanding their pragmatic repertoires thanks to the knowledge of both the home and target varieties of Spanish. This result is in line with the goal of the explicit instruction employed in this study: not to suggest that HSs produce language like monolingual Spanish speakers of the target variety but to expand their pragmatic competence in an effort to prepare them to claim their desired identities through their language choices and defend those decisions (Leeman & Serafini, 2015; Martínez, 2003). As seen here, the pragmatic competence we explored in this chapter moved away from solely investigating whether learners “say the right things in the right way at the right time” (Pinto, 2002, p. 20) or determining the level of “appropriateness” of learners’ pragmatic choices, as has traditionally been the case in interlanguage pragmatics research. Instead, we expanded our examination of pragmatic competence to describe, not prescribe, participants’ pragmatic choices, to take into account their metapragmatic awareness, and to consider the ways in which their pragmatic choices could relate to their social intentions, the identities they may wish to convey in a particular context and in the future, and the possibility that they might desire to challenge prevailing assumptions about language and identity through their pragmatic choices.

Conclusion While these findings add to the growing field of heritage language pragmatics, there are some limitations to this study. First, although having only two participants allowed for an in-depth look at the ways in which their experiences related to their pragmatic choices and metapragmatic understanding, the small sample size also reduced the generalizability of the results. Second, a

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

133

written DCT may not be reflective of what a speaker would actually say in a given situation. Future research may wish to triangulate DCT data with naturalistic recordings and/or role plays, as well as explore other possible instructional interventions. Third, in the post DCT, participants may have sought to produce language that they believed the researcher – who was also their instructor – wanted them to use, since she had provided instruction on the topic in their course. Future studies could employ a researcher who is not an instructor to administer the instruments or compare the results of students who received explicit instruction with the results of those who did not. In sum, this study is one of the first to describe and explain how Spanish HSs develop their pragmatic competence during SA, an underexplored and undertheorized area of Spanish heritage language research and pedagogy (Gironzetti & Koike, 2017). This chapter aimed to contribute to and problematize pragmatic research and approaches for HSs, providing a more descriptive explanation rather than a prescriptive one that uses monolingual Spanish speakers as the target (see Bachelor & Hernández, 2012; Pinto, 2012). Lastly, since both participants seemed to increase their metapragmatic awareness of address forms, and Leticia demonstrated greater knowledge of how and when to use vos after explicit instruction, this suggests that both SA and explicit pragmatics instruction may influence the expansion of HSs’ pragmatic repertoires.

Notes 1 The present indicative is formed by taking the “r” off of the infinitive form, adding an “s”, and adding an accent to the final vowel of the verb, as in vos hablás. The imperative is formed by taking the “r” off of the infinitive form and adding an accent to the last vowel, as in hablá. 2 Although delayed posttest data were collected, the discussion of that data is outside the scope of this chapter. 3 Results from a pilot DCT including this question regarding metapragmatic awareness revealed that not all situations elicited explicit use of an address form. Therefore, in this study’s DCT, we adapted the metapragmatic awareness question after each situation to ask whether students would use tú, vos, or usted if they had to and why. This not only ensured elicitation of an address form for each situation but also provided information regarding students’ understanding of the use of such terms. 4 Participant quotations are reported verbatim with original grammatical, lexical, and, if applicable, orthographic choices, and were translated by the authors as necessary.

References Bachelor, J.W. & Hernández, L. (2012). Is Spanish pragmatic instruction necessary in the L2 classroom if Latin American speakers of Spanish take on American English pragmatic norms once prolonged exposure in the United States occurs? A study on refusal strategies. Faculty Scholarship – Spanish. Paper 1. http://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/ span_facp/1.

134

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Bataller, R. (2010). Making a request for a service in Spanish: Pragmatic development in the study abroad setting. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 160–175. Belz, J.A., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189–214. Belz, J.A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53, 591–647. Brown, D. (1975). The use of “Tú” and “Usted” with parents by some Mexican American students. Hispania, 58(1), 126–129. Bracken, J. (2007). Che boludo. Bariloche, Argentina: Editorial Caleuche. Cohen, A.D., & Shively, R.L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 189–212. Cohen, A.D., Shively, R.L., Emert, H.A., & Hoff, J.G. (2005). Maximizing study abroad through language and culture strategies: Research on students, study abroad program professionals, and language instructors. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Colombi, M.C. (2009). A systemic functional approach to teaching Spanish for heritage speakers in the United States. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 39–49. Escalante, C. (2017). Te lo pido por favor: Estrategias de cortesiá de hablantes de herencia del español Mexicano. Normas, 7(2), 273–296. Fairclough, N. (1992). The appropriacy of ‘appropriateness’. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 33–56). London: Longman. Fairclough, M. (2016). Incorporating additional varieties to the linguistic repertoires of heritage language learners. In M. Fairclough, S. Beaudrie, S. Roca & G. Valdés (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 143–165). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2013). Refusing in L2 Spanish: The effects of the context of learning during a short-term study abroad program. In O. Marti ́ Arnandiz & P. Salazar-Campillo (Eds.), Refusals in instructional contexts and beyond (pp. 147–173). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Finestrat, I., & Potowski, K. (2016). Requests and refusals among bilingual Mexican-Americans. In Paper presented at the 8th International Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300. Fontanella de Weinberg, M.B. (1992). El español de América. Madrid: Editorial Mapfre. ́ O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Garcia, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. George, A.A. (2013). The acquisition of Castilian dialectal features during a semester abroad in Toledo, Spain (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

135

Gironzetti, E., & Koike, D. (2017). Bridging the gap in Spanish instructional pragmatics: From theory to practice [Acortando distancias en la enseñanza de la pragmática del español: De la teoriá a la práctica]. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 3(2), 89–98. Kagan, O. (2012). Intercultural competence of heritage language learners: Motivation, identity, language attitudes, and the curriculum. Proceedings of the Second Intercultural Competence Conference, 2, 72–84. Kennedy, K.M. (2012). What we don’t learn in the classroom: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence during study abroad (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Davis: University of California. Kinginger, C. (2000). Learning the pragmatics of solidarity in the networked foreign language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 23–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–124. Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 19–42. Kramsch, C.J., & Whiteside, A. (2007). The fundamental concepts in second language acquisition and their relevance in multilingual contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 91(Focus Issue), 907–922. Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 35–45. Leeman, J., & Serafini, E. (2016). Sociolinguistics and heritage language education: A model for promoting critical translingual competence. In M. Fairclough & S. Beaudrie (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lipski, J. (1994). Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman. Martínez, G. (2003). Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1) 1–14. ́ Moreno, F. (2007). Adquisición de segundas lenguas y Sociolingü istica. Revista de Educación, 343, 55–70. Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 303–325). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ortega, L. (1999). Language and equality: Ideological and structural constraints in foreign language education in the US. In T. Huebner & K. A. Davis (Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA (pp. 243–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pinto, D. (2002). Perdóname, ¿llevas mucho esperando? Conventionalized Language in L1 English and L2 Spanish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Davis: University of California. Pinto, D. (2012). Pragmatics and discourse: Doing things with words in Spanish as a heritage language. In S. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 121–138). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

136

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

Pinto, D., & Raschio, R. (2007). A comparative study of requests in heritage speaker Spanish, L1 Spanish, and L1 English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(2), 135–155. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 405–421. Schreffler, S.B. (1994). Second-person singular pronoun options in the speech of Salvadorans in Houston, Texas. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 1, 101–119. Sessarego, C. (2007). La enseñanza de la pragmática: Principios de un enfoque didáctico para nivel principiante en un entorno universitario anglófono. Hispania, 90(2), 316–327. Sessarego, C. (2009). Pragmatic language instruction and beginner learners ́ of Spanish: A discourse approach to pragmalinguistics. Estudios de lingüistica aplicada, 27(49), 97–120. Shenk, E.M. (2014). Teaching sociolinguistic variation in the intermediate language classroom: Voseo in Latin America. Hispania, 97(3), 368–381. Shively, R.L. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of pragmatics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 105–137. Shively, R.L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1818–1835. Shively, R.L. (2015). Developing interactional competence during study abroad: Listener responses in L2 Spanish. System, 48, 86–98. Shively, R.L. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shively, R. (2018). Study abroad. In K. Potowski. The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage/minority language (pp. 408–419). New York, NY: Routledge. Showstack, R. (2010). Going beyond “appropriateness”: Foreign and heritage language students explore language use in society. In B. Dupuy & L. R. Waugh (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference on the development and assessment of intercultural competence (pp. 358–377). Tucson: CERCLL, University of Arizona. Showstack, R.E. (2016). La pragmática transcultural de los hablantes de herencia de español: Análisis e implicaciones pedagógicas. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 3(2), 143–156. Showstack, R., & Wilson, D. (2020). Research on pragmatics learning, teaching and curricula for heritage speakers. In D.A. Koike & C. Felix-Brasdefer (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish pragmatics. New York: Routledge. Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Oxford University Press. Taguchi, N. (2016). Learning speech style in Japanese study abroad: Learners’ knowledge of normative use and actual use. In R. A. Van Compernolle & J. McGregor (Eds.), Authenticity, language and interaction in second language contexts (pp. 82–108). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Villa, D.J. (2002). The sanitizing of U.S. Spanish in academia. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 222–230. Zentella, A.C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage speaker pragmatics in Argentina

137

Appendix DCT (Adapted from Pinto, 2002) Nombre _____________ Instructor _____________ Fecha _____________ Sara es una estudiante extranjera que está estudiando en la Argentina. Escribe lo que Sara les dice a las personas indicadas en las siguientes situaciones. 1 Sara está en la casa de su amigo, Natalia, y por accidente se le cae la bebida en el piso. Sara le dice a Natalia: “____________________________________________________________” En esta situación, si Sara tuviera que usar tú, vos o usted, ¿cuál usaría? Explica por qué. 2 Sara se va a reunir con su profesora para hablar del próximo examen y Sara llega 15 minutos tarde. Sara le dice a su profesora: “____________________________________________________________” En esta situación, si Sara tuviera que usar tú, vos o usted, ¿cuál usaría? Explica por saludaqué. 3 Sara va a un café para tomar algo y tiene mucha sed. La mesera la saluda y… Sara le dice a la mesera: “____________________________________________________________” En esta situación, si Sara tuviera que usar tú, vos o usted, ¿cuál usaría? Explica por qué. 4 Sara va a un restaurante para encontrarse con amigos. Cuando llega, no hay ninguna silla libre en la mesa donde están sentadas pero hay una silla que no está ocupada en una mesa cercana donde está sentada una mujer mayor. Sara va a su mesa y le dice a la mujer… “____________________________________________________________” En esta situación, si Sara tuviera que usar tú, vos o usted, ¿cuál usaría? Explica por qué.

138

Rebecca Pozzi et al.

5 Este fin de semana Sara tiene que limpiar el baño porque su compañera de cuarto, María, lo hizo el fin de semana pasado. El problema es que Sara está muy ocupada y no tiene tiempo, entonces decide pedirle a María que lo haga por ella. Sara le dice a María: “____________________________________________________________” En esta situación, si Sara tuviera que usar tú, vos o usted, ¿cuál usaría? Explica por qué. 6 Sara está enferma y no va a clase. Al día siguiente cuando va a clase, decide pedirle los apuntes a una compañera de clase que es amiga suya. Sara le dice a su compañera: “____________________________________________________________” En esta situación, si Sara tuviera que usar tú, vos o usted, ¿cuál usaría? Explica por qué.

Section III

Identity

7

Heritage speakers of Spanish and study abroad Shifting identities in new contexts Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

Introduction Growing attention to globalization and an emphasis on internationalization at US universities have led to an increase in study abroad (SA) among US students in recent decades (Institute of International Education, 2019; Twombly, 2012). This growth of SA has coincided with the increased presence and recognition of heritage language learners (HLLs) in Spanish classrooms (Torres & Turner, 2017), as well as a heightened attention to socio-affective and identity concerns throughout applied linguistics (e.g., Block, 2009; Norton, 2013). Together, these trends have led researchers to explore questions of identity in Spanish heritage language (SHL) courses and materials (e.g., Leeman, Rabin, & Román-Mendoza, 2011; Parra, 2016; Showstack, 2018). More recently, scholars have also examined Spanish HLLs and identity in SA contexts, the focus of the current chapter. Spanish language education has long been oriented toward White, secondlanguage (L2) learners (Herman, 2002; Train, 2003; Valdés, 1981). Similarly, SA has largely focused on the linguistic development and affective experiences of such students, and has paid far less attention to the needs and interests of ethnoracial and linguistic minority students (Picard, Bernardino, & Ehigiator, 2009; Sweeney, 2013). This has been the case in all aspects of SA, including program design, marketing, curriculum, and student support (Anya, 2017). Nonetheless, despite this neglect, in the 2016–2017 academic year 29.2% of SA students identified as ethnic or racial minorities, an increase of more than 10% over the previous decade (Institute of International Education, 2019). While statistics on the participation of HLLs in SA programs are not available, increased ethnoracial diversity in SA, together with growing numbers of HLLs at US universities, suggests growing numbers of HLLs in SA programs. It is thus essential to explore HLLs’ experiences during SA and to develop programs that meet their needs. In the next section, we provide a brief overview of identity and its relevance for Spanish HLLs. Emphasizing the central role of language in identity construction, performance, and negotiation, we highlight some key issues for HLLs of Spanish. Both here and in the following section on HLL

142

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

identity in Spanish language education, we stress that language ideologies mediate between linguistic practices and social structures, including identity (cf. Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994). Thus, we pay particular attention to language ideologies and their impact both on the portrayal of HLLs and on HLLs’ own sense of self. We then move on to a discussion of research on HLL identity and SA in which we identify key issues and findings. Among other topics, we examine the racialization of Latinx students, their own and others’ expectations regarding their linguistic and sociocultural knowledge, host society and learner attitudes toward linguistic variation and “nonstandard” varieties, as well as tensions between claimed and ascribed ethnoracial, linguistic, and national identities. We conclude with suggestions for future research as well as recommendations for pretravel and in-country programming rooted in critical approaches to language pedagogy.

Sociocultural perspectives on language and identity Within contemporary scholarship, identity is generally understood as a dynamic, social, and cultural phenomenon, rather than a stable internal characteristic of individuals (Block, 2009; He, 2010; Norton, 2013). Although the way that we see ourselves and our place in the world is a key aspect of identity, how others perceive us is also crucial. Thus, contemporary scholarship conceptualizes identities as intersubjectively constructed and negotiated, as well as dependent on where people are and who they are with (Bailey, 2000; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Doerr & Lee, 2013). Participants in SA often have to negotiate their identity within new, locally relevant categories or unfamiliar constructions of known categories, because even when similar identity categories exist in different contexts, the characteristics and social expectations for these identities often vary across settings. For example, while gender, race, and social class are salient categories in many places, the specific ways that these identities are constructed and the social expectations that accompany them vary from place to place. In addition, in the US, educators and fellow students often contrast HLLs to English-speaking L2 learners, but abroad, members of the host society sometimes compare them to monolingual Spanish speakers. Because identity relies on the construction of similarity to and difference from other people, this shift in the point of differentiation has implications both for how HLLs see themselves and for how they are seen by others (cf. Doerr & Lee, 2013; Leeman & Serafini, 2020). A key tenet of sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology is that language plays a central role in the construction and performance of identity. Specific linguistic forms and ways of using language index particular social meanings, and this indexicality allows speakers to enact identities just by talking in certain ways, as well as to ascribe identities to others based on the way they talk (Irvine & Gal, 2000). To take just one example, in Mexico, fresas are a widely recognized social category associated with femaleness,

Heritage identities in study abroad 143 Whiteness, high socioeconomic status, and consumerism (Holguín Mendoza, 2018b). In her research, Holguín Mendoza found that young women used specific linguistic features, including the discourse marker o sea, “I mean”, together with English words and expressions as a way to enact a fresa identity and portray themselves as affluent, cosmopolitan, and geographically mobile. Similarly, people rely on the indexical value of language when making judgments about others, and women who sound like fresas are sometimes assumed to be vapid shopaholics. It is worth emphasizing that the linkages between specific ways of talking and certain attributes, stances, and identity categories are arbitrary, socially constructed, and contextual. In other words, there is no particular reason why o sea should have the social meaning that it does in some regions, and why it does not have that same meaning everywhere. Links like this one, between specific linguistic forms and particular identity categories, can be seen in languages and societies around the world. Because the associations between language and social identity are so strong, people who violate expectations may be judged negatively or have their identity questioned. In particular, Latinxs who do not speak Spanish “fluently” (or at all) sometimes have their ethnoracial authenticity challenged (Fuller & Leeman, 2020; García Bedolla, 2003; Shenk, 2007; Zentella, 1997). For example, one participant in García Bedolla’s research describes being called “Whitesican” based on her lack of Spanish proficiency. The expectation that Latinxs are fluent in Spanish also occurs in Spanish-speaking SA contexts, where members of the host society may be unfamiliar with the patterns of language shift to English that are common in the United States. Further, just as members of the host society may assume that Latinx students are proficient Spanish speakers, they may also assume that Spanish HLLs share their pragmatic norms and local understandings of the social meaning of linguistic features and practices. As a result, they may interpret HLLs’ inadvertent violations of local sociolinguistic norms as rudeness. Of course, non-Latinxs may also violate social norms, but because they are not assumed or expected to speak Spanish, they may be given the benefit of the doubt regarding the intentionality of the offense (Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). It is worth emphasizing that the aforementioned assumption that all Latinxs speak Spanish (and understand Latin American social norms) is part of a broader ideological constellation that equates American identity with Whiteness. This racializing ideology constructs Latinxs and other ethnoracial minorities as “perpetual foreigners” regardless of how many generations their families have been in the United States (Leeman, 2013; Schmidt, 2002). Within this ideological frame, American and Latinx are seen as mutually exclusive categories. Spanish HLLs are thus subjected to a double bind in which they are seen as both inauthentically American and inauthentically Latinx or Latin American, based on their ethnoracial identity as well as their linguistic knowledge and practices. A saying common among first generation Americans of Latin American heritage is that they

144

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

are ni de aquí ni de allá, “neither from here nor from there”, which may reflect their own sense of having bicultural or hybrid identities, but which also points to the Othering they experience both in the United States and in their heritage countries. Another salient way that the relationship between language and identity plays out is related to the standard language ideology, which imagines the existence of a single, invariable, correct way of speaking (Lippi-Green, 2012). While enforcers of this ideology often make it seem like the selection of one variety as the “standard” is arbitrary, in reality the privileged variety is typically the one used by the upper classes. Indeed, ideas about speakers and their relative worth undergird opinions about the perceived value of different language practices. Moreover, this relationship between language and identity is two-way; not only is the preference for the “standard” variety based on the identity of its speakers, the standard language ideology also portrays people who deviate from it as linguistically inferior as well as intellectually and morally deficient. Furthermore, monoglossic and purist ideologies disparage cross-linguistic influences and multilingual or hybrid linguistic practices. As a result, Spanish HLLs may be judged negatively, especially in academic contexts, if they speak varieties perceived as “nonstandard”, use loanwords and calques from English, and/or combine elements from English and Spanish in conversation, a practice often referred to as code-switching or translanguaging (Leeman, 2005; Loza, 2017; Lynch & Potowski, 2014; Potowski, 2002; Showstack, 2012, 2015; Valdés, González, García, & Márquez, 2003). Finally, there are also hierarchical attitudes regarding national varieties, such that some varieties are perceived as more correct and/or more pleasant than others. In particular, Alfaraz (2002, 2018) and Valdés et al. (2003) have shown that varieties of Spanish associated with Indigenous and Afro-descent populations tend to be evaluated more negatively than those associated with Whiter populations.

Identity, Spanish HLLs, and Spanish language education Identity has long been at the center of heritage language education; HLLs’ ethnic identities are often seen as tied to their heritage language (He, 2010; Leeman, 2015), and in the United States the development of SHL as a distinct field has its roots in the identity politics and Chicanx and Puerto ́ Rican social justice movements of the 1960s and 1970s (Leeman & Martinez, 2007; Valdés, 1981). More recently, researchers have also stressed that HLL is itself an identity category, one often imposed by educators and researchers rather than claimed by learners themselves, and whose exact construction and parameters – ancestry, family membership, or linguistic proficiency – are hotly debated (Doerr & Lee, 2013; Hornberger & Wang, 2008; Leeman, 2015). Moreover, the notion of a rigid, binary distinction between heritage learners and L2 learners is problematic both linguistically and in terms of

Heritage identities in study abroad 145 identity (Doerr & Lee, 2013; He, 2010). Instead, like other identities, HLL identity is contextually dependent, and it is constructed, negotiated, validated, and/or challenged in a complex and dynamic manner during social interactions, classroom practices, and institutional discourses (Doerr & Lee, 2009, 2013; Leeman, 2015). Research on identity and SHL has focused largely on portrayals of the quantity and quality of students’ linguistic knowledge. Regarding how much Spanish HLLs know, scholars have critically analyzed how essentialist language ideologies that construct Spanish as indispensable for Latinx identity are reflected and reproduced in SHL contexts. Many textbooks designed for Spanish HLLs imply that authentic Latinx identity is depeń dent upon knowledge and use of (standard) Spanish (Leeman & Martinez, 2007). Showstack (2012) has also documented the reproduction of this ideology in the classroom, where HLLs framed bilingualism as a requirement of bicultural identity. Encouragingly, there is evidence that critical pedagogical approaches can help HLLs disrupt and resist this ideology, as well as foster their confidence and ethnic identity. For example, one student in a study by Beaudrie, Ducar, and Relaño-Pastor (2009) affirmed, “This [SHL] class has made me more aware of how many Mexican-Americans experience the Spanish language and made me feel as though I have rights to my Mexican-American identity despite my trouble with the language” (p. 167). Likewise, Leeman, Rabin, and Román-Mendoza (2011) report that HLLs who participated in critical service-learning programs developed a stronger sense of themselves as legitimate speakers and language experts, regardless of their level of fluency and control of the “standard” variety. Other scholars have also documented Spanish HLLs’ development of positive attitudes toward so-called nonstandard varieties following exposure to critically oriented SHL pedagogies (e.g., Beaudrie, Amezcua, & Loza, 2019; Holguín Mendoza, 2018a; Pascual y Cabo, Prada, & Lowther Pereira, 2017). Regarding the quality of HLLs’ Spanish, researchers have documented the frequent portrayal of HLLs’ Spanish as deficient, nonstandard, and illegitimate. This portrayal is based in part on monoglossic and standard language ideologies. It also reflects hierarchies regarding the value of different varieties of Spanish and the positioning of Peninsular Spanish and/or “global” Spanish as superior to other national and local varieties. The denigration of HLLs’ language is carried out via teaching practices, classroom materials and textbooks, and the implicit and explicit messages that local and/or “nonstandard” varieties are best kept at home, out of public earshot (Leeman, 2005, 2018; Martínez, 2003; Villa, 2002). For example, in her study of a high school Spanish course, Harklau (2009) found that the teachers often “corrected” HLLs’ regional varieties in favor of an “international Spanish” and in other cases insisted on the use of lexical items and grammatical structures used only in Spain, such as vosotros. This linguistic marginalization framed White L2 students as better speakers of Spanish and left HLLs uncertain about “their authenticity as representatives of their own

146

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

home language and culture” (p. 229; for other examples of the privileging of ́ “global” and Peninsular Spanishes, see Ducar, 2009; Leeman & Martinez, 2007). As multiple studies have shown (e.g., Helmer, 2013; Loza, 2017; Showstack, 2015), these ideologies are so powerful that even the most wellintentioned educators may be unaware of how they perpetuate these beliefs in their own classrooms. HLLs themselves also participate in the reproduction of language ideologies by positioning themselves as experts or novices, claiming or resisting authority, and framing their Spanish as an asset or a hindrance (Showstack, 2012). The ideologies of language and identity surrounding Spanish HLLs also play out more broadly in the university and in society at large. In this regard, Reyes (2017) showed how together, the ethnoracial composition of the university student body, the presence or absence of diversity programming, and the particulars of student living arrangements establish either a healthy or a toxic racial climate. Reyes notes that for many Latinx students, attending college is their first experience in a predominantly White community, and they often experience feelings of isolation, marginalization, and culture shock as well as racism and microaggressions on campus (see also Kiyama, Museus, & Vega, 2015; Urciuoli, 2008). The questions of power and identity that operate in other university social, professional, and academic environments also play a role in the Spanish classroom, where they interact with language ideologies. Such issues may be even more influential in SA contexts, given that students’ experiences outside of the classroom can have a greater impact on language and identity development than coursework alone. In addition, the predominantly White racial makeup of SA programs (Institute of International Education, 2019) can be isolating for the students of color who do participate.

Spanish HLLs and study abroad Given the central role that language plays in the construction and negotiation of identity, the expectations among HLLs and members of the host society that Latinxs are or should be linguistically and sociolinguistically proficient make SA a high-stakes venture for HLLs (Petrucci, 2007). In fact, HLLs who expect to be welcomed and treated as members of the host community may be ridiculed, ignored, or even rejected by their hosts, teachers, or compatriots due to their language skills, cultural knowledge, ethnoracial identity and/or appearance. In particular, members of the host society, local instructors, and faculty from their home institutions may judge them negatively if they lack fluency or formal registers, speak a non-prestige variety, or exhibit signs of linguistic influence from English. At the same time, their L2 peers may assume that HLLs “naturally” understand the local language and culture, thus downplaying their efforts and struggles to learn or speak Spanish. This has been found to be the case in Spanish programs in the United States (Leeman & Serafini, 2020; Urciuoli, 2008), and it may be

Heritage identities in study abroad 147 intensified abroad, where L2 students sometimes expect HLLs to serve as translators and cultural go-betweens. Beausoleil (2008) and Moreno (2009) identify the desire to learn about one’s cultural and linguistic heritage as one of the biggest language-learning motivations for HLLs. Given the prevalence of ideologies that link Whiteness and English to US identities, together with the construction of Spanish as a “foreign” language, Spanish HLLs’ linguistic and cultural heritage is often intertwined with both national and ethnoracial identity. For example, Pablo Diego, a Mexican American with strong ties to Mexico and the Spanish language at home in the United States, found that his time living in Mexico strengthened his bond to Mexico and a “Mexican” identity (Moreno, 2009). Initially, he had preferred to identify as “Hispanic”, which allowed him to distance himself from negative stereotypes about poor Mexicans while also suggesting resistance to the construction of US identity as White. Nonetheless, although Pablo Diego was disappointed by some aspects of life in Mexico (such as his perception that laws were commonly broken) and he found it difficult to make friends or connect with other Mexicans, he ended his SA experience embracing a Mexican, rather than a US Latinx, identity: “I finally accepted that I’m not really Mexican American, I’m Mexican … because of who I am, my background. I was born in Mexico, my family is from Mexico, I carry on these Mexican ideals” (Moreno, 2009, p. 137). According to Pablo Diego, his time in Mexico helped him better understand his parents and their point of view, leading him to ultimately reject his US-based identity and reposition himself as Mexican based on his place of birth, heritage, and cultural beliefs. As we noted earlier, identity is not only about aligning oneself with a category or group but also about differentiating oneself from other individuals and groups. HLLs in SA not only may strengthen their connection to the host culture, they also may distance themselves from their L2 American peers. This is apparent in Chang’s (2017) research on the academic, cultural, linguistic, and social experiences of a group of Latina students studying in Guatemala. Data gathered from students’ daily journals, interviews, and observations revealed that HLLs in the program experienced multiple instances of cultural dissonance not just with the host community but also with their American peers within the SA group, the majority of whom were White. The lack of group cohesion, as well as the ideological equation of Whiteness with US identity even among the Latina students (who were all US-born), was made clear by one student comment in particular: “Just like I had observed while growing up, las gringas stayed with las gringas” (p. 11). Further, one Latina participant expressed frustration that even outside of the United States, White students did not seem to make an effort or accept responsibility for communicating with non-English-speaking interlocutors: “I just do not get it, how to make them get out of their comfort zone. I mean for them to try to start a conversation even with hand gestures and negotiate something. I want them to get out of the comfort

148

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

group” (p. 12). Latina students’ reaction to White students’ attitudes and behavior toward the local Guatemalan indigenous community was to distance themselves not just from their White peers but from a broader US-based identity. Other research has revealed that even when HLLs primarily seek to strengthen and develop their identities within the host culture, SA can also lead them to an increased awareness or appreciation of their Americanness. For example, Moreno (2009) analyzed the identity development of Louis, a third-generation Guatemalan American with limited home exposure to Spanish, who went to Guatemala to improve his Spanish, meet relatives, and learn about his Guatemalan heritage. Louis did not identify with Guatemalan cultures before his departure, and yet during his sojourn, he not only found himself eager to claim a Hispanic identity but he also often expressed a desire to reject his Americanness. Ultimately, however, and in contrast to Pablo Diego, he embraced both Latinx and American aspects of his identity, while also suggesting that these need not be seen as mutually exclusive: “I do consider myself Hispanic, but I’m first and foremost American” (p. 119). Similarly, McLaughlin (2001) found that Mexican American students expressed a new perspective on their American, Mexican, and Mexican American identities as a result of studying abroad in Mexico. Likewise, Doerr (2017, p. 9) describes how one student born in Guatemala and raised in the United States from the age of nine identified as “Hispanic, Latin American” both before and after her SA experience in Spain. However, by observing how her American peers reacted to the Spanish culture, she learned more not only about Spanish culture but also about “[her] own” American culture while abroad (p. 9). As Shively (2018) points out, Spanish HLLs’ identity is dependent not only on how they self-identify but also on how they are positioned and identified by members of the host community. While L2 learners are often immediately ascribed a “foreign” or “other” identity based on language skills or physical appearance, Spanish HLLs may go unnoticed by members of the host country and escape being identified as foreign (Petrucci, 2007). However, as some scholars note, being perceived as a member of the “ingroup” can also have a negative impact on HLLs, many of whom report feeling anxiety and pressure to speak like native Spanish speakers due to their Latinx identities and/or phenotypical resemblance to members of the host community (Beausoleil, 2008; Moreno, 2009; Petrucci, 2007). Additionally, these perceptions can contribute to the strong sense of linguistic insecurity – “speakers’ feeling that the variety they use is somehow inferior, ugly or bad” (Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 292) – that many HLLs experience. For example, Moreno (2009) found that many students worried that they would be seen as less intelligent by teachers and community members if their Spanish did not align with that of monolingual Spanish speakers. Similarly, the Mexican American students observed by McLaughlin (2001) experienced a sense of guilt at not being able to meet the

Heritage identities in study abroad 149 host community’s expectations of their Spanish skills by not speaking like native Mexicans, demonstrating the wide reach of language ideologies previously mentioned. Unfortunately, HLLs’ fears of stigmatization or discrimination are not unfounded. In their study on bilingual education teachers in an SA program in Mexico, Riegelhaupt and Carrasco (2000) found a pattern in which White L2 speakers were praised for any knowledge of Spanish they had acquired, while HLLs were consistently found lacking. The harshest judgments were of HLLs who spoke stigmatized varieties associated with racialized groups or lower socioeconomic status. This can be seen in the case of Lidia, a second-generation Mexican American proficient in Spanish, who was rejected by her middle-class Mexican host family due to their negative perceptions of her variety of Spanish. Specifically, the family associated her Spanish, which included phrases and forms such as haiga, “there is” (a stigmatized variant of haya), and venir pa’ tras, “to return” (a calque of the English “to come back”), with lower-class rural Mexico, and they rejected her on this basis. The situation escalated to the point where the host family told the program director that they would not welcome a “Mexican person (whether from Mexico or the United States) who spoke Spanish in such a manner” into their house and requested that the next time they be assigned “una rubia, con ojos azules”, “a blonde woman with blue eyes” (p. 408), underscoring the interrelatedness of language, race, and nation in constructions of standard language, as well as the assignation of moral qualities to language, and the role of language in social exclusion and subordination. Similarly, Quan (2018) reports on the negative SA experience of one student, Caroline, who identified as half African and half Mexican American. Caroline did not report experiencing racism based on her African heritage during the program. However, there were several negative interactions with her host family which she attributed to racialized language attitudes toward Mexican and Latin American language varieties of Spanish. The family’s criticisms of her language ultimately led Caroline to develop insecurities about her linguistic abilities and to distance herself from other Spanish speakers: I felt like my host mom was correcting me a lot. … I guess, I’m just not used to being corrected in that way or not knowing what to do, so it was very … I felt just [dis]- combobulated or just like, ‘Ugh, I don’t know what to do in this situation’ and it’s not really comfortable. (p. 39) In other cases, it is HLLs’ level of Spanish proficiency, rather than their specific language variety, that shapes their reception by members of the host society and, in turn, HLLs’ sense of themselves. In this regard, Chang (2017) describes the frustration that some HLLs reported when they felt like they did not belong in an SA context where they had expected to experience a linguistic and cultural connection. One Latina SA student shares:

150

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver This was my first experience with being spoken to in Spanish and not being able to respond. … When people did speak Spanish, I felt very stupid and like such an outsider. Even when people in our group spoke Spanish I was still really having a hard time trying to figure out what they were saying. (p. 12)

Whereas some HLLs expect to feel a sense of belonging and “returning home” during their SA sojourn, these studies reveal that they may actually be othered and rejected by members of the host community. Language and language ideologies clearly play a significant role in these experiences. However, students of color also encounter other forms of racialization and racism during SA (Anya, 2017), and this can also impact HLLs. For example, Pablo Diego experienced discrimination from his Mexican peers, who assumed he was a member of the lower social class based on his skin tone (Moreno, 2009). Whether based on language, phenotype, or other factors, HLLs whose identity claims are not accepted or validated may experience surprise, insecurity, and emotional pain. Further, having their identity challenged can lead participants in SA to withdraw from social networks within the host culture, and thus it can lead to missed opportunities for language learning, cultural exploration, and social integration (Jackson, 2008; Quan, 2018). Examples of this withdrawal can be seen in the studies we have already described: Lidia experienced so much anxiety that she opted to avoid speaking with her host family altogether and lost confidence in her language skills (Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000), while Caroline’s fear of making mistakes and of being misunderstood or judged led her to spend more time with her English-speaking American peers (Quan, 2018). As is evident in the research we have discussed thus far, the construction of Latinxs as naturally and inherently Spanish speaking together with the privileging of monolingual prestige varieties can result in mismatches between the linguistic and ethnoracial identities claimed by HLLs and those ascribed to them by members of the host society. Latinx students, who in the United States are sometimes portrayed as “perpetual foreigners” or “not quite American”, may be shocked to find that they do not quite fit in with the host society either, and that they are considered Americans or “gringas” (Gorman, 2011, as cited in Shively, 2018; Rubin, 2004). This sense of displacement also impacts those who claim bicultural or hybrid identities, which may not be recognized in the host society. Along the same lines, and consistent with the ideological conflation of Americanness and Whiteness, members of the host society (like many people in the United States) may see American and Latinx as mutually exclusive categories and thus ascribe Spanish HLLs to one or the other, regardless of the complexity of their linguistic practices, life experiences, and sense of identity. In the case of Pablo Diego, his Mexican classmates’ racialized understanding of language and identity was so powerful that they found it difficult to believe that he

Heritage identities in study abroad 151 could speak English better than they could, given that they were Whiter and considered themselves to be of higher socioeconomic status. In fact, they described him as someone who “looked like he should not know how to speak English” (Moreno, 2009, p. 136). Students’ surprise and stress when their identities are challenged and/or their language is critiqued can lead to missed opportunities for cultural exploration, language learning, and positive identity development. In this regard, some HLLs have also reported advantages to being perceived as primarily American rather than Latinx or Latin American. For example, Moreno (2009) comments on Katherine, a self-identified Mexican American who studied abroad in Spain and found relief in being perceived as American rather than Mexican: People in Spain didn’t really see me as being Hispanic, they saw me as being American. So they didn’t really have any high expectations of me so I could just kind of [speak Spanish] at my own pace. Which is a lot harder to do [in the United States]. (p. 116) Because she was considered American, Katherine’s Spanish was no longer judged according to the monolingual standards applied to people considered Latin American in Spain or Latinx in the United States. Universities typically offer only a few SA programs in Spanish-speaking countries, so Spanish HLLs often study in places other than their heritage country. As we have discussed, students’ regional varieties of Spanish may differ significantly from those spoken in the host country, and this can affect their experiences and identity development. In addition, ideologies about prestige may be manifested differently across different regions, and a linguistic feature that is lauded in one place may be rejected as “lower-class” Spanish elsewhere (Cabal Jiménez, 2018). Further, HLLs may be racialized, harassed, or discriminated against in ways that are different from their experiences in the United States or their family’s country of origin. However, in other cases, HLLs are able to make transnational connections, enact shared Latin American identities, and develop local friendships, especially when they are proficient in Spanish. For example, George and Hoffman-Gonzalez (2019) report on the social network that Jessica, a Mexican American HLL studying in Argentina, was able to access. According to those authors George 2019, Jessica’s Spanish proficiency and selfidentification as Mexican rather than American allowed for a nearly seamless integration into the community of local students. Serafini (2020) shares the positive experience that Raquel – a Salvadoran HLL in an intensive, twoweek SA program in Ecuador – had with her host family, Spanish instructors, and program guides, largely due to her advanced Spanish proficiency upon beginning the program. The identity she claimed as a member of a US Latinx linguistic and cultural community likely influenced her interactions with the host community as well. Similarly, Moreno (2009) reports on how two

152

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

Mexican American students in her study used their Mexican heritage to aid in building a large social network while studying in Argentina. In addition to providing opportunities for HLLs to strengthen connections to their ethnic or national origin identities, as well as to gain awareness of their American and/or bicultural identities, SA experiences can also lead to other kinds of identity shifts for some students. Linguistic features associated with different geographic varieties of Spanish are a powerful resource to perform and index both new and existing identities. For example, George and Hoffman-Gonzalez (2019) report on a Mexican American student, Eva, who, as she made friends with Spanish locals during her time in Spain, found herself integrating into the local community while simultaneously distancing herself from her Mexican heritage. Eva’s adoption of several features specific to Peninsular varieties of Spanish, including the interdental fricative /θ/ (vs. /s/) in words like luz (/luθ/), “light”, and the second person plural pronoun vosotros (vs. ustedes), “you guys”, signaled her alignment with Spaniards. In contrast, another Mexican American HLL on the program actively rejected the same linguistic features and explicitly described wanting to keep her own accent, which indexed her Mexican identity. Students' use of regional features may also index other kinds of identity. For example, after returning to the United States, Jessica saw her continued use of Argentine features (such as the second person singular pronoun vos) as “a marker of her being a well-traveled person” (George & Hoffman-Gonzalez, 2019, p. 267), underscoring that HLL identities are not limited to ethnic and national identities. Instead, they are multifaceted and operate at multiple levels; in addition to their multiple and shifting affiliations tied to their linguistic, cultural, ethnoracial, and national characteristics, HLLs have numerous other macro- and micro-level identities (Leeman, 2015).

Implications and future directions The SA experiences of Spanish HLLs discussed in this chapter make clear both the tremendous potential value of SA for HLLs as well as the challenges they face, many of them rooted in ideologies that link particular language varieties and practices to particular social meanings. Specifically, essentialist, standard language, and monoglossic ideologies often converge in the portrayal of HLLs as deficient speakers and illegitimate or inauthentic members of the identity groups with which they align themselves. The symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1991) experienced by some HLLs in SA makes it imperative that program designers and faculty prepare HLLs for the issues they may face and provide them with support to examine these issues critically. Future research should delve further into questions of race and racialization in SA not only by paying more attention to HLLs in general, but also by taking into account the ethnoracial diversity of students included within the HLL category. Researchers might also compare the experiences of Spanish

Heritage identities in study abroad 153 HLLs who study in their country of heritage to those of students who set off for another country that shares the heritage language. For example, Mexican Americans who participate in SA likely have very different experiences and face different challenges in Argentina, Mexico, Peru, and Spain, to mention just a few potential SA sites in Latin America and Europe. Such comparisons should explore questions related to race and racialization, as well as to language variation and linguistic hierarchies. Perhaps because language and ethnoracial identity are so central to the definition of the HLL category, they have received the most focus in research on HLLs and identity in general and in SA in particular. Going forward it will be important to pay attention to other aspects of HLLs’ identities, such as gender, sexuality, and socioeconomic status, among others, and to examine the ways that different social categories intersect both within their home institutions and in SA contexts. Another key area for future research centers more specifically on the educational aspects of HLLs’ SA experiences. There is a need to examine curricula and teaching practices in SA programs as well as their effects on HLLs’ personal, linguistic, and academic development. Relatedly, we know of no studies that have investigated teacher training and professional development programs for both preservice and veteran educators who are preparing to teach in SA. An analysis of the attention, or lack thereof, to HLLs’ needs would be potentially enlightening for SA program design and improvement. Building on critical approaches to SHL (e.g., Holguín Mendoza, 2018a; Leeman, 2005, 2018; Leeman & Serafini, 2016; Martínez, 2003; Prada, 2019), we recommend that pretravel orientations incorporate an introduction to sociolinguistic issues, language ideologies, and identity, including assumptions and stereotypes about ethnoracial and national identities. Such orientations can help both HLLs and L2 learners to develop critical awareness of language ideologies and attitudes in the home and host countries so that they are better able to interpret their experiences, resist the disparaging and racializing discourses they may encounter, and support each other during their time abroad. It will also be important to engage program chaperones and instructors from the home country in ongoing conversations regarding HLLs within SA. Given that many Spanish instructors are unaware of the language ideologies that negatively impact HLLs, SA leaders may be uninformed and therefore unprepared to respond to the needs of HLLs while abroad. Ethnoracial, linguistic, and sociocultural identities are continuously reconstructed over the course of an SA program as students assert and negotiate their relationship and access to the community of the target language (Kinginger, 2013; Petrucci, 2007). Thus, we recommend that support for HLLs also be provided during their sojourns. Efforts should be made to familiarize instructors and families in the host country with the linguistic and cultural profiles of HLLs, as well as to make them aware of dominant

154

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

ideologies of language and identity and the impact they can have on students. In SA programs where housing is included, there is an obligation to provide safe accommodations where students are treated with respect. Although power dynamics and reluctant attitudes may make the discussions on language ideologies and attitudes that we propose challenging or uncomfortable at first, leaders and students need to be prepared to address issues that may come up. Critical analysis and dialogue regarding issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual identity are particularly important for resisting inequities and power structures and fostering favorable SA experiences (Anya, 2017; Willis, 2015). This can also align with the curricular goals of both the SA program and students’ degree programs; see, for example, the discussion by Ruiz Bybee et al. (2018) of an SA program in Guatemala for preservice teachers, in which participants’ coursework, assignments, self-reflections, and community-based projects both deepened their understanding of Guatemalan history and culture and prepared them for working with emergent bilingual immigrant children following their return to the United States. These discussions should include consideration of the ethnoracial diversity of Latinxs (who may identify as Asian, Black, Native, and/or White, among others), as well as activities and engaged critical conversation about what it means to be American, Latinx, and/or a Spanish speaker, and the ways that these categories are constructed through language. Finally, SA designers and leaders should consider post-program debriefing sessions that promote students’ reflection on their SA experiences. This can ensure that students continue to consider and critically analyze language ideologies, power hierarchies, and identity development beyond the boundaries of their SA experience.

References Alfaraz, G. (2002). Miami Cuban perceptions of varieties of Spanish. In D. Long & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (2, pp. 1–11). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Alfaraz, G. (2018). Framing the diaspora and the homeland: Language ideologies in the Cuban diaspora. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2018(254), 49–69. Anya, U. (2017). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge. Bailey, B. (2000). The language of multiple identities among Dominican Americans. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 10(2), 190–223. Retrieved from http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/jlin.2000.10.2.190/full. Beaudrie, S., Amezcua, A., & Loza, S. (2019). Critical language awareness for the heritage context: Development and validation of a measurement questionnaire. Language Testing, 36(4), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219844293. Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Relaño-Pastor, A. (2009). Curricular perspectives in the heritage language context: Assessing culture and identity. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 22(2), 157–174.

Heritage identities in study abroad 155 Beausoleil, A. (2008). Understanding heritage and ethnic identity development through study abroad: The case of South Korea (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Santa Barbara: University of California. Block, D. (2009). Second language identities. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. Cabal Jiménez, M. (2018). Quisiera que me explicara el subjuntivo. Actitudes y percepciones de hablantes de herencia de español en el contexto de estudios en el extranjero. Káñina, 42(3), 287–317. Chang, A. (2017). “Call me a little critical if you will”: Counterstories of Latinas studying abroad in Guatemala. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16(1), 3–23. Doerr, N. (2017). Learning as othering: Narratives of learning, construction of difference and the discourse of immersion in study abroad. Intercultural Education, 28(1), 90–103. Doerr, N.M., & Lee, K. (2009). Contesting heritage: language, legitimacy, and schooling at a weekend Japanese-language school in the United States. Language and Education, 23(5), 425–441. Doerr, N., & Lee, K. (2013). Constructing the heritage language learner: Knowledge, power and new subjectivities. Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Ducar, C. (2009). The sound of silence: Spanish heritage textbooks’ treatment of language variation. In M. Lacorte & J. Leeman (Eds.), Español en Estados Unidos y otros contextos de contacto: Sociolingüística, ideología y pedagogía (pp. 347–367). Madrid: Iberoamericana. Fuller, J.M., & Leeman, J. (2020). Speaking Spanish in the US: The sociopolitics of language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. García Bedolla, L. (2003). The identity paradox: Latino language, politics and selective disassociation. Latino Studies, 1(2), 264–283. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.lst.8600038. George, A., & Hoffman-Gonzalez, A. (2019). Dialect and identity: US heritage language learners of Spanish abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 4(2), 252–279. Gorman, L. (2011). “Es como si ya nos conociéramos”: Spanish heritage learners, identity, and studying abroad in Latin America (Unpublished manuscript). Harklau, L. (2009). Heritage speakers’ experiences in new Latino diaspora Spanish classrooms. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 6, 211–242. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15427580903118689. He, A.W. (2010). The heart of heritage: Sociocultural dimensions of heritage language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 66–82. Helmer, K. (2013). A twice-told tale: Voices of resistance in a borderlands Spanish heritage language class. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 44(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12025. Herman, D.M. (2002). “Our Patriotic Duty”: Insights from professional history, 1890–1920. In T. A. Osborn (Ed.), The future of foreign language education in the United States (pp. 1–29). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

156

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

Holguín Mendoza, C. (2018a). Critical language awareness (CLA) for Spanish heritage language programs: Implementing a complete curriculum. International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152. 2017.1401445. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2018b). Sociolinguistic capital and fresa identity formations on the U.S.-Mexico border. Frontera Norte, 60, https://doi.org/10.17428/rfn. v30i60.1746. Hornberger, N.H., & Wang, S.C. (2008). Who are our heritage language learners? Identity and biliteracy in heritage language education in the United States. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education: A new field emerging (pp. 3–35). New York: Routledge. Institute of International Education. (2019). Open Doors report. https://www.iie.org/ Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors. Irvine, J., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language (pp. 35–83). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Jackson, J. (2008). Language, identity and study abroad: Sociocultural perspectives (1st ed.). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Kinginger, C. (2013). Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12037. Kiyama, J. M., Museus, S.D., & Vega, B.E. (2015). Cultivating campus environments to maximize success among Latino and Latina college students. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(172), 29–38. Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 35–45. Leeman, J. (2013). Categorizing Latinos in the history of the US Census: The official racialization of Spanish. In J. D. Valle (Ed.), A political history of Spanish: The making of a language (pp. 305–323). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leeman, J. (2015). Heritage language education and identity in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 100–119. Leeman, J. (2018). Critical language awareness and Spanish as a heritage language: Challenging the linguistic subordination of US Latinxs. In K. Potowski (Ed.), Handbook of Spanish as a minority/heritage language (pp. 345–358). New York: Routledge. ́ Leeman, J., & Martinez, G. (2007). From identity to commodity: Ideologies of Spanish in heritage language textbooks. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4, 35–65. Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Román-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 481–495. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01237.x. Leeman, L., & Serafini, E.J. (2016). Sociolinguistics in heritage language education: Promoting critical translingual competence. In M. Fairclough, S. Beaudrie (Eds.), Innovative approaches in HL pedagogy: From research to practice (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J. & Serafini, E. (2020). “It’s not fair”: Discourses of deficit, equity, and effort in mixed HL/L2 Spanish classes. Journal of Language, Identity & Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1777866.

Heritage identities in study abroad 157 Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Loza, S. (2017). Transgressing standard language ideologies in the Spanish heritage language (SHL) classroom. Chiricù Journal: Latina/o Literature, Art, and Culture, 1(2), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.06. Lynch, A., & Potowski, K. (2014). La valoración del habla bilingüe en los Estados Unidos: Fundamentos sociolingüísticos y pedagógicos en Hablando bien se entiende la gente. Hispania, 97(1), 32–46. Martínez, G. (2003). Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1, 44–57. Retrieved from https://www.heritagelanguages.org. McLaughlin, T.R. (2001). Perspectives on learning Spanish as a heritage language in Mexico: Four Chicana case studies (Unpublished master’s thesis). Puebla, Mexico: Universidad de las Américas. Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing sociolinguistics. London: Routledge. Moreno, K.H. (2009). The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Austin, TX: University of Texas. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Parra, M.L. (2016). Understanding identity among Spanish heritage learners: An interdisciplinary endeavor. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 177–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.49. 10par. Pascual y Cabo, D., Prada, J., & Lowther Pereira, K. (2017). Effects of community service-learning on heritage language learners’ attitudes toward their language and culture. Foreign Language Annals, 50(1), 71–83. Petrucci, P.R. (2007). Heritage scholars in the ancestral homeland: An overlooked identity in study abroad research. Sociolinguistic Studies, 1, 275–296. Picard, E., Bernardino, F., & Ehigiator, K. (2009). Global citizenship for all: Low minority student participation in study abroad—Seeking strategies for success. The handbook of practice and research in study abroad (pp. 343–367). New York: Routledge. Potowski, K. (2002). Experiences of Spanish heritage speakers in university foreign language courses and implications for teacher training. ADFL Bulletin, 33, 35–42. Prada, J. (2019). Exploring the role of translanguaging in linguistic ideological and attitudinal reconfigurations in the Spanish classroom for heritage speakers. Classroom Discourse, 10(3–4), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019. 1628793. Quan, T. (2018). Language learning while negotiating race and ethnicity abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 30(2), 32–46. Reyes, D.V. (2017). Disparate lessons: Racial climates and identity-formation processes among Latino students. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 14(2), 447–470. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R.L. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 405–421.

158

Jennifer Leeman and Meagan Driver

Rubin, K. (2004). Going “home” to study. International Educator, 13(1), 26–33. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200690526/. Ruiz Bybee, E., Menard-Warwick, J., Degollado, E.D., Palmer, D., Kehoe, S., & Urrieta Jr., L. (2018). Curricula crossing borders: Integrating multicultural and multilingual teacher education courses in study abroad. In C. Sanz & A. MoralesFront (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 344–358). New York: Routledge. Schmidt Sr., R. (2002). Racialization and language policy: The case of the USA. Multilingua, 21(2/3), 141–162. Serafini, E.J. (2020). Exploring the dynamics of interlocutor IDs and language learner selves during a short-term experience abroad. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences (pp. 209–243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shenk, P. (2007). ‘I’m Mexican, remember?’ Constructing ethnic identities via authenticating discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 194–220. Shively, R. (2018). Spanish heritage speakers studying abroad. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 403–419). New York: Routledge. Showstack, R. (2015). Institutional representations of “Spanish” and “Spanglish”: Managing competing discourses in heritage language instruction. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477. 2015.1015350. Showstack, R. (2018). Spanish and identity among Latin@s in the U.S. In K. Potowski (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 106–120). New York: Routledge. Showstack, R.E. (2012). Symbolic power in the heritage language classroom: How Spanish heritage speakers sustain and resist hegemonic discourses on language and cultural diversity. Spanish in Context, 9(1), 1–26. https://doi:10.1075/sic.9.1.01sho. Sweeney, K. (2013). Inclusive excellence and underrepresentation of students of color in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 23, 1–21. Torres, K.M., & Turner, J.E. (2017). Heritage language learners’ perceptions of acquiring and maintaining the Spanish language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(7), 837–853. Train, R. (2003). The (non)native standard in foreign language education. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language classrooms (pp. 3–39). Boston: Heinle. Trentman, E. (2015). Arabic heritage learners abroad: Language use and identity negotiation. Al-ʿArabiyya: Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Arabic, 48(1), 141–156. Twombly, S.B. (2012). Study abroad in a new global century: Renewing the promise, refining the purpose (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Urciuoli, B. (2008). Whose Spanish? The tension between linguistic correctness and cultural identity. In M. Niño-Murcia & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingualism and identity: Spanish at the crossroads with other languages (pp. 257–278). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Valdés, G. (1981). Pedagogical implications of teaching Spanish to the Spanishspeaking in the United States. In G. Valdés, A. G. Lozano & R. García-Moya (Eds.), Teaching Spanish to the Hispanic bilingual: issues, aims, and methods (pp. 3–20). New York: Teachers College Press.

Heritage identities in study abroad 159 Valdés, G., González, S.V., García, D.L., & Márquez, P. (2003). Language ideology: The case of Spanish in Departments of Foreign Languages. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 7, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2003.34.1.3. Villa, D.J. (2002). The sanitizing of US Spanish in academia. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 222–230. Willis, T. (2015). And still we rise: Microaggressions and intersectionality in the study abroad experiences of Black women. Frontiers: Journal of Study Abroad, 26, 209–230. Woolard, K.A., & Schieffelin, B.B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–82. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415. Zentella, A. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

8

The diverse experiences of heritage speakers at a Guatemalan language school Linguistic agency in the contact zone Julia Menard-Warwick, Shannon Kehoe, and Deborah Palmer

Introduction Pratt (1991) uses the term contact zone to “refer to social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (p. 34). While most heritage speakers have plenty of experience living in contact zones, study abroad (SA) contexts provide opportunities for such speakers to confront cultural boundaries with renewed intensity – and in so doing, to develop new linguistic capabilities. Language classrooms in SA contexts are contact zones par excellence, but they have been little explored in previous studies, and still less has the SA literature examined the classroom experiences of heritage speakers. While research on Spanish heritage speakers (SHSs) has primarily focused on defining the educational needs of this population (e.g., Leeman, 2015), most research on SHSs in SA has examined these students’ identity development (e.g., Quan, Pozzi, Kehoe, & Menard-Warwick, 2018), primarily through interviews. This chapter, in contrast, analyzes the varied experiences of three SHS university students during six weeks of coursework at a well-established Guatemalan language school. To theorize our findings, we examine students’ linguistic agency, which Ahearn (2001) defines as “the socioculturally-mediated capacity to act” (p. 112), within the contact zone of the classroom. Our central research question is the following: How and to what extent do the affordances of a Guatemalan language school support linguistic agency on the part of SHSs from different backgrounds during SA? In answering this question, we do not attempt to show longitudinal development in these students’ linguistic agency during their time in Guatemala; rather, we illustrate how the exercise of agency was shaped by the interaction between students’ personal goals and the pedagogical affordances of each classroom.

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala

161

Review of the literature In this section, we first examine the theoretical concept of agency in research on language learners, and then explore issues of agency in the SHS literature, especially in SA contexts. Agency and language learning Recent authors who theorize agency in language learning have built on Ahearn’s (2001) definition of it as “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (p. 112). Equating agency with neither free will nor resistance, she stresses that the exercise of agency is shaped by cultural practices and social influences. Reiterating that the “capacity to act” in Ahearn’s definition does not refer to individual competence, van Lier (2008) advocates for a sociocultural understanding of agency within pedagogical planning. As Duran (2015) confirms, “the coexistence of learners’ linguistic repertoires and desire in a particularly appropriate space may set forth agency” (p. 75). That is, agency in language classes is not a possession or quality that learners have, but rather something that they can exercise given appropriate opportunities. While Ahearn (2001) notes widespread tendencies for the reproduction of social inequality within the exercise of agency, she also emphasizes the human potential for developing new ways to use language. As van Lier (2008) elaborates, “learning an L2 and becoming engaged in a new culture … involves adjusting one’s sense of self and creating new identities to connect the known to the new” (p. 177). Creating new identities in contact zones clearly involves the exercise of agency, and often these new identities come with additional affordances that enable further agentive participation. However, at times language learning involves reclaiming what has been lost: Lin (2015) describes a program in a Taiwanese indigenous community that fostered heritage language development through reconnecting children with their grandparents. In this case, the affordances of their grandparents’ language were drawn upon by these children as they engaged in meaningful activities (van Lier, 2008). Thus, Lin views learners’ agency as shaped by their network of relationships. This is also what we observed in Guatemalan language classrooms. Learning Spanish as a heritage language Similarly, Shin (2016) conceptualizes heritage language learning “as a dialogical relationship between one’s past, present, and future in the negotiation of identities” (p. 33). However, heritage language learner identity is often seen by educational institutions as a unitary profile involving predictable proficiencies and deficits. In this way, diverse speakers are assigned to a normative pedagogical category of identity, which often constrains rather than enables their possibilities for exercising linguistic agency.

162

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

To remedy these tendencies, and to validate SHS students’ identity and linguistic needs, Carreira (2004) advocates fitting “the course to the student, rather than the student to the course” (p. 21). Carreira’s (2004) recommendation is in keeping with the literature on agency already cited, but runs counter to many institutional practices, which often exacerbate SHS students’ linguistic insecurity through holding them to “native-like standards” (Goble, 2016, p. 44). While Showstack (2017) blames these standardizing tendencies on the widespread devaluation of home and community language practices, Martinez and Petrucci (2004) connect linguistic insecurity more specifically to “state mandated standardized testing and placement” (p. 89). As an alternative, Reznicek-Parrado, Patiño-Vega, and Colombi (2018) advocate for SHSs “becoming active participants and learning to negotiate, construct, and index new identities as members of the academic community” (p. 153). They emphasize collaboration among SHS peers as enabling “learners to take more risks, ask more questions, and open up about their learning trajectories” (p. 165). However, the realization of these processes in classroom discourse remains unexplored; observations of heritage language classrooms have tended to find students’ identity claims discounted by instructors and classmates. Indeed, Showstack (2017) found SHSs competing against each other for legitimacy. When Bowles, Toth, and Adams (2014) investigated pair work in a classroom that mixed SHSs with other Spanish learners, they found that the SHSs’ classmates appreciated their expertise, while SHSs’ own pedagogical needs remained unmet. Similarly, SA programs are rarely designed to meet the linguistic or identity needs of SHSs. Indeed, local residents in SA contexts may view SHSs as deficient native speakers (Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000), triggering their linguistic insecurity (Goble, 2016; Martinez & Petrucci, 2004). While several studies show that SA can encourage SHS students’ ethnolinguistic identity development (Quan et al., 2018; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000), SA research has not engaged with SHS participants’ classroom experiences, nor examined how programs respond to the needs of participants from different backgrounds. In this chapter, we demonstrate how the affordances of SA classroom contexts facilitated linguistic agency for three SHSs with varied goals and levels of proficiency.

Methodology The SA program in the present study was offered by a Texas university in the summer of 2015 in Antigua, Guatemala; it was divided into two six-week sessions. Overall, our research focused on linguistic identity development on the part of students from a variety of backgrounds, and on the extent to which various components of the program facilitated this development. We identified focal students for this larger project by surveying students upon arrival; selections were based partly on the extent of students’ desire to

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala

163

participate in research and partly on our desire to ensure a range of student backgrounds. We followed informed consent procedures in keeping with the policies of our home institutions. In this chapter, we focus on session two because we conducted more consistent observations of the Spanish classes during that time. Of our three SHS focal participants in the larger study who attended session two, one (Wendy) attended the full 12 weeks, and we refer to her interview data from both sessions. The focus of the larger program was language, culture, and education, and it included homestays, excursions, and guest speakers. Students took two courses each session: a language class taught by local teachers and an education course taught by a faculty member from their home university. At ten hours per week, language classes followed the curricula of the students’ home institution, balancing communicative activities with grammar and writing exercises. However, classes were smaller and more intimate than typical university courses. Program participants were given the initial choice to study either Spanish or Kaqchikel, the regional Maya language. Those electing Spanish were placed in accordance with their previous coursework and a proficiency test, regardless of heritage language status. Based on these procedures, we divided the nine SHSs in session two into three groups: group 1 consisted of three SHSs who took Kaqchikel, group 2 was made up of three SHSs placed in advanced Spanish, and group 3 comprised three SHSs placed in intermediate Spanish. In this ethnographic case study (Compton-Lilly, 2012), we focus on one student from each group, each of whom was a focal participant in the larger study. Data on these students were collected as part of our larger ethnography of the SA program. Ethnographic research aims for a holistic understanding of complex social contexts. Through prolonged participation and observation, researchers seek to understand experiences from the perspectives of the participants, while keeping in mind their own positionality in the context of research (Watson-Gegeo, 1988). All three authors are White women and experienced educators, who acquired bilingual proficiency in Spanish as adults. The first author participated in the SA program solely as a visiting researcher, the second author served as a teaching assistant, and the third author taught the education course during session two. In order to coconstruct understandings with our research participants – undergraduate students from diverse linguistic and ethnic backgrounds – we collected and reflected upon a variety of data. We observed and audio-recorded classes; wrote reflective field notes on classes and other program activities; collected student work; and interviewed focal students upon arrival and again midprogram, with follow-up interviews six months later. Interview questions were open-ended, inviting students to share significant experiences with language and culture. A limitation of this study is that we did not interview the Guatemalan teachers, although they graciously welcomed us to observe their classes on multiple occasions.

164

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

Data for this chapter primarily comes from four one-hour audiorecorded observations of each language class during session two, conducted by the first author. However, the chapter is also informed by interviews with the focal students during the program,1 as well as by follow-up interviews conducted by the second author. In collaboration, and through reading the data, we developed a thematic coding system, including themes such as cultural awareness and privilege. The second author used this coding system for an initial analysis of interviews and student writing assignments. Our initial coding led us to focus on excerpts from interviews and student coursework in which participants constructed beliefs about language and language learning, including reflections on their current language classroom experiences. Finally, the first author conducted discourse analysis of classroom observation transcripts to explore SHS students’ exercise of linguistic agency. To this end, she analyzed interactions between teachers, SHSs, and other students in the three language classes attended by our focal SHS students: Kaqchikel, Advanced Spanish, and Intermediate Spanish. Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to examine Kaqchikel language interactions, communication in that classroom mostly occurred in Spanish. As van Lier (2008) illustrates, there are varying degrees to which students exercise agency in classrooms, and this is easiest to observe within speaking activities. Within the transcripts of the audio-recorded language classroom observations, the first author classified our focal students’ utterances as exercising a greater degree of agency in instances where they were initiating and extending their turns at talk. As van Lier (2008) notes, this tends to occur especially “during meaningful and relevant activity in pursuit of a worthwhile goal” (p. 177), so data for this chapter was selected from instances when the focal students’ classroom speech activities most clearly corresponded with their personal goals, as described during their interviews or in the assignments for their education classes. In this way, we triangulated our various forms of ethnographic data (Watson-Gegeo, 1988) in order to illustrate particularly clear instances of the exercise of linguistic agency through classroom affordances. Names used in this study are pseudonyms, and transcription conventions are included at the end of the chapter.

Three focal students Delia was born and raised in Central Texas after her parents immigrated from Mexico. Her education was almost entirely in English, and her parents worked long hours. However, when Delia was in her early teens, her mother developed a serious health condition and stopped working. Delia became very close to her, and they communicated entirely in Spanish. Although her siblings were not academically ambitious, Delia became the valedictorian of her high school class. She received a scholarship to attend university, originally planning to be a pharmacist but eventually switching to a bilingual

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala

165

education major. She expected to improve her Spanish through SA, but testing at the Guatemalan language school placed her above the advanced level at which they planned to offer classes, so they suggested she take Kaqchikel instead. Nicole was born in Belize to a Belizean father and a Honduran mother. Her family immigrated to a large Texas city when she was five, and she was placed in English-only classes. She grew up speaking mostly English with her father and brothers, and Honduran Spanish with her mother. In high school she took one year of “Spanish for native speakers”. That class boosted her confidence and prompted her decision to become a bilingual teacher. After high school graduation, she attended two years of community college, where she tested into fifth-semester Spanish and passed with a B. However, when she arrived at university as a bilingual education major, she was required to take an advanced grammar class, which she failed because she had never learned grammatical terminology. The class into which she placed in Guatemala was the equivalent to that grammar course, a requirement of her bilingual teacher certification program. Wendy was born and grew up in South Texas, on the Mexican border. Her father was Mexican and her mother came from a large Mexican American extended family. Her parents divorced in her early childhood, and she was not close to her father. Her mother, a teacher, spoke only English to her, though the rest of her family was bilingual. She sent Wendy to an English-only private school. Based on Wendy’s self-report, she could understand Spanish but not speak it. At university, she majored in Mexican American Studies, planning to become an immigration attorney. An excellent student overall, she struggled in university Spanish classes. At the Guatemalan language school, she placed into intermediate Spanish. In our observations, she tended not to speak Spanish outside of language class.

Findings In this section, we share classroom interaction data from the three classes, as well as data from interviews and writing assignments in which participants evaluated their classroom experiences. Delia in the Kaqchikel class There were four students in this class, three women and one man. The man (Jay) and two of the women (Delia and Xochitl) were advanced SHSs. The other woman, Maylene, was bilingual in English and Thai, and an advanced learner of second language (L2) Spanish. Maestro Valentín, the teacher, was bilingual in Spanish and Kaqchikel, and primarily used Spanish as the language of instruction. When interviewed about her classroom experiences, Delia expressed dissatisfaction:

166

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

Delia: Oh my God. Kaqchikel is, it’s a really, really … Can I be honest and tell you like … Julia: Yeah. No, please be honest. Delia: I think the hardest thing that … I don’t wanna seem like I’m bashing the teacher. […] [But] he’s very typical machista Guatemalan, very, very sexist,2 and like just the dialogue that he gives to us and like, “Oh, we’re the women that has to be cooking and cleaning in the house”. The adjective machista in Spanish refers to men who follow traditional gender ideologies; the dialogues which Maestro Valentín gave the students to perform in Kaqchikel positioned them in gender roles that Delia found objectionable. Most offensive to her were the stereotypical parts that her one male classmate, Jay, was repeatedly asked to play: “I’m constantly in the same roles and the guy’s like, ‘Oh mi cielo (my sky)’, and I’m like, ‘This makes me wanna barf’, I was like, ‘Can I do something else?’” Delia complained about typical scenes in which Jay’s character “gets home, he wants his food”, adding, “I feel that’s not Jay’s fault, he’s just reading”. Most of these comments construct a lack of agency in the classroom, with the “machista” teacher forcing students to perform sexist scripts. However, there is some suggestion of agency in Delia’s question “Can I do something else?” In this regard, she mentioned that her classmate Maylene had started playing male characters in the dialogues, at her own request. Interestingly, none of these gender issues appeared in Delia’s final paper for her education class, which she submitted two days after the interview. Since she started her interview comments by asking if she could be “honest”, it is possible that she was not entirely forthcoming in this assignment. Nevertheless, her paper convincingly argued that studying Kaqchikel had supported her professional development as a bilingual teacher. Specifically, she claimed that translating dialogues from Kaqchikel improved her Spanish: I found that I was using so much Spanish, both orally and in writing, to translate the dialogues from Kaqchikel to Spanish. Not only was I just writing and speaking Spanish, but I was in a classroom setting with a professor, so that pushed me to speak more formally and academically. In her essay, Delia connected this experience to educational debates on the use of a first language (L1) in the L2 classroom, claiming that her L1 Spanish had been a constant resource for her Kaqchikel learning. The first author’s final two classroom observations help to illustrate the extent to which the Kaqchikel learners exercised agency. On July 31, 2015, they were reviewing terms of endearment (Brown, Maxwell, & Little, 2006), with Delia actively participating:

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala

167

Maestro Valentín: Nuch’umil, mi estrella (my star). Delia: Nuch’omil. Oh I like that one! […] ((pause)) Nuchomil? Maestro Valentín: Nuch’umil. Delia: ((slowly)) Nuch’umil. Mi estrella (my star). […] Entonces ti nute’ es mi amor (so ti nute’ is my love). After Maestro Valentín agreed, and Jay mentioned a similar expression nuk’uxaj, “my heart”, Delia had another question for her female classmate Xochitl: Delia:

¿Cómo dijiste tú qué significa “mi cielo”? (What did you say “my sky” means?) Xochitl: Nuk’aj.

Here Delia would appear to exhibit linguistic agency in striving to learn phrases like “my sky” as decontextualized expressions; however, it should be noted that these also appeared in a dialogue about a young bride learning how to cook (so as to please her hungry husband) – a situation which Delia mentioned in her interview as objectionable due to sexism. These tensions surfaced when Jay asked a question about the heroine of the dialogue: Jay: ¿No sabe cocinar? (She doesn’t know how to cook?) Maestro Valentín: ((laughs)) Xochitl: ((whispering sarcastically)) ¿Y sí se casó? (And she actually got married?) Delia: Ay Jay ese… (oh, Jay, that…) that’s like the biggest sin in your book, huh? ((everyone laughs)) Worst nightmare. Xochitl: Keeping alive the Mexican patriarchy, gotta love it. Jay: Gotta represent. ((everyone laughs)) Delia and Xochitl went on to reminisce in English about encountering these sentiments back home in Texas, with Delia emphasizing her habitual stance when this occurs: “I’m just like rolling my eyes like nonstop”. In this way, the English shared by the Texas students but not their Guatemalan instructor provided affordances for the women to humorously reprimand Jay if they observed even a hint of sexism in his behavior. His humorous response “gotta represent” draws on hip-hop discourses about community pride, and this appeared to remove the discursive pressure from Jay as an individual male – for now. A better solution to these dilemmas appeared in the first author’s observation a week later, when the dialogue about learning to cook was actually performed – with Jay in the role of the bride! In her field notes, the first author wrote: “Jay asks if he should do it in the voice of a woman. He is

168

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

reading in a really high voice”. It is notable that Maestro Valentín was willing to accept this solution. More importantly, the fact that the Texas students had to negotiate their parts in the dialogues with Maestro Valentín in Spanish suggests further reasons why learning Kaqchikel appeared to help them develop their heritage language – through employing it for the pragmatically complicated task of challenging their teacher’s pedagogical practices. In a follow-up interview with the second author six months later, Delia reported occasional Kaqchikel practice with Jay – suggesting that she still found value in the language despite misgivings about sexism in the pedagogical materials. Nicole in the advanced Spanish class This class had four students, three women and one man. The man (Adrián) and two of the women (Nicole and Olivia) were advanced SHSs. The other woman, Erin, was an L1 English speaker and an advanced learner of L2 Spanish. Maestra Carmela, the teacher, used only Spanish as the language of instruction. In an interview toward the end of the session, Nicole portrayed her entry into the course as involving significant linguistic insecurity (Goble, 2016; Martinez & Petrucci, 2004): Nicole: I feel very confident with Spanish as in conversational but um I was terrified the very first day of Spanish. Whenever she gave us a piece of paper and was like, um fill out this chart, and it was filled with all the different conjugations. I was like, I’m sorry, I can’t do this ((laughs)) like I don’t know any of this. Nicole then mentioned that the class had taught her how to label “almost every” verb conjugation: “I’m like at such a higher place and it feels so great”. This process was evident in classroom observations. In her interview, Nicole voiced her habitual thoughts during grammar instruction: “Oh, I know how to do it, I just don’t know what the name of that is”. However, throughout the course, Maestra Carmela maintained curricular balance between metalinguistic instruction and communicative activities, thus giving students a chance to shine in different areas. For example, on July 29, 2015, she led a discussion about career goals. This topic prompted the memory of a cultural saying that Nicole had probably heard from her mother: Nicole:

¿Cómo es ese dicho que dice “uno planea y Dios dis… algo”? ¿Dispone? (What is that proverb that says “one plans and God dis… something?” Disposes?) Maestra Carmela: ((overlapping)) “Uno pone y Dios dispone” (“One proposes and God disposes”).

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala

169

Nicole:

Oh sí, “uno pone y Dios dispone” (Oh yes, “one proposes and God disposes”). Maestra Carmela: Es muy cierto porque a veces tú planeas algo y pasan otras cosas entonces… (It’s very true because sometimes you plan something and then other things happen…) In this way, the student and teacher constructed a sense of common values, and thus of cultural similarity. After Erin, the L2 Spanish learner, mentioned plans to earn degrees in both business and law, it was Nicole’s turn to state her dream: Nicole: Me gustaría… pues quiero graduarme con mi… o tener mi licenciatura… o mi certificación para ser maestra bilingüe. […] Y después de eso, no sé. Quiero seguir siendo maestra bilingüe pero me gustaría ser maestra bilingüe en el extranjero (I would like… well, I want to graduate with my… or have my degree… or my certificate to be a bilingual teacher. […] And after that I don’t know. I want to keep being a bilingual teacher, but I would like to be a bilingual teacher abroad). Her teacher responded with enthusiasm, specifically noting that her students’ command of Spanish would make it easy for them to become bilingual teachers. Given Nicole’s expressed uncertainty about carrying out her plans, her teacher’s ready endorsement probably enhanced her sense of agency around the use of academic Spanish. Nicole’s exercise of linguistic agency was also evident on August 10, 2015, when she engaged in a detailed technical discussion with her teacher about verb conjugation. This occurred during a lesson on the formal imperative, as in “Please have a seat”. The translation of this expression was, in fact, where Nicole’s participation in the metalinguistic discussion began, with the teacher asking her to state the formal imperative of the verb sentarse, “to sit”. Nicole was initially uncertain, which led Maestra Carmela to state the rule. This involves starting with the first-person present tense form of the verb, and then changing the suffix. When Nicole still expressed incomprehension, her teacher wrote several verbs on the board, starting with tener-tengo=tenga, “to have-I have=have (formal imperative)”. This illustrates how the first-person present tense conjugation tengo becomes the formal imperative tenga by changing the final vowel. The teacher continued explaining this rule, giving multiple examples, until Nicole felt ready to attempt the next verb on the board: Nicole:

So, el verbo “poder” es “yo puedo” (So the verb “to be able to” is “I can”). Maestra Carmela: Es el presente (It is the present tense).

170

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

Nicole:

¿Después formal es “usted podrá”? (Then formal is “you will be able to”?)

Maestra Carmela had been very patient, but with Nicole’s continued confusion between the future tense and the imperative, she finally sighed. She then restated the rule, step by step. Finally, Nicole constructed the formal imperative of the verb poder, “to be able to”. Nicole: ¿Usted pueda? (You can [formal imperative]?) Maestra Carmela: Um hm. Nicole: ¿Es palabra? (It’s a word?) Maestra Carmela: Sí (Yes). Adrián: ((laughs)) Nicole: Usted pueda (You can [formal imperative]). When Maestra Carmela repeated this, affirmatively, Nicole responded, “Ah, okay”. From this interaction, it appears that Nicole had expected the formal imperative forms to be familiar to her, as other verb conjugations had been. Her question (“It’s a word?”) implied that she had never heard pueda before, and expressed some frustration that if it was a word in Spanish, it should have been recognizable to her; Adrián’s laugh seemed sympathetic in that regard. Nicole’s question could seem impertinent, as if challenging her teacher’s authority, but Maestra Carmela did not take it that way: she simply confirmed the existence of the form that her student was doubting. In this classroom context, Nicole found agency in the opportunity to continue asking grammatical questions until her uncertainties were alleviated. Several minutes later, she correctly conjugated the formal imperative for the verbs repetir, “to repeat”, and comer, “to eat”. At the time of her follow-up interview six months later, Nicole was proceeding with her academic plans to become credentialed as a bilingual teacher. Wendy in the intermediate Spanish class There were three students in this class, all female. Two of the women (Wendy and Savanna) were SHSs, in that they came from Spanishspeaking families, but their heritage language skills were primarily receptive, based on both their self-reports and our observations.3 The other woman, Cassandra, was an L1 speaker of English. All had reached their current intermediate levels of Spanish through academic study. Maestro Milton, the teacher of the course, used only Spanish as the language of instruction. In interviews, Wendy depicted considerable frustration with the Spanish language throughout her life. Because of her Mexican heritage, she had

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala

171

always faced expectations from interlocutors that she should be fluent in the language of her ancestors (Goble, 2016). These beliefs had followed her from Texas to Guatemala, and she complained that White classmates received far more praise for their linguistic skills than she did. She even saw this happening in her class at the language school: “it’s obvious to me that Maestro Milton reacts differently to Cassandra than he does to me and Savanna, which is fine but sometimes a little frustrating” (blog entry, August 11, 2015). Nevertheless, she felt generally positive about the social relations in that classroom: “especially ‘cause I really like Cassandra and Savanna. I feel like we’re pretty much at the same level and we all pretty much mess up and I’m never like, ‘Oh, I feel so dumb’” (interview, August 6, 2015). In the same interview, she mentioned having to lower her expectations for linguistic development over the course of the SA program. She recalled thinking on arrival that she would be “super fluent” by the end of 12 weeks, but now she was telling herself, “Okay. Accept that it’s just not gonna happen”. Nevertheless, our classroom observations demonstrated an emerging ability to express herself, at least when scaffolded by her teacher and classmates. For example, on July 29, 2015, she received help in recounting a tourist excursion to the jungle: Wendy:

Maestro Milton: Wendy: Savanna: Wendy: Maestro Milton: Wendy: Maestro Milton: Wendy: Maestro Milton:

Wendy: Maestro Milton:

Pero la… los monos de ((pause)) aullador… (But the [feminine singular]… the [masculine plural] monkeys of ((pause)) howler…) Los monos aulladores (The howler monkeys [he corrects the lack of plural ending on the adjective “howler”]). Aulladores estaban muy (Howlers were very) uh… scary. What’s scary? ¿Me asusto? (I get scared?) Me asusto ((pause)) porque nos (I get scared ((pause)) because to us) – I mean, sus voz… voz (their voice… voice)? Sus voces (Their voices). Voces (Voices). ((pause)) Eran… (were…) ¿Eran alta? (Were high?) Eran altas. Eran muy fuertes (Were high. Were very strong [again he recasts the plural ending on the adjectives]). ((overlapping)) Y fuerte (and strong [not noticing the recast]). Ah ha (uh huh [accepting her statement as is]).

In this way, Wendy’s efforts to communicate were supported by Maestro Milton, who accepted and expanded upon her Spanish. In Wendy’s initial interview, she had described her career plans to become an immigration

172

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

attorney, and in a subsequent interview she was asked how her SA experience would inform that work. After citing the benefits of learning about another culture, she spoke of Spanish learning as a developmental process: I feel like I’ve appreciated trying to learn Spanish, and obviously I think as an immigration lawyer I need to know Spanish. I need to know, and I want to know so I can be able to talk to my client and empathize with them and be able to respond to them. That is, she does not say that she has learned Spanish but rather that she has tried to learn Spanish, in order to communicate with future clients. When Maestro Milton assigned his students to prepare a narrative to present on August 10, 2015, Wendy chose to talk about immigration law. As in her story about the monkeys, she needed assistance in constructing her ideas in Spanish, but having received time to prepare, she was able to share far more sophisticated content. She based her presentation on an article about a US Supreme Court case: Wendy:

Dice la cárcel de inmigrantes son de… or de Centroamérica um, es malo porque um, ellas, or ellos no… la cárcel es malo porque la policía en la cárcel no tenía comida por ellos y no ¿pon? atenc…or, give attention? (It says the jail of immigrants are from… or from Central America um, it’s bad because they [feminine] or they [masculine] don’t… the jail is bad because the police in the jail didn’t have food for them and they don’t pay? atten… or give attention?) Maestro Milton: No daba atención, no ponía atención (It didn’t give attention, it didn’t pay attention). Wendy: Pon atención para ellos uh, estaban enferma. Entonces el artículo dice es malo de la inmigrantes (Pay attention for them, uh, they were sick [feminine singular adjective]. So the article says it is bad of the [feminine singular] immigrants). Maestro Milton: [correcting] Para los inmigrantes. Es malo para los inmigrantes (for the [plural] immigrants. It is bad for the immigrants). Over the next several minutes, negotiation occurred between Wendy, her teacher, and the first author about how to pronounce several words, including cárcel, “jail”, and libertad, “liberty”, after which it became clear why Wendy had been using feminine forms of pronouns and adjectives:

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala Wendy:

Maestro Milton:

173

Porque las mujeres y niños estaba en cárcel porque ellas fear, what was fear? ((pause)) tenían miedo por sus vidas porque violencia en Centroamérica… ¿tú entiendes? (Because the women and children was in jail because they [feminine] fear, what was fear? ((pause)) they had fear for their lives because violence in Central America… do you understand?) Sí (Yes).

During her follow-up interview six months later, Wendy reported using Spanish while interning with an organization that sent volunteers to visit detainees in immigration detention.

Discussion In this section, we review how and to what extent the affordances of the Guatemalan language school supported linguistic agency on the part of SHSs from different backgrounds, connecting each of our focal participants’ experiences to previous literature. We conclude by briefly offering pedagogical implications for SA programs that strive to foster agency for SHS students. As is typical of large research institutions, our participants’ home university in Texas offered a standardized Spanish curriculum, with little leeway to “fit the course to the student” (Carreira, 2004, p. 21). Specialized coursework for heritage students was available, but it did not attempt to distinguish the needs of SHSs from different backgrounds (Leeman, 2015). Under the circumstances, it is not surprising to find “high levels of linguistic insecurity [correlating] with an institutional framework emerging out of state mandated standardized testing and placement” (Martinez & Petrucci, 2004, p. 89). In any case, the three focal participants in this chapter all came with variations on the SHS identity, but strikingly different experiences with learning Spanish at the same university. Delia’s home Spanish background was particularly strong, due to her mother’s disabling illness and early retirement. Therefore, she had been able to switch her major from pharmacy to bilingual education without having difficulty in her Spanishlanguage coursework. Moreover, as a child of immigrants from northern Mexico, her ethnolinguistic background was fairly typical of Spanishspeaking students at the university, and her home language variety was well represented in Spanish-language spaces there. Nicole had more difficulty. Her Central American roots rendered her home language and cultural practices noticeably different from what Spanish programs were expecting – but more problematic were tests that placed her in classes which assumed grammar knowledge she lacked. Wendy’s bilingual extended family had always conversed with her in English, leaving her with

174

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

the impression that Spanish was not for her. Taking mainstream Spanish classes for non-native speakers, she had found speaking activities to be particularly challenging. The resulting discrepancy between her ethnic identity and linguistic identity had always been painful for her (Goble, 2016), but her career goals in immigration law had encouraged her to continue struggling to acquire Spanish. Upon the students’ arrival in Guatemala, the language school had looked at placement test results, correctly concluded that these three learners had very different needs, and assigned them to different classes, as much as possible in keeping with the standardized curriculum of their home university. Given that this curriculum had never served Nicole or Wendy well, and had nothing to offer in Spanish to Delia, the SA language classroom could have reproduced “the existing system of inequalities” (Ahearn, 2001, p. 118). The SHSs could still have picked up some Spanish in street markets or at their homestay, but the classroom experience could have wasted their time and discouraged their further language learning. This is not what happened. Instead, as Duran (2015) writes, agency was set forth by “the coexistence of learners’ linguistic repertoires and desire in a particularly appropriate space” (p. 75). Each classroom was a contact zone (Pratt, 1991) where “cross-cultural contacts … [facilitated] unprecedented change” (Ahearn, 2001, p. 119). As a result, all three came home with a stronger capacity to pursue their academic and professional goals in Spanish. As we observed, for all three participants, language development in Guatemalan classrooms involved “adjusting one’s sense of self and creating new identities to connect the known to the new” (van Lier, 2008, p. 177). Crucially, this process of adjustment and creativity was negotiated in relationships (Lin, 2015) with Guatemalan teachers and Texan classmates – in the pursuit of activities that were meaningful (van Lier, 2008) because of how they connected with participants’ SA goals. As with the Taiwanese indigenous children observed by Lin, the agency of these SHSs was significantly shaped by the affordances in their network of relationships. The advantage of this relational approach to pedagogy (Valenzuela, 1999) was particularly clear and straightforward in the case of Nicole. As a bilingual education major, she needed to pass advanced grammar, but she had been unable to do so on her first attempt in Texas. With only four students in her classroom, Maestra Carmela could offer the time and space to talk through metalinguistic questions until Nicole (and the other students) felt fully comfortable with the structures on the syllabus. The affordances inherent in small group grammar instruction, where everyone’s questions received answers, were then supplemented by the teacher’s affirmation of the students’ cultural and professional identities. Moreover, Nicole in interviews expressed feeling cultural and linguistic commonality with Guatemalans, based on her own Central American

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala

175

background, which also helped to increase her confidence in her ability to use Spanish. While all this seemed to go smoothly in Maestra Carmela’s classroom, her colleague Maestro Milton had to contend with Wendy’s deeper insecurity about using Spanish at all after a lifetime of being unfairly compared to native speakers due to her Mexican heritage (Goble, 2016; Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). To some extent, Wendy felt that her teacher did reproduce existing inequalities (Ahearn, 2001) by offering extra praise to her Anglo classmate Cassandra. Under the circumstances, Maestro Milton’s tendency to correct Wendy’s errors could have exacerbated her unwillingness to speak. However, what the first author saw instead was Wendy’s reliance on her teacher and classmates to supply her with the vocabulary and grammatical structures she needed to construct utterances. In our analysis, the space that Maestro Milton offered for students to talk about their interests (e.g., the politics of immigration) encouraged Wendy and her classmates to negotiate new academic identities through taking risks, asking questions, and freely sharing their learning experiences (Reznicek-Parrado et al., 2018). Our analysis of Delia’s experience in the Kaqchikel class is complicated by her own mixed feelings. Rather than try to choose between Delia’s negative evaluations of the course in her interview and her positive stance in her essay, we instead portray Delia’s ambivalence – and look for agency within that. Her capacity to act was limited insofar as she felt deference to Maestro Valentín’s authority, or feared his ability to give her a bad grade, or hesitated to criticize the practices of “another culture” – even when they were similar to practices she abhorred back home. From her interview, it was clear that she felt significant constraints within the classroom setting. However, the Texas students were able to collaborate across the lines of gender, and at least occasionally reposition themselves within the classroom according to their own more egalitarian values. In this way, the ideological issues that the Kaqchikel learners confronted could be seen as an affordance that pushed them to use Spanish to negotiate with their Guatemalan teacher. Even when this was not possible, English remained a resource for humorously commenting on their discomfort with sexist practices – and for maintaining a sense of gender balance through teasing Jay, their male classmate. For Shin (2016), heritage language learning involves both “being and becoming as a dialogical relationship between one’s past, present, and future in the negotiation of identities” (p. 33). While pedagogical practice at the Spanish school was to some extent rooted in the monolingual ideologies of standardized prestigious Spanish that have been argued to impede heritage language learner identity development (Leeman, 2015), the teachers’ emphasis on relationship building (Valenzuela, 1999) facilitated the construction of alignment in contact zones across social differences and ideological tensions as extolled by Canagarajah (2013) – and students generally found

176

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

this approach empowering rather than disabling. Indeed, confianza (trust) as described by Lopez (2017) could be reliably observed in their language classes, and this served as a foundation upon which students could connect their past, present, and future identities. In conclusion, SA socioculturally mediates (Ahearn, 2001) unique opportunities for SHSs from the United States to build relationships across linguistic difference. To facilitate this process, we recommend that SA programs explain SHS identity issues to local teachers, so these instructors do not view SHSs as failed native speakers (Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). We also advocate attention to curriculum integration in SA programs (Bybee et al., 2018). On the one hand, following home university syllabi facilitates the transfer of SA coursework to meet graduation requirements. On the other hand, well-designed SA programs “fit the course to the student” (Carreira, 2004, p. 21), and thus enhance possibilities for successful learning. While SA programs in the past have not always focused on the needs of SHSs, a thoughtful approach to supporting these students’ personal and professional goals can enable them to develop a greater sense of agency toward and through the language of their communities. Transcription conventions underline ? … ((laugh)), ((pause)) [comment] […] (italicized)

Emphasis Rising intonation, sounds like a question Trailing off, not completing Paralinguistic information Note from author Text omitted Translation of preceding

Notes 1 A research assistant conducted Wendy’s initial interview in session one. 2 To be fair to the teacher, Julia did not notice sexist comments during her observations, and Delia’s most substantive critiques concerned the teaching materials. 3 The third intermediate-level SHS student in the SA program was in a different class at the school.

References Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 109–137. Bowles, M.A., Toth, P.D., & Adams, R.J. (2014). A comparison of L2-L2 and L2heritage learner interactions in Spanish language classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 497–517.

Heritage speaker agency in Guatemala

177

Brown, R.M., Maxwell, J.M., & Little, W.E. (2006). ¿La ütz awäch? Introduction to Kaqchikel Maya language. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bybee, E.R., Menard-Warwick, J., Degollado, E.D., Palmer, D.K., Kehoe, S., & Urrieta, L. (2018). Curricula without borders: Integrating multicultural and multilingual preservice teacher education coursework. In C. Sanz & A. MoralesFront (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 344–358). New York, NY: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global English and cosmopolitan relations. New York, NY: Routledge. Carreira, M. (2004). Seeking explanatory adequacy: A dual approach to understanding the term “Heritage Language Learner”. Heritage Language Journal, 2(1), 1–25. Compton-Lilly, C. (2012). Case studies. In A.A. Trainor & E. Graue (Eds.), Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 54–64). New York, NY: Routledge. Duran, C.S. (2015). Theorizing young language learner agency through the lens of multilingual repertoires: A sociocultural perspective. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E.R. Miller & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 73–90). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Goble, R.A. (2016). Linguistic insecurity and lack of entitlement to Spanish among third-generation Mexican Americans in narrative accounts. Heritage Language Journal, 13(1), 29–54. Leeman, J. (2015). Identity and heritage language education in the United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 100–119. Lin, M.C.A. (2015). Toward a relationship oriented framework: Revisiting agency by listening to the voices of children. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E.R. Miller & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 252–270). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lopez, F.A. (2017). Asset pedagogies in Latino youth identity and achievement: Nurturing confianza. New York, NY: Routledge. Martinez, G.A., & Petrucci, P.R. (2004). Institutional dimensions of cultural bias on the Texas-Mexico border: Linguistic insecurity among heritage language learners. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 1(2), 89–104. Pratt, M.L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33–40. Quan, T., Pozzi, R., Kehoe, S., & Menard-Warwick, J. (2018). Spanish heritage language learners in study abroad across three national contexts. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 437–451). New York, NY: Routledge. Reznicek-Parrado, L., Patiño-Vega, M., & Colombi, C. (2018). Academic peer tutors and academic biliteracy development in students of Spanish as a heritage language. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 5(2), 152–167. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 405–421. Shin, J. (2016). Hyphenated identities of Korean heritage language learners: Marginalization, colonial discourses and internalized Whiteness. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 15(1), 32–43.

178

Julia Menard-Warwick et al.

Showstack, R.E. (2017). Stancetaking and language ideologies in heritage language learner classroom discourse. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(5), 271–284. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–186). Sheffield, UK: Equinox. Watson-Gegeo, K.A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22(4), 575–592.

Section IV

Linguistic development

9

Linguistic development of Spanish heritage learners in study abroad Considerations, implications, and future directions Chelsea Escalante, Carolina Viera, and Melissa Patiño-Vega

Introduction Study abroad (SA) and other types of immersive stays have long been hailed as an excellent way for language learners to gain proficiency and confidence in the target language (TL). Most empirical research has supported this widely held belief, demonstrating that students often – although not always – return from abroad with increased linguistic abilities in the TL, including gains in overall oral fluency, writing skills, and lexical diversity and sophistication (Foster, 2009; Jiménez-Jiménez, 2010; Tracy-Ventura, 2017).1 The majority of this research, however, relies on data from second language learners (L2Ls). Heritage language learners (HLLs), on the other hand – who have very different linguistic profiles than L2Ls and are a more heterogeneous group regarding proficiency (Montrul, 2010, 2013; Zyzik, 2016) – have been underrepresented in SA research, especially in studies that explore their linguistic development. To date, most research on Spanish HLLs (SHLLs) abroad has focused on identity, motivations, and accommodation to regional dialectal features as opposed to measuring linguistic gains (see the introduction of this volume). Furthermore, most of the existing studies on SHLLs abroad rely on students’ self-reports (Shively, 2016). The lack of empirical research has made it challenging to develop general conclusions regarding linguistic development among SHLLs within an SA context.2 This theoretical chapter seeks to address some of the gaps in our understanding of the linguistic development of SHLLs in the SA context. To that end, it has four principal sections. First, we highlight the main approaches to the study of writing and oral development for language learners of all types. We then turn to the SA context to discuss what we know about how language learners develop in writing and orality in immersive environments, relying mainly on L2L studies due to the lack of empirical work with SHLLs in SA. Third, we review previous studies on the linguistic development of SHLLs in the at-home (AH) context, highlighting the skills that they bring to an SA experience and the assessments that have been used to measure such skills. Lastly, taking into consideration these different lines of research (L2Ls in SA and HLLs in the AH context), we recommend promising areas

182

Chelsea Escalante et al.

for future research on SHLL writing and orality in SA, highlighting concepts, methodologies, and assessment tools that may be useful when exploring SHLLs in this understudied context.

Main research approaches for oral and written language development Studies measuring linguistic development typically investigate the development of language as a whole or that of its discrete parts. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) measures study discrete aspects of linguistic development (Ellis, 2008; Skehan, 1998). As Housen and Kuiken (2009) summarize, complexity generally refers to “the extent to which the language produced in performing a task is elaborate and varied” (Ellis, 2003, p. 340), accuracy refers to the ability to produce speech according to TL norms, and fluency refers to the ability to process language with “native-like rapidity” (Lennon, 1990, p. 390) or “the extent to which the language produced in performing a task manifests pausing, hesitation, or reformulation” (Ellis, 2003, p. 342). Complexity and accuracy are typically measured in the same way in both orality and writing – for complexity, by clausal and phrasal structures and the number of T-units or speech units, and for accuracy, by the number of morphosyntactic errors produced in a text, usually at the clausal level. However, fluency in orality may carry a slightly different meaning than fluency in writing. Fluency in orality is conceptualized as “aspects of oral performance having to do with the fluidity or ‘smoothness’ of language use” (Segalowitz & Freed, 2004, p. 175) and measured in terms of temporal aspects of production: speech rate, speech run, and hesitationbased measures such as silence and filled pauses (Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura, & McManus, 2017). Fluency in writing is typically assessed by productivity, that is, the total number of words produced in an essay or other written assessment given the same allocation of writing time for all participants (Camus & Adrada-Rafael, 2015). Most studies that have measured the total number of words have found significant differences between “better” writing, usually longer, and “weaker” writing, typically shorter (Jarvis, Grant, Bikoski, & Ferris, 2003). CAF studies have used these concepts to assess discourse-level writing and oral development for L2Ls (Michel, 2017) and SHLLs (e.g., Camus & Adrada-Rafael, 2015; Marqués-Pascual, 2011, see chapter 10, this volume). Vocabulary has also been examined as a discrete component in linguistic development in both written and oral modes. Researchers have posited lexical richness or lexical diversity as an umbrella term that considers the number of unique words (types) that occur in a text in relation to the total number of words (tokens). It specifically measures the number of tokens that appear in a text divided by the number of types that occur in the same text (types/tokens; see Skehan, 2009, for an extended description). Different aspects of lexical richness have also been analyzed in measuring vocabulary

Linguistic development in study abroad 183 development, including lexical diversity (Foster, 2009; Serrano, Tragant, & Llanes, 2012), lexical density (Reznicek-Parrado, Patiño-Vega, & Colombi, 2018), and lexical sophistication (Briggs, 2015; Dewey, 2008; TracyVentura, 2017). A second line of research is constituted by studies that have explored language as a whole. Such studies typically frame investigations with theoretical constructs such as literacy and global proficiency. In general terms, literacy “refers to reading and writing effectively in a variety of contexts” (Pilgrim & Martinez, 2013, p. 60). With respect to writing development in particular, many studies have tracked the development of academic literacy, or the skills used to create texts that are used in the context of instructional settings, such as essays, articles, research papers, and so on. Researchers interested in academic literacy measure gains through quantifying lexical and grammatical items that are features of an academic register: nominalizations, clause types, technical language, declarative mode, and discourse connectors, among others (Colombi & Harrington, 2012; Norris & Manchón, 2012; Reznicek-Parrado et al., 2018; Schleppegrell, 2004). However, researchers agree that the development of academic literacy goes beyond reading and writing; it involves analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, and developing general conclusions. Studies that rely on measurements of global proficiency (Byrnes, 1987; Gatti & O’Neill, 2018; Isabelli-García, Bown, Plews, & Dewey, 2018) explore the developmental stages of language using functional language descriptors that characterize each attainable level of proficiency by using language assessments and tests created with those descriptors in mind. This line of research is based on the theoretical construct of language proficiency (Byrnes, 1987) and has been influential in regards to pedagogical implementation and describing learners’ oral profiles. Proficiency guidelines offer a characterization of expected language abilities attained at different levels, including the types of topics addressed, discourse quality in terms of cohesion and coherence, and grammatical accuracy (ACTFL, 2012; Byrnes, 1987). For researchers and practitioners working within a proficiency framework, language development is sequential and predictable. Under this framework, language progresses toward the production of connected discourse and logically structured argumentation from both concrete and abstract perspectives. At the most advanced level, language is also characterized by grammatical accuracy, fluency, and pragmatic appropriateness (ACTFL, 2012). Although originally not intended for research, global proficiency assessment tools, such as the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and the Writing Proficiency Test, have been used in several studies concerned with language development for both L2Ls and HLLs (see Gatti & O’Neill, 2018; Sanz & Torres, 2018; Swender, Martin, Rivera-Martinez, & Kagan, 2014).

184

Chelsea Escalante et al.

Second language linguistic development in study abroad contexts To the authors’ knowledge, there are no quantitative studies on SHLLs’ linguistic development during an SA program, with the exception of Marqués-Pascual (chapter 10, this volume). However, the large body of SA research on second language development suggests that in general, greater gains are made in speaking and listening than in reading and writing (see Dyson, 1988; Llanes, 2011; Meara, 1994). This may be due to the fact that conversational opportunities in a TL likely increase dramatically as compared to AH contexts, whereas opportunities to consume or produce written discourse may not increase to the same extent. Additionally, in SA learners are socialized in the local speech community naturally through exposure and interaction, but the same socialization in writing is not necessarily parallel, as it is a much more conscious and deliberate process. Although empirical studies suggest that the SA context offers more benefits than AH studies for the global improvement of second language abilities, especially oral skills, findings have been contested due to the research methodology used (Llanes, 2011). Early SA studies (Carroll, 1967; Dyson, 1988; Freed, 1995, 1998) found that weaker speakers tended to demonstrate greater gains from an immersive experience than stronger speakers. However, since most of these studies used global proficiency assessments (such as the OPI) to measure gains, researchers have questioned whether it is actually true that more advanced speakers do not improve as much, or rather whether global proficiency assessments are simply more sensitive to capturing gains for lower-level L2Ls than for advanced speakers (Llanes, 2011, p. 195). This methodological concern suggests that a clear understanding of the sojourners’ linguistic profiles when collecting data is vital to accurately measuring language development. Oral development studies using a CAF framework to measure progress for L2L sojourners show that participants made more gains in fluency (Lafford & Collentine, 2006; Mora & Valls-Ferrer, 2012) but not necessarily in accuracy (but see Juan-Garau, 2014; Marqués-Pascual, 2011) or complexity. SA research on CAF measurements in writing has found similarly mixed results, suggesting that while there may be development in one or more aspects of writing skills during an immersion experience, not all dimensions of writing improve. For example, Freed, So, and Lazar (2003) found growth in complexity and lexical density but not accuracy or fluency3; Lord (2009) reports improvements in accuracy but not fluency or complexity; and Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau (2011) and Pérez-Vidal and Barquin (2014) report gains in complexity and fluency but not accuracy. One area of linguistic development that demonstrates a reliably positive effect of SA is the lexicon (Martínez Arbeláiz, 2004; Tracy-Ventura, 2017). Lexical growth reported in these studies has been attributed to the fact that learners who have the opportunity to live in an immersion context have the

Linguistic development in study abroad 185 possibility to build more authentic networks of second language word associations because they have access to several naturalistic learning environments. Overall, the studies described in this section suggest that SA programs can contribute to linguistic development among L2Ls. However, little data exists regarding whether the same patterns hold true for SHLLs in SA, as they have been largely absent from SA research. Since there is considerably more work on the development of SHLLs’ linguistic skills in the AH context, we now examine those studies in order to identify key concepts that might be beneficial for exploring SHLL development in the SA context.

The linguistic development of SHLLs in at-home contexts Orality Early research in the field of Spanish as a heritage language often compared the oral production of SHLLs to that of Spanish-speaking monolinguals and posited that SHLLs were unable to produce or maintain the academic register of the language as monolinguals did (e.g., Achugar, 2003; Montrul, 2008; Valdés & Geoffrion-Vinci, 1998). In an analysis of oral academic language, for example, Achugar (2003) compared the academic presentations of an SHLL and a monolingual student. Using concepts from systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1973, 1990), including the use of projection (reported speech) and expansion (elaborating, extending, and enhancing) as well as the absence of hesitation, she found that the SHLL resorted to more reported speech, relied on English to convey meaning, and did not project an authoritative voice as compared to the monolingual speaker. Another line of research in SHLL oral development has focused on identification of the types of non-native-like “errors” that SHLLs commit during oral discourse. Fairclough and Mrak (2003) analyzed 40 semidirected interviews with two groups of SHLLs, with and without formal education in the HL, applying an error-analysis framework (Corder, 1973) that focused on morphosyntactic and lexical errors of omission, addition, substitution, and order. They found more lexical errors among the participants than morphosyntactic ones, but highlighted that there was no significant difference in error production between the instructed and noninstructed groups, which questions the role that classroom experience plays in the development of oral accuracy. Lynch (2008) analyzed the oral production of nine intermediate-level SHLLs and L2Ls of Spanish in oral interviews on a variety of cultural topics. Transcriptions were analyzed to identify grammatical features such as gender agreement, ser/estar (“to be”) distinction, and aspectual and mood distinction. Lynch found no substantial differences in grammatical accuracy between the groups at the intermediate level, suggesting that there are more similarities between these

186

Chelsea Escalante et al.

groups than previously believed, at least at the intermediate level. He did, however, find that SHLLs used more English than their L2L counterparts. More recently, research on global proficiency has focused on characterizing the oral linguistic profiles of SHLLs using the OPI guidelines (Ilieva, 2012; Swender et al., 2014; Viera & Arispe, 2020). Swender et al. (2014) report a functional breakdown in the transition between the “Advanced” and “Superior” levels of the OPI which prevented speakers from obtaining a Superior rating. They describe Superior-level tasks such as dealing with topics abstractly and supporting opinions as generally not being addressed at the required level of abstraction, and participants instead diverting the focus of their attention to narrations of personal experience (pp. 436–437). They also suggest that the use of English by participants affected ratings. Similarly, in exploring the oral skills of HLLs of Hindi and Urdu, Ilieva (2012) found that HLLs produced extended and fluent discourse but lacked control of some basic structures and academic vocabulary, personalized their narratives even when prompted by the interviewers to discuss abstract topics, and displayed high levels of interference from English. Rubio (2003) combined the use of the OPI with CAF measurements to compare SHLLs and L2Ls in order to highlight the specific areas in which students made linguistic gains according to language background. The OPI was used for data collection and transcribed for analysis. Fluency was analyzed by mean length of utterance, and speech rate was measured by words per minute, percentage of unfilled pauses, and filled pauses. For the lexical analysis, Rubio used the vocabulary diversity measure proposed by Malvern, Richards, Chipere, and Duran (2004). The diversity measure shows “the proportion of unique words (types) relative to the total length of a text” (Mitchell et al., 2017, p. 27). Participants were 19 students of Spanish, rated “Advanced” on the ACTFL OPI scale and with different linguistic backgrounds: SHLLs, L2L missionaries recently returned from a two-year stay in a Spanish-speaking country, and traditional L2Ls. The SHLLs outperformed the other groups in terms of words per minute and pauses, but there was no significant difference between the SHLLs and L2Ls on lexical diversity. These results suggest that even though SHLLs were more fluent in the language, their lexicon was similar to that of L2Ls. The writing skills of HLLs This section reviews key research on writing in the AH context that may serve as a basis for examining SHLLs’ writing development in the SA context. Drawing on systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1973; 1990), Colombi (1997, 2000, 2002), Achugar and Colombi (2008), and Patino-Vega (2019) explored how SHLLs at the university level develop their writing skills by measuring their movement from a colloquial register toward a more academic one within the oral–written continuum. Specifically, these longitudinal studies (Achugar & Colombi, 2008; Colombi, 2000, 2002;

Linguistic development in study abroad 187 Patino-Vega, 2019) investigate how academic writing progresses from orallike to a style characteristic of academic, written discourse, as evidenced by increases in lexical density, nominalizations, and embedded clauses, as well as decreases in grammatical intricacy.4 Using these measurements, the results suggest that the development of biliteracy among SHLLs requires significant time – “the condensation of the information and the use of nominalizations and grammatical metaphor do not become part of their repertoire until the end of their first year of instruction” (Colombi & Harrington, 2012, p. 251). In addition to the need for significant time to develop advanced writing skills, several studies suggest the need for explicit writing instruction (Colombi & Harrington, 2012; Torres, 2016), adequate scaffolding opportunities to support the writing process (Beaudrie, Ducar, & Potowski, 2014), and the development of writing through stages (Schwartz, 2003). Torres (2016) found that students reported improving their writing after receiving writing instruction through a “flipped classroom” technique, whereby they watched videos at home on effectively crafting essay elements such as introductory paragraphs, thesis statements, and conclusions and then practiced those strategies in the classroom. A third strand of research has found that peer-to-peer collaboration can also have a positive effect on HL writing. For example, Bowles (2011) explored collaborative writing between L2Ls and SHLLs in a mixed class and found that each group improved their writing by leveraging their partner’s skills. Specifically, SHLLs appeared to benefit from their L2L partners’ understanding of orthography and accent placement, while the L2Ls leveraged their HLL partners’ lexical knowledge during the writing task. In another case, Reznicek-Parrado et al. (2018) explored the biliteracy development of SHLLs during mandatory tutoring sessions conducted by more advanced HLLs. Their findings reveal growth in the tutees’ lexical and grammatical complexity after tutoring assistance, as well as positive attitudes toward the tutoring sessions in terms of skills and confidence. Both of these studies suggest that SHLLs’ writing can benefit from peer interaction, be it through interactions with other SHLLs or with L2Ls (see also Marijuan, chapter 12, this volume). The studies in SHLL orality and writing reviewed here suggest a number of important findings. First, these learners tend to rely on more oral-like, informal language (often English influenced) to carry out tasks in academic settings, such as structured interviews, academic presentations, or academic essays, and tend to discuss abstract topics by reverting to narrations of personal experience. Second, SHLLs’ writing language development takes significant time (more than one semester) and is often facilitated by explicit instruction, scaffolding, and revision processes. Third, peer-to-peer collaboration seems to be beneficial for SHLLs in terms of teaching writing mechanics and promoting confidence. Nevertheless, more research is needed to clearly establish the interplay between these findings and the diverse

188

Chelsea Escalante et al.

learning trajectories of SHLLs in SA contexts. In the following sections, we propose areas for future research that may enhance our understanding of HLLs’ writing and orality in SA.

Future research: agenda for studying the linguistic development of SHLLs in SA Taking into consideration the studies reviewed in the previous sections, we propose four areas of interest for future research on SHLLs in SA. Corpus research The majority of studies of SHLLs in an SA context rely on qualitative analyses involving a handful of participants (see the introduction for an overview). In an effort to offer more generalizable conclusions, large-scale learner corpora have been collected in different contexts (Alonso-Ramos, 2016; Granger, 2012; Gries, 2009), including HLL corpora (e.g., the Polinsky Language Sciences Lab Dataverse) and mixed L2L/HLL corpora (COWS-L2H; see Yamada et al., 2020). However, corpus studies have not been as prevalent in research in the SA context, and to our knowledge there are currently no available corpora from HLLs studying abroad. Although scarce, L2L corpora in SA contexts have been created for research purposes (e.g., the LANGSNAP Project). These corpora and the research that has been conducted using them (Pérez-Vidal & Barquin, 2014; Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2011; Tracy-Ventura, 2017) could serve as models for how larger data sets can be leveraged to extend our understanding of SHLLs’ oral and writing development in SA (see Beaudrie, 2012, for a model of SHLL corpus-based study). Such tools could dramatically aid in researchers’ efforts to make stronger generalizations, particularly regarding SHLLs’ patterns in language development in this context. Researchers could use existing corpus data or create their own following similar corpus design protocols. The potential benefit of SHLL corpora studies for the SA context is paramount, since participant recruitment numbers are a concern. A collective project such as the LANGSNAP Project could facilitate larger data sets and be accessed by different researchers. Global proficiency assessment for HLLs in SA Although measures of global proficiency as collected by the OPI or writing assessments offer the possibility of obtaining comparable results between different groups of learners and between different learning contexts, they have received scrutiny for a variety of reasons.5 First, there is controversy about their validity because they provide potentially unreliable holistic scores assigned by human raters (Marijuan & Sanz, 2018). Second, the OPI has been criticized as an invalid tool for SHLLs in particular (Beaudrie,

Linguistic development in study abroad 189 2016; Ilieva, 2012) because it was originally designed to describe the progression in language abilities of L2Ls, and thus may penalize idiosyncratic aspects of SHLL speech such as translanguaging and the use of nonstandard variants (Beaudrie, 2016; Draper & Hicks, 2000; Ilieva, 2012; Valdés, 1989). Third, as previously discussed, global proficiency guidelines were created to describe language development that occurs in a traditional classroom setting where the TL is a second language or a minority language, and therefore language proficiency scales might not be descriptive of the linguistic abilities that are developed in an SA context, where the TL is the majority language. Given these limitations, it is unclear to what extent proficiency guidelines, at least in their current state, are suitable for measuring the language development of learners with diverse backgrounds and those in nontraditional contexts such as SA. Although some researchers have called for a revision of the guidelines, research to date does not inform how to revise them in order to reflect SHLLs’ unique abilities and to ensure that they are applicable in a variety of contexts of learning (i.e., Ilieva, 2012). We therefore encourage empirical research that would inform revisions to global proficiency standards to make them more applicable to diverse learners in a variety of contexts. We particularly encourage research that correlates the linguistic backgrounds of SHLLs with current global proficiency descriptors (see Gatti & O’Neill, 2018, for a model). More research is needed to determine whether expanded descriptors, which include translanguaging skills or language resources that are not connected with the academic sphere only, could better characterize SHLLs’ linguistic profiles. In this regard, an interesting avenue of research is represented by a recently proposed conceptualization of the proficiency construct (Hulstijn, 2011) which differentiates between basic and higher language cognition and between core and peripheral components of language proficiency. Such a construct could be applied to develop descriptors that accurately reflect the different skills of HLLs and L2Ls. Additionally, future research may consider the use of tools such as elicited imitation tests (see Wu & Ortega, 2013) or task-based assessments (see Wright, 2018) to assess global proficiency, which might render better results for SHLLs. Research is also needed to determine whether the ability to discuss abstract concepts (as required in the “Superior” category) is actually enhanced during SA. It could be the case that such abstraction is practiced naturally, through building social networks and interacting with locals culturally tuned to discuss specific topics, such as politics or historical information, in daily conversation, therefore providing a rich context in which to develop academic skills even without in-class instruction. Alternatively, it could be that even with these social interactions in SA, SHLLs could still benefit from explicit instruction in abstract discourse skill development to make greater or faster strides in that area while in SA. More research is needed to determine how SHLLs’ linguistic skills may change in SA with and without explicit instruction.

190

Chelsea Escalante et al.

Methodologies for studying linguistic development among HLLs in SA Discussing linguistic development in SA research, Wright (2018) identifies three problematic areas with respect to methodology: no clear protocols for data collection in SA contexts, data elicitation tasks that have variable inherent design effects which make cross-study comparisons difficult, and a lack of longitudinal studies that examine individual development over time. When considering the assessment of SHLLs’ abilities (as compared to those of L2Ls), researchers face additional challenges related to the heterogeneity of linguistic profiles and variation in language input and use (Beaudrie et al., 2014). In order to address these issues, future studies might benefit from providing a clear protocol for data collection of SHLLs’ language background – one that does not assess SHLLs’ proficiency with impressionistic measures or classify them according to the course level they are taking at their home universities. Rather, SHLLs should be categorized using a differentiated assessment with SHLLs in mind, one that helps to describe their unique linguistic profiles at the beginning of the sojourn. Zyzik (2016) asserts that what separates HLLs from advanced L2L bilinguals in terms of proficiency is what Hulstijn (2011) refers to as basic language cognition, or the “largely implicit, unconscious knowledge in the domains of phonetics, prosody, phonology, morphology, and syntax; the largely explicit, conscious knowledge in the lexical domain (form-meaning mappings); and the automaticity with which these types of knowledge can be processed” (p. 230). Data collection procedures that consider such implicit and explicit knowledge in HLLs can more accurately determine the skills that could be leveraged and developed in SA. It also may be helpful for future researchers to keep in mind proficiency level when determining how changes in discourse will be assessed. When second language gains have been assessed in terms of global proficiency measurements, learners with lower proficiencies have demonstrated more gains in SA than those with higher proficiencies. If this pattern holds true for SHLLs, and we assess SHLLs using global proficiency assessments, then we may miss some of the ways in which they are developing linguistically while abroad. Therefore, and in agreement with what is proposed by Marijuan and Sanz (2018), for SHLLs it might be of particular importance to determine the specific areas of orality or writing, such as fluency, complexity, accuracy, or lexical richness, that are relevant. In this sense, the CAF framework might be more effective for measuring gains among advanced SHLLs in particular (see Camus & Adrada-Rafael, 2015, for a model) than global proficiency measures. Vocabulary studies also may be well suited for the SA context, given that this environment provides an opportunity to explore the extent to which speakers move beyond high-frequency words used to describe their immediate environment and expand their lexicon to

Linguistic development in study abroad 191 discuss new cultural concepts or incorporate markers of additional Spanish varieties (see Briggs, 2015; Ife, Vives Box, & Meara, 2000; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Additionally, external sociolinguistic factors and individual factors of the SA setting that could affect SHLLs differently from L2Ls, such as language variation and prejudice, must be considered when designing a research protocol and interpreting results. In that sense, qualitative research that relies on ethnographic observation of linguistic development, taking into consideration the social, political, and ideological dimensions of language (see Leeman & Serafini, 2016), could be useful. Grammon’s (2018) ethnographic work on how language ideologies regarding Quechua-influenced Spanish affected L2Ls’ language development in an SA program in Cusco, Peru, could serve as a model for future research with SHLLs in SA. Studies that approach language development from this more critical standpoint can complement “expansionist” models in SHL education, which seek to promote students’ acquisition of language varieties that are “appropriate” for formal settings.6 Finally, although difficult to implement, incorporating longitudinal methodologies that track the same students over time may help us to understand the nature of SHLLs’ linguistic development. Given that there is insufficient data about long-lasting language development effects of SA study for SHLLs, we especially encourage longitudinal methodologies that include delayed posttests (assessments completed months after the sojourn has ended). One particular study that overcomes some of the methodological concerns raised by previous researchers – and one that might be replicated in a Spanish-speaking SA context – is that of Davidson and Lekic (2013), who examined the writing development of advanced L2Ls and HLLs in Russian during SA in St. Petersburg. The mixed-methods, longitudinal (pre- and post-program) methodology relied on outcomes based on a variety of assessments, including the OPI, the official Russian government Test of Russian as a Foreign Language, self-evaluations, and student diary reports of how their time was spent. Students’ writing proficiency was rated at level 2 during the pretest and observed a significant advancement upon completion. At the end of the program, 70% of HLLs experienced a gain of two proficiency thresholds – that is, from level 2 to level 4. Furthermore, Davidson and Lekic analyzed how students invested their time and language use outside of the classroom. Their findings suggest that learners who experienced “high gains” (double-threshold jump) in writing tended to spend a greater amount of time engaging with the TL while abroad in terms of schoolwork, host-family socialization, and consumption of local media (p. 242). Although the number of HLL participants was relatively small (ten), it serves as a model study that can potentially be replicated with a larger number of participants in a Spanish-speaking SA context.

192

Chelsea Escalante et al.

The role of peer-to-peer interventions Peer-to-peer collaboration has been suggested to benefit SHLLs’ linguistic development in the AH context (Bowles, 2011; Reznicek-Parrado et al., 2018). Extending this finding to the SA context, SHLLs could potentially benefit from collaborative assistance while abroad, by working with either L2L peers in the program or peers in the local community. However, since there are currently no research studies to our knowledge that quantitatively measure how such collaborations enhance SHLLs’ linguistic development in the AH or abroad context, more research is needed in order to confirm this hypothesis. Additionally, studies that have examined peer-to-peer support in the AH context have primarily focused on the affective benefits that stem from such a learning environment, such as reduced language anxiety and a propensity to engage in the TL. We suggest that future research analyze the effects of peer tutoring and collaborative work on the linguistic development of SHLLs by longitudinally examining the written and oral discourse that takes place during tutoring sessions through recordings, interviews, multimodal assignments, and presentations. When considering the incorporation of local peer tutors in an SA program, it is imperative to provide tutors with adequate training on writing conventions, feedback, and common linguistic innovations found in languages in contact (e.g., code-switching, loanwords, semantic extensions, and calques). Such tutoring could promote the further development of SHLLs’ writing skills and increase their confidence in their writing abilities.

Conclusions Although there is a widely held belief that SA programs facilitate widespread language gains, Marijuan and Sanz (2018) note that “the inconclusive findings generated by SA research to date, along with an explosion of new SA programs that differ considerably in terms of length, goals, and features, leave many questions unanswered” (p. 186). One such question is how SHLLs fare linguistically in such a context. Do these learners demonstrate gains in oral and written discourse during SA? If so, how is that growth measured, to what extent are the assessment tools appropriate for the learner and the context, and how can future research extend our understanding of HLL orality and writing during immersive experiences? In this chapter, we have provided an overview of past research on L2Ls in SA and SHLLs in the AH context in regards to their oral and writing development. Regarding orality, this research suggests that SHLLs rely on informal language and narrations of personal experience when discussing abstract topics and that existing assessments may not be capable of fully accounting for their oral abilities. Regarding writing development, explicit instruction and peer-to-peer collaboration seem to foster SHLLs’ development in both writing mechanics and confidence in their writing abilities. Extending these ideas to the SA context, we suggest four

Linguistic development in study abroad 193 areas that could benefit from further development: corpus research for SHLLs in SA, research on global proficiency assessments for SHLLs, improved methodologies for studying linguistic development among HLLs in SA, and explorations of the role of peer-to-peer interventions and collaborations in SA. These avenues may extend our understanding of the nature of SHLLs’ linguistic development as well as guide curricular and programmatic decisions to better support them in SA contexts.

Notes 1 See Collentine (2009), Marijuan and Sanz (2018), and Salaberry, White, and Burch (2019) for critical reviews of the existing research in SA. 2 Refer to Shively (2016, 2018) for a more comprehensive literature review of SHLLs abroad. 3 In that study, complexity and accuracy were measured objectively by length of essay and number of errors, respectively, whereas fluency was measured somewhat more subjectively by judges who based their ratings on their own concepts of fluency. 4 Grammatical intricacy is defined as the number of main, paratactic, and hypotactic clauses divided by the number of orthographic sentences that appear in the text (Colombi, 2002, p. 72). 5 However, see Kagan and Friedman (2003) for an account of how the OPI can be useful for placing HLLs of Russian. 6 See Leeman (2005) for a criticism of expansionist models of HL education.

References Achugar, M. (2003). Academic registers in Spanish in the U.S.: A study of oral texts produced by bilingual speakers in a university graduate program. In A. Roca & M.C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States, research and practice (pp. 213–234). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Achugar, M., & Colombi, M.C. (2008). Systemic functional linguistic explorations into the longitudinal study of advanced capacities: The case of Spanish heritage language learners. In L. Ortega & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 52–73). New York/London: Routledge. ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. https://www.actfl.org/resources/actflproficiency-guidelines-2012. Alonso-Ramos, M. (Ed.). (2016). Spanish learner corpus research: Current trends and future perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Beaudrie, S. (2012). A corpus-based study on the misspellings of Spanish heritage speakers and their implications for teaching. Linguistics and Education, 23, 135–144. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.001. Beaudrie, S. (2016). Advances in Spanish heritage language assessment: Research and instructional considerations. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 143–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

194

Chelsea Escalante et al.

Bowles, M.A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 247–271. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000756. Briggs, J.G. (2015). A context-specific research tool to probe the out-of-class vocabulary-related strategies of study-abroad learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25, 291–314. http://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12070. Byrnes, H. (1987). Proficiency as a framework for research in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 71(1), 44. Camus, P., & Adrada-Rafael, S. (2015). Spanish heritage language learners vs. L2 learners: What CAF reveals about written proficiency. E-JournALL, EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 2(2), 31–49. http://dx.doi.org/10. 21283/2376905X.3.44. Carroll, J. (1967). Foreign language proficiency levels attained by language majors near graduation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1, 131–151. Collentine, J. (2009). Study abroad research: Findings, implications, and future directions. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 218–233). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Colombi, M.C. (1997). Perfil del discurso escrito en textos de hispanohablantes: Teoría y práctica. In M.C. Colombi & F.X. Alarcón (Eds.), La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría (pp. 175–189). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Colombi, M.C. (2000). En vías del desarrollo del lenguaje académico en español en hablantes nativos de español en los Estados Unidos. In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on Spanish in the United States: Linguistic issues and challenges (pp. 296–309). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Colombi, M.C. (2002). Academic language development in Latino students’ writing in Spanish. In M.J. Schleppegrell & M.C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 67–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colombi, M.C., & Harrington, J. (2012). Advanced biliteracy development in Spanish as a heritage language. In S. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 241–258). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Corder, S.P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin. Davidson, D.E., & Lekic, M.D. (2013). The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: Comparing learning outcomes and targetlanguage utilization in the Russian Flagship. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 88–114. Dewey, D.P. (2008). Japanese vocabulary acquisition by learners in three contexts. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XV, 127–148. Draper, J.B., & Hicks, J.H. (2000). Where we’ve been; what we’ve learned. In J.B. Webb & B.L. Miller (Eds.), Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from the classroom (pp. 15–35). Yonkers, NY: ACTFL. ACTFL Foreign Language Education Series. Dyson, P. (1988). The year abroad: Report for the Central Bureau for educational visits and exchanges. Oxford: Oxford University Language Teaching Center. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linguistic development in study abroad 195 Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed. Oxford applied linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fairclough, M., & Mrak, N.A. (2003). La enseñanza del español a los hispanohablantes bilingües y su efecto en la producción oral. In A. Roca & M.C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States, research and practice (pp. 198–212). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Freed, B. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 123–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Freed, B. (1998). An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad setting. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4, 31–60. Freed, B., So, S., & Lazar, N. (2003). Language learning abroad: How do gains in written fluency compare with gains in oral fluency in French as a second language? ADFL Bulletin, 34(3), 34–40. Foster, P. (2009). Lexical diversity and native-like selection: The bonus of studying abroad. In B. Richards, M. Daller, D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, & J. TreffersDaller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 91–106). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gatti, A., & O’Neill, T. (2018). Writing proficiency profiles of heritage learners of Chinese, Korean, and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 719–737. Grammon, D. (2018). Acquiring Cuzco: Marginalized language, ideology, and study abroad in Peru (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/. Granger, S. (2012). How to use foreign and second language learner corpora. In A. Mackey & S.M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 7–29). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gries, S. (2009). What is corpus linguistics? Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1–17. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. (1990). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. Hulstijn, J.H. (2011). Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 229–249. Ife, A., Vives Box, G., & Meara, P. (2000). The impact of study abroad on the vocabulary development of different proficiency groups. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 55–84. Ilieva, G.N. (2012). Hindi heritage language learners’ performance during OPIs: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Heritage Language Journal, 9, 18–36. Ilieva, G.N., & Clark-Gareca, B. (2016). Heritage language learner assessment. In M. Fairclough & S.M. Beaudrie (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 214–237). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Isabelli-García, C., Bown, J., Plews, J., & Dewey, D.P. (2018). Language learning and study abroad. Language Teaching, 51, 439–484. http://doi.org/10.1017/ S026144481800023X.

196

Chelsea Escalante et al.

Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikoski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 377–403. Jiménez-Jiménez, A.F. (2010). A comparative study on second language vocabulary development: Study abroad vs classroom settings. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 19, 105–123. Juan-Garau, M. (2014). Oral accuracy growth after formal instruction and study abroad: Onset level, contact factors and long-term effects. In C. Pérez-Vidal (Ed.), Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts. AILA applied linguistics series 13 (pp. 87–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kagan, O., & Friedman, D. (2003). Using the OPI to place heritage speakers of Russian. Foreign Language Annals, 36(4), 536–545. Lafford, B., & Collentine, J. (2006). The effects of study abroad and classroom contexts on the acquisition of Spanish as a second language: From research to application. In R. Salaberry & B.A. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 103–126). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 35–45. Leeman, J., & Serafini, E.J. (2016). Sociolinguistics in heritage language education: Promoting critical translingual competence. In S. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387–417. Llanes, Á. (2011). The many faces of study abroad: an update on the research on L2 gains emerged during a study abroad experience. International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(3), 189–215. http://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2010.550297. Lord, G. (2009). Second-language awareness and development during study abroad: A case study. Hispania, 92(1), 127–141. Lynch, A. (2008). The linguistic similarities of Spanish heritage and second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 41(2), 252–381. Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan. Marijuan, S., & Sanz, C. (2018). Expanding boundaries: Current and new directions in study abroad research and practice. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12323. Marqués-Pascual, L. (2011). Study abroad, previous language experience, and Spanish L2 development. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 565–582. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01148.x. Martínez Arbeláiz, A. (2004). Índices de progreso en la producción escrita de estudiantes de español en situación de inmersión. Ræl – Revistælectrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 3, 115–145. Meara, P. (1994). The year abroad and its effects. Language Learning Journal, 10(1), 32–38. Michel, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). New York, NY: Routledge.

Linguistic development in study abroad 197 Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N. & McManus, K. (Eds.). (2017). Anglophone students abroad: Identity, social relationships, and language learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Montrul, S. (2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000103. Montrul, S. (2013). How “native” are heritage speakers? Heritage Language Journal, 10, 15–39. Mora, J., & Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 610–641. Norris, J. M., & Manchón, R. M. (2012). Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 221–244). Boston, MA: De Gruyer Mouton. Patino-Vega, M. (2019). Developing academic biliteracy among heritage learners of Spanish. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (UMI No. 22622801). Pérez-Vidal, C., & Barquin, E. (2014). Comparing progress in academic writing after formal instruction and study abroad. In C. Pérez-Vidal (Ed.), Second language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts (pp. 217–234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2011). The effect of context and input conditions on oral and written development: A study abroad perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49(2), 157–185. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.008. Pilgrim, J., & Martinez, E. (2013). Defining literacy in the 21st century: A guide to terminology and skills. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 1(1), 60–69. Reznicek-Parrado, L., Patiño-Vega, M., & Colombi, M. C. (2018). Academic peer tutors and academic biliteracy development in students of Spanish as a heritage language. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching: L2 Spanish Academic Discourse: New Contexts, New Methodologies /El Discurso Académico En Español Como LE/ L2: Nuevos Contextos, Nuevas Metodologías, 5(2), 152–167. Rubio, F. (2003). Structure and complexity of oral narratives in advanced-level Spanish: A comparison of three learning backgrounds. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 546–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02144.x. Salaberry, M.R., White, K., & Burch, A. R. (2019). Language learning and interactional experiences in study abroad settings: An introduction to the special issue. In S. White & A.R. Burch (Eds.), Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1075/sar.18015.sal. Sanz, C., & Torres, J. (2018). The prior language experience of heritage bilinguals. In P.A. Malovrh & A.G. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 179–198). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schwartz, A.M. (2003). ¡No me suena! Heritage Spanish speakers’ strategies. In A. Roca & M.C. Colombi (Eds.), Mi Lengua: Spanish as a heritage language in the United States, research and practice (pp. 235–256). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

198

Chelsea Escalante et al.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104262027. Serrano, R., Tragant, E., & Llanes, A. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of one year abroad. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(2), 138–163. Shively, R.L. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shively, R.L. (2018). Spanish heritage speakers studying abroad. In K. Potowski & J. Muñoz-Basols (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 403–419). Abingdon: Routledge. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning (Oxford applied linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. Swender, E., Martin, C.L., Rivera-Martinez, M., & Kagan, O.E. (2014). Exploring oral proficiency profiles of heritage speakers of Russian and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 423–446. Torres, J. (2016). Flipping the classroom: A pedagogical model for promoting heritage language writing skills. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 299–324). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017). Combining corpora and experimental data to investigate language learning during residence abroad: A study of lexical sophistication. System, 71, 35–45. Valdés, G. (1989). Teaching Spanish to Hispanic bilinguals: A look at oral proficiency testing and the proficiency movement. Hispania, 72(2), 392–401. Valdés, G., & Geoffrion-Vinci, M. (1998). Chicano Spanish: The problem of the “underdeveloped” code in bilingual repertoires. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 473–501. Viera, C., & Arispe, K. (2020, February). Oral proficiency of students of Spanish as heritage language [Paper presentation]. In 7th national symposium on Spanish as a heritage language, Albuquerque, NM, United States. Wright, C. (2018). Effects of study abroad on L2 Mandarin Chinese language development during study abroad. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 166–180). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315639970-11. Wu, S.L., & Ortega, L. (2013). Measuring global oral proficiency in SLA research: A new elicited imitation test of L2 Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 680–704. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/flan.12063. Yamada, A., Davidson, S., Fernández-Mira, P., Carando, A., Sagae, K., & SánchezGutiérrez, C. (2020). COWS-L2H: A corpus of Spanish learner writing. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 8(1), 17–32. Zyzik, E. (2016). Toward a prototype model of the heritage language learner understanding strengths and needs. In M. Fairclough & S.M. Beaudrie (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 19–38). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

10 The impact of study abroad on Spanish heritage learners’ writing development Laura Marqués-Pascual

Introduction Despite the wealth of study abroad (SA) research, most studies have neglected to explore the impact of SA on heritage learners' (HLs) language proficiency and development, even though this student profile is increasingly present in SA programs in countries where the majority language is their home or family language. According to the Open Doors (2019) report, the percentage of US Hispanic or Latino students who studied abroad almost doubled from 2007–2008 to 2017–2018. This increase is more notable in Spanish-speaking countries, where Spanish HLs sometimes equal the number of Spanish second language (L2) learners participating in the same programs (Marqués-Pascual, 2020; Talentino & Gallagher, 2018). Only a handful of studies to date have examined the experience of those students who choose to study in a country where their home language is the official or majority language. These studies have shown that HLs share many similar experiences with L2 learners abroad. However, there are also important differences, mostly derived from HLs’ bicultural and bilingual profiles (see Shively, 2016, 2018). In the United States, Spanish is a heritage language for many bilingual young adults who speak Spanish with their family and within their communities. Their complex family background, linguistic situation, educational opportunities, and migration history make them a heterogeneous group that exhibits a full range of communicative abilities (Beaudrie, Ducar, & Potowski, 2014). The aim of this chapter is to investigate the impact that an SA experience may have on their writing development. The effect of different lengths of stay abroad on linguistic gains is also explored. To date, no other study has examined the writing development of Spanish HLs abroad. Those studies that have examined writing development of Spanish HLs from a longitudinal perspective have done so in instructional contexts at home (e.g., Bowles & Bello-Uriarte, 2019).

Previous studies on heritage learners’ writing HLs who enroll in Spanish language courses do so for a variety of reasons, such as professional development or connection with their heritage culture

200

Laura Marqués-Pascual

(Carreira & Kagan, 2011). When asked about which language skills they consider more important or in need of improvement, these students identify writing as their greatest challenge (Bowles & Bello-Uriarte, 2019; Bowles & Montrul, 2014). Undoubtedly, writing is the skill that is most affected by the minority status of Spanish in the United States. However, research on heritage language writing is scarce compared to work on first language (L1) and L2 writing, especially in terms of development. Studies on the written discourse of Spanish HLs in the United States have focused mainly on the learners’ path to advanced literacy, usually under the systemic functional framework (Halliday, 1994). These studies have analyzed specific lexical, grammatical, and discourse-semantic indexes of language development and have identified some common characteristics. Colombi (1995, 1997), analyzing lexical, syntactic, and discursive features of HLs’ writing, concluded that these learners rely on spoken language features when writing in Spanish. Colombi (2002) later compared Spanish HLs’ writing in English and Spanish, and found that their writing in both languages seems to be done in a more oral register. Most studies have measured L1 and L2 writing development at the lexical, syntactic, and discursive levels using a variety of measurements such as complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF).1 However, very few studies have analyzed HLs’ writing development using such measures. In a series of studies, Elola and Mikulski (2011, 2016) analyzed writing processes (planning time, execution time, revision time), fluency (quantity of words, mean number of words per T-unit, words per minute), and accuracy (percentage of error-free T-units, number and percentage of errors) of HLs and L2 learners composing in English and in Spanish. Results showed that the HLs were more fluent in Spanish than the L2 learners and that both groups were more accurate in their dominant language, English. Another notable exception is the study by Camus and Adrada-Rafael (2015), who used CAF measures to assess the written proficiency of 28 L2 learners and 18 HLs who completed an untimed written task. Results showed that HLs significantly outperformed L2 learners on accuracy and fluency. Bowles and Bello-Uriarte (2019) compared the writing development of an instructed HL-group, who received writing instruction in their classroom, and an uninstructed group. Their analysis of writing development included CAF measures as well as measures of lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexical sophistication. They found that over a 12-week period, the second-generation HLs enrolled in a writing course wrote with significantly greater fluency (measured as the total number of words produced per minute) and syntactic complexity (calculated as the number of clauses per T-unit). The HLs in the writing course also made significant gains in lexical sophistication (i.e., they used a greater proportion of lowerfrequency vocabulary at the end of the semester than at the beginning). Control-group peers who did not receive instruction made no such gains in any of those measures.

Impact of study abroad on writing

201

In sum, empirical research on HLs’ writing to date is scarce when compared to research on L1 and L2 writing. In addition, with the exception of the longitudinal study conducted by Bowles and Bello-Uriarte (2019), the studies to date have not usually focused on development, but rather on HL learners’ writing characteristics.

Research on writing and lexical development in study abroad contexts Despite some inconclusive results, most research has documented a positive impact of SA on several areas of L2 development regardless of length of stay. The most widely studied area of development has been oral fluency, which has proved sensitive to an SA learning context (see Juan-Garau, 2019). Other areas, such as writing and lexical development, have received less attention. Studies on vocabulary use among L2 learners abroad have shown that an experience abroad is beneficial for lexical development. Using the measure of lexical diversity (i.e., ratio of different words in a sample), Foster (2009) found that SA learners used a more diverse vocabulary than at-home learners, and performed closer to native speakers in terms of use of collocations (e.g., word combinations such as fish and chips or worst-case scenario). Tracy-Ventura (2017) studied development of lexical sophistication in an SA context by comparing oral and written production by Spanish L2 learners after a nine-month stay abroad. Lexical sophistication, or one’s command of less frequent words, is an aspect of lexical knowledge that has been linked to distinguishing proficiency levels (Lindqvist, Bardel, & Gudmundson, 2011). Tracy-Ventura’s results suggest that L2 learners experience significant increases over time in both knowledge and use of low-frequency vocabulary after a year abroad. The study of written abilities has been largely neglected in the SA literature, with very few studies to date that analyze empirical data on writing development focusing mostly on CAF measures. Lord’s (2009) case study analyzed written fluency (measured as number of words per T-unit) and accuracy (measured as percentage of error-free T-units) in the written journals of a Spanish student abroad. Her findings showed that while accuracy improved, there were not gains in written fluency over time, with a possible cause being the student's decreased motivation. As reported by Skehan (2009), trade-off gains are common in writing development, whereby one or multiple aspects of writing improve at the expense of others. Studies by Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau (2009) and Serrano, Tragant, and Llanes (2012) gathered quantitative and longitudinal data from English L2 learners abroad and compared their written production to those of a learner group at home and a group of native speakers. Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau found that the SA period resulted in significant progress in fluency

202

Laura Marqués-Pascual

(measured as words per minute) and lexical complexity (measured through Guiraud’s index of lexical richness), but not in grammatical accuracy. Serrano et al., who collected longitudinal data from learners at the beginning, middle, and end of an academic year abroad, found that the participants’ written production was significantly more lexically diverse from the beginning to the end of the academic year. Written accuracy improved significantly for their participants only during the second semester. As suggested by their results, more time abroad may be necessary in order for written development to be measurable and significant, in contrast with oral production, which may benefit from shorter stays. In sum, previous research provides evidence that learners who study abroad develop greater fluency in their L2 than students who stay at home. Although there are a few studies that focus on writing or lexical development, none of them have focused on Spanish as a heritage language. In addition, with the exception of Serrano et al. (2012), very few studies have examined language development beyond one semester abroad. However, for grammatical accuracy to improve in an L2, not only a higher proficiency level might be necessary but also perhaps a longer stay in the target language setting. These results are in line with Lafford’s (2006) proposal that an immersion experience might promote oral fluency over grammatical accuracy, which may take longer to develop. Based on previous findings, one goal of the present investigation is to determine if the same holds true for HLs who study in a country where their home language is the majority and official language, and where they presumably have more opportunities to communicate and use the language in a greater variety of contexts.

The present study The primary aim of this chapter is to extend the line of research on writing development in SA contexts with L2 learners to HLs. It aims to investigate changes in written production in an SA context from a longitudinal perspective. Two written samples were collected – one at the outset of the study and a second one after participants had spent a semester abroad. For participants who spent an entire academic year abroad, a third written sample was collected at the end of their second semester abroad. Written samples consisted of personal narratives that responded to a prompt related to the participants’ experience abroad. The research questions that guide this study are the following: 1. 2.

Does an immersion experience through participation in an SA program in Spain affect the writing development of HLs? How does the written expression of HLs studying in Spain change in terms of fluency, syntactic complexity, grammatical accuracy, and lexical diversity after a semester and a year abroad?

Impact of study abroad on writing

203

Methodology Participants and setting The SA group consisted of 22 undergraduates (four males and 18 females) who participated in a semester or year abroad in different immersion programs in Spain during the academic years 2016–2017 and 2017–2018. Sixteen participants stayed abroad for a semester (fall) and six studied abroad for a year (fall and spring semesters). Participants were Spanish HLs who also spoke English from early childhood. They were all young adults from the ages of 19 to 24, and they were in the process of completing their third or fourth year of study at their home university in the United States. All participants were born to Spanish-speaking immigrant parents, mostly from Mexico (with the exception of two participants whose parents had imigrated to the United States from Colombia and Venezuela, respectively). The majority were born in the United States. The foreign-born participants (n = 3) were born in Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia. These foreign-born participants relocated to the United States with their parents before the age of nine; therefore, all participants can be classified as second-generation heritage speakers. Most of these participants had satisfied a language requirement at their home university: they had either fulfilled a two-year requirement of Spanish language courses (either by taking one or more courses on Spanish language designed for HLs or L2 learners, or both) or passed a language evaluation that exempted them from the two-year Spanish coursework requirement. After arrival in the host country, all participants took an intensive Spanish language course (three weeks). Following that course, during their time abroad all participants were enrolled in regular courses at the host university. Their course load was four courses per semester; at least two of those courses were host-university courses from their respective official catalogs and regular offerings. Local students and participants from other international mobility programs (e.g., Erasmus students) also enrolled in these courses along with the heritage language participants in this study. Seven participants majored in Spanish or Hispanic Studies, while the rest majored in other subjects (such as sociology, global studies, or psychology). Some participants took an advanced Spanish language course during the semester; however, taking a language course was not a requirement in this immersion program, since all participants had fulfilled a language requirement or passed a Spanish language evaluation and it was considered that they already possessed the necessary language skills to allow them to participate in regular courses with local students in the host university. In addition to their coursework, five participants chose to intern at local organizations, companies, or schools during their stay abroad. See Table 10.1 for a summary of participants by location and program length. All participants had the option of arranging their own housing with help from the program coordinators and assistants. Different socializing

204

Laura Marqués-Pascual

Table 10.1 Number of participants by program location and length of stay Location Madrid Barcelona Granada TOTAL

Semester 1 (Fall) 6 10 0 16

Semesters 1 and 2 (Fall and Spring) 5 1 6

activities with native speakers, such as conversation exchanges with local students or a “buddy program”, were organized by either the homeuniversity program coordinators or the host university in Spain. Because this program combined unsheltered, direct enrollment in host university courses and internship activities in local companies and students took classes with local and other international students and made their own housing arrangements, we can consider this experience as true immersion.2 Instruments and data collection This study was a part of a larger research project, and the instruments used were designed to examine students’ grammatical knowledge, written and oral production, background information, and language interaction abroad. To assess written production, descriptive short essays were elicited. At each time of data collection, students were asked to write about different aspects of their personal background and the SA experience. Students were given 30 minutes to write answers to three prompts (see Appendix A) and were asked to write approximately 100–150 words per short answer. A short oral interview and a discrete-point multiple-choice test on grammatical knowledge and writing mechanics were administered to the participants at each time of data collection, before the writing task. This battery of tests was used in the first instance for placement purposes in the intensive Spanish language course that students had to take upon arrival, with all students who participated in this study placing in a Spanish language course specifically designed for advanced HLs. Personal narratives were chosen for data collection because they have been used in previous studies (Serrano et al., 2012) and because they were ecologically valid within the existing programmatic placement procedures. Although the topic was kept the same for the three data-collection points, the prompts varied slightly, so as to not produce practice effects. Longitudinal data was collected before, during, and at the end of the year abroad. The first data-collection session (Time 1) took place toward the beginning of the stay abroad, in late August or early September (right after arrival at the SA site). The second data collection (Time 2) occurred in December during the last week of the first semester, approximately four months after arrival. Finally, for yearlong participants, a third data-collection

Impact of study abroad on writing

205

session (Time 3) took place during the last week of the second semester, in early June, approximately eight or nine months after arrival. Table 10.2 shows the schedule of data collection of the written tasks. Measures and data analysis In order to describe written production with as much detail as possible and to gauge changes in different aspects of written expression, data on different constructs was included in the analysis. CAF measures were used to analyze the written production of HL learners abroad. Unless otherwise noted, these measures follow recommendations by Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and Kim (1998) and the methodology used by Bowles and Bello-Uriarte (2019) and Serrano et al. (2012). The number of words produced by each participant was also recorded and included as a measure of productivity. The T-unit was adopted as the production unit in this study. Following Hunt (1965), each independent clause plus all the subordinated clauses attached to it were coded as a single T-unit, whereas all the coordinated clauses were counted as separate T-units. T-units are usually limited at the end by a period, question or exclamation mark, except for coordinated sentences, which include more than one T-unit (Checa-García, 2005). Written fluency was examined in terms of words per T-unit – that is, the total number of words in a sample was divided by the total number of T-units. Following Serrano et al. (2012), words per T-unit was used as a measure of fluency rather than syntactic complexity, since according to Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998), longer T-units do not necessarily imply more complex grammar or subordination. Ortega (2003) has suggested that syntactic complexity is an objective measure of progress from oral-based proficiency to advanced literacy. In order to measure syntactic complexity, the subordination index (clauses per T-unit) was used. Following Checa-García (2005), all finite and nonfinite verbs were counted as clauses, except for those forms included in verbal periphrasis (e.g., voy a viajar). The subordination index was calculated by dividing the total number of clauses in a sample by the total number of T-units. Accuracy is usually understood as the ability of the learner to produce language free of errors (Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998). Two measures of grammatical accuracy were used in this chapter: 1) error-free T-units as a Table 10.2 Schedule of data collection

Participants

Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

Beginning of fall semester 22

End of fall semester 22

End of spring semester 6

206

Laura Marqués-Pascual

percentage of total T-units (%EFTU) and 2) ratio of errors to T-units (Err/T), which was obtained by dividing the total number of errors by the total number of T-units. Previous studies on heritage language writing (i.e., Bowles & Bello-Uriarte, 2019; Fairclough & Belpoliti, 2015) have used such measures in order to analyze HLs’ accuracy. Following Bowles and BelloUriarte (2019), misspelled words or words with missing or misplaced accent marks were not considered errors, since they would inflate the error counts. In addition, dialectal forms such as haiga were marked as dialectal variation and not considered errors, nor were lexical borrowings or loans widely used in Spanish varieties spoken in the United States (e.g., aplicar instead of solicitar). All other lexical, syntactic, and morphological errors were included. Lexical diversity is understood as the variety and quantity of vocabulary used (McCarthy & Jarvis, 2010); a high degree of lexical diversity is indicative of less repetition of the same words within a sample. Lexical diversity was calculated by dividing the total number of word types by the total number of word tokens in a sample (type–token ratio). Lexical diversity was included in this study because it is considered a measure of the quality of a text, usually a characteristic of academic writing, and also may be an indicator of proficiency level (Fairclough & Belpoliti, 2015). A summary of the measures analyzed in this study is provided in Table 10.3. In order to code the data and perform the analysis, the handwritten samples were typed verbatim by a research assistant (a Hispanic linguistics doctoral student familiar with the variety of Spanish spoken in the US Southwest), and all transcripts were verified by the author. The CHAT format for the Computerized Language Analysis (CLAN) software (McWhinney, 2000) was used for coding the writing samples. The author segmented the texts into T-units and coded the data. Another member of the research team (a professor in Hispanic linguistics at another institution, also familiar with the variety of Spanish spoken in the United States) also segmented and coded 10% of the data. The inter-rater reliability, calculated as the percentage of exact agreement on the identification of clauses and T-units, was 100%. The transcripts were later morphosyntactically tagged using the Spanish MOR,3 which is provided as part of the CLAN program.

Table 10.3 Summary of measures of written production Measure

Description

Productivity Fluency Complexity Accuracy Accuracy Lexical diversity

Word output (total number of words per sample) Words per T-unit or T-unit length (words/T-unit) Clauses per T-unit or Subordination index (clauses/T-unit) Percentage of error-free T-units (%EFTU) Ratio of errors to T-units (Err/T-unit) Type–token ratio (word types/tokens)

Impact of study abroad on writing

207

The tagged files were used for the lexical diversity analysis based on lemmas, which generated the total number of words (tokens) and the total number of word lemmas (types). A sample of how the data was coded can be seen in Appendix B. To analyze changes in written production from the beginning to the end of a semester abroad, a repeated measures ANOVA test was performed with the different measures of fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexical diversity for the 22 participants who stayed abroad for one semester. The alpha level was set at 0.05 throughout all analyses. Effect sizes (ηp2) are reported following Cohen’s (1988) guidelines of 0.01 (small), 0.06 (medium), and 0.14 (large). Due to the lower number of participants (six) who stayed abroad for an entire academic year (i.e., two semesters), only descriptive statistics are presented for the comparison of the three data-collection sessions (at the beginning and the end of the first semester, and at the end of the second semester).

Results The descriptive and inferential statistics for the mean scores obtained by all participants in the written production tasks at the beginning (Time 1) and the end of one semester abroad (Time 2) appear in Table 10.4. This table also contains the standard deviations (in parentheses), as well as the F value and the significance level for each comparison. When looking at these results, it appears that one semester abroad was enough for significant progress to occur in certain areas of written production, namely fluency and complexity. Productivity (i.e., total number of words produced per student)

Table 10.4 Descriptive and inferential statistics for first and second data collection

Word output Fluency (words/ T-unit) Complexity (clauses/ T-unit) Accuracy (%EFTU) Accuracy (Err/T-unit) Diversity (type–token ratio)

Time 1 (N = 22)

Time 2 (N = 22)

F

Significance* η2p

196.63 (37.80) 10.84 (2.58)

258.77 (116.19)** 13.62 (2.71)**

5.72

0.026

0.214

17.66 0.000

0.457

2.01 (0.43)

2.47 (0.51)**

9.48

0.006

0.311

80.57% (14.72) 0.24 (0.23) 0.57 (0.28)

82.04% (14.04) 0.22 (0.25) 0.48 (0.06)

0.423 0.522

0.020

0.632 0.436 2.45 0.132

0.029 0.105

Notes. Standard deviations in parentheses. * Significance level was set at p < 0.05. ** Significant differences between pairs are indicated in boldface.

208

Laura Marqués-Pascual

also increased significantly. All effect sizes are large, indicating a sizable difference between the mean scores obtained at the beginning of the semester (Time 1) and at the end (Time 2). In contrast, differences on other measures, such as accuracy and lexical diversity, are not significant. The six students who stayed in Spain for an entire academic year participated in a third data-collection session at the end of their second semester abroad. Table 10.5 shows the descriptive statistics for the mean scores obtained by the participants at the beginning (Time 1), during (Time 2), and end (Time 3) of the academic year. Statistical tests were not performed for the mean differences in the results of these measures, due to the small sample size, which would not yield reliable results in terms of statistical significance. Considering the full stay, from the first to the third data collection, progress in written production was seen for all measures except lexical diversity. In view of the descriptive statistics in Table 10.5, we can conclude that the biggest improvements for these six students occurred in productivity, fluency, and complexity during the first semester. On the other hand, progress in accuracy measures seemed to increase from the beginning to the end of the academic year. Whereas the percentage of error-free T-units increased steadily, accuracy in terms of number of errors per T-unit decreased from the beginning to the end of the year abroad (note that the index of errors per T-unit works in the opposite direction from the other indices; a decrease is desirable, since it would mean a lower rate of errors per T-unit). It is notable that accuracy, which does not significantly improve from the beginning to the end of the first semester (see also Table 10.4), is the one construct that seems to show the most progress for these six students who chose to extend their stay abroad.

Discussion The first research question addressed whether an immersion experience through participation in an SA program made an impact on the writing development of HLs. We can conclude positively that this group of HLs improved their writing in terms of fluency and syntactic complexity. Table 10.5 Descriptive statistics for yearlong students

Word output Fluency (words/T-unit) Complexity (clauses/T-unit) Accuracy (%EFTU) Accuracy (Err/T-unit) Diversity (type–token ratio)

Time 1 (N = 6)

Time 2 (N = 6)

Time 3 (N = 6)

189.16 (31.95) 10.28 (1.95) 1.94 (0.51) 82.56% (11.62) 0.20 (0.16) 0.57 (0.04)

261.16 (79.34) 14.02 (2.55) 2.65 (0.57) 87.89% (10.74) 0.25 (0.26) 0.48 (0.06)

250.83 (52.46) 13.54 (1.77) 2.38 (0.45) 92.36% (11.90) 0.10 (0.15) 0.47 (0.05)

Note. Standard deviations in parentheses.

Impact of study abroad on writing

209

In addition, the longitudinal design made it possible to observe that the six HLs who participated in the yearlong program also seemed to progress in terms of grammatical accuracy, which by the end of one year abroad was already reaching ceiling, as indicated by 92% error-free T-units and 0.10 errors per T-unit (as shown in Table 10.5). These results are different from those reported by Serrano et al. (2012). The L2 English learners in that study did not improve in these areas of written production during their first semester abroad; they did, however, make significant progress in terms of lexical diversity, whereas the HLs in this chapter did not show improvements in that measure. Regarding the second research question, which inquired about the specific changes in the written production of these students, there seem to be differences between the kind of learning that takes place during the first and second semesters abroad. Whereas fluency and complexity increase during the first semester, it is during the second semester that the HLs in this study seem to have increased their grammatical accuracy the most. We could argue that HLs benefited first from their experience abroad in terms of the breadth of their writing during the first semester, but this progress does not extend to accuracy until later in the sojourn, during the second semester. This observed tendency is in line with results reported by Serrano et al. (2012), whose L2 English learner participants showed a significant increase in written accuracy only during the second semester abroad. As seen in Table 10.5, the six yearlong participants seemed to decrease in terms of productivity, fluency, and complexity by the end of the second semester abroad. This result may be explained by trade-off effects in language gains, as proposed by Skehan (2009), meaning that one or multiple aspects of writing may improve at the expense of others. Since these participants completed the data-collection session three times, a possible cause for this decrease may also be a lack of motivation due to familiarity with the format of the tasks by the end of the study. Unlike the results for CAF measures in written production, there was no significant progress for these students in terms of lexical diversity. This is not to say that these HLs did not increase their lexical repertoire or expand their vocabulary. In fact, it is possible that such gains could have been detected if additional measures of lexical complexity had been used. Other studies on writing development have included additional measures of lexical development, such as density and sophistication, and shown positive results. Bowles and Bello-Uriarte (2019), for example, found that the vocabulary of their instructed learners became more sophisticated and academic as they incorporated a greater proportion of lower-frequency words at the end of the semester. It remains to be seen, however, whether study abroad would have the same impact. It can also be argued that a limitation of the current study is that the prompts used did not elicit a wider repertoire of vocabulary; thus, it is possible that there was lexical growth but the features of the task did not capture such development. Regarding how HLs and L2 learners differ, we have to take into consideration the fact that HLs are a different group of students who already

210

Laura Marqués-Pascual

possess a high degree of communicative linguistic competence. It may be the case that for high-proficiency students such as the ones who participated in this study, the increased exposure to input experienced in the target language country leads to more complex and fluent writing. Compare the following two examples from one of the participants at the beginning and the end of her first semester abroad (copied verbatim): 1.

Subject 12, Time 1 (words/T-Unit = 4.82, clauses/T-unit = 1.39) En el año 2015 estudié en Mérida, México por tres meses. La experiencia me ayudo muchisimo. Me dio una nueva perspectiva del mundo. Ahora tengo una miente más abierta que antes. Pienso que mi tiempo aquí me va a impactar personalmente. In the year 2015 I studied in Merida, Mexico, for three months. The experience helped me a lot. It gave me a new perspective about the world. Now I have a more open mind than before. I think that my time here is going to impact me personally.

2.

Subject 12, Time 2 (words/T-unit = 10.59, clauses/T-unit = 2.04) Por mucho tiempo quiera visitar España no sé porque pero me llamó mi atención. En mi primer Universidad solo tenía el opción de estudiar en México. Entonces yo fui a estudiar en Mérida, México por tres meses. Luego cambié de universidades y mi di cuenta que podía estudiar en España. Como estudiante de español yo sabía o tenía la sensación que si fuera a España me ayudaría mejorar mi fluidez. Tenía que solicitarme para participar a esta programa. Los pasos eran muy fáciles para mí porque ya he estudiado de extranjero antes. For a long time I wanted to visit Spain I don’t know why but it called my attention. In my first university I only had the option to study in Mexico. So I went to study in Merida, Mexico for three months. Then I switched universities and I realized that I could study in Spain. As a Spanish student I knew or I had the feeling that if I went to Spain it would help me to be more fluent. I had to apply in order to participate in this program. The steps [I had to take] were very easy for me because I have already studied abroad before.

The increase in syntactic complexity and length of T-units shown in these two excerpts reflects a tendency to use more subordinate clauses (sample 2) as opposed to simple and short juxtaposed sentences (sample 1). This is an important finding, since a higher subordination index is a characteristic of formal and academic writing, as noted by Ortega (2003). The findings presented here show that HLs can greatly benefit from a stay abroad in terms of linguistic development, specifically writing, even if they cannot afford to leave their home country for an entire academic year. As noted by Bowles and Bello-Uriarte (2019), most HLs who take Spanish language courses are most interested in improving their writing, since they

Impact of study abroad on writing

211

perceive it to be their weakest skill. It is worth noting that most of the participants in this study were not taking any kind of Spanish language or writing instruction during their time abroad. They were, however, taking content courses at their host university, so they were exposed to their heritage language in an academic context. Contact with the heritage language in an academic setting and in all other domains and contexts in a country where it is the national language may provide them with enough input and practice to facilitate improvement of this skill.

Conclusion This chapter contributes to the body of research on Spanish heritage language writing in general, and specifically on the development of written skills during a sojourn abroad. Unlike what has been reported for L2 learners, for the HLs in this study with high communicative and sociolinguistic skills, significant improvement in written skills was found after one semester abroad. Results suggest that written grammatical accuracy can also improve, especially during a longer stay, since the longitudinal design made it possible to observe a positive trend toward an increase in grammatical accuracy from the beginning to the end of an entire academic year abroad for those students who decided to extend their immersion experience. In short, all the areas of written production under investigation experienced improvement, with the exception of lexical diversity. The small sample of students who stayed abroad for a longer duration did not permit the use of statistical analysis. Perhaps with a larger sample size a significant increase in grammatical accuracy could have also been confirmed. According to the findings of this chapter, length of stay is an important factor in the progress in writing skills that HLs can expect from an SA experience. Only length of stay abroad was analyzed as a variable that might impact learning outcomes. However, as stated in the literature review, there are many factors that might affect language development abroad: initial proficiency level, motivation, attitudes toward the host environment or regional variety, and language contact and interaction. All these factors, if analyzed, could further explain our findings and whether program participants actually seize the opportunities they are assumed to find abroad. As for further research, more longitudinal studies like the one reported here should be conducted, including other language skills and a wider set of instruments and measures for different language constructs that could measure different areas of proficiency. Another limitation of this study is that it does not include a comparison group of HLs at home or in an instructed setting. In addition, results from the current study could be compared to writing production from courses taken abroad. Findings from this study could complement those by Bowles and Bello-Uriarte (2019), who compared writing development in an instructed and an uninstructed setting in students’ country of origin. In that study, the uninstructed HLs did not show any significant

212

Laura Marqués-Pascual

improvements in any of the measures investigated. As described in the “Methodology” section, some of the students who participated in the present study did not take any language courses during the semesters spent abroad; however, the group increased significantly in some of the measures studied here. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a control group would have clarified whether this improvement could be attributable to practice effects. In addition, comparing the results from these HLs with those of a Spanish L2 learner group would also be desirable for assessing whether writing improvement occurs in the same way for these two different learner profiles. There are important implications for the findings reported here. First, for grammatical accuracy to develop, longer stays may be necessary, in tune with Lafford’s (2006) threshold hypothesis and reports in previous research that studies focusing on accuracy in shorter stays found little improvement. Looking at students’ progress throughout the entire year (from the beginning to the end of the year abroad), improvement seems to take place in all CAF measures of writing development. These findings confirm the widespread belief that “more is better” in terms of the impact of an experience abroad on language development (Dwyer, 2004). However, the writing skills of HLs will indeed benefit from a sojourn abroad even if it is shorter in length.

Notes 1 See Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and Kim (1998) for an overview of this research, and Mavrou (2016) and Mavrou and Ainciburu (2019) for an extended discussion of CAF measures. 2 Although there is no consensus on what constitutes an “immersion setting”, most programs abroad by US universities are considered “sheltered” programs, in which the courses that students take have been developed by their home institution or are specifically designed for US students at the host university (Berg, Paige, & Lou, 2012). The participants in this study were considered to be taking part in a true immersion program with direct enrollment in regular courses offered by the host institutions for their local students. 3 MOR is a program built into CLAN that provides that provides complete part-ofspeech tagging for every word indicated on the main line of the transcript.

References Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Berg, M.V., Paige, R.M., & Lou, K. (2012). Student learning abroad: what our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Bowles, M., & Bello-Uriarte, A. (2019). What impact does heritage language instruction have on Spanish heritage learners’ writing? In M. Sato & S. Loewen (Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (p. 219). New York, NY: Routledge.

Impact of study abroad on writing

213

Bowles, M., & Montrul, S. (2014). Heritage Spanish speakers in university language courses: A decade of difference. ADFL Bulletin, 43(1), 112–122. Camus, P., & Adrada-Rafael, S. (2015). Spanish heritage language learners vs. L2 learners: What CAF reveals about written proficiency. E-JournALL, EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 2(2), 31–49. Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the national heritage language survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 40–64. Checa-García, I. (2005). Medidas de madurez sintáctica aplicadas a lecturas de ELE. Interlingüística, 16(1), 273–285. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colombi, M.C. (1995). Actitudes hacia la escritura en español de los estudiantes hispanohablantes a nivel universitario. REALE, 3, 19–32. Colombi, M.C. (1997). Perfil del discurso escrito en textos de hispanohablantes: Teoría y práctica. In M.C. Colombi & F.X. Alarcón (Eds.), La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría pp. 175–189). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Colombi, M.C. (2002). Academic language development in Latino students’ writing in Spanish. In M. Schleppegrell & M.C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages (pp. 67–86). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA. Dwyer, M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(1), 151–163. Elola, I., & Mikulski, A. (2011). Heritage language learners’ allocation of time to writing processes in English and Spanish. Hispania, 94(4), 715–733. Elola, I., & Mikulski, A. (2016). Similar and/or different writing processes? A study of Spanish foreign language and heritage language learners. Hispania, 99(1), 87–102. Fairclough, M., & Belpoliti, F. (2015). Emerging literacy in Spanish among Hispanic heritage language university students in the USA: a pilot study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(2), 185–201. Foster, P. (2009). Lexical diversity and native-like selection: The bonus of studying abroad. In B. Richards, M. Daller, D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton & J. TreffersDaller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 91–106). Hampshire, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hunt, K.W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels, NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Isabelli-García, C., Bown, J., Plews, J., & Dewey, D. (2018). Language learning and study abroad. Language Teaching, 51(4), 439–484. Juan-Garau, M. (2019). Developing oral abilities during study abroad: An overview of research. In L. Marqués-Pascual & A. Cortijo Ocaña (Eds.), Second and third language acquisition in bilingual contexts. Madrid: Juan de la Cuesta. Lafford, B.A. (2004). The effect of context of learning on the use of communication strategies by learners of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 201–226. Lafford, B. (2006). The effects of study abroad vs. classroom contexts on Spanish SLA: Old assumptions, new insights and future research directions. In C.A. Klee & T. Face (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of

214

Laura Marqués-Pascual

Spanish and Portuguese as first and second language (pp. 1–25). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Lindqvist, C., Bardel, C., & Gudmundson, A. (2011). Lexical richness in the advanced learner’s oral production of French and Italian L2. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(3), 221–240. Lord, G. (2009). Second-language awareness and development during study abroad: A case study. Hispania, 92(1), 127–141. McWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marqués-Pascual, L. (2020). Los hablantes de español como lengua de herencia en programas de estudios en el extranjero. In P. Taboada-de-Zúñiga Romero & R. Barros Romero (Eds.), Perfiles, factores y contextos en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de ELE/EL2 (pp. 675–692). Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Santiago de Compostela University Press. Mavrou, I. (2016). Complejidad, precisión, fluidez y léxico: Una revisión. Moderna språk, 110(1), 49–69. Mavrou, I., & Ainciburu, M.C. (2019). Medidas de longitud en la investigación empírica de ASL: ¿Medidas de complejidad sintáctica o de fluidez? Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 32(1), 125–154. McCarthy, P., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. Open Doors (2019). Report on International Educational Exchange online. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Open-Doors-2019Media-Information. Accessed 01.02.20. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: Research synthesis of college - level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2009). The effect of study abroad (SA) on written performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 9(1), 269–295. Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage learners of Spanish. In K.L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 404–422). New York, NY: Wiley. Quan, T., Pozzi, R., Kehoe, S., & Menard Warwick, J. (2018). Spanish heritage language learners in study abroad across three national contexts. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 437–455). New York: Routledge. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R.L. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 405–421. Serrano, R., Tragant, E., & Llanes, A. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of one year abroad. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(2), 138–163. Shively, R.L. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Shively, R. (2018). Spanish heritage speakers studying abroad. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 403–419). New York, NY: Routledge.

Impact of study abroad on writing

215

Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. Swender, E., Martin, C., Rivera-Martínez, M., & Kagan, O. (2014). Exploring oral proficiency profiles of heritage speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 423–446. Talentino, K., & Gallagher, P. (2018, July). Diversity and the study abroad experience. In Paper presented at the 100th AATSP annual conference, Salamanca, Spain. Tracy-Ventura, N. (2017). Combining corpora and experimental data to investigate language learning during residence abroad: A study of lexical sophistication. System, 71, 35–45. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity. Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Appendix A Written task prompts (Time 1) Time 1 Has decidido estudiar durante un cuatrimestre en España, en la escuela “Bonalingua”. Como parte de la solicitud de admisión, la escuela te pide que respondas a las siguientes preguntas. Para cada pregunta escribe unas 100–150 palabras. 1. 2. 3.

¿Y tú cómo eres? Describe brevemente tus orígenes, tu historia personal y cómo esto ha afectado tu carácter, tus gustos, aficiones… Explica detalladamente cómo y por qué decidiste venir a estudiar a España y los pasos que tuviste que seguir para conseguirlo. ¿Cómo crees que va a influir en tu vida estudiar en otro país y conocer otra cultura?

Time 2 1. Describe cómo tu personalidad y tu historia personal ha influido en tu modo de vivir la experiencia de estudiar en otro país. 2. Describe detalladamente cómo fueron tus primeros días en España: qué hiciste, dónde te quedaste, a quién conociste, qué pasó, como te sentías, etc. 3. ¿Cómo crees que va a influir en tu vida haber estudiado en otro país y haber conocido otra cultura? Intenta convencer a un amigo de que participe en un programa de estudios en el extranjero como has hecho tú. Time 3 1. Ahora que termina tu experiencia en España y puedes reflexionar sobre ella, ¿hay algo que habrías hecho diferente o algo de lo que te arrepientes?

216

Laura Marqués-Pascual

2. Intenta convencer a un amigo de que participe en un programa de estudios en el extranjero como has hecho tú.

Appendix B Data-coding sample Subject 14, Time 2 6 T-units 13 clauses 155 words (tokens) 80 different word lemmas (types) Type–token ratio: 51.6 Words/T-unit: 25.83 Clauses/T-unit: 2.16 % Error-free T-units (for entire sample not shown here): 96.66% Ratio of errors per T-units (for entire sample not shown here): 0.03% Original text (fragment): El hecho de vivir en otro país, conocer nuevas costumbres y convivir con gente local es muy atrayente. Estudiar no solo con estudiantes locales sino también con compañeros del programa y con estudiantes internacionales me ayudo a comparar a España y EE.UU además de otros países de Europa y latinoamérica en temas de la educación, la política y los gustos. Observar la diversidad que hay no solo en España sino también en otros países de Europa me ayudo a comprender que no solo EE.UU tiene mucha inmigración. Me di cuenta que en España hay mucha gente de Peru, Ecuador y otros países latinos. Esto va ha ayudar mucho en mis metas del futuro ya que planeo trabajar en la alguna rama que tenga que ver con la migración de latinoamerica. Conocer un poco sobre la cultura catalana aparte del resto de las comunidades del resto de España, como País Vasco y Andalucía, fue muy interesante.

Section V

Program design

11 Spanish heritage language learners abroad Inclusive pedagogies for critical sociocultural linguistic literacy Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor Introduction In the past two decades (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic which began to spread globally in early 2020), the number of US students enrolled in fouryear universities who opt to study abroad for academic credit has grown significantly. During this time, students have taken advantage of an array of credit-bearing study abroad (SA) programs, with different degrees of language immersion, for a variety of personal, academic, and professional reasons. While SA professionals have made gains in reversing conditions that have kept the majority of students from underrepresented and underserved groups from participating in such programs, racial disparities persist (Quan, 2016; Shively, 2016; Sweeney, 2013). During the 2015–2016 academic year, for instance, 71% of US students embarking on SA programs selfidentified as white or “Caucasian”, compared to 10% who identified as Hispanic or Latino (National Association of International Educators [NAFSA], 2018; Open Doors, 2019). Closing this gap in the SA arena, particularly for Latinx students who approach the study of Spanish as a heritage language, requires understanding how the nonstandard varieties these students often use are stigmatized, both within the normative linguistic ideological framework of the L2 classroom in the United States and within the host community abroad. This chapter looks at how we can apply the gains we have made in critical Spanish heritage language pedagogies (e.g., Holguín Mendoza, 2018, in press; Holguín Mendoza, Davis, & Weise, 2018; Leeman, 2005, 2018; Leeman & Serafini, 2016; Lowther-Pereira, 2015; Loza, 2017) to new and existing SA programs. We offer strategies for revising established programs and developing new ones in ways that support heritage language students as they navigate the SA landscape to their best advantage. Building on critical pedagogies (Freire, 1973), we consider how exploring social justice issues in the Spanish-speaking communities in which these programs take place can help heritage language students reflect on their relationships with their Latinx heritage as well as on the value of their own forms of knowledge. Incorporating these critical pedagogies into the

220

Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor

curriculum gives heritage language as well as L2 learners opportunities to articulate how structural inequalities and power relations in the United States and in global society manifest in their lives and in the lives of those around them. As students broaden their awareness of how social structures shape their views of society and their actions, they also learn to critically examine how their own presence and behaviors affect the communities with whom they are interacting abroad. When it comes to studying abroad, heritage language students share many common experiences with their L2 peers. Yet if we are to close this equity and inclusion gap, there are important differences to consider. SA programs have largely been designed to appeal and be accessible to predominantly white, middle-class, and non-first-generation L2 learners (Marijuan & Sanz, 2018). Among students for whom international travel for study abroad may currently be out of reach – Dreamers, students who face health- and disability-related barriers, wage earners, and caregivers, for instance – study abroad can manifest as yet another privileged arena within the university to which they are superficially welcomed yet de facto denied access. Even among heritage language students who can elect to study internationally, many find that the Spanish-immersion programs they have embarked on take place in sites where they may face linguistic and racial discrimination (Sweeney, 2013). Heritage language learners (HLLs) raised speaking Spanish at home may arrive to their SA destinations with stronger linguistic and cultural knowledge and significantly more experience using the language in a variety of settings than their L2 peers (Davidson & Lekic, 2013; Shively, 2016). However, these cultural and linguistic attributes are not always recognized and validated as assets by SA program faculty or members of host communities. We draw a contrast between SA programs that implicitly set heritage language students up to confront these contradictory expectations from a position of alienation and those that we consider to foster what we refer to as critical sociocultural linguistic literacy (CSLL). CSLL can be understood as a broad array of sociopragmatic and sociolinguistic stylistic variation and translingual capabilities and forms of knowledge (see Del Valle, 2014; Holguín Mendoza, in press; Leeman & Serafini, 2016; Martínez, 2003, 2016; Showstack, 2017) within an overall framework of critical language awareness (CLA) (Fairclough, 1995; Leeman, 2005). We find that programs that engage heritage language and L2 students directly in social- and environmental-justice issues within the communities in which they are studying encourage them to reflect on the sociolinguistic and social justice dynamics in which they are engaged abroad and within their home communities. Ideally, SA programs designed with HLLs in mind will support the development of all participants’ intercultural knowledge and skills with which to engage different communities during and beyond their experiences abroad. From site selection, recruitment, and predeparture orientation to

Critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

221

post-program events, guiding participants toward ethical community engagement requires building critiques of neocolonial and consumer-driven discourses and practices around tourism, education abroad, and international development into SA program design at every level. The dual aim of such models is thus to foster CSLL among students and to build reciprocity and accountability toward host communities into SA program design and administration.

Heritage language-centered learning objectives in SA program design Current research on language learning in SA programs focuses primarily on their effectiveness in building L2 students’ proficiency (Twombly, Salisbury, Tumanut, & Klute, 2012). While such studies constitute the dominant trend in SA research, a growing body of scholarship focuses on SA students’ perceptions of their own learning experiences, motivations, and identity development (e.g., Grammon, 2018; Quan, 2016), as well as on the experiences of heritage language students in particular (e.g., Cabal Jiménez, 2018; Guerrero, 2018; Moreno, 2009; Quan, Pozzi, Kehoe, & Menard-Warwick, 2018). Envisioning a shift in SA program development away from established notions of linguistic proficiency and cultural enrichment toward CSLL requires understanding the structural obstacles many HLLs of Spanish face that may inhibit their participation. As Twombly et al. (2012) note, while there is growing interest among SA professionals to recruit students from diverse backgrounds, barriers remain that include “human, cultural and social capital: cost, lack of information, lack of role models, concerns of family, not viewing study abroad as worth the cost in terms of time or money, and the way in which study abroad is marketed” (p. 107). While we must continue to broaden our recruitment processes, we must also identify institutional barriers to SA participation. For example, students need clear and up-front guidelines regarding how SA courses will count toward their degrees, as well as how they can use financial aid and scholarships toward these programs (Twombly et al., 2012). We cannot simply attribute chronically low numbers of Spanish heritage language students and students from other underrepresented groups in any given SA program as indicating lack of interest. Instead, we should be looking at how each program’s administrative structure, curricular design, and learning objectives might be reformulated to meet the academic, cultural, and socioeconomic needs of students in all their diversity (Shively, 2016; Twombly et al., 2012). For instance, in order for SA administrators and faculty to provide support for heritage language students, they must take into account specific challenges many of those students face, including cultural acceptance and moral and material support from family members and communities (Burr, 2005). Although many Latinx students may perceive SA programs as

222

Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor

beneficial and desirable, they may see their own potential participation as constrained by family obligations, economic restrictions, personal and/or family members’ immigration status, and even lack of access to information that would help them consider how such programs could fit with their current obligations and professional aspirations (McClure, Szelényi, Niehaus, Anderson, & Reed, 2010). Some of the most consequential actions administrators could take to address these inequalities include championing SA programs designed with heritage language students in mind, offering comprehensive SA scholarships for HLLs of Spanish, and creating inclusive alternatives to the geographic spaces currently privileged as Spanishlanguage SA program sites, namely in Spain and tourist-oriented destinations in Latin America (as specified in National Association of International Educators [NAFSA], 2018; Open Doors, 2019).

Language ideologies and heritage language learning objectives at home and abroad As with language ideologies, SA programs are never neutral with regard to environmental justice, human rights, and geopolitical interests. While they are often promoted as opportunities to participate in advancing international cooperation, they may in fact tacitly feed into and normalize local and global structures of inequality and exploitation. Zemach-Bersin notes, for instance, that in contrast with the explicit discourses of global citizenship at the center of many SA programs’ marketing campaigns, such programs have often served to “reproduce the logic of colonialism, legitimize American imperialist desires, and allow for the interests of U.S. foreign policy to be articulated through the specious rhetoric of global universality” (2007, p. 17, as cited by Twombly et al., 2012, p. 97). Grammon (2018) discusses, for example, an SA program in Cuzco, Peru, that bases its marketing strategy and program design on a promise of immersion in local Quechua language and ancient Incan cultural patrimony. While the program touts indigenous heritage in the abstract, it discourages students from adopting features of local Spanish characterized by centuries-long contact with Quechua. Operating from this “racialized understanding of linguistic competence” (p. 154), Grammon argues, the program ultimately stigmatizes the nonstandard varieties of Spanish characteristic of Quechua-dominant rural regions. This mix of superficial valorization of local culture and linguistic gatekeeping devalues local language varieties and their speakers. This pedagogical approach informed by colonial linguistic ideologies collides with the study of Spanish as it has been institutionalized as a foreign language within US higher education. Spanish is the second most commonly spoken language in the United States, but Pavlenko notes that Spanish language programs are beholden to an administrative structure in which it is grouped in with other “foreign” languages, despite the fact that it is “the language of the most sizeable minority population in the United States, and … of the

Critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

223

majority of bilingual and heritage-language programmes” (2003, pp. 314–315). In fact, Pavlenko (2002) argues, mainstream political discourses in the United States cast languages other than English as conflicting with US identity. Within this ideological framework, language education is cast as a prestigious and edifying pursuit for middle- and upper-class white students, but remedial and even dangerously un-American for students of color (Pavlenko, 2002, 2003), particularly if they are first- or secondgeneration learners of English. We can see then why many SA programs may not be well equipped to foster heritage language students’ complex sociocultural and linguistic development. Indeed, while SA programs are famous for allowing L2 learners to immerse themselves in languages and cultures distinct from their own, much work is yet to be done to understand how, from the perspective of heritage language students, such experiences may also represent a form of “heritage seeking” (Jorge, 2006; Twombly et al., 2012) or partial return to cultural roots and family ties (Kinginger, 2009; Rubin, 2004). When heritage language students are perceived as insiders in the SA community, they may experience positive effects, such as interacting and developing connections with members of the community with less difficulty. However, they may also experience obstacles, such as exposure to negative feedback or lack of constructive feedback on their language use and racialized sanctions regarding their stylistic variations and cultural practices. In a study of Spanish L2 and HLLs’ language attitudes in a summer program in Costa Rica, for example, Cabal Jiménez (2018) finds that in contrast with L2 students, HLLs expressed a preference for having their grammar corrected by their instructor, even when they may not have required such correction (e.g., Profesora, si usted tuviera unos minutos más tarde, quisiera que me explicara el subjuntivo, “Professor, if you have a few minutes later, I would like you to explain the subjunctive to me”; p. 306, author translation). According to Cabal Jiménez, these heritage language students’ expressions of anxiety around grammar and linguistic performance are likely to stem not so much from actual deficits in their language use as from disempowering experiences of having had their Spanish criticized, not only within the host community but also at school and among family in the United States. For this reason, research on language use perceptions among Spanish heritage language students abroad can help us to understand the challenges these students may face when normative linguistic ideologies found within host communities collide with those they have likely already encountered within the politically fraught context of Spanish in the United States.

Examining sociolinguistic agency and identity formation through CSLL Expansion-oriented pedagogical approaches to Spanish as a heritage language purport to value students’ home varieties (see Leeman, 2018) but

224

Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor

ultimately privilege the acquisition of an arbitrary linguistic “standard” which also happens to be the prestige variety. In contrast, critical Spanish heritage language pedagogies incorporate local and home varieties into the classroom in order to promote their maintenance and development (Leeman, 2005). As proposed by Fairclough (1995), critical language awareness (CLA) requires educators and learners to understand a language’s “sociopolitical implications in the production of knowledge, culture, and identities”, as well as to make an explicit commitment to social justice (Leeman, 2005, p. 35). Martínez (2003), for example, advocates for classroom-based dialect awareness (CBDA), a pedagogical model that requires students to identify the sociopolitical elements behind linguistic differences and hierarchies both in the classroom and in society. As a constellation of critical pedagogical approaches, we suggest that CSLL allows heritage language students to negotiate their own processes of identity formation within the particular systems of meaning in which they are immersed in any given setting. CSLL focuses on the development of critical knowledge and critical literacy regarding how our communication mediates our social lives and our identity performances and how we conceptualize our social worlds. CSLL builds on critical language awareness, classroom-based dialect awareness, and sociolinguistics for translingual capabilities (see Leeman & Serafini, 2016; Martínez, 2016), and specifically works to undue the devaluation of sociopragmatic and stylistic variation among users of Spanish in contact with other languages (Holguín Mendoza, in press). CSLL demands that we examine identity constructions not as “stable structure[s] located primarily in the individual psyche or in fixed social categories” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, pp. 585–586) but as sociocultural phenomena that emerge through speakers’ interrelations, which in turn are mediated through local discourse communities. Martínez (2003) points out a particular gap in our knowledge of critical Spanish heritage language pedagogies that we find CSLL to be especially helpful in addressing: insofar as we seek to understand linguistic variation from multiculturalist perspectives that merely dissolve or relativize our differences – racial, class, and otherwise – (e.g., Wolfram 1999), we end up supporting the hegemonic social structures we claim to abhor (see also Kubota, 2004; Leeman, 2018). What we are proposing instead is a critical pedagogy that registers sociopragmatic and stylistic variation from a social justice and sociocultural linguistic perspective (for sociocultural linguistics, see Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, 2008). While there is much research to be done to help us measure the results of teaching critical pedagogies in the Spanish heritage language context, some recent studies describe the effectiveness of such approaches in various contexts. In one study measuring outcomes of CLA in a Spanish heritage language classroom, for example, Beaudrie, Amezcua, and Loza (2019) administered a pretest/posttest questionnaire to 19 heritage language students enrolled in universities across the Southwest. Their findings suggest

Critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

225

that “becoming critically language aware entails learners becoming cognizant of the naturalness of language variation and its loading of social, political, and economic power structures, while accepting the intrinsic value of their own bilingual varieties and all others” (p. 15). Holguín Mendoza (2018, in press) has utilized surveys to investigate students’ sociolinguistic attitudes during and after a CSLL-focused two-course Spanish heritage language sequence, identifying how students’ perceptions of their own sociolinguistic ideologies and awareness change based on their participation in these courses. These findings suggest that over time, students develop a broad literacy when they are encouraged to discern the social meanings of linguistic styles, as well as to articulate how their own linguistic decisions shape and are shaped by social values that either perpetuate or resist dominant structures.1 Making CSLL an explicit and measurable learning outcome within Spanish heritage language-focused classrooms and SA programs allows students to critically examine how ideologies and power relations are reproduced and normalized through our everyday linguistic stances and discursive practices. By understanding the stylistic variations within our interactions as contexts through which our identities are created and reproduced, rather than expressions of static and discreet identities (regional, nationalistic, heteronormative, etc.), we can effectively articulate how our language use plays into or plays against the social hierarchies that contrive to alienate us from each other. Furthermore, CSLL challenges us to identify how speakers’ linguistic forms and choices are influenced by the sociopragmatic and cultural contexts in which they are used, including speakers’ interactional epistemic and affective stances and intersubjectivities (Holguín Mendoza, 2018, in press; Showstack, 2017). Within the context of SA, a CSLL-based curriculum may purposefully include particular contexts for students to articulate how they become critically aware of their own processes of developing certain variations and shifts in linguistic style. This is important because, as Cook notes, Spanish heritage language students may not always be aware of the different social meanings related within “a given linguistic index due to its semantic ambiguity deriving from its context dependency. As the number of contexts is unlimited, it is nearly impossible to list all the shades of the social meaning of a given index” (Cook, 2008, p. 177). As educators, we can create spaces within our SA curricula to identify and troubleshoot potentially alienating or disempowering interactions that Spanish HLLs may encounter during language-mediated activities among host community members. Such scenarios may be among the greatest challenges these students will encounter while in host communities and households abroad, and learning to anticipate and develop constructive responses to them is central to CSLL as a pedagogical aim. The following section allows us to see why this is so important if we are to avoid reproducing the contradictory or limited learning objectives we unconsciously set out for heritage language students within traditionally L2-focused SA models.

226

Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor

Stylistic practices and agency among Spanish heritage language students Riegelhaupt and Carrasco (2000) describe the linguistic attitudes of a middle-class Mexican family toward the Spanish variety used by their homestay guest, a Chicana teacher from Arizona participating in an immersion program in Mexico. In documenting the family’s stigmatization of their guest’s use of Spanish, the study magnifies the ways in which heritage language students are often marginalized when they do not conform to local language ideologies that obliquely tie education, professional status, and ethnic or racial identity to standard or prestige language varieties. Riegelhaupt and Carrasco note that other Chicano teachers participating in this program experienced similar forms of linguistic and racial discrimination from which their white L2 teacher peers were exempt. During one of the interviews, one host family member exclaimed, “Oh, Dr. Carrasco! Next time send us a blonde with blue eyes” (p. 408). In describing the pedagogical implications of their study, they emphasize the need for participants to develop metalinguistic awareness in relation to dialect differences and to experiment with how different dialects might be received within particular settings. They conclude that participants should understand that “their dialect is a perfectly viable one with a history of its own. Such awareness leads to pride in their own variety of Spanish and perhaps an increased willingness to accept the fact that people speak in different ways in different regions, and that within those regions there are also social class differences” (p. 419). Although Riegelhaupt and Carrasco's conclusions validate Spanish dialects common in the United States, they do not problematize the racist and classist ideologies implicit in this Mexican host family member’s request. After all, the family’s numerous objections to their Chicana guest’s use of Spanish were not simply about her dialect or accent, but reflected their deeper anxieties about what they perceived to be her racial and class background (see Rosa, 2016). CSLL differs from the pedagogical approach proposed by Riegelhaupt and Carrasco (2000) in that it challenges SA researchers and educators to analyze and articulate what might at first appear as a linguistic gulf between host family and homestay guest in terms of deeper ethnoracial and class antagonisms that only become comprehensible within the context of colonial and neocolonial structures of oppression. If we ignore the interactional resources heritage language students bring to their SA experiences, as well as the ways in which they are capable of exercising agency in negotiating racial subtexts, we risk misrepresenting language variation as unrelated to sociocultural and racial bias at best and reproducing sociolinguistic inequalities at worst (Leeman & Serafini, 2016; see also Quan, 2021). In a study of Los Angeles–based heritage language students of Mexican descent participating in an SA program in Mexico City, Guerrero (2018) gives us an excellent example of the metalinguistic skills these students

Critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

227

possess that allow them to “maneuver United States and Mexican conceptualizations of Mexican identity, which is significant considering that language and nationality have differing social values in either country” (p. 6). Guerrero observes that prior to participating in this SA program, the students favorably evaluated many rural and popular Spanish variants common to the Los Angeles koine variety that incorporates Mexican and Salvadoran features (Parodi, 2011). These positive assessments among speakers of what Parodi refers to as Los Angeles Vernacular Spanish also reflect a leveling and maintenance of highly valued nonstandard local linguistic forms that stem from sustained Spanish and English contact, particularly among second-generation Spanish speakers. Guerrero notes that in the early weeks of the program, the students observed that English loanwords were widely used, not only in Los Angeles but throughout Spanish-speaking regions of the world. However, they personally avoided the use of such loanwords and even spoke of them disparagingly as Spanglish. They regarded the use of these loanwords as antithetical to “authentic” Spanish and therefore counterproductive to their performance of mexicanidad within the local Mexico City context. However, as the program progressed, these heritage language students also acquired greater metalinguistic awareness of how rural and popular features were valued locally. This awareness allowed them to “actively engage the relevant variants and use the social indexes in the construction of identity, which constitutes stylistic practice” (Guerrero, 2018, p. 130). Guerrero illustrates how these students demonstrated their metalinguistic awareness, not only of the stigma these variants often carry in Mexico but also of how their own use of these linguistic features indexed their desired mexicanidad by associating them with the “authentic” rural and popular Mexican identities with which they themselves identified. These students understood that within the SA context in Mexico, they found themselves in a position of relative socioeconomic privilege in relation to the people with whom they were interacting in the host community, due to the economic advantages they brought from the United States (i.e., the strength of the US dollar relative to the Mexican peso, and the fact of their transborder mobility due to their US residency or citizenship status). What Guerrero’s study allows us to appreciate is that when heritage language students of Mexican descent are in Mexico, they may not necessarily buy into to the negative racial and class connotations that many urban Mexican nationals associate with rural, popular, and working-class forms of speech, dress, and cultural tastes. Together, these studies of heritage language students abroad tell us an important story about their resilience and resourcefulness as they navigate the different meanings their linguistic practices may connote in different contexts. They understand that criticism directed at them for the way they speak is not only linguistic but often involves racial and class prejudices. Making these raciolinguistic dynamics (Rosa, 2016) of students’ own and others’ language use an explicit learning objective in its own right is central

228

Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor

to fostering the CSLL we are proposing here. Heritage language students gain the means through which to construct their identities through their stylistic practices. They are also able to recognize and exercise their linguistic agency in different contexts, deciding whether to blend in or to create social change by standing out within the hybrid worlds they inhabit. Del Valle (2014) sums up what is at stake in developing this type of critical literacy in the language classroom: Developing students’ critical knowledge – not just awareness – of the cultural, political, and social dimensions of language must be placed at the center of curriculum planning and syllabus design from the early stages of language learning. This means that even at the so-called elementary and intermediate levels, syllabi should include metalinguistic content that focuses on the development of that kind of critical competence. (p. 370) In order to achieve this, we must first revise our notion of communicative competence, such that we understand it not simply as higher levels of linguistic and pragmatic proficiency but as “a greater capacity to engage in communicationally challenging and socio-politically loaded encounters” (Del Valle, 2014, p. 370). While the community-based or experiential learning models we discuss here are not the only means through which to teach CSLL in SA programs, they are central to our proposal because they allow heritage language students to reflect on their linguistic agency and identity formation within real-world contexts in which the social inequalities they are observing and participating in mirror those they may find within their own lives.

Transforming SA opportunities through CSLL and communitybased programs Latinx communities in the United States have long been considered “perpetual foreigners” (Rocco, 2004) within dominant discourses of national identity and belonging. Given this indifference and outright hostility toward Chicano and Latino peoples (e.g., Anzaldua, 1987, 2012; Rodríguez, 2014; Valdéz & Steiner, 1972), some HLLs in SA programs may become invested in an idea that they are “going back home” (Jorge, 2006) to an idealized homeland where they can further develop their language skills and reconnect with their identities. At the same time, due to their cultural and socioeconomic status as US citizens, they may find themselves treated as members of another more advantaged social class, especially as they may inadvertently reproduce the discourses and practices associated with US consumer culture and elitism by members of the host community (see Ogden, 2008). Lutterman-Aguilar and Gingerich (2002) draw on critical pedagogies and feminist theory to propose an SA curricular model rooted in transformative

Critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

229

experiences, constructivist theories of teaching, and cooperative learning. This model is meant to empower students to develop critical consciousness of how their own lived experiences may intersect with wider liberation struggles (see Freire, 1973), particularly as they relate to the liberation struggles within the communities in which these programs are based. Lutterman-Aguilar and Gingerich find these experiential SA programs notable in their rejection of what Paulo Freire (1973) refers to as the “banking model of education”. Instead, they favor curricular designs that emerge in dialogue with the host community regarding the types of activities that would be mutually beneficial and allow for a reciprocal exchange of different types of social capital. In order for these programs to engage in critical analysis of social justice issues faced by the host communities, experiential SA programs within this type of learning framework require leadership from educators capable of encouraging students to engage in social action informed by local realities. Designing community-based SA programs with heritage language students in mind, particularly those that aim to develop CSLL, requires consideration of students’ needs and capabilities and what will benefit the host community. Martínez (2016) argues for a capabilities (rather than a competencies) theoretical framework for heritage language education that incorporates “what heritage language students are able to do and be. This approach elevates the role of heritage language communities in achieving the goals of heritage language education and argues that community engagement is not a tangential or supplementary activity” (p. 51). Ideally, heritage language-inclusive SA curricula would follow such a capabilities approach. It is here that we find critical community engagement to constitute a primary feature for developing CSLL-based SA programs. Some notable examples of SA programs designed explicitly with heritage language students in mind are appearing in universities across the country. Within the limited scope of this chapter, we mention two with which we are most familiar. “Maya Communities and Social Justice in Chiapas”, a seven-week program in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Mexico, led by the second author, offers students the opportunity to earn 12 credits at the upper-division level counting toward their Spanish degree. The program includes elements called “Indigenous Histories and Stories of Chiapas”, “Mesoamerican Foodways”, and “Academic and Public Engagement across Borders”. While this program is open to all students, it is probably not a coincidence that due to its location and thematic focus, it has drawn a high number of heritage language students who identify as Latinx. Participants in this program team up with university students in the host community in the process of completing their community service as a required component of their degree. Together they design and implement unique hands-on social, environmental, or cultural projects in accordance with their mutual interests. Guided excursions include sites such as Sumidero Canyon, Palenque, and San Andrés Larráinzar, as well as visits to local Maya communities near San Cristóbal,

230

Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor

with a focus on the knowledge of local experts in fields such as human rights, agroecology, and environmental justice. The implementation of such a program requires a great deal of coordination and collaboration with community leaders and fellow researchers, as well as attention to the ways in which each aspect of the program can benefit the local communities involved. When considering how to design SA programs that nurture students’ development of CSLL, we also find space to challenge the arbitrary distinctions we make between “domestic” and “abroad” realms. Indeed, Spanish is not a foreign language within the United States, and students seeking opportunities for cultural, linguistic, personal, and professional enrichment do not necessarily have to go to another country to find themselves immersed in the languages and cultural histories of the Spanishspeaking world. In fact, “study-away” programs can be developed that do not require students to cross international borders, making them more accessible to those for whom study abroad may be beyond reach, due to family responsibilities, legal status, health issues, or other constraints. Taylor is currently piloting a study-away program, “Agroecology and Latinx Culture in the Willamette Valley”, that replicates many of the key elements of traditional Spanish-immersion SA programs yet takes place at a 30-acre transitional organic farm two hours from her university. Students develop a broad understanding of ecological agriculture through hands-on practice as well as critical inquiry into the social, political, and historical factors that have created today’s transborder agricultural landscape (Taylor, 2017). Practical lessons include seeding in the greenhouse, applying organic amendments, understanding basic soil science, and learning harvesting techniques. Afternoon seminars are dedicated to in-depth discussions of readings in agroecology, social justice, and Latinx literature and social movements. By engaging simultaneously with these practical and critical components, participants articulate their own visions for how sustainable agriculture can function as a catalyst for a more equitable and inclusive society – and vice versa. Alongside interns specializing in Latinx agroecological and entrepreneurial practices under the auspices of the nonprofit organization Campo (http://www.campopdx.org), students learn to apply basic agroecological farming skills within a community-based educational model. The program’s learning objectives intersect with the CSLL model we have proposed in this chapter and draw upon the knowledge participants develop in the CSLL-based Spanish heritage language program and the language and society track in this university (Holguín Mendoza, 2018, in press; Holguín Mendoza et al., 2018). These objectives include identifying how current agricultural systems and human migration patterns are rooted in particular social and political histories, as well as how these histories shape peoples’ relationships with food, with land, and with each other as producers, consumers, and political subjects (Taylor, 2017). Ultimately, the program challenges students to articulate what the indigenous ideal of buen

Critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

231

vivir (Gudynas, 2011; see also Taylor, 2017) might consist of in the pluricultural US Northwest and across borders throughout the Americas. We highlight both of these CSLL-based programs for the ways in which they provide learners from diverse backgrounds, and Spanish HLLs in particular, with the means to critically identify subtle ambiguities in communication, to exercise their own linguistic agency, and to rehearse different affective stances in their sociolinguistic practices. Insofar as these programs explore social justice issues in Spanish-speaking communities abroad and within the United States, they guide students to reflect on their relationships with their Latinx cultural and linguistic heritage as well as on the value of their own forms of knowledge within the context of European and US imperialism around the world. Incorporating CSLL into the curriculum gives HLLs opportunities to articulate how structural inequalities and power relations manifest in their lives as well as in the lives of those around them.

Conclusion: decolonizing study abroad As we saw from Guerrero’s (2018) study, heritage language students of Spanish are already adept at discerning subtle social meanings within particular semantic systems and contexts (e.g., racialized and stigmatized language uses and social meanings relating to racial and class identities). Teaching students to identify how, when, and why they and others do what they do with language is at the heart of heritage language-focused CSLL pedagogies. By creating transformative curricula that take students out of the classroom and into different discourse communities where language is used spontaneously, SA programs can support them in making empowering choices about their language use, demystifying the cultural perceptions behind dominant linguistic ideologies, and exercising social agency within and beyond their own communities. Prioritizing SA equity and inclusion among students goes hand in hand with acknowledging how such programs have often played into different forms of oppression and exploitation within host communities. As Leeman and Serafini (2016) note, “framing prestigious or standard varieties as more appropriate for high-status contexts or activities downplays the social, economic, and ideological dimensions of language variation and erases the fact that the prescribed linguistic practices are those of powerful groups, thus legitimating their use as gate-keeping mechanisms for access to positions of social or economic power” (p. 63). Designing SA programs that tap into Spanish heritage language students’ goals, interests, and aptitudes requires of us a departure from the central paradigms that have guided the teaching of languages and cultural histories within foreign language and area studies fields in the United States and abroad. First, we must come to terms with the ways in which Spanishimmersion SA programs have tended to magnify language ideologies bound up in racist and colonial legacies. Second, we must understand how US

232

Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor

universities have tended to relegate the study of Spanish to the realm of “foreign” languages, perpetuating the erroneous notion that Latinx peoples in the United States are always already immigrants, useful for their agricultural, domestic, and military labor but never natives, pilgrims, pioneers, or cultural vanguards in their own right. From this narrow settler colonial perspective, the idea of language proficiency in Spanish is tied to an elite “native speaker” paradigm that values “pure” forms of a language over its hybrid, border-crossing cousins. In the confluence of these imperialist assumptions and their attendant language ideologies, SA programs have notoriously alienated many Latin American, Latinx, and Chicanx students by privileging narrow prescriptions of linguistic correctness over autonomous intellectual, cultural, and linguistic empowerment. Our efforts to open up “foreign” language and literature programs to the study of actually existing Spanish in the United States and the world contribute to the development of intellectual communities that actively deconstruct settler colonial linguistic ideologies and educational models. Such decolonial learning communities allow us to identify and question the assumptions about what constitutes mastery of a specific body of cultural and intellectual knowledge, whether produced within the US academy, abroad, or in our own communities. By preparing students to engage in making new pluricultural social meanings and social futures alongside the host communities in which they find themselves, CSLL-based pedagogies support heritage language students as they learn to critically examine their own attitudes and perceptions regarding the linguistic practices they observe within their own discourse communities (e.g., families, friend networks, social media). Ultimately, the goal is for students to be able to critically evaluate their own linguistic styles and develop sociopragmatic practices beyond notions of language proficiency and cultural literacy customarily employed to evaluate L2 student progress, as well as to transform their social sphere as they deem necessary.

Note 1 The complete open-source educational material designed to implement this critical pedagogical approach, which we call here CSLL, can be found at https:// pedagogiascriticas.ucr.edu/.

References Anzaldua, G. [1987] (2012). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books. Beaudrie, S., Amezcua, A., & Loza, S. (2019). Critical language awareness for the heritage context: Development and validation of a measurement questionnaire. Language Testing, 36(4), 573–594. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.

Critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

233

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2008). All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 401–431. Burr, P.L. (2005). Building study abroad acceptance among Hispanic students: The value of talking to the Hispanic family. IIENetworker Magazine: Diversity in International Education, 7(2), 36–38. Cabal Jiménez, M. (2018). Quisiera que me explicara el subjuntivo: Actitudes y percepciones de hablantes de herencia de español en el contexto de estudios en el extranjero. Káñina, XLII(3), 287–317. Cook, H.M. (2008). Socializing identities through speech style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Davidson, D., & Lekic, M. (2013). The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: Comparing learning outcomes and target-language utilization in the Russian flagship. Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 226–252. Del Valle, J. (2014). The Politics of normativity and globalization: Which Spanish in the classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 358–372. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (Language in social life series). London/New York: Longman. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Seabury Press. Grammon, D.K. (2018). Acquiring Cuzco: Marginalized language, ideology and study abroad in Peru (Doctoral dissertation). OSU Campus Repository. Columbus, OH, United States: The Ohio State University. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10? 0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:osu153198451440002. Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen vivir: Today’s tomorrow. Development, 54(4), 441–447. Guerrero, A. (2018). The Mexican diaspora: On constructing and negotiating Mexicanidad in Mexico City (Doctoral dissertation). UC Repository. Los Angeles, CA, United States: University of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/ 2gr074bz. Holguín Mendoza, C. (2018). Critical language awareness (CLA) for Spanish heritage language programs: Implementing a complete curriculum. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(2), 65–79. Holguín Mendoza, C. (in press). Beyond registers of formality and other categories of stigmatization: Style, awareness and agency in SHL. In M.A. Bowles (Ed.), Outcomes of university Spanish heritage language instruction in the United States. Georgetown University Press. Holguín Mendoza, C., Davis, R., & Weise, J. (2018). La pedagogía crítica y las ciencias sociales: Estrategias para empoderar a estudiantes de español como lengua de herencia y de segunda lengua. Hispania, 101(3), 368–380. Jorge, E. (2006). A journey home: Connecting Spanish-speaking communities at home and abroad. Hispania, 89(1), 110–122. Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 30–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 35–45. Leeman, J. (2018). Critical language awareness and Spanish as a heritage language: Challenging the linguistic subordination of US Latinxs. In K. Potowski (Ed.),

234

Claudia Holguín Mendoza and Analisa Taylor

Handbook of Spanish as a minority/heritage language (pp. 345–358). New York: Routledge. Leeman, J., & Serafini, E.J. (2016). Sociolinguistics and heritage language education: A model for promoting critical translingual competence. In M. Fairclough & S. Beaudrie (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States: The state of the field (pp. 56–79). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lowther-Pereira, K.A. (2015). Developing critical language awareness via serviceleaning for Spanish heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 12(2), 159–185. Loza, S. (2017). Transgressing standard language ideologies in the Spanish heritage language (SHL) classroom. Chiricú Journal: Latina/o Literatures, Arts, and Cultures, 1(2), 56–77. Lutterman-Aguilar, A., & Gingerich, O. (2002). Experiential pedagogy for study abroad: Educating for global citizenship. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, VIII, 41–82. Marijuan, S., & Sanz, C. (2018). Expanding boundaries: Current and new directions in study abroad research and practice. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 185–204. Martínez, G. (2003). Classroom-based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1), 44–57. Martínez, G. (2016). Goals and beyond in heritage language education: From competencies to capabilities. In M. Fairclough & S. Beaudrie (Eds.), Innovative strategies for heritage language teaching: A practical guide for the classroom (pp. 39–55). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. McClure, K.R., Szelényi, K., Niehaus, E., Anderson, A. A., & Reed, J. (2010). “We just don’t have the possibility yet”: U.S. Latina/o narratives on study abroad. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47, 367–386. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.6056. Moreno, K.H. (2009). The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin. National Association of International Educators (NAFSA). (2018). Trends in study abroad. Retrieved from https://www.nafsa.org/Policy_and_Advocacy/Policy_ Resources/Policy_Trends_and_Data/Trends_in_U_S__Study_Abroad/. Ogden, A. (2008). The view from the veranda: Understanding today’s colonial student. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 35–55. Open Doors (2019). Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/ Open-Doors/Open-Doors-2019-Media-Information. Parodi, C. (2011). El otro México: Español chicano, koineización y diglosia en Los Á ngeles, California. In Realismo en el análisis de corpus orales: Primer coloquio de ́ cambio Y variación lingüistica (pp. 217–243), El Colegio de México, México. Pavlenko, A. (2002). “We have room for but one language here”: Language and national identity in the US at the turn of the 20th century. Multilingua, 21(2–3), 163–196. Pavlenko, A. (2003). “Language of the enemy”: Foreign language education and national identity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(5), 313–331. Quan, T. (2016). Becoming fluent abroad: Examining the intersections of oral fluency, formulaic language, and learner investment in study abroad (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Davis: PQDT Open. https://search.proquest.com/ docview/1850915390?accountid=14505.

Critical sociocultural linguistic literacy

235

Quan, T. (2021). Study abroad as a transformative translanguaging space for Spanish heritage speakers. In W. Diao & E. Trentman (Eds.), Multilingual approach to study abroad (pp. 170–189). Multilingual Matters. Quan, T., Pozzi, R., Kehoe, S., & Menard-Warwick, J. (2018). Spanish heritage language learners in study abroad across three national contexts. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 437–451). New York, NY: Routledge. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R.L. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 405–421. Rocco, R. (2004). Transforming citizenship: Membership, strategies of containment and the public sphere in Latino communities. Latino Studies, 2, 4–25. Rodríguez, R.C. (2014). Our sacred maíz is our mother: Indigeneity and belonging in the Americas. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Rosa, J.D. (2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26, 162–183. Rubin, K. (2004). Going home to study. International Educator, 13, 26–33. Shively, R.L. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Showstack, R.E. (2017). Stancetaking and language ideologies in heritage language learner classroom discourse. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(5), 271–284. Sweeney, K.L. (2013). Inclusive excellence and underrepresentation of students of color in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 23, 1–21. Taylor, A. (2017). Milpa: Mesoamerican resistance to agricultural imperialism. In S. Day (Ed.), Modern Mexican culture (pp. 46–65). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Twombly, S.B., Salisbury, M.H., Tumanut, S.D., & Klute, P. (2012). Study abroad in a new global century: Renewing the promise, refining the purpose. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Valdéz, L., & Steiner, S. (1972). Aztlán: An anthology of Mexican-American literature. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Wolfram, W. (1999). Repercussions from the Oakland ebonics controversy – The critical role of dialect awareness programs. In C. Adger, D. Christian & O. Taylor (Eds.), Making the connection: Language and academic achievement among African American students (pp. 61–80). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Zemach-Bersin, T. (2007). Global citizenship and study abroad: It’s all about U.S. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 1(2), 16–28.

12 Enhancing readiness for the immersive experience Spanish heritage language learners as conversation partners in predeparture sessions Silvia Marijuan Introduction The growing popularity of study abroad (SA) in the United States goes hand in hand with efforts to internationalize higher education. In a knowledgebased global economy, a “global mindset” and “global citizenship” are perceived as synonyms of adaptability and interculturality or “global com­ petence”. For many, “global competence is a necessity for both individual learners and for society; it drives understanding, and increases world peace” (Punteney, 2019, p. 29). The reality, however, is that even though postsecondary institutions sup­ port the expansion of SA as a critical aspect of the college learning experience, not all students are able to participate equally in SA programs. As SA scholars have argued, inequity in SA participation is widespread and seems to be socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic in nature (e.g., Lu, Reddick, Dean, & Pecero, 2015; M’Balia, 2013; McClure, Szelényi, Niehaus, Anderson, & Reed, 2010; Simon & Ainsworth, 2012; Tolan & McCullers, 2018). This claim is supported by 2019 Institute for International Education data showing that, of the 341,751 students who went abroad for credit in 2017–2018, only 10.6% were of Hispanic or Latinx origins, 6.1% were Black or African American, 4.4% were multiracial, and 0.5% were American Indian or Alaskan Native. Democratizing SA so that more low-income students, first-generation students, and students of color have wider access to international education is not the only challenge that stakeholders face. A key question to be an­ swered is how students from all backgrounds, including heritage language learners (HLLs), can truly benefit from the immersion experience, con­ sidering that SA does not necessarily lead to broader linguistic repertoire, greater intercultural understanding, or identity expansion (Marijuan & Sanz, 2018). SA research has provided evidence that SA participants may experience linguistic, cultural, and identity conflicts in daily exchanges overseas. As a result, they may avoid using the second language (L2) – or heritage language – and limit interactions with locals, which in turn may prevent them from successfully integrating into the host community (e.g.,

Heritage learners as conversation partners

237

Allen & Herron, 2003; Goldoni, 2013; Wang, 2009). While overseas, SA participants may also confirm their biases about the target culture and language, exhibiting, for example, a stronger sense of national (and lin­ guistic) superiority (e.g., Block, 2007; Byram, 2008; Du, 2015; Goldoni, 2013). Many factors are at play in considering the positive or negative outcomes of SA (see Marijuan & Sanz, 2018, for an overview). Therefore, recognizing potential factors that might intervene in SA learners’ language, intercultural, and identity development, and recognizing strategies that can support all students so that they can benefit from their sojourn abroad, are central goals for SA researchers and practitioners. This chapter supports the call to make SA more diverse and inclusive, not only in terms of enrollment and participation but also in terms of program development. In order to conceive of a well-rounded SA program that creates favorable conditions for the learning of all students, it is important to consider when and how to intervene. Focusing exclusively on the im­ mersive experience itself – as if this experience were detached from the adjustment processes that take place before, and also after, studying abroad – overlooks opportunities to foster diversity and inclusion in all SA stages. This chapter expands on a critical period in the SA cycle, the predeparture phase (e.g., Baker-Smemoe, Dewey, Bown, & Martinsen, 2014; Dewey, Belnap, & Steffen, 2018; Martinsen, 2010). As I have argued elsewhere (Marijuan, 2019), prior to going abroad, learners start projecting an image of themselves as someone who will live, study, or intern abroad. At this stage, concerns related to the novelty of the host country and culture may arise: “What is this host country and culture like? What will my place be in it? Do I belong there?” (p. 10, emphasis in the original). In the case of students of color, these concerns may be even more pronounced, considering “the increasing number of racial and racist confrontations on US college cam­ puses” (Snowden, 2019, p. 20). Students of color may fear racial and ethnic confrontations abroad, especially if they do not exhibit an ethnoracial af­ finity with the community of speakers overseas (see Anya, 2017). While positive learning experiences abroad certainly are possible for students of color, racial and ethnic tensions may represent a potential challenge that needs to be addressed early in the SA cycle. Even though most SA programs already include preprogram orientations that inform SA participants about program itineraries, student safety, travel insurance, and other valuable travel-related information, innovations that improve the quality of the predeparture phase have not been widely im­ plemented. Research-informed predeparture interventions have the poten­ tial to aid SA participants as they reflect on how they foresee themselves fitting into the new environment and to help them develop strategies to adjust to and react to the unknown – for example, confronting different cultural behaviors and expectations, and different ways of communicating in a particular dialectal variety. Enhancing student readiness prior to SA can especially benefit short-term SA programs (four to six weeks abroad) – the

238

Silvia Marijuan

most popular option among US college students (Institute for International Education, 2019) – since in this type of program, students have much less time to adapt to the target culture and language than in a semester or yearlong SA program. As a programmatic innovation, this chapter advocates for the inclusion of predeparture sessions that involve the active engagement of Spanish heritage language learners (SHLLs) as conversation partners for SA groups of L2 learners (L2Ls), other SHLLs, or both (mixed SA groups). Previous SA research has explored the benefits of involving on-site mentors as support for SA learners in their adaptation to the host country (Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009) and the advantages of employing con­ versation partners from the host institution (native speakers) to help SA learners engage in authentic conversations abroad (e.g., Grey, Cox, Serafini, & Sanz, 2015; Marijuan, 2018; Nagle, Morales-Front, Moorman, & Sanz, 2016). In order to expand these conversation opportunities to an earlier phase in the SA cycle, it is necessary to look at other resources available on US campuses. SHLLs can also act as peer mentors or conversation partners in educational settings. Assuming the contrary – that only native speakers who grew up in monolingual environments can fulfill a mentoring role – would perpetuate what Bayram, Kupisch, Pascual y Cabo, and Rothman (2019) call the “monolingual-centric” comparative approach to heritage language bilingualism (p. 262). It is well documented that SHLLs’ language varieties usually differ from standard varieties, and that their competence in the heritage language and their linguistic/experiential background can be placed on a vast continuum; nonetheless, they should not be perceived as “deficient” in the heritage language. Not only can their heritage language grammars be considered coherent in their own right (Bayram et al., 2019), but from their own perspective, SHLLs are able to position themselves as legitimate and efficient bilingual and bicultural figures (e.g., Marijuan, 2018; Reznicek-Parrado et al., 2018; Venezia & Borowczyk, 2018). This chapter follows the premise that SHLLs’ unique bilingual and bicultural skills re­ present an asset in a growing global community and marketplace (e.g., Blake & Zyzik, 2003; Carreira & Armengol, 2001); this also holds true for SA learning contexts. In fact, it has recently been suggested that implementing predeparture sessions that involve Spanish heritage language (SHL) con­ versation partners has the potential to create inclusive spaces of dialogue and teamwork between minority and majority students, and among min­ ority students themselves (Marijuan 2018; Marijuan & Sanz, 2018). For SA participants, majority and minority students alike, becoming more sensitive to cultural differences through SA-related experiences before departure can enhance a sense of empathy toward different realities. As SA research has shown, having critical awareness of the self and others, being able to es­ tablish new social relationships, and remaining open and flexible can shape the quality of the immersive experience (Murphy-Lejeune, 2003). Predeparture sessions, when well organized, have the potential to offer

Heritage learners as conversation partners

239

opportunities for interaction and discovery by engaging SA participants in meaningful discussions in the target/heritage language concerning cultural and linguistic aspects related to SA (e.g., examining cultural differences with peers of diverse backgrounds). Predeparture sessions can also create a space for SA participants to spell out their uncertainties, fears, or anxieties about the host country and target culture. For the SHLLs who may be part of the SA cohort, having the chance to share specific concerns as to how they might be perceived by locals abroad can provide them with the necessary support to start developing strategies to overcome challenges that may range from apprehension about locals’ judgment of their (nonstandard) linguistic variety or bilingual practices (i.e., code mixing) to potential discriminatory treatment they might receive based on their racial, ethnic, or national background. In sum, with both SA practitioners and SA researchers in mind, this chapter discusses the need to conceive of study abroad as a multiphase learning experience. For the type of SA programs examined here – those developed in Spanish-speaking countries – the chapter argues in favor of involving SHL conversation partners in predeparture sessions so as to promote SA learner sensitivity toward the cultural values and perspectives of others, to discuss linguistic and cultural topics related to the host country, and to ease SA participant anxiety with respect to potential reception or perception by locals in the host community. It is important to consider that Latinx students have a visible presence in the US education system, and their number is growing at a fast rate across the nation, including in nontradi­ tional settlement areas (see Gándara & Mordechay, 2017). SHLLs, as dis­ cussed before, bring with them diverse linguistic and cultural experiences that they can share with their peers and which allow them to be valuable agents in their educational communities, if given the opportunity (Quintanar-Sarellana et al., 1997). Finally, the chapter evaluates the po­ tential benefits of including SHL conversation partners in predeparture sessions, not only for SA participants (L2Ls/ SHLLs) but also for the SHL conversation partners themselves.

Study abroad as a multiphase learning experience SA scholars have been interested in examining factors that enrich the SA learning experience; these factors, such as social network building, can go beyond the immersive phase itself (e.g., Shively, 2010). Similarly, there is growing awareness of the necessity of recognizing that the SA learning process “includes components of study before, during and after” (Marijuan, 2019, p. 10, emphasis in the original). In alignment with a conceptualization of SA in terms of a holistic process (Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, & Brown, 2013; Marijuan & Sanz, 2018), a growing body of SA research has begun to investigate the potential impact of programmatic and pedagogical interventions in the predeparture phase (e.g., Holmes, Bavieri, & Ganassin,

240

Silvia Marijuan

2015; Marijuan, 2018). SA researchers have also examined how the postimmersion phase – also referred to as reentry – can accommodate learners’ needs to reflect on what they have learned and experienced overseas (e.g., Bathurst & La Brack, 2012; Kindred, 2014), including sharing positive and negative experiences in relation to their ethnic identity (Snowden, 2019). Figure 12.1 shows how SA can be conceptualized as a multiphase learning experience.1 Designing or redesigning an SA program from a more holistic perspective entails taking into account the factors that have been identified as making a difference in how SA learners approach their sojourn abroad – for example, learner anxiety prior to SA, intercultural sensitivity, and target-language proficiency (e.g., Baker-Smemoe et al., 2014; Dewey et al., 2018; Martinsen, 2010; Vande Berg et al., 2009). Different models have been proposed by scholars to explain the process of developing intercultural skills; here, “in­ tercultural sensitivity” is understood as the move from seeing the world according to one’s own cultural lens (i.e., ethnocentrism) to multiple cultural lenses (i.e., ethnorelativism; see Bennett’s, 1986, Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity for more details). A primary objective for SA pro­ grams is that participants learn how to live in a multicultural, multiethnic, and multilingual society. To achieve this important goal, SA learners need to develop a multiple-perspective outlook and gain knowledge about ethnic and cultural diversity (Leeman, 2003). Meaningfully engaging with SHLLs in the host institution prior to embarking on an SA sojourn is a first step for SA learners to broaden their cross-cultural perspectives; for example,

Figure 12.1 Study abroad as a multiphase learning experience.

Heritage learners as conversation partners

241

participants who are L2Ls can learn from SHL conversation partners (Latinx/Chicanx students) about the benefits and challenges of growing up bilingual in the US. Meanwhile, participants who are also SHLLs can share perspectives with their SHL conversation partners on their unique linguistic experiences and cultural backgrounds – keeping in mind that the bilingual range and cultural background of the SHL conversation partners and the SHLLs who may be part of the SA cohort will not necessarily be the same. Another critical aspect to consider is how different factors interrelate within and across phases since it is unlikely that the success or failure of an SA program can be attributed to any single factor. For example, language anxiety has been related not only to learners’ inability to cope with cultural differences but also to their sense of linguistic insecurity and fear of receiving negative evaluations when interacting with native speakers abroad (e.g., Allen & Herron, 2003; Wang, 2009). Wang (2009) has argued that the fear of being negatively evaluated by native speakers abroad is closely related to identity construction in immersive contexts: uncertainty and lack of be­ longing (i.e., feeling like an outsider) can trigger “identity conflict”; subse­ quently, SA learners may avoid the L2 (or the heritage language) as a way to prevent damage to their “self-image” (p. 120). According to Wang, devel­ oping a sense of belonging, by contrast, can strengthen an SA learner’s positive self-image. It is worth mentioning here that the relationship between identity (i.e., self-concept) and SA settings has received increasing attention, since identity formation, understood as a dynamic, multiple, and complex construct, de­ pends not only on the individual but also on contextual factors (Benson et al., 2013). Even though it might be expected that the immersive experience would positively change learners’ identity and self-positioning, at least to some degree, this is not always the case. By contrast, SA faculty leaders commonly hear from students (especially at the beginning and intermediate levels) who express concerns that they will not be able to show their “real personality” when using the L2 or the heritage language as a medium overseas. In this line, Pellegrino Aveni (2005) found that among a group of students who studied abroad, only those who were generally “more suc­ cessful language users and language learners” were able to “overcome concerns of self-presentation in the second language”; by contrast, those who were less willing to use riskier L2 communication strategies tended to be more afraid of expressing their personality in the target language (p. 113). Taking more risks when using the target language relates to learners’ will­ ingness to communicate (WTC), a psychosocial variable that has been well studied in Second Language Acquisition (SLA). For SLA scholars (e.g., Yashima, 2002), a lower level of L2 communication anxiety and greater self-perception of L2 communication competence leads to a higher level of WTC. In SA research, Pellegrino Aveni (2005) has provided evidence that “as learners’ attitudes towards their language skills improve, so does their sense of security in their self-presentation from within” (p. 125).

242

Silvia Marijuan

Pellegrino Aveni argues that allowing greater experimentation in how L2Ls use the target language – for example, through jokes or slang (i.e., comfortable informal interactions) – goes hand in hand with those students being more successful in presenting their personalities in SA contexts. Similar recommendations can be made for SHLLs studying abroad, since recent research has shown that WTC predicts learning outcomes for them as well (see Torres, Estremera, & Mohamed, 2019). In this chapter, the predeparture phase is conceived of as a crucial period of time that has the potential to enhance SA learners’ readiness to be im­ mersed abroad by helping them learn to engage in an informal interactional style that can promote their ability to present themselves to others abroad. With the help of SHL conversation partners, specially created hands-on activities can encourage SA learners (both L2Ls and SHLLs) to identify and cope with linguistic and cultural differences, as well as other anxiety stres­ sors, early in the SA learning process. Language exchanges between SA participants (L2Ls/SHLLs) and SHL conversation partners from the home institution can allow for experimentation with the L2/heritage language in a supportive and friendly framework that promotes interaction as a necessary condition for L2/heritage language devel­ opment to take place. Fostering a sense of belonging in the SA cohort through informal conversation exchanges before departure has the potential to benefit SA learners’ confidence, and it may counteract obstacles that SA learners can face when constructing their identity abroad. The potential benefits of this type of program design extend to SHLLs in the SA cohort, who may undergo stigmatization based on their dialectal variety, race, ethnicity, and social status both in ancestral and non-ancestral countries (see Shively, 2016). As shown in Figure 12.1, the predeparture phase can also be vital for the creation of social networks between SA students and members of the target communities. Social networks, understood as informal social circles (Milroy & Margrain, 1980), have been argued to play an important role in language and cultural learning abroad (e.g., Baker-Smemoe et al., 2014; Isabellí 2006; Pozzi, 2017; Terry, 2017). With the support of SHLLs who Garcia, work as language partners in the predeparture phase, SA participants can practice initiating and maintaining conversations similar to the way they might aspire to do so with native speaker contacts in the host country. In tandem with these efforts, SA faculty leaders can also provide participants with relevant information to establish initial contact with members of the host community (host families, other students at the host university, etc.). To summarize, the predeparture phase, which is the focus of this chapter, is a fertile arena for the following: •

Preparing SA learners to become more aware of their own cultural values and the values of others – that is, becoming more interculturally sensitive and more flexible toward the host culture (e.g., Allen & Herron, 2003; Marijuan, 2018)

Heritage learners as conversation partners •

•

• •

243

Giving SA learners opportunities to better engage with their local community as well as initiate connections with members of the host community that can serve as a baseline for future social networks Developing strategies to cope with an array of anxiety inducers, including the inability to adjust to cultural differences and the linguistic insecurity of being negatively evaluated by native speakers (e.g., Allen & Herron, 2003; Dewey et al., 2018; Martinsen, 2010; Slagter & Pyper, 2019) Developing strategies to counteract potential stigmatization based on learner dialect variety, race, ethnicity, or social status (Shively, 2016) Enhancing a sense of belonging at home and abroad

Even though the post-immersion phase is beyond the scope of this article, it is worth mentioning that reentry orientations have been argued to help SA learners readjust to their home country, since returning home “can be dis­ orienting for some students”, who “may find that they have new interests and new perspectives” (Punteney, 2019, p. 128). In many cases, when stu­ dents have successfully expanded their social networks with locals overseas, the post-immersion phase provides opportunities to maintain the friendships made abroad. On a programmatic level, students who studied abroad can serve as volunteers, peer advisors, or models for future students who are considering studying abroad. This is especially important for minority stu­ dents, including SHLLs, who might need to overcome difficulties in order to study abroad (Marijuan & Sanz, 2018; Punteney, 2019). As mentioned be­ fore, SHLLs may experience biases on-site (e.g., in host families, public spaces) based on their racial or ethnic background (Snowden, 2019). Additionally, they may be perceived as different from L2Ls and therefore held to different linguistic and cultural standards (Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000; Shively, 2016).

Spanish heritage language learners as a valuable resource for the predeparture phase SHLLs usually adopt a “functional orientation to communication and meaning” (Carreira, 2016, p. 165). In other words, they tend to have more facility with the informal register, including knowledge of idiomatic ex­ pressions. Moreover, they typically have a family and identity connection to the heritage language and culture. Because they have a strong connection to more than one language and culture, SHLLs constantly renegotiate their identity between (at least) two languages and cultures (see Val & Vinogradova, 2010). Their unique linguistic and cultural backgrounds make them suitable candidates for conversation partners in predeparture sessions; in this role, they can be a helpful resource for SA participants – with their help, L2Ls and SHLLs alike can practice their L2/heritage language oral communication skills in an interactive and informal environment.

244

Silvia Marijuan

In addition, the bi-/multicultural upbringing of SHL conversation partners can diversify the points of view of the predeparture-session discussions, thereby fostering a sense of diversity and inclusion, especially for SHLLs who may be part of the SA cohort. SHL conversation partners are likely to benefit from their involvement in the predeparture sessions as well. In their pioneering work, QuintanarSarellana et al., (1997) recorded the experiences of a group of SHLLs who worked as language tutors and oral language proficiency proctors for Spanish L2Ls in their school community. Not only did the SHL tutors demonstrate special abilities in this position, they also developed their own oral and written heritage language skills as a result of the training they received. Moreover, working as language experts and agents of support helped them establish stronger ties to the school community and improved their self-image. Similar positive results were found by Reznicek-Parrado et al. (2018), who im­ plemented a peer-tutoring curriculum in a university-level Spanish for Heritage Speakers program. Following a community-based framework that provided SHLLs with “ongoing opportunities to deploy expert identities, to engage with and to have an impact within their own community of practice” (p. 154), they employed SHLLs as peer tutors of other undergraduates who were also SHLLs. The SHL tutors were well compensated; in other words, their role entailed “accountability and prestige” (p. 165). The authors investigated the benefits of this type of tutoring for the academic language development (i.e., literacy skills) and bilingual identity development of the SHLLs who received the tutoring. They found that the SHL tutors successfully facilitated the aca­ demic task by actively creating spaces in which tutees were able to take on more active roles in their own learning process. Marijuan Sanz 2018 I have previously hypothesized (Marijuan, 2018) that SHLLs’ bi-/multicultural point of view could be advantageous in immersive contexts for Spanish L2Ls and for other SHLLs who are going to study abroad. In a series of focus groups with college students at a public uni­ versity in California, a state with a high Latinx/SHLL density (Zarate & Burciaga, 2010), Marijuan Sanz 2018 I sought to explore whether Spanish L2Ls and SHLLs saw potential benefits in including SHL conversation partners in the predeparture phase of a short-term SA program and what format they preferred for such predeparture conversation sessions. Both groups of learners agreed that SHL conversation partners could help Spanish L2Ls develop their linguistic skills (especially their colloquial speech) and their intercultural sensitivity prior to going abroad. In align­ ment with Quintanar-Sarellana et al., (1997) and Reznicek-Parrado et al., (2018), the focus group data also showed that in these learners’ view, em­ ploying SHL conversation partners as facilitators of an SA program could potentially help SHL conversation partners themselves by providing them with an opportunity to become active members of their campus community and potentially a paid professional avenue that encourages heritage lan­ guage maintenance and transformation.

Heritage learners as conversation partners

245

It is interesting to note that the Spanish L2Ls in my previous study (Marijuan, 2018) had a well-developed idea of what it meant to be an SHLL, since the two groups of learners had taken Spanish classes to­ gether, and L2Ls had been able to see for themselves which linguistic and cultural aspects were the SHLLs’ strengths – that is, L2Ls did not expect SHLLs to know everything. Generally speaking, for L2Ls the SHL conversation partners’ knowledge about the Spanish language and other cultures outside the mainstream culture in the US was perceived as suf­ ficient, even if the SHL conversation partners were not experts on the target culture of the SA program (e.g., Costa Rica). In other words, L2Ls described SHLLs’ cultural backgrounds as an asset. According to the L2Ls who participated in the focus group, having an SHL conversation partner in the predeparture phase of an SA program had the potential to allow them to progressively yet comfortably experience what speaking with locals abroad might be like. All learners who participated in this study agreed that taking part in conversation sessions prior to departure could create a sense of belonging for the SA cohort and could enhance SA learners’ confidence. In relation to the format that the predeparture conversation sessions should take, both groups of learners tended to agree that they would prefer to engage in tasks of varying levels of complexity – that is, tasks that re­ sembled authentic situations the SA participants were likely to encounter in the target culture abroad. In sum, previous SA research summarized in this section informs this chapter as to how to better implement predeparture sessions involving SHL conversation partners as a key component of the SA model. The guidelines for enhancing student readiness in the predeparture phase are discussed in more detail in the next section.

Guidelines for designing an SA model that strengthens predeparture interventions The present guidelines are intended to advise SA practitioners, especially faculty leaders, as to how conversation exchanges between SA participants (L2Ls/SHLLs) and SHL conversation partners in the predeparture phase of an SA program might be implemented. The pedagogical interventions proposed here are informed by previous SA research, already discussed, related to the employment of SHLLs as peer mentors or conversation partners (e.g., Marijuan, 2018; Quintanar-Sarellana et al., 1997; ReznicekParrado et al., 2018); experiential-education philosophy and methods (e.g., Kolb, 1984; Roberts 2015), which emphasize real-life experiences and “hands-on” activities as the foundation for structured reflection; and preliminary testing of such pedagogical interventions on a short-term SA program in Spain.

246

Silvia Marijuan

Step 1: selecting SHLLs who will work as conversation partners in the predeparture sessions SA practitioners need to carefully consider the characteristics of the SHLLs who will work as conversation partners in the predeparture phase. It is re­ commended, but not required, that the SHLLs who will act as conversation partners have some experience studying, living, or traveling abroad. These SHL conversation partners should also have an advanced command of the heritage language – as is typical of SHLLs of, for example, the 1.5 gen­ eration – since the hands-on activities in the predeparture sessions are in­ tended to be conducted mainly in the target/heritage language. SHLLs with a background in linguistics, education, or world languages would also be strong candidates to fulfill this role. The selection of the SHL conversation partners will depend on the availability of SHLLs who are willing to work in such a role; the pool of potential candidates will vary depending on the state and the type of institution. It is recommended that SHL conversation partners be provided with monetary compensation or incentives for their services. Those who have been awarded federal work-study funds, for ex­ ample, are good candidates for the pool. Faculty leaders can work with their international centers or SA offices to seek other sources of funding. SHLLs should be compensated for the time they spend during related training as well. In cases where no funding is available, SHL conversation partners should be provided with other kinds of incentive or recognition – for ex­ ample, in the form of an unpaid internship or research position that can be listed on their resume. Step 2: informing participants about the SA program format and exploring learner concerns Once the pool of SHL conversation partners has been established, SA practitioners should inform the SA cohort about the format of the pre­ departure phase – that is, that predeparture sessions will take place on campus and that SA students will have an opportunity to exchange ideas in a supportive conversation setting with SHLL peers from their home in­ stitution. If SA faculty leaders decide to also give SA learners opportunities to start connecting with Spanish native speakers from the host institution via computer-mediated communication, for example, that information can also be shared with them at this time. The most recommendable point in time to announce this information is during the first general orientation meeting, when staff from the international center or its equivalent can also partici­ pate. It is also a good practice at this point to gather preliminary data about how many of the SA participants are SHLLs themselves (and what their perceived command of the heritage language is), and how many of the participants (L2Ls/SHLLs) have had previous experiences studying, traveling, or living abroad. Other types of useful information that can be

Heritage learners as conversation partners

247

gathered include questions and concerns SA learners may have about the host institution and host culture. This data can inform the development of conversation tasks for the third step in the process, which ideally should be tailored to the particular SA group and its characteristics. Step 3: developing hands-on activities for the predeparture sessions and training SHL conversation partners SA faculty leaders can then analyze the preliminary data they gathered in the first general orientation meeting to look for patterns of learner concerns, which can inform hands-on activities that learners complete with the help of SHL conversation partners. For example, if SA participants (L2Ls/SHLLs) are interested in knowing how to avoid offending their host families, con­ versational tasks can be developed in the target/heritage language that relate to common conflicts during shared time with host families2 and how to resolve them. Other more straightforward concerns – for example, questions about what time meals typically take place – can be handled more directly by the faculty leader, by simply providing students with the relevant information. The development of hands-on activities will vary depending on the characteristics of the SA cohort, but in any case they should be commu­ nication oriented so as to allow SA learners to negotiate meaning, express their point of view, develop strategies to connect with Spanish native speakers and the target culture, and gain more insights on the host country. Once the structure of the predeparture sessions and the conversation tasks have been developed, the SA faculty leader should conduct a training session with the SHL conversation partners and explain the goals, characteristics, and kinds of tasks to be completed by SA participants, so that SHL con­ versation partners are familiar with the format, content, and purpose of the predeparture sessions and can ask the SA faculty leader for clarifications, if needed. Step 4: organizing predeparture sessions and overseeing the conversation exchanges Organizing and dividing the SA cohort into smaller groups is the ideal way of providing all SA participants a chance to talk and meaningfully engage with SHL conversation partners. It is recommended to divide predeparture sessions into groups of no more than five or six students, and to have at least two SHL conversation partners per group, so that all the students in the group have the chance to talk with the SHL conversation partner one-onone. The number of predeparture sessions with each group will depend on the time and resources available at each institution. For the experience to be meaningful, each group should have the chance to participate in at least one predeparture session of 1.5 or two hours.

248

Silvia Marijuan

SHL conversation partners should introduce themselves, describe their background, and explain their role in the predeparture sessions to the SA group either in the heritage language or in English, depending on the level of Spanish proficiency of the SA participants. During the introductions and “get to know your peers” section, SA participants who have previously studied, lived, or traveled abroad can share their experiences with the group. Following Quintanar-Sarellana et al., (1997), I recommend including a sociolinguistic component in the predeparture sessions that familiarizes learners with concepts such as intercultural sensitivity, language/cultural attitude, and dialectal variety. The SA faculty leader needs to communicate that the overarching goals of the predeparture sessions are for SA partici­ pants to engage in conversation topics related to the host country in a comfortable setting in which they can feel less anxious about having natural conversations in the target/heritage language with native speakers and to develop intercultural sensitivity, which means taking advantage of the op­ portunity to understand and learn from one another. SHL conversation partners might be familiar with the host country/culture (e.g., Chicanx conversation partners working for an SA program in Mexico) or might not know what the culture of the host country is like (e.g., Chicanx conversation partners working for an SA program in Spain); however, they still possess a broad base of knowledge about a nonmainstream culture in the US that they can share with SA participants when discussing cultural-related topics and experiences. In cases in which the SA cohort includes other SHLLs, the conversation exchanges in the predeparture sessions can provide a unique opportunity for them to discuss and reflect on heritage language main­ tenance and development in the context of SA, since SHLLs participating in the SA program are likely to be from a different generational background and bilingual range (e.g., third generation). The opportunity for SHLLs in the SA cohort to interact with the SHL conversation partners can provide additional support for them to develop their personal identities and lin­ guistic confidence (Reznicek-Parrado et al., 2018). SA faculty leaders should be present to function as facilitators and oversee the predeparture sessions, giving support and structure to conversation ex­ changes as needed. For example, if the group looks stressed, tired, or not very energized, the faculty leader can act accordingly and propose a break or a change in partners to promote engagement. In addition, if students need extra help to understand a specific word or structure in the target/heritage language, they can ask the faculty leader for clarifications and negotiate for meaning until breaks in communications are overcome. If SA practitioners decide to include the contact information of college students from the host university, this is a good opportunity for SHL con­ versation partners to help SA participants initiate and maintain a con­ versation with Spanish native speakers from abroad. SA participants and SHL conversation partners can work together on formulating questions SA learners would like to ask their contacts from the host institution, and on

Heritage learners as conversation partners

249

what kind of questions they might create to follow up on the information provided. Finally, the SA faculty leader can encourage SA participants to continue researching aspects of the host country they are most interested in and guide them to the right resources. Step 5: reflections of L2Ls and SHLLs on the predeparture sessions As experiential-learning scholars recommend (e.g., Roberts, 2015), SA fa­ culty leaders should encourage all participants – both SA learners (L2Ls/ SHLLs) and SHL conversation partners – to analyze and reflect on the conversation exchanges in the predeparture sessions. Faculty leaders can prepare questionnaires and surveys that all participants can complete in person, online, or both. The data collected from these reflections and sur­ veys can inform faculty as to the effectiveness of the conversation exchanges in the predeparture phase and related activities (i.e., SA program assess­ ment). It can also contribute to the development of the SA field, since as more data becomes available in relation to the role that predeparture in­ terventions play in enhancing SA student readiness before departure, SA practitioners and researchers will better be able to determine the degree with which conversation exchanges between SA participants (L2Ls and SHLLs) and SHL conversation partners in predeparture sessions foster intercultural sensitivity and L2/heritage language development in the early stages of an SA program. Also, the reflections of SHL conversation partners can inform us about the role that professional opportunities in an educational setting play in their sense of self-concept and their heritage language abilities. Finally, SHL conversation partners or SHLLs who are part of the SA cohort might be interested in working in the future as SA peer advisors or serving as role models for other SA cohorts in future academic years, thus feeding a loop that includes students from diverse backgrounds in more SA settings.

Conclusion This chapter has provided the background for why conceiving of SA as a multiphase learning experience, rather than exclusively consisting of the immersion experience itself, is desirable when designing or redesigning an SA program. As shown by SA research, the predeparture phase is critical to enhancing the likelihood that SA participants will benefit from the sojourn abroad. The inclusion of predeparture sessions in the host institution prior to study abroad is envisioned as a chance for L2Ls to build confidence in their speaking abilities in a friendly environment where they can reflect on cultural differences by interacting with Latinx students on campus who can share their stories as SHLLs and their unique linguistic and cultural back­ ground; a space for SHLLs from different generational backgrounds and bilingual ranges (e.g., 1.5 generation vs. third generation) to reflect on

250

Silvia Marijuan

heritage language loss and maintenance/development in the context of SA; and a professional opportunity (paid or unpaid) for SHL conversation partners to use their heritage language in the implementation of an SA program, which in turn can lead to opportunities to develop their heritage language skills and their perception of themselves as SHLLs.

Notes 1 In Figure 12.1, the two-way arrows represent the interconnections among all SA phases: for example, SA participants start projecting themselves toward the im­ mersive phase before departure, and while abroad they can draw from what they have learned/gained in the predeparture phase. Likewise, SA participants in the post-immersion phase can draw on their experiences abroad during their read­ justment to the home country. Finally, SA participants who return from SA can help practitioners with new SA groups in the predeparture phase, drawing on their positive or negative experiences abroad, thereby feeding the loop once again. 2 Allen and Herron (2003) document, for example, that conflicts with host families may arise when students speak their mind during an explanation of house rules or make personal comments during shared meals.

References Allen, H.W., & Herron, C. (2003). A mixed-methodology investigation of the lin­ guistic and affective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 370–385. Anya, U. (2017). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil. New York: Routledge. Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D.P., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R.A. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47(3), 464–486. Bathurst, L.A., & La Brack, B. (2012). Shifting the locus of intercultural learning: Intervening prior to and after student experiences abroad. In M. Vande Berg, M. Paige & K. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 261–283). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Bayram, F., Kupisch, T., Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J. (2019). Terminology matters on theoretical grounds too!: Coherent grammars cannot be incomplete. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 257–264. Bennett, M.J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sen­ sitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–196. Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., & Brown, J. (2013). Second language identity in narratives of study abroad. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Blake, R., & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who’s helping whom? Learner/heritage-speakers’ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 519–544. Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 863–876. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Carreira, M. (2016). General framework and supporting strategies for teaching mixed classes. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 159–176). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Heritage learners as conversation partners

251

Carreira, M., & Armengol, R. (2001). Professional opportunities for heritage lan­ guage speakers. In J. Peyton, D. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 109–142). McHenry, IL, and Washington, DC: Delta Systems and Center for Applied Linguistics. Dewey, D.P., Belnap, R.K., & Steffen, P. (2018). Anxiety: Stress, foreign language classroom anxiety, and enjoyment during study abroad in Amman, Jordan. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 140–161. Du, H. (2015). American college students studying abroad in China: Language, identity, and self-presentation. Foreign Language Annals, 48(2), 250–266. Gándara, P., & Mordechay, K. (2017). Demographic change and the new (and not so new) challenges for Latino education. The Educational Forum, 81(2), 148–159. Goldoni, F. (2013). Students’ immersion experiences in study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(3), 359–376. Grey, S., Cox, J.G., Serafini, E. J., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual dif­ ferences in the study abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language develop­ ment during short-term intensive language exposure. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 137–157. Holmes, P., Bavieri, L., & Ganassin, S. (2015). Developing intercultural under­ standing for study abroad: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives on pre-departure intercultural learning. Intercultural Education, 26(1), 16–30. Institute for International Education. (2019). Open doors 2019 fast facts. Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Fact-Sheets-andInfographics/Fast-Facts. Accessed 02.01.20. ́ C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: Isabelli-Garcia, Implications for second language acquisition. In E. Churchill & M. DuFon (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 231–258), Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kindred, C. (2014). Post study abroad. In M. Hernandez, M. Wiedenhoeft & D. Wick (Eds.), NAFSA’s guide to education abroad from advisers and administrators. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Leeman, Y.A.M. (2003). School leadership for intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 14(1), 31–45. Lu, C., Reddick, R., Dean, D., & Pecero, V. (2015). Coloring up study abroad: Exploring Black students’ decision to study in China. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(4), 440–451. Marijuan, S. (2018). Making a difference through talk: Spanish heritage language learners as conversation partners in a hybrid study abroad program. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), Routledge handbook of study abroad (pp. 329–342). New York: Routledge. Marijuan, S. (2019). Integrating diversity and inclusion into pre-departure experi­ ences and program development. The Global Impact Exchange: A Quarterly Publication of Diversity Abroad. Summer Edition, 10–12. Marijuan, S., & Sanz, C. (2018). Expanding boundaries: Current and new directions in study abroad research and practice. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 185–204. Martinsen, R.A. (2010). Short-term study abroad: Predicting changes in oral skills. Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 504–530.

252

Silvia Marijuan

M’Balia, T. (2013). The problematization of racial/ethnic minority student partici­ pation in US study abroad. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 365–390. McClure, K.R., Szelényi, K., Niehaus, E., Anderson, A.A., & Reed, J. (2010). “We just don’t have the possibility yet”: US Latina/o narratives on study abroad. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(3), 363–382. Milroy, L., & Margrain, S. (1980). Vernacular language loyalty and social network. Language in Society, 9(1), 43–70. Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2003). An experience of interculturality: Student travelers abroad. In G. Alred, M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Intercultural experience and education (pp. 101–113). Clevedon, UK: Multicultural Matters. Nagle, C., Morales-Front, A., Moorman, C., & Sanz, C. (2016). Disentangling research on study abroad and pronunciation: Methodological and programmatic considera­ tions. In D. Velliaris & D. Coleman-George (Eds.), Handbook of research on study abroad programs and outward mobility (pp. 673–695). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Pellegrino Aveni, V.A.P. (2005). Study abroad and second language use: Constructing the self. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pozzi, R. (2017). The acquisition of regional features during a semester abroad in Buenos Aires, Argentina. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Davis: University of California. Punteney, K. (2019). The international education handbook: Principles and practices of the field. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Quintanar-Sarellana, R., Huebner, T., & Jensen, A. (1997). La utilización de nues­ tros recursos lingüísticos: Los estudiantes hispanohablantes como tutores de español como idioma extranjero. In C. Colombi & F. Alarcón (Eds.), La enseñanza del español a hispanohablantes: Praxis y teoría (pp. 308–326). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Reznicek-Parrado, L.M., Patiño-Vega, M., & Colombi, M.C. (2018). Academic peer tutors and academic biliteracy development in students of Spanish as a heritage language. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 5(2), 152–167. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R.L. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 405–421. Roberts, J.W. (2015). Experiential education in the college context: What it is, how it works, and why it matters. New York: Routledge. Shively, R.L. (2010). From the virtual world to the real world: A model of prag­ matics instruction for study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 105–137. Shively, R.L. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Simon, J., & Ainsworth, J.W. (2012). Race and socioeconomic status differences in study abroad participation: The role of habitus, social networks, and cultural capital. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2012. Slagter, C., & Pyper, M.J. (2019). Linguistic loneliness and study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 31(1), 46–58. Snowden, C. (2019). Empowering students to have conversations about race and ethnicity abroad and at home. The Global Impact Exchange: A Quarterly Publication of Diversity Abroad. Summer Edition, 19–21. Terry, K.M.K. (2017). Contact, context, and collocation: The emergence of socio­ stylistic variation in L2 French learners during study abroad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 553–578.

Heritage learners as conversation partners

253

Tolan, M., & McCullers, M. (2018). First-generation college students and study abroad: Examining the participation gap and successful strategies for promoting access. In H. Barclay Hamir & N. Gozik (Eds.), Promoting inclusion in education abroad. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing and NAFSA: Association of International Education. Torres, J., Estremera, R., & Mohamed, S. (2019). The contribution of psychosocial and biographical variables to heritage language learners’ linguistic knowledge of Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 695–719. Val, A., & Vinogradova, P. (2010). What is the identity of a heritage language speaker?. Heritage Brief. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R.M. (2009). The Georgetown con­ sortium project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1–75. Venezia, F., & Borowczyk, M. (2018, March). Getting down to “business”: When heritage speakers become teachers [Conference presentation]. American Association for Applied Linguistics 2018 Conference, Chicago, IL, United States. Wang, Y.C. (2009). Anxiety in English language learning: A case study of Taiwanese university students on a study abroad programme (Unpublished doctoral disserta­ tion). Leeds, UK: University of Leeds. Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66. Zarate, M.E., & Burciaga, R. (2010). Latinos and college access: Trends and future directions. Journal of College Admission, 209, 24–29.

13 An international service-learning experience for Spanish heritage speakers The nursing home Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez Introduction Participation of Hispanic students in study abroad (SA) programs has been consistently increasing in recent years, from 6% in 2006 to 10.2% in 2016 (Institute of International Education, 2018). Although this number fails to match the percentage of Hispanic students who attended college in 2016 (19%; US Department of Education, 2017), the gap is progressively closing. For these students, the selection of an SA destination may be determined by a variety of factors, such as cost, duration of the program, course offerings, transfer credits, type of accommodation, and tourism opportunities, among others. For some, the decision to favor a particular country may be based on a sense of familial affiliation (linguistic, cultural, religious, national, ethnic, etc.). These students, known as heritage seekers (Szekely, 1998), may choose to study in their family’s country of origin, as they may have a desire to explore their roots, or they may choose a different Spanish-speaking country so that they can experience a new destination (Burgo, 2018). Frequently, the heritage seeker is also a heritage speaker (HS), meaning an individual “who is raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who speaks or merely understands the heritage language, and who is to some degree bilingual in English and the heritage language” (Valdés, 2000, p. 1). This is not always the case, as there are heritage seekers with very limited or no exposure to their heritage language, who are linguistically more similar to second language (L2) learners. Regardless of their proficiency level, improving their heritage language is often one of the motivating factors for HSs to study abroad (Burgo, 2018). There are no documented statistics on the total number of Spanish heritage speakers (SHSs) who decide to study abroad in Spanish-speaking countries. I have previously explored this topic in the context of US studyabroad programs in Spain (Jiménez Jiménez, 2019). A survey was sent to all members of APUNE, the Association of North American University Programs in Spain, inquiring about the number of SHSs in their programs. Thirty-one programs responded to the survey, accounting for a total of 2,111 students, out of which 467 (22.12%) were reported to be SHSs. As the

International service learning for SHSs

255

enrollment of Latino/Latina students in SA programs continues to grow (Institute of International Education, 2018), it can be predicted that this trend will be accompanied by an increase in SHSs interested in studying abroad in Spanish-speaking countries.

Literature review Heritage speakers studying abroad While there are studies indicating that L2 learners and HSs share some common experiences during study abroad (Moreno, 2009; Van Der Meid, 2003), there are factors that make HSs’ SA experience unique. For instance, existing literature suggests that HSs who were raised speaking the heritage language at home and in their communities are more likely than L2 learners to bring stronger linguistic and cultural knowledge to their SA experience (Davidson & Lekic, 2013; Potowski, 2002, 2013). For this reason, HSs may find it easier to connect socially with the local community in the target language from the onset (Petrucci, 2007). Despite this apparent advantage, HSs face their own set of unique challenges. For example, it is not uncommon for them to experience some form of linguistic discrimination when locals reject or are critical of their dialects (Riegelhaupt & Carrasco, 2000). These linguistic attitudes can be connected with locals’ ideologies regarding race, class, or national origin and may affect HSs on a very personal level (Leeman, 2012; Mar-Molinero & Paffey, 2011). Furthermore, HSs may be held to higher standards of cultural and linguistic competence by locals (Shively, 2016), as they may be judged to be native speakers. However, even when HSs are strongly committed to improving their language proficiency during study abroad, they may find that their academic program is not necessarily capable of helping them achieve this goal (Guerrero, 2006). This is due to the fact that there are not many programs that offer courses specifically for HSs studying abroad. Consequently, HSs take courses with other L2 learners in mixed classrooms (López-García, 2017). This presents challenges to local instructors, who may not be familiar with the particular profile of HSs, resulting in the implementation of an L2 methodology for the entire classroom (Burgo, 2018). In the adoption of this approach, the specific linguistic needs of HSs are overlooked, reducing their potential for linguistic development. Multiple strategies can be implemented to existing SA programs to improve HSs’ overall SA experience, both inside and outside of the classroom (see Shively, 2018). This chapter focuses on one of them: service learning. Service learning A number of terms are currently used to refer to educational programs whose objective is to work with community members in order to address a particular social issue. In this chapter, I use the term service learning (SL),

256

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

defined as “a teaching method that combines community service with academic instruction as it focuses on critical reflective thinking and civic responsibility” (Pearce, 2009, p. 46). One of the primary differentiating factors of SL is that it places special emphasis on student learning as opposed to “engagement” or mere “service”. Thus, the SL experience must align with course learning goals and outcomes, and it must include reflection as a vital component in the meaning-making process. The research experience described in this chapter was designed with these elements in mind. Service learning in language programs The incorporation of SL in language programs gained popularity after the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) published its National Standards for Foreign Language Teaching in 1996, which are grouped into five categories, known as the five Cs: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. The “communities” category called for students’ participation “in communities at home and around the world”. Since then, language instructors have been integrating SL into the curriculum with positive outcomes. Tocaima-Hatch and Walls (2016) have summarized the many benefits of including SL in language instruction, which include improvement of language proficiency in active, reallife contexts (Askildson, Kelly, & Mick, 2013; Barreneche, 2011; Caldwell, 2007; Gascoigne Lally, 2001); gains in pragmatic and cultural knowledge through firsthand experience (Heuser, 1999; Lear & Abbott, 2009; Weldon & Trautmann, 2003; Zapata, 2011; Zapata & Tokarz, 2008); maintaining motivation (Barreneche, 2011; Faszer-McMahon, 2013; Overfield, 2007); promoting investment in one’s community (Barreneche, 2011; FaszerMcMahon, 2013; Overfield, 2007); and honing learners’ professional and interpersonal skills, such as teamwork, leadership, and critical thinking (Gascoigne Lally, 2001; Lear & Abbott, 2009). Moreover, SL can help students feel more confident in their language skills (Pellettieri, 2011), and it provides them with knowledge of professions and careers they may not have considered previously (Thompson, 2012). Service learning for heritage speakers of Spanish The benefits of SL also apply to SHSs in the United States. In this context, SL has been shown to contribute to the development of SHSs’ awareness of sociolinguistic and sociopolitical issues affecting local Latino communities and the construction of positive identities (Jorge, 2006; Lowther Pereira, 2015, 2016; Pascual y Cabo, Prada, & Lowther Pereira, 2017; Petrov, 2013; Tocaima-Hatch & Walls, 2016). This makes students feel more connected with the community (Lowther Pereira, 2016; Pak, 2018; Petrov, 2013), and it can motivate them to increase their level of engagement (Pak, 2018; Petrov, 2013). SL can also aid in the development of dialectal awareness and flexibility if the community employs

International service learning for SHSs

257

a different language variety than that of the student (Lowther Pereira, 2015, 2016). Through SL, students gain an appreciation of their own linguistic skills and validation of their home knowledge and experiences (Leeman, Rabin, & Román-Mendoza, 2011; Lowther Pereira, 2016; Pascual y Cabo et al., 2017; Tocaima-Hatch & Walls, 2016). According to Lowther Pereira (2015), the inclusion of SL in the heritage learner experience “is a step forward toward the development of effective pedagogies that generate critical language awareness, promote student agency and foster positive language attitudes and identities in the Spanish heritage learner classroom” (p. 179). International service learning Considering all the reported benefits of both SL and SA, the combination of the two has the potential to become one of the most productive activities that students can engage in during their academic careers. SA administrators and researchers are increasingly understanding the important role that SL plays in enhancing the educational value of an international experience, which is supported by substantial growth in published research on the topic (see Alonso García & Longo, 2017; Annette, 2002; Cotten & Thompson, 2017; Dixon, 2015; Martinsen, Baker, Dewey, Bown, & Johnson, 2010; Montrose, 2002; Parker & Dautoff, 2007; Sherk, 2013; Tonkin & Quiroga, 2014). However, there is a scarcity of studies that focus on the impact that international service learning (ISL) has on SHSs. Teranishi (2007) explored the effect of experiential learning on Latino/Latina college students’ identity, relationships, and connectedness to the community and found that experiential-learning pedagogy in Guanajuato, Mexico, “contributed to students’ sense of self and identity, relational development, and awareness of how structural inequalities and issues of diversity affect their future families, careers, and community service goals” (p. 67). It must be noted that this research focused on Latino/Latina students rather than SHSs. To the best of my knowledge, the effects that service learning may have in a group of SHSs during an SA program has been underexplored. Purpose of the study The objective of this chapter is to explore students’ reflections regarding the impact that an ISL experience had on a group of SHSs. As indicated before, SL must align with course learning goals. For this particular SA program, these goals were to increase students’ language awareness, to expand their sociocultural and historical knowledge of Spain, and to provide opportunities for personal growth. Based on these goals, three research categories were created – linguistic awareness, cultural understanding, and personal growth – with the objective of providing guidance to students during their self-reflections. These categories are wide and comprehensive, so that they can capture students’ perceptions about their ISL experience without

258

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

leading them to any preconceived results. These categories were the basis for the development of the questionnaire that students used for their reflection videos, and they inform the following research questions for this chapter: 1. 2. 3.

What are SHSs’ perceptions regarding the impact of their ISL experience on their linguistic awareness? What are SHSs’ perceptions regarding the impact of their ISL experience on their cultural understanding? What are SHSs’ perceptions regarding the impact of their ISL experience on their personal growth?

In addition, this research explores the impact that this ISL experience had on the local community, following one of the main tenets of SL: that it should be mutually beneficial and reciprocal (Lutterman-Aguilar & Gingerich, 2002). The goal of this chapter is not to objectively quantify students’ progress in the three areas mentioned; instead, it focuses on students’ subjective perceptions of their ISL experience and its relationship to their linguistic, cultural, and personal growth.

Methodology This chapter follows an action research design, a methodology frequently used in educational contexts and one that aligns with the purpose of this investigation. Action research is commonly conducted by instructors who have a vested interest in improving the teaching and learning process. This approach seeks to enhance the instructor’s practice not by proving something to be true but by finding out whether something will work or not (Mills & Butroid, 2014, p. 5). Action research typically has a sense of purpose rooted in an area of focus. In this study, the purpose is twofold: on the one hand, this investigation seeks to determine the impact of ISL on SHSs. On the other hand, students’ participation in ISL is motivated by a purpose of civic responsibility to provide company and emotional support to the elderly. In addition, action research is considered a collaborative enterprise, where feedback should be gathered from those who have a stake in the area under investigation (Herr & Anderson, 2015, p. 4). For this study, results are informed by data collected not only from students but also from residents and staff members. Furthermore, action research “focuses specifically on the unique characteristics of the population with whom a practice is employed” (Mertler, 2020, p. 6), in this case the SHSs who participated in the study and who will be described in more detail in the following section. Participants The 30 SHSs who participated in this study were students from a small public university in Southern California, where they were pursuing a variety of majors, including Spanish, sociology, psychology, business, health science,

International service learning for SHSs

259

and nursing. Five of them were born in Mexico and migrated to the United States during their childhood or early teenage years. The remaining 25 were also of Mexican lineage, but had been born in the United States. The youngest student in the group was 19 years old; the oldest was 25. In order to assess their language proficiency, participants took an online language test designed by Instituto Cervantes, the official Spanish organization responsible for promoting the learning and teaching of the Spanish language around the world. In this assessment, the group performed quite homogenously; 26 of them obtained a level of C1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages – equivalent to a rating of Advanced High following ACTFL standards. Only four students were ranked at the B2 level, or Advanced Low to Advanced Mid on the ACTFL scale (2016). The study abroad program The SA program was purposely designed for SHSs with three primary goals in mind: to increase their linguistic awareness in Spanish, to expand their sociocultural and historical knowledge of Spain, and to provide opportunities for personal growth. The program was located in Málaga (southern Spain), where participants lived for four weeks during the summer. The selection of a destination outside of the Americas provided SHSs with ample opportunities for reflection regarding dialectal variation and differences in cultural norms and customs. In order to provide a full immersion experience, students stayed with Spanish host families. They also received formal instruction in Spanish at a local language school for a total of 20 hours a week. The course content was designed to meet the specific linguistic needs of SHSs, including advanced grammar, academic register, and composition (paying particular attention to orthography and accent use). The literature, culture, and history of Spain were also part of the curriculum. During the weekends, excursions were organized to nearby cultural sites and attractions. The SA program included a required ISL component, described next. The international service-learning experience The ISL component of the program was conducted in collaboration with a local nongovernmental organization (NGO), whose goal is to improve the lives of the most vulnerable individuals in the community, especially the elderly. In the framework of the ISL experience, students were asked to provide a total of 16 hours of their time during their monthlong SA experience. The NGO gave access to three local nursing homes and identified residents who did not have visits from family or friends and for the most part felt isolated and lonely. Residents were men and women over the age of 65. Many of them had a physical impairment or health condition. A few exhibited slight mentalhealth issues, such as early signs of Alzheimer’s. Residents with severe

260

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

physical- or mental-health issues did not take part in the ISL experience, since students were not equipped to deal with the specific needs of this population. As mentioned before, the goal of the ISL program was twofold: on the one hand, it sought to promote students’ linguistic, cultural, and personal growth; on the other hand, it aimed to provide company and emotional support to the residents. The visits took place twice a week for two hours at a time. Students were divided into three groups, and each group was placed in one of the three nursing homes. The NGO provided a coordinator in each home, who oversaw the experience and matched students with residents in pairs and small groups during each visit. This meant that students were not always paired up with the same residents. It was expected that students and residents would share their diverse life experiences and backgrounds, in order to enrich each other’s appreciation for the other. Before the first visit to the homes, students received a three-hour orientation conducted by the researcher (who was also the faculty director of the SA program) and the director of the NGO. During this orientation, students met the staff and were educated on the way nursing homes are run in Spain. Students also learned about the residents, their reasons for being in the nursing home, and their daily routines. Staff clarified some ground rules and provided clear instructions on how to react in case something went wrong. A period of time during orientation was dedicated to analyzing the linguistic profile of the residents, including dialectal characteristics (mostly Andalusian from the southern region of Spain). Lastly, students had one hour to prepare conversation topics, activities, games, and songs that would form part of their toolbox in case they encountered awkward silences during their visit. Students mentioned in the focus group that this orientation made them feel more at ease and confident. Instrumentation and data collection A fundamental element of SL is reflection. According to Kolb (1984), learning is a transformative process that starts with students’ concrete experiences. However, to comprehend their involvement, learners must engage in reflective observation and conceptualization. With this in mind, a selfreflection questionnaire was designed for this study in order to facilitate students’ reflection (and learning) and, at the same time, serve as the main instrument for data collection. After each visit to the nursing homes, students were asked to use their smartphones to video record themselves reflecting on the experience, responding in Spanish to the following five questions: 1. 2.

What did you do today during your visit? Who did you speak with? Did anything unexpected happen? Reflect on the linguistic aspects that you noticed during your visit (e.g., new vocabulary, new expressions and phraseology, dialectal features, misunderstandings, etc.).

International service learning for SHSs 3. 4. 5.

261

Reflect on the cultural elements that you learned today during your visit. Reflect on how this visit has impacted you personally. Any other insight that you would like to share?

The first question provides the necessary information to contextualize students’ answers to the other questions. As can be noted, questions 2, 3, and 4 align with the three broad categories created for data collection and analysis (namely linguistic awareness, cultural understanding, and personal growth). The last question opens up the opportunity to comment on any other observations that students may have regarding their encounters with the residents. Students were instructed to take a notebook during their visit, so that they could jot down notes that would help them remember the information that they would later share in their video blogs (or vlogs). After each visit, students were asked to send their vlogs to the researcher. Twenty percent of the final grade for the course depended on the students submitting all of the required vlogs and responding to all five questions before the established deadlines. The average duration of the videos was three minutes and 42 seconds. The researcher received a total of 225 videos, whose content was transcribed for analysis. At the end of the SA program, a focus group was formed where students were able to collectively share their opinions in a semi-structured way, facilitated by the researcher. The transcription of this focus-group session also formed part of the data utilized for this study. Since one of the goals of this research was to evaluate the perceived impact of this ISL project on the residents, the researcher spoke with them regarding their personal perspectives on the experience. Nursinghome personnel were also interviewed. Since recordings were not allowed inside the facilities, the researcher took notes during these conversations. The content of these discussions provided valuable feedback as it pertains to the ways in which the residents benefited from this collaboration. All of the data collected for this chapter was analyzed following a contentanalysis approach. Content analysis can be defined as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 18). The main body of the data (the vlog transcripts) was carefully examined to identify emerging themes, classified under the three previously determined categories. This material was triangulated with the data collected in the focus-group session, which provided another layer of reflection about the experience, in this case from a communal perspective. The same dataanalysis approach was followed using the information collected from the interviews with the residents and the staff, revealing residents’ unique points of view.

262

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

Results This section examines the themes that emerged from the data analysis. Selected excerpts from the transcribed data have been included as a means of illustrating some of the topics and findings. It is important to bear in mind that the results described here have been extracted from participants’ selfreflections about their ISL experience. Thus, this information provides valuable insight regarding students’ perceptions of their knowledge and abilities, but not an objective measure of such claims. Results are presented following the three main categories established for this study. The last component of this section includes a summarized analysis of the comments provided by the residents and the staff of the nursing homes. Linguistic awareness The ISL project provided an opportunity for students to engage in real communicative events with a population that they do not typically interact with during an SA experience. Conversations were held exclusively in Spanish, providing SHSs with a unique communicative experience, since they were not able to rely on their conversation partners’ knowledge of English like they can in interactions with other bilingual interlocutors. The monolingual nature of the conversations forced students to use their available resources to create meaningful conversation in Spanish. When asked during the focus-group discussion about their ability to carry out an entire conversation in Spanish, students highlighted that they sometimes found it difficult to express what they wanted to say the way they wanted to say it. As a result, the promotion of compensatory and communicative strategies seems to have been evoked (Cohen, 1996), as students reported using circumlocutions and synonyms, paraphrasing, asking for clarification or verification, deducing meaning from the context, using mime or gesture, and so on. The use of these kinds of strategies has been associated with enhanced language learning (Littlewood, 1979; Oxford & Cohen, 1992; Tarone, 1983). For example, on one occasion, a female student told a female resident that her hair would look very nice with a chongo (the Mexican term to describe a top bun). As the older woman did not know what that meant, the student quickly did a top bun in her own hair to show her. The resident understood immediately and said, ¡Oh, un moño! (The word used in Spain for this hairstyle). During this interaction, both the resident and the student were able to communicate effectively as they learned about dialectal variation. Residents shared personal stories with students, representing a wide variety of topics (cultural norms and customs, history, hobbies, personal family stories, games, songs, etc.). As students noted, some of these were topics that they did not typically discuss in their daily lives, which created a context for linguistic awareness, especially in terms of new vocabulary and idiomatic expressions. Students reported that they frequently had to seek

International service learning for SHSs

263

clarification from residents regarding unknown terms or phrases, expanding their lexical repertoire. A female student shared the following anecdote: La señora hablaba mucho de Curro y entonces no sabía lo que significaba la palabra Curro. Entonces le pregunté y Curro es... A los Franciscos nosotros en México les decimos Pancho pero ellos aquí les dicen Curro. [The lady was talking a lot about Curro and then I did not know what the word Curro meant. Then I asked her and Curro is... In Mexico those who are named Francisco are called Pancho but over here they call them Curro.] (first vlog recording, June 12, 2018) Exposure to new vocabulary was particularly observable when discussing health-related topics. Given the advanced age of residents, most of them had some kind of medical condition. A plethora of medical terms emerged in their conversations, forcing students to familiarize themselves with new terminology (specifically pertaining to body parts and organs, as well as the names of illnesses, medications, and treatments). Register was another theme frequently mentioned by students. In their conversations, they practiced formal interaction patterns, using the Spanish pronoun usted and its corresponding verb forms. The appropriate use of formal discourse has been identified as one of the main learning objectives for SHSs (Draper & Hicks, 2000), since they are often more familiar with colloquial speech styles inside their households. Similarly, they were exposed to some lexical terms, fixed expressions, and sayings that are typical of older generations. The following are two of the examples mentioned in students’ vlogs: La señora usó una expresión que yo no conocía: “Quien tuvo, retuvo y guardó para la vejez” y significa que una persona de edad sigue siendo atractiva y simpática y nosotros le dijimos que en su caso era muy cierto. [The lady used an expression that I didn’t know: “Quien tuvo, retuvo y guardó para la vejez” (literally, who took and retained, saved for old age) and it means that an older person keeps being attractive and nice and we told her that in her case that was certainly true.] (second vlog recording, June 14, 2018) Y dijo “la curiosidad mata al gato” y como no sabía lo que significa le pregunté y eso significa que no hay que averiguar todos los chismes y que no tienes que saber todo. Es mejor saber menos que saber todo. [And she said “la curiosidad mata al gato” (curiosity killed the cat) and since I didn’t know what it meant I asked and that means that you don’t need to find out about all the gossip and that you don’t have to know everything. It’s better to know less than to know everything.] (fourth vlog recording, June 21, 2018)

264

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

The use of a formal register was not bidirectional, since residents employed an informal register when addressing the students, given their younger age. This allowed students to receive input regarding the second-person plural forms (vosotros, os) used in Spain in colloquial and informal speech. This is one of the dialectal differences that SHSs noticed the most when exposed to Peninsular Spanish, since these forms are not typical of the language varieties of Latin America. This was not the only dialectal feature that students detected. Most residents were born and raised in Andalusia, where they had spent most of their lives. In fact, some of them showed a very marked Andalusian dialect, not only in terms of pronunciation but also in the use of words and expressions that are typical of this geographical region. Exposure to different language varieties helps to break down standard-language ideologies, which are problematic for the HS classroom (Lowther Pereira, 2015). Some scholars have pointed out that privileging an idealized academic, prestige variety of Spanish can lead to incongruities with the local varieties students may speak, potentially negatively affecting students’ linguistic confidence (Leeman, 2005; Lowther Pereira, 2010; Martínez, 2003; Villa, 1996). This topic was amply discussed in the focus group, and students agreed that the ISL resulted in increased awareness of the legitimacy of dialectal variation in the Spanish-speaking world, including their own. This was illustrated when one student noticed that even though there are dialectal differences between the Spanish spoken in southern Spain and in Mexico, there are also some commonalities. In the student’s own words: Pues es muy similar con la forma de hablar de México, por ejemplo, el uso de diminutivos es muy común aquí y allá, como “hace fresquito” o “un ratito”. También he notado que aunque la mayoría de la gente usa el “vosotros”, algunas de las personas mayores usan el “ustedes” con un valor informal. [It’s very similar to the way of speaking in Mexico, for example, the use of diminutives is very common here and there, like “hace fresquito” (it’s chilly) or “un ratito” (a little while). I’ve also noticed that even though most people use “vosotros” (the informal pronoun in Spain for second-person plural), some older people use “ustedes” (the corresponding formal counterpart) with an informal meaning.] (sixth vlog recording, June 28, 2018)

Cultural understanding This experience provided participants (both students and residents) the opportunity to interact with a population sector very different from their own. Students had never interacted with older Spaniards from the Andalusian region. Similarly, nursing-home residents had never been exposed to SHSs. Naturally, after initial introductions, the first conversations

International service learning for SHSs

265

mostly focused on explaining students’ place of origin, heritage, and personal trajectories. In a few cases, the family migration stories narrated by students resonated with the residents, since some of them had stories of their own about migrating to other parts of Europe in their younger years. The following excerpt exemplifies one of the personal stories residents shared with the students: La señora se movió a Francia en 1959. Ella vivió allí por 30 años y ella no entendió el lenguaje de Francia y no hablaba mucho. Ella dijo que se fue porque no había trabajo aquí antes y se fue. Ella encontró un trabajo de sirvienta y solía lavar ropa y cocinaba. La cultura allá era diferente y dijo que le gustaba más la cultura de Málaga y dijo que quería venir para atrás. [The lady moved to France in 1959. She lived there for 30 years and she did not understand the language of France and she did not speak much. She said that she left because there were no jobs here before and she left. She found a job as a maid and she used to do laundry and cook. The culture there was different and she said that she liked the culture of Málaga better and she said that she wanted to come back.] (third vlog recording, June 19, 2018) Many of the topics of conversation during the visits centered on cultural differences between Spain, Mexico, and the United States. These topics included description of typical foods and drinks, national holidays and festivities, cultural norms, traditions, and habits, among many others. Participants also chatted about famous people, sharing information about well-known singers, actors, and artists. They talked about movies and songs, and on occasion residents or students sang songs, sometimes in unison. They also told jokes and even demonstrated for one another typical dances from Mexico (folclórico) and Spain (flamenco). Residents told students about their childhood, their youth, and their life experiences, which gave students the enriching opportunity to learn firsthand about a different period of time. Many residents had directly experienced the Spanish Civil War and the postwar famine period. Other historical events were shared by the nursing-home residents, including the Franco dictatorship and the transition to democracy, among others. Thanks to these stories, students learned what life was like in Spain during that time period, and they were able to draw comparisons with the Spain of today that they encountered during their SA experience. In the course of these interactions, students were exposed to attitudes, values, and lifestyles that they might not have encountered before. There were occasions when some of the residents voiced traditional and conservative points of view regarding religion, women’s role in society, homosexuality, and other social topics. A few of them expressed sympathy with Franco’s dictatorial doctrine, and did not agree with how Spain has progressed socially and ideologically since his death. Students who encountered

266

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

such different values and political views were surprised by these interactions. However, they also appreciated the opportunity to learn about a portion of the population whose opinions are not typically voiced out in the open. Students described these interactions as enriching and a means for learning about the intergenerational shift of values within Spanish society after the end of the Franco era. This shift was evident in one of the interactions mentioned by one of the students in her vlog: Fui a visitar a Manuel (nombre ficticio) y hablé con él... hablé de algunas cosas políticas con él y me habló del dictador que se llamaba Franco y me dijo que para él era bueno. Pero también estaba la enfermera allí y dijo que Franco no era bueno y que había matado a su abuelito a los 30 años y era muy difícil de mirar este conflicto de política entre ellos porque se nota que Manuel tenía más dinero y no sufrió tanto la dictadura. [I went to visit Manuel (pseudonym) and I talked to him and he told me about the dictator named Franco and he told me that he was good. But the nurse was also there and she said that Franco was not good and that he had killed her grandfather when he was 30 and it was very hard to see this political conflict between them because you can tell that Manuel had more money and did not suffer the dictatorship that much.] (seventh vlog recording, July 3, 2018) This SL opportunity was also culturally relevant to students, as they personally experienced how nursing homes are organized and managed in Spain. In some of their comments, students contrasted what they saw in Spain with nursing homes that they had visited in the United States or Mexico. In the focus-group discussion, students generally agreed that residents received better care in Spain compared to the other two countries, in terms of the quality of the facilities and the number of care providers available for them. They learned about the different kinds of governmental and private support services that residents can access. This aspect was particularly interesting for those students who were majoring in nursing or health science. In the focus group, students expressed that in Mexican culture grandparents usually stay with their families to receive the care and company that they need, so for some of them it was difficult to understand why the elders had been placed in these nursing homes. During the visits, students and residents discussed a wide variety of cultural topics. As one of the students noted in her last vlog activity: Durante estas semanas los residentes hablaron de la comida típica de la región, como la fritura malagueña, los chanquetes, ensalada de pimientos asados, los boquerones... Luego hablamos más de tradiciones como casarse por la iglesia, la feria de agosto, el baile de la malagueña, de la Semana Santa... [During these weeks residents talked about typical regional dishes, such as the fritura malagueña, chanquetes, roasted bell

International service learning for SHSs

267

pepper salad, boquerones... Then we talked more about traditions, like getting married in the church, the fair in August, the malagueña dance, Easter...] (eighth vlog recording, July 5, 2018) Another student reflected on the personal impact that residents’ personal stories had on his own learning: Él vivió la Guerra Civil. Él me ha comentado que en esos tiempos de guerra tuvo que salir del país y se fue a Argentina porque durante esos años le habían asesinado a tres de sus familiares y después de la guerra ha vuelto. Eso me pareció muy triste porque esas historias son las que uno lee en libros, pero escucharlo directamente de una persona que lo ha vivido que ha estado en esa situación en el lugar de los hechos es otra sensación. Sientes esa sensación y ese dolor que siente esa persona. Nunca lo voy a olvidar. [He lived the (Spanish) Civil War. He told me that at that time he had to flee the country and he went to Argentina because during those years three family members were murdered and after the war he returned. That was very sad because those are the stories that one can read in books, but to hear them directly from the person who has lived them, who has been in that situation, where those things happened, it’s a different feeling. You can feel it, you can feel the person’s pain. I am never going to forget it.] (fourth vlog recording, June 21, 2018) This SL experience was enriching not only to students but to residents as well, as they showed a great interest in knowing more about the students’ lives. One of the students reported the following: Con las personas que platicamos a veces le preguntamos cosas sobre su historia y sobre su cultura, pero ellas querían saber de nosotros más bien y le hablábamos de nuestra vida en California y en México. [We asked questions about the stories and culture of the people we talked with, but they also wanted to know more about us and we told them about our life in California and Mexico.] (second vlog recording, June 14, 2018) All in all, students reported appreciating the breadth and depth of the cultural knowledge they accessed while participating in this project. Both residents and students were open to sharing their life stories and opinions, which translated into an enriching experience for all participants, not only from a cultural perspective but also from a personal standpoint, as explained in the following section.

268

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

Personal growth Students unanimously agreed that the SL experience touched them on personal levels. Overall, they expressed that while this was a positive experience, it was sad as well. On the one hand, it was nice to be able to give company to the residents who typically do not receive many visitors. On the other hand, it was sad to know how lonely these residents felt on a daily basis. It was especially challenging to see that some residents experienced some physical- or mental-health conditions. One student in particular had doubts about participating in the ISL component of the course because she had recently experienced her grandfather living in a nursing home, and she expressed not being ready to be in that space again. Ultimately, she decided to participate and went through a personally transformative process, achieving peace with herself by being able to provide some happiness to the residents there, as she expressed in her vlog: Estaban muy muy contentas de que estábamos allí y entonces me sentí muy feliz y muy plena porque para nosotras no nos cuesta hacer, pero para ellas es un gran cambio. Cuando salí, llamé a mi novio en California y le dije, ¿sabes qué? Llegando me gustaría ser voluntaria en una residencia allá en California porque es importante que yo haga esas cosas porque yo puedo hacer un gran cambio en otra persona. [They were very happy that we were there and then I felt very happy and fulfilled because for us it does not take much but for them it’s a big change. When I left, I called my boyfriend in California and I told him, you know what? When I go back I would like to volunteer in a residence there in California because it is important that I do these things because that way I can make a big difference in another person’s life.] (sixth vlog recording, June 28, 2018) Another positive aspect of the experience was that it provided students an opportunity to improve interpersonal skills that are transferable to other situations. This was noted when participants had to come out of their comfort zones and partake in conversations with people that they did not know. They had to navigate a system and an environment that was new to them, and they had to deal with unexpected situations which ultimately impacted their ability to improvise. For instance, a group of students witnessed two of the residents getting into a heated argument, which created a very uncomfortable situation. However, they reacted quickly by letting one of the nursing-home staff members know while the rest of the group deescalated the situation by bringing up a new topic of conversation. One of the main objectives of SL is to develop a sense of civic engagement and responsibility. Students’ comments evidenced that this was indeed one of the most significant outcomes of their participation in the project. They encountered a mature age group that is often ignored and marginalized by

International service learning for SHSs

269

society. It also increased their awareness of the issues that this population regularly faces. Students were reminded not to discount this generation and to appreciate what they have to offer. For instance, many residents provided sage advice to the students regarding different topics (e.g., enjoy youth while it lasts, do not forget about your older family members, have peace with yourself, be honest). Some students mentioned that they embraced the advice and planned to follow it. One student commented that the residents helped the students more than students helped the residents. Participants were able to create personal bonds with the older adults and expressed a sense of personal satisfaction at being able to help alleviate the residents’ solitude. Not surprisingly, students felt sad when they had to leave. Some made commitments to keep in touch through letters. Most importantly, the experience made some students want to continue this kind of service upon their return to the United States, as the previous example showed. In their reflections, students highlighted that the experience raised their awareness of the necessity to pay more attention to the needs of the older adults in their families, especially when it comes to maintaining human communication and contact. Additionally, they thought about their own parents and grandparents and what kind of future they would like for them. Consequently, some students were prompted to think about what they wanted their own old age to look like. Overall, the ISL experience was a reminder that aging is an unavoidable process, a glimpse into what it feels like to be alone, and prompted the realization that human communication can bring some happiness to those in these environments. Students came to the conclusion that if only for a small while, their presence had the power to bring joy and break the monotony of the residents’ routines. Benefits for residents One of the premises of community service learning is that it should be beneficial not only to students but also to the community members they are serving. Interviews with residents indicated that they were delighted to spend time with the students, as they felt lonely and did not have a lot of new people to talk with. Nursing personnel also expressed that this experience helped alleviate residents’ sense of loneliness, isolation, and need for affection. This was also evident from the students’ perspective, as noted by one of them after the first visit: La primera visita la disfruté mucho. Incluso una de las señoras de la residencia me cantó una canción sobre Málaga. En general fue muy bonita la visita y los residentes estaban muy felices de vernos allí, de ver nuevas caras y platicar con nosotros. [I enjoyed the first visit a lot. Even one of the ladies in the residence sang me a song about Málaga. In general, the visit was very nice and the residents were very happy to see us there, to see new faces and to talk with us.] (first vlog recording, June 12, 2018)

270

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

Residents opened up quickly to students, and they were happy to share their stories with them. The older adults who participated felt valued and glad that they could make an impact in the students’ lives by sharing their stories and personal advice. In the words of one of the students: Yo pienso que aunque no ha sido mucho tiempo, ellos se sintieron como que alguien todavía se importaba a ellos, que podíamos aprender de ellos, como que alguien más tiene interés en ellos. [I think that even though it didn’t last a long time, they felt like somebody cared for them, that we could learn from them, like someone else has an interest in them.] (second vlog recording, June 14, 2018) The older participants also reported learning from the students. Since none of them reported having had relationships with Mexican American individuals previously, for many residents this was the first time that they had heard about the life and cultural customs of Mexico and the United States. They also learned words and expressions used in the students’ home language variety that differed from their own. All in all, residents appreciated students’ contributions. Administrators of the nursing homes were also very pleased with the collaboration, and they sought to continue this experience with other universities running SA programs in the area.

Conclusions Results indicate that ISL positively influenced students in the three areas of linguistic awareness, cultural understanding, and personal growth. First, students’ comments suggest an enhanced level of awareness of some aspects of the Spanish language, such as their repertoire of vocabulary and idiomatic expressions. Students also reported an increase in their use of compensatory and communicative strategies. In addition, the ISL experience provided ample exposure to register and dialectal variation, which led to an increase in students’ appreciation of linguistic diversity, including their own varieties of Spanish. Second, students reported that conversations with the residents enhanced their understanding of the host culture in many of their representations (including food, music, dance, sports, and games). They also had firsthand access to the host country’s recent history as narrated by residents, including the Spanish Civil War, the postwar famine period, the Franco dictatorship, and the transition to democracy. Students were exposed to a different set of beliefs, values, and ways of thinking, which in some cases differed from their own. Lastly, the experience reportedly impacted the lives of the students in more personal ways: for instance, they became more aware of the needs of this vulnerable population and reflected about the situation of their own parents and grandparents. More importantly, the SL experience seems to have sparked a sense of civic engagement and responsibility in students. Local residents also benefited from

International service learning for SHSs

271

this experience, as they declared that their interactions with students alleviated their feelings of depression and loneliness. Residents also appreciated talking with students who came from a different geographic and dialectal background, which expanded their cultural and personal horizons. This study highlights the potential of SL to enhance the SA experience of SHSs. These results support some, but not all, of the claims described in the literature regarding HSs in SA contexts. In line with existing research, this chapter provides evidence that HSs found it easy to connect socially with the local community in the target language from the onset (Petrucci, 2007). Conversely, none of the students reported experiencing any form of linguistic discrimination stemming from their dialect, as described by Riegelhaupt and Carrasco (2000). The benefits of SL reported in the literature as they apply to SHSs in the United States are also supported in the international context described in this chapter. For example, students provided evidence that ISL contributed to the development of their awareness of sociolinguistic and sociopolitical issues affecting the local communities and the construction of positive identities (Jorge, 2006; Lowther Pereira, 2015, 2016; Pascual y Cabo et al., 2017; Petrov, 2013; Tocaima-Hatch & Walls, 2016), motivating some of them to increase their level of engagement (Pak, 2018; Petrov, 2013). ISL also expanded students’ dialectal awareness and flexibility (Lowther Pereira, 2015, 2016), allowing them to gain an appreciation of their own linguistic skills and validation of their knowledge and experiences (Leeman et al., 2011; Lowther Pereira, 2016; Pascual y Cabo et al., 2017; Tocaima-Hatch & Walls, 2016).

Limitations and future research One of the limitations of this study is that the results derive from participants’ self-reports – that is, it measures not students’ actual learning but their self-reported impressions regarding their learning. Therefore, conclusions must be contemplated within the framework of this specific study, since results may differ in other SA contexts. Another important factor to consider is that the SA program described in this chapter was specially designed for SHSs. Although this could be considered a strong point of this research, it also represents a significant limitation, since the reality is that most SA programs serve not exclusively HSs but also L2 learners. In these cases, administrators must determine how ISL can be best integrated to meet each group’s needs. One of the issues for L2 learners is that their service performance can be hindered if they do not possess sufficient linguistic abilities to carry out their assigned duties (Zapata, 2011), and although still valuable for students, the ISL experience may not be as beneficial for the organization that they are trying to support. Considering this, future research might focus on the programmatic implications of implementing an ISL experience for a mixed student body. Given the shortage of research studies that focus on this topic, there are many opportunities for

272

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

exploration, using different theoretical frameworks and research methodologies. The ideal end product of this research would be to establish best practices in order to assist SA administrators in designing programs that effectively serve HSs so that they might have the meaningful and fruitful SA experience they deserve.

References ACTFL. (2016). Assigning CEFR ratings to ACTFL assessments. Alexandria, VI: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved from https:// www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/Assigning_CEFR_Ratings_To_ACTFL_ Assessments.pdf. Alonso García, N., & Longo, N.V. (2017). Doing more with less: Civic practices for longer-term impact in global service-learning. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 29(2), 35–50. Annette, J. (2002). Service learning in an international context. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8, 83–93. Askildson, L., Kelly, A., & Mick, C. (2013). Developing multiple literacies in academic English through service-learning and community engagement. TESOL Journal, 4, 402–438. Barreneche, G. (2011). Language learners as teachers: Integrating service-learning and the advanced language course. Hispania, 94, 103–119. Burgo, C. (2018). The impact of study abroad on Spanish heritage language learners. Journal of Latinos and Education, 19, 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431. 2018.1518139. Caldwell, W. (2007). Taking Spanish outside the box: A model for integrating service learning into foreign language study. Foreign Language Annals, 40(3), 463–471. Cohen, A.D. (1996). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues (CARLA working paper series). Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research in Language Acquisition. Cotten, C., & Thompson, C. (2017). High-impact practices in social work education: A short-term study-abroad service-learning trip to Guatemala. Journal of Social Work Education, 53(4), 622–636. Davidson, D.E., & Lekic, M.D. (2013). The heritage and non-heritage learner in the overseas immersion context: Comparing learning outcomes and target-language utilization in the Russian flagship. Heritage Language Journal, 10, 88–114. Dixon, B. (2015). International service learning: Analytical review of published research literature. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 25, 107–131. Draper, J., & Hicks, J. (2000). Where we’ve been; what we’ve learned. In J. Webb & B. Miller (Eds.), Teaching heritage language learners: Voices from the classroom (pp. 15–35). Yonkers, NY: ACTFL. Faszer-McMahon, D. (2013). Social networking, microlending, and translation in the Spanish service-learning classroom. Hispania, 96(2), 252–263. Gascoigne Lally, C. (2001). Service/community learning and foreign language teaching methods. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 53–63. Guerrero, E. (2006). The road less traveled: Latino students and the impact of studying abroad (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles.

International service learning for SHSs

273

Herr, K., & Anderson, G.L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Heuser, L. (1999). Service learning as a pedagogy to promote the content, crosscultural, and language learning of ESL students. TESL Canada Journal, 17(1), 54–71. Institute of International Education. (2018). Open Doors report on international educational exchange. New York: Institute of International Education. Retrieved from www.iie.org/opendoors. Jiménez Jiménez, A.F. (2019, February). En busca de la herencia cultural: Estudios en el extranjero como vía de búsqueda. In Paper presented at the VIII Encuentro entre Universidades Españolas y Norteamericanas, Almería, Spain. Jorge, E. (2006). Journey home: Connecting Spanish-speaking communities at home and abroad. Hispania, 89, 110–122. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Lear, D., & Abbott, A. (2009). Aligning expectations for mutually beneficial community service-learning: The case of Spanish language proficiency cultural knowledge, and professional skills. Hispania, 92(2), 312–323. Leeman, J. (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 35–45. Leeman, J. (2012). Investigating language ideologies in Spanish as a heritage language. In S.M. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 43–59). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Román-Mendoza, E. (2011). Critical pedagogy beyond the classroom walls: Community service-learning and Spanish heritage language education. Heritage Language Journal, 8(3), 293–314. Littlewood, W. (1979). Communicative performance in language development contexts. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 123–138. López-García, M.P. (2017). La enseñanza del español a hablantes de herencia en inmersión parcial y total: Factores eficaces del aprendizaje en aulas heterogéneas. Tejuelo, 26, 113–142. Lowther Pereira, K. (2010). Identity and language ideology in the intermediate Spanish heritage language classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. Lowther Pereira, K. (2015). Developing critical language awareness via servicelearning for Spanish heritage speakers. Heritage Language Journal, 12(2), 159–185. Lowther Pereira, K. (2016). New directions in heritage language pedagogy: Community service-learning for Spanish heritage speakers. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 237–258). Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Lutterman-Aguilar, A., & Gingerich, O. (2002). Experiential pedagogy for study abroad: Educating for global citizenship. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8, 41–82. Mar-Molinero, C., & Paffey, D. (2011). Linguistic imperialism: Who owns global Spanish? In M. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 747–764). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

274

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez

Martínez, G. (2003). Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal, 1(1), 1–14. Martinsen, R., Baker, W., Dewey, D., Bown, J., & Johnson, C. (2010). Exploring diverse settings for language acquisition and use: Comparing study abroad, service learning abroad, and foreign language housing. Applied Language Learning, 20, 45–69. Mertler, C.A. (2020). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Mills, G.E., & Butroid, R. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Harlow, UK: Pearson. Montrose, L. (2002). International study and experiential learning: The academic context. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 8, 1–15. Moreno, K.H. (2009). The study abroad experiences of heritage language learners: Discourses of identity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin. Overfield, D. (2007). Conceptualizing service-learning as a second language acquisition space: Directions for research. In A. Wurr & J. Hellebrandt (Eds.), Learning the language of global citizenship: Service-learning in applied linguistics (pp. 58–81). Boston, MA: Anker. Oxford, R.L., & Cohen, A.D. (1992). Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning, 3, 1–35. Pak, C.S. (2018). Linking service-learning with sense of belonging: A culturally relevant pedagogy for heritage students of Spanish. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(1), 76–95. Parker, B., & Dautoff, D. (2007). Service-learning and study abroad: Synergistic learning opportunities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(2), 40–52. Pascual y Cabo, D., Prada, J., & Lowther Pereira, K. (2017). Effects of community service-learning on heritage language learners’ attitudes toward their language and culture. Foreign Language Annals, 50(1), 71–83. Pearce, J.M. (2009). Appropedia as a tool for service learning in sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(1), 45–53. Pellettieri, J. (2011). Measuring language-related outcomes of community-based learning in intermediate Spanish courses. Hispania, 94, 285–302. Petrov, L.A. (2013). A pilot study of service-learning in a Spanish heritage speaker course: Community engagement, identity, and language in the Chicago area. Hispania, 96(2), 310–327. Petrucci, P. R. (2007). Heritage scholars in the ancestral homeland: An overlooked identity in study abroad research. Sociolinguistic Studies, 1, 275–296. Potowski, K. (2002). Experience of Spanish heritage learners: Moving beyond essentializations. In S. M. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a heritage language in the United States (pp. 179–199). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Potowski, K. (2013). Heritage learners of Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 404–422). New York: Wiley. Riegelhaupt, F., & Carrasco, R. L. (2000). Mexico host family reactions to a bilingual Chicana teacher in Mexico: A case study of language and culture clash. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 405–421.

International service learning for SHSs

275

Sherk, J. (2013). A service learning approach to community engagement in a study abroad design course in Córdoba, Mexico. NACTA Journal, 57(3a), 8–14. Shively, R. (2016). Heritage language learning in study abroad: Motivations, identity work, and language development. In D. Pascual y Cabo (Ed.), Advances in Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Shively, R. (2018). Spanish heritage speakers studying abroad. In K. Potowski (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Spanish as a heritage language (pp. 403–419). Abingdon: Routledge. Szekely, B.B. (1998). Seeking heritage in study abroad. In T. M. Davis (Ed.), Open Doors 1997/1998: Report on international education exchange (pp. 107–109). New York: Institute of International Education. Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of “communication strategy”. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 61–74). London: Longman. Teranishi, C.S. (2007). Impact of experiential learning on Latino college students’ identity, relationships, and connectedness to community. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(1), 52–72. Tocaima-Hatch, C.C., & Walls, L.C. (2016). Service learning as a means of vocabulary learning for second language and heritage language learners of Spanish. Hispania, 99(4), 650–665. Tonkin, H., & Quiroga, D. (2014). Qualitative approach to the assessment of international service-learning. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 131–149. Thompson, G. (2012). The intersection of service and learning: Research and practice in the second language classroom. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. US Department of Education (2017). Spring 2017, fall enrollment component. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_306.50.asp? referer=raceindicators. Valdés, G. (2000). Introduction. In AATSP (Ed.) Spanish for native speakers. AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16, Volume 1 (pp. 1–20). New York: Harcourt College. Van Der Meid, J. S. (2003). Asian Americans: Factors influencing the decision to study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9, 71–110. Villa, D. (1996). Choosing a ‘standard’ variety of Spanish for the instruction of native Spanish speakers in the U.S. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 191–200. Weldon, A., & Trautmann, G. (2003). Spanish and service learning: Pedagogy and praxis. Hispania, 86(3), 574–585. Zapata, G. (2011). The effects of community service learning projects on L2 learners’ cultural understanding. Hispania, 94(1), 86–102. Zapata, G., & Tokarz, W. (2008). Community service learning and L2 students’ intercultural communicative competence. In M. Mantero, P. Chamness & J. Watzke (Eds.), Readings in language studies, Volume 1: Language across disciplinary boundaries (pp. 281–297). Wilmington, DE: International Society for Language Studies.

Afterword Charting a path forward for Spanish heritage speakers in study abroad Cristina Sanz

Studying abroad is not a recent invention – the fruit of a more global world – but the modern version of the 19th century Grand Tour, which broadened the cultural horizons of young members of the European and American elites (Gore, 2005). However, with increasing frequency, our study abroad (SA) students come from underprivileged backgrounds and are often minority and native speakers (NSs) who do not fit the image associated with the Grand Tour experience. And yet, from the beginning, SA research assumed that SA participants were middle-class, white, US-born monolingual English speakers, immersed in an equally monolingual culture for the purpose of learning a foreign language. Years later, European researchers joined in, prompted by the millions of students participating in the Erasmus program, and the responsibility to shift some of the attention to minority and heritage speakers (HSs) sojourning abroad fell on researchers working in the United States and Canada. As colleges in the United States have become more diverse, the growth in the number of Latinx students has been significant both on campus and in SA programs in Spanish-speaking countries. It is worth noticing that while academic programs on campus have adapted to cater to the needs that HSs of the language bring with them with the creation of Spanish language program tracks, SA programs – with a few exceptions (see Marijuan, chapter 12, this volume), have not shown the same willingness to accommodate heritage language learners. Nonetheless, HSs’ experiences abroad are different for many reasons: their learning goals are often different, they are seen differently by host families and faculty, and the eyes through which they evaluate and interpret their own experiences abroad are different too. How much do we know about these differences? What can we do to inform practitioners and students to better match programs’ and learners’ needs? In answering these questions, we need to proceed with care and avoid a reductionist view of HSs who participate in a sojourn abroad to learn “real Spanish and leave their Spanglish behind” and to “connect with their family’s motherland”. Latinx students differ greatly in terms of language proficiency, as some speak Spanish, understand it, or simply view it as part of their family background; they are also incredibly diverse in terms of social

Afterword

277

class, ethnic and racial backgrounds, national origins, and connections with them. I agree with this volume’s editors when they state that the complexities of the HS experience remain underexplored and undertheorized, and I congratulate them for their efforts in putting together this volume, as it represents an important step in the right direction. As director of Georgetown’s summer program in Barcelona since 2007, I have borne witness to the diversity that characterizes Latinx students both linguistically (proficiency level, frequency and context of Spanish use, dialectal variety) and in all those traits that make up an individual’s identity (including ethnic and racial backgrounds and social class), and how the interaction of these factors with the external conditions set by the program result in differential outcomes. The intensity of the program – faculty–student familystyle meals, outings, daily lessons – affords faculty and students the time and the trust necessary to have productive conversations on language and identity that are rare on campus. Also, as an officially bilingual but very much multilingual city, Barcelona makes those conversations unavoidable. We also collect data, mostly cognitive and linguistic, as well as how students’ negotiations of ideologies and identities as bilinguals in a bilingual city shape their experience and learning outcomes. In the process of analyzing our data from both English and Spanish NSs, we became aware that race is a topic in need of attention (see Anya, 2018). After diversity, perhaps my second realization as a researcher and practitioner was of the differential role of learners’ agency. In only six weeks, students broaden their linguistic repertoires and become aware of linguistic diversity and where their own variety fits in the larger picture. In parallel with the development of linguistic awareness, students rethink and redefine or affirm their Spanish-speaking identities and their Latinx identities beyond the United States, in the broader pan-Hispanic world. The negotiation between how learners see themselves and how others see them can be more or less successful, more or less traumatic, but always affects attitudes toward the language and ultimately their language development. HSs return home with different language and identity outcomes and describe their experiences abroad in positive and negative terms. When the experience is positive, their newly developed awareness and comfort gained as users of their own variety help them challenge the negative messages they have received and will continue to receive both in the United States and in their host country: “tú hablas pocho”, “sí que habláis mal por ahí”. Their comprehension of the local variety improves, and they find a role for Spanish, perhaps in their academic and professional lives, perhaps even in their relations with their community and family. In addition to examining the linguistic choices of HSs after a sojourn abroad (see Salgado-Robles & George, chapter 2, this volume), it would be most interesting to collect longitudinal data before and after the SA experience from HSs who sojourn in a Spanish-speaking country and compare it with the experience of HSs who do not. In what proportion do the first continue with

278

Cristina Sanz

Spanish? Do they declare a minor, a major? Do their career choices reflect an impact? They may, for example, be more international, or relate to NSs in the United States. But it is not all highs. Unfortunately, as program director I have witnessed my fair share of lows: the male Latinx student who ended up in an ambulance after an unfortunate encounter with a club bouncer, the student whose grades suffered because a faculty member could not understand the difference between the student’s oral and written proficiency, the student who found Barcelona the upside-down world of her Cuban grandmother’s memories. There was also a student who spent hours and hundreds of euros at Zara and then overdressed so as not to be mistaken again for being a waitress. Even when it is less dramatic, the SA experience can be negative when it does not match the student’s own desired ethnolinguistic identity (Tullock, 2018). And just as HSs can feel like outsiders on campus, they can feel like outsiders while abroad: locals see them as outsiders – a gringo in Mexico – even as unexpected types of outsiders – an immigrant in Madrid. I soon learned that minority students and HSs needed special predeparture preparation in sessions where we discussed potential issues, including racist behaviors, and strategized possible solutions, and where I tried to erase the concept of Spain as the motherland of their grandparents’ idealized memories – as a religious, monolingual society built around a traditional sense of family. I also decided to replace the Introduction to Spanish Linguistics course with a Bilingualism course. After all, every student was bilingual, some non-native and emergent, some native bilingual, many in fact multilingual studying at an officially bilingual institution (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) in a multilingual city. The course led to personal reflections guided by academic readings and discussions inside and outside the classroom. Given the obvious potential differences in linguistic, academic, and personal growth, and the considerable investment of time and money for students and families, parents and administrators are calling on researchers to answer questions on SA efficacy for all students. In the case of HSs, we should know more about their reasons for participating in our programs, their expectations, the criteria they follow in choosing a destination, and the difference it makes to study in their family’s country of origin as opposed to another Spanish-speaking country. In these cases, we want to know how HSs internalize their experience, as well as how they negotiate and possibly redefine their ethnolinguistic identities. The ultimate goal is to know much more about why HSs benefit linguistically, academically, and personally from their sojourn, as well as the long-term impact on their professional and personal lives, so that we can better advise them and better design programs. Considering SA’s old pedigree, it is somewhat surprising that the bulk of publications on language and personal development during SA did not appear until the early 1990s (DeKeyser, 1991; Freed, 1995; Lafford, 1995), with work coming out of Europe only recently and almost nonexistent from non-Western countries. However, the field is very active now, with its own

Afterword

279

strand, keynotes, and colloquia at major conferences. Both System and Annual Review of Applied Linguistics have just published a volume each on international education, there is a new journal titled Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, and the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée has a research network fully dedicated to study abroad. The number of articles and chapters that focus on HSs studying abroad (mostly Spanish speakers) keeps growing, as the references included in this volume attest. The field was ripe for its publication. Complementing this volume, the reader may want to consult Fuchs, Rai, and Loiseau’s Study Abroad: Traditions and New Directions (2019), an edited volume designed as a resource for practitioners teaching and designing SA programs for US students; Hasegawa’s The Social Lives of Study Abroad (2019), which combines Social Network Analysis and Conversation Analysis to investigate individual relationships and interactional procedures within entire program networks; and Sanz and Morales-Front’s Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice (2018), which includes 32 chapters on approaches to investigating SA, linguistic development, individual and contextual factors, and practical implications. There is no “theory of SA”. The field is an offshoot of Applied Linguistics in general and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) in particular, and as such it relies on a variety of borrowed theories and approaches. SA research started with classroom-versus-immersion comparisons that disregarded both differences in immersive contexts and individual differences, moved through a preference for quantitative studies on the role of learners’ cognition in explaining differential results of immersion, and has now reached a place where students’ socialization and identities play a central role. This latter development is especially important in research that includes HSs in its sample. The answer to the question of whether the immersive experience is beneficial for learners’ language, cultural, and personal growth is not simple, and HSs make us rethink many of those questions. For example, if the advantage of immersion abroad is its abundance in rich and meaningful input that keeps the focus on the message (Krashen, 1985), constant opportunities for interaction (Long, 1996), and push for production (Swain, 1995), what does it do for HSs who are immersed in the language at home and in their community? How do external factors, such as living arrangements or the type of program – sheltered versus direct matriculation, service-oriented or not (see Jiménez Jiménez, chapter 13, this volume; Salgado-Robles & George, chapter 2, this volume) – contribute to language development? And how do said external factors interact with individual differences, such as proficiency, attitudes, and aptitudes? Scholars and program directors have some of the answers, many of which I have already mentioned – awareness, comprehension – but also others, such as the development of new registers and effective writing (see Marqués-Pascual, chapter 10, this volume). We should do more to provide evidence in their support, to disseminate our findings among practitioners to

280

Cristina Sanz

improve advising, and to push for research-informed pedagogical changes that make SA programs more inclusive for linguistically and culturally diverse students. From a methodological standpoint, SA scholars today are interested in a wide array of research questions, including the outcomes on a variety of linguistic skills beyond fluency, which dominated early SA research; areas such as writing and listening comprehension continue to be underresearched, with a few exceptions (see Vallejos & Sanz, 2020, for L2 writing). chapter 9 in this volume by Escalante, Viera, and Patiño-Vega, concludes that this area needs our attention, particularly regarding HSs’ oral and writing abilities, as it is currently under-studied and under-theorized. The empirical study by Marqués-Pascual (chapter 10, this volume) shows an increase in syntactic complexity and fluency in advanced HSs’ written narratives after a semester or a year abroad in Spain. A strong suggestion for research on lexical and morphosyntactic development is to incorporate more than one dependent variable (e.g., accuracy, complexity, latency) and to look at more than one system. For example, Grey, Cox, Serafini, and Sanz (2015) showed that five weeks in Georgetown’s Barcelona summer program led to improvements (faster, more accurate) in agreement within the verbal phrase and the noun phrase, but only for number, not gender. A replication of this study with HSs would yield informative results. An additional area in need of attention is HSs’ pragmatic development in an SA context. Chapter 5 in this volume by Shively proposes key research questions, state-of-the-art methods, and theories, with implications for pragmatics instruction. As an example, Pozzi, Escalante, and Quan (chapter 6, this volume) explore the positive impact of an instructional treatment related to requests, apologies, and the use of vos among Mexican Americans studying abroad in Mendoza, Argentina. They problematize the use of an appropriateness paradigm in pragmatic research on HSs and focus their analysis on HSs’ metapragmatic awareness throughout SA. Better studied are the effects of a sojourn abroad on HSs’ sociolinguistic development. The section on this topic begins with a theoretical chapter by Geeslin, Gudmestad, Hasler Barker, Kanwit, Long, and Solon (chapter 1, this volume), which articulates a plan for future research in this area. The section also includes an empirical chapter by George and Salgado-Robles (chapter 2, this volume); it finds that Mexican-American students who completed a service-learning program in Madrid retained the style-shifting ability (vosotros vs. ustedes) longer than those who completed a traditional program, possibly due to the stronger connections made with locals during service learning. Another empirical study with students of Mexican descent in central Spain, this one by Peace (chapter 3, this volume), explores the adoption of local features and shows that in conversations with local students, HSs present themselves as educated speakers of a Mexican variety of Spanish, this being an in-between variety that does not accommodate to Peninsular Spanish but avoids stigmatized features of their home variety of

Afterword

281

the language. In the final empirical chapter, Escalante examines the role of language background and use of Spanish at home in accommodation to /s/weakening in coastal Ecuador (chapter 4, this volume). With regards to designs and tools, technology can greatly contribute to improving research methodology: online surveys, blogs (see Jiménez Jiménez, chapter 13, this volume), and e-journals have proven useful in the investigation of learners’ motivation, identity, and intercultural competence; these studies have grown in number with the advent of the social turn in SLA and in SA research. Self-paced reading, eye tracking, and event-related potentials have been used with success in cognitively-oriented language development abroad (see Marijuan & Sanz, 2017). The field needs more studies that adopt a within-subject, longitudinal, cross-sectional, or crossprogrammatic approach, as researchers move away from problematic SAversus-at-home comparisons. For example, the studies in Pérez Vidal’s volume (2014) followed Catalan/Spanish bilingual students from their first semester as English majors through their SA experience and months after their return. Also needed are study replications and data triangulation that can strengthen our understanding of the effects that an academic experience abroad can have on language and intercultural learning. Finally, studies need to be more precise about the specific internal and external variables that may influence outcomes: specifics on key elements of the program such as type of courses (content vs. language), contact hours, extracurriculars, tasks and assessments, or a language pledge (Sanz, 2014). While studies have focused some attention on individual differences, more needs to be said about the role that those differences have in new, less traditional programs, including service learning and internships. We need to look at outcomes for learners who differ in language background (L2 learners and HSs of different proficiencies) and participate in the same type of service learning or internship program. As an example, Jiménez Jiménez (chapter 13, this volume) shows that HSs who participated in service learning at a nursing home in Spain expanded their knowledge of vocabulary and idiomatic expressions and gained an appreciation for register and dialectal variation. Studies on the role of individual differences in HSs abroad have mostly focused on ethnic and national identity and race. In chapter 7 of this volume, Leeman and Driver present sociocultural frameworks that insist on the fluidity of identity seen as socially constructed and constantly negotiated. They highlight how language ideologies and the racialization of Latinx students abroad influence those students' developing identities, and the need for pedagogical interventions during their SA experience. Also in this volume, Menard-Warwick, Kehoe, and Palmer (chapter 8) examine agency in three HSs as they challenge existing teaching materials and practices, thus contributing new insights to the literature through a focus on what happens in the classroom during SA. SA scholars have drawn from theoretical perspectives related to learner agency, such as Activity Theory

282

Cristina Sanz

(Engeström, 1999), which links motivation to learner goals and actions, and notions such as self-regulation (e.g., Mills, Pajares, & Herron, 2007) or investment (Peirce, 1995). And just as identity is fluid, our vision of motivation has also evolved: the construct of motivation should not be treated as “high” or “low” states but rather as something that varies over time and across situations (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2013). Finally, SA research has investigated personality traits in immersive contexts in relation to interaction and L2 use, but not so much in direct relation to L2 gains. For example, Hasegawa (2019) looks at extroverts versus loners and their interactions with members of their networks. Other individual variables, such as strategy use (e.g., Adams, 2006) and cognitive style (e.g., Hokanson, 2000), also come to mind. This is all for L2 learners; however, beyond identity and agency, what do we know about HSs studying abroad? What is the interaction between identity and personality traits, and how do they affect interaction and language development depending on the type of program or living arrangements? Do HSs develop a wider range of learning strategies? Do they, for instance, become more effective readers? To close these paragraphs on research questions and methods, I would like to recognize that quantitative SA research is characterized by low statistical power, which contributes to the lack of reliability and generalizability of the studies themselves. Focusing on HSs will only further reduce sample sizes. There are two possible solutions: opting for qualitative research or using mixed methods and collaborating across programs and institutions to assemble samples with robust numbers. As a field, SA researchers and practitioners need to embrace the call to diversify access to SA programs; the growing number of studies on inclusivity and diversity in international education cited in this volume is evidence of this concern. The issues are many. For example, little is known about how the beliefs of foreign instructors from host universities might affect their interactions with minority students. We should have more than the anecdotal evidence mentioned earlier to convince faculty and administrators of the need to ensure that their pedagogical practices and discourses not only validate the Spanish varieties HSs identify with but also expand their academic Spanish learning – and to modify syllabi accordingly. Likewise, the value of incorporating a sociolinguistics course to promote awareness of linguistic diversity should also be considered, or at a minimum the use of journals, interviews, or blogs to encourage opportunities for reflection on linguistic, ethnic, and racial identity. Understanding that “different is not wrong” is important for students’ success during SA and beyond. The theoretical chapter by Holguín Mendoza and Taylor (chapter 11, this volume) provides important points on the matter, such as developing HSs’ critical sociocultural linguistic literacy by creating curricula around community-based organizations and environmental- and social justice issues. Above all, researchers should do more to document the differences among HSs to avoid preconceived notions of why they choose to study

Afterword

283

abroad, and should share this documentation with academic advisers, who should listen and take HSs’ goals into consideration: a return to the motherland? Social justice? Professional development? Beyond faculty and administrators, fellow students can also be an important resource. Hiring returnees as peer advisors has the potential to encourage learners with different cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds to choose to study abroad. Also of special interest are programmatic features that can be enhanced to accommodate unique student populations. For example, in chapter 12 of this volume, Marijuan’s inclusion of heritage language learners as conversation partners prior to departure had the added benefit of helping HSs themselves by providing them with professional opportunities that encourage Spanish maintenance and personal transformation. Finally, just as researchers on bilingual development work to understand the phenomenon and its potential for social and cognitive advantages, we should change our perspective and inform the field of the conditions that lead HSs to their success, so that we can lead the way for change. Let’s insist that different does not mean less or wrong, and that at many institutions, different has become the norm.

References Adams, R.J. (2006). Language learning strategies in the SA context. In M.A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in SA contexts (pp. 259–292). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Anya, U. (2018). Racialized identities in second language learning: Speaking blackness in Brazil. London, UK: Routledge. DeKeyser, R. (1991). Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 104–119). Lexington, MA: DC Heath. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and researching: Motivation. London, UK: Routledge. Engeström, Y. (1999). Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1), 63–93. Freed, B.F. (1995). Second language acquisition in a SA context. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Fuchs, M., Rai, S., & Loiseau, Y. (2019) Study abroad traditions and new directions. New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America. Gore, J.E. (2005). Dominant beliefs and alternative voices: Discourses, belief and gender in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Grey, S., Cox, J.G., Serafini, E.J., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in the SA context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive language exposure. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 137–157. Hasegawa, A. (2019). The social lives of study abroad: Understanding second language learners’ experiences through social network analysis and conversation analysis. London, UK: Routledge.

284

Cristina Sanz

Hokanson, S.G. (2000). Foreign language immersion homestays. Applied Language Learning, 11(2), 239–264. Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Lafford, B. (1995). Getting into, through and out of a situation: a comparison of strategies used by students of Spanish-abroad and ‘at home’. In B. Freed (Ed.), The linguistic impact of study abroad (pp. 97–121). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press. Marijuan, S., & Sanz, C. (2017). Technology-assisted L2 research in immersive contexts abroad, System, 71, 22–34, special volume on SA, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.system.2017.09.017. Marijuan, S., & Sanz, C. (2018). Expanding boundaries: Current and new directions in study abroad research and practice. Foreign Language Annals, 15, 1–20. Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning, 57(3), 417–442. Peirce, B.N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587803. Pérez Vidal, C. (Ed.) (2014). Study abroad and language acquisition: Context and contact matters. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. Sanz, C. (2014). Contributions of study abroad research to our understanding of SLA processes and outcomes: The SALA project, an appraisal. In C.P. Vidal (Ed.), Study abroad and language acquisition: Context and contact matters (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. Sanz, C., & Morales-Front, A. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice. London, UK: Routledge. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tullock, B. (2018). Identity and study abroad. In C. Sanz & A. Morales-Front (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of study abroad research and practice (pp. 262–274). London, UK: Routledge. Vallejos, C., & Sanz, C. (2021). Writing in study abroad contexts. In R.M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.

List of contributors

Meagan Driver, Assistant Professor in the Department of Romance and Classical Studies and Second Language Studies Program at Michigan State University, is an applied linguist who specializes in second language acquisition and heritage language education. Within this realm, her research implements cognitive theories and methodologies to explore the relationship between various topics including emotion, bilingualism and multilingualism, and study abroad. Recent publications include an article on the Foreign Language Effect in the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism and a handbook chapter coauthored with Ronald Leow on cognitive perspectives on corrective feedback; a metaanalysis coauthored with Julia Goetze on self-efficacy in SLA is scheduled for publication next year. Chelsea Escalante is an Assistant Professor of Spanish at the University of Wyoming, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Hispanic Linguistics and pedagogy, including Spanish for heritage speakers. She received her PhD from the University of California, Davis, and her MA from the University of Arizona. Her research agenda primarily uses sociolinguistic approaches to analyze second language and heritage language development. She has published in journals such as American Speech, Normas: Revista de Estudios Lingüísticos Hispánicos, and E-JournALL: EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, and has several forthcoming contributions in edited volumes. Kimberly Geeslin is Professor at Indiana University in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Her research focuses on second language Spanish and the intersection of SLA and sociolinguistics. She coauthored Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition (Routledge, 2014) and edited The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics (Cambridge, 2018) and The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition (WileyBlackwell, 2013). She has published research articles in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Language Learning, Hispania, Spanish in Context,

286

List of contributors

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Linguistics, and Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics. Angela George’s (Assistant Professor of Spanish, University of Calgary) research explores the effects of study abroad on production and perception of regional features by second and heritage language learners of Spanish. Her publications include recent articles “Dialect and identity: U.S. Heritage Language Learners of Spanish abroad” in Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education and “Study Abroad Homestay versus Dormitory: Extralinguistic Factors and Regional Features” in Spanish in Context. She has also recently published articles in the Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition and Hispanic Studies Review. Aarnes Gudmestad is Associate Professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in the Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures. She specializes in second language acquisition and sociolinguistics, and her research explores the intersection of the two fields. Her current projects address issues pertaining to morphosyntactic structures (e.g., the subjunctive–indicative contrast, subject expression, future-time reference, grammatical gender) in Spanish and French. She is a coeditor of Critical Reflections on Data in Second Language Acquisition (John Benjamins, 2018), and she has published articles in Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics. Maria Hasler Barker is Associate Professor of Spanish Linguistics in the Department of World Languages and Cultures at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include interlanguage pragmatics and pedagogy, second and heritage language Spanish pedagogy, and bilingual service encounters. She has published research on pragmatics and study abroad, data elicitation methods, and theoretical approaches to pragmatics. Her work appears in System and in edited volumes published by Routledge, Peter Lang, and Cambridge University Press. Claudia Holguín Mendoza (Ph.D. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign) is an Assistant Professor of Spanish linguistics at the University of California, Riverside. She specializes in the sociolinguistics of race in the Mexican borderlands and Greater Mexico as well as critical pedagogies for the teaching of Spanish as a heritage language. She publishes in both English and Spanish and her work has appeared in journals such as International Multilingual Research Journal, Hispania, Studies in Hispanic & Lusophone Linguistics, Identities, and Frontera Norte.

List of contributors

287

Antonio F. Jiménez Jiménez holds a PhD in Spanish Applied Linguistics from Pennsylvania State University. He is a Professor of Spanish, Translation and Linguistics at California State University, Channel Islands. His research involves the acquisition and attrition of second languages during and after study abroad programs. He has directed several study abroad programs in Spain and México. Most recently, he has been researching the private speech of bilingual speakers and the linguistic and cultural impact of study abroad on Spanish heritage speakers. He is the author of the textbook Introducción a la traducción: Inglés < > Español, published by Routledge. Matthew Kanwit is Associate Professor of Hispanic Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh. He researches first and second language morphosyntactic variation and the effect of study abroad on the acquisition of variation. His research combines variationist and concept-oriented approaches and has appeared in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Language Learning, The Modern Language Journal, Foreign Language Annals, Probus, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), Journal of Language and Sexuality, Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, Sociolinguistic Studies, Spanish in Context, Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), and The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics. Shannon Kehoe has an MA in bilingual education from UT Austin and has worked as a bilingual educator for 10 years. Currently she is a bilingual teacher-librarian and a student in a Masters of Library & Information Science program at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include transnational and cultural identities, critical teacher education, and study abroad. Jennifer Leeman, Professor of Spanish Linguistics at George Mason University, draws from the fields of Latinx studies, language policy, and linguistic anthropology, as well as critical applied linguistics and sociolinguistics in her research. Her scholarship focuses on heritage language education, census ethnoracial and linguistic classification schemes, Spanish in the US, and the interplay of ideologies of language, race, and nation. Recent publications include Speaking Spanish in the US: The Sociopolitics of Language, coauthored with Janet Fuller (Multilingual Matters) as well as articles in the Journal of Language, Identity & Education, Iberoromania, the International Journal of the Sociology of Language, and Latino Studies. Avizia Y. Long is Assistant Professor of Spanish Linguistics at San José State University. Her research interests include the acquisition of

288

List of contributors

sociolinguistic variation by non-Western learners, study abroad and the acquisition of second language Spanish phonetics and phonology, and the role of the instructor in classroom-based learning. She is co-author of Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition: Learning to Use Language in Context (Routledge, 2014) and has published research in Hispania, Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and several edited volumes. Silvia Marijuan is an Associate Professor of Spanish Applied Linguistics and Faculty Leader of the Summer Study Abroad in Spain Program at California Polytechnic State University. Her main research is on second/ heritage language acquisition and study abroad. She is particularly interested in investigating the interaction between external and internal factors in language development in diverse learning contexts. She has published in Second Language Research, Foreign Language Annals, and System as well as for Routledge and Georgetown University Press. Laura Marqués-Pascual (PhD, University of California, Davis) is a Teaching Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she directs the Spanish and Portuguese Language Program and teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Spanish language, applied linguistics, and second language acquisition. Her research interests focus on second language learning in study abroad settings, second language pedagogy, and Spanish heritage language development. She also has a long-standing interest in how linguistics research is applied in language teaching and curriculum improvement. Her work has been published in Foreign Language Annals and Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics. Julia Menard-Warwick is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Davis. Her research interests focus on linguistic identities in multilingual educational contexts. She has published two books with Multilingual Matters, Gendered Identities and Immigrant Language Learning (2009) and English Language Teachers on the Discursive Faultlines (2014). Her most recent book is Bilingual Parent Participation in a Divided School Community (2018, Routledge). Recent articles appear in Linguistics and Education and Journal of Language, Identity and Education. Deborah Palmer is a Professor in the School of Education at the University of Colorado, Boulder. She conducts qualitative research using ethnography and discourse analysis in linguistically diverse settings. She recently coauthored the book Dual Language Bilingual Education: Teacher Cases and Perspectives on Large-Scale Implementation (Multilingual Matters). Recent articles appear in Language in Education, International

List of contributors

289

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, and Theory into Practice. Melissa Patiño-Vega is a Visiting Scholar in the Department of World Languages and Literatures and the Chicano/Latino Studies program at Portland State University. She also serves as the director of the Spanish for Heritage Speakers program there. She received a PhD in Spanish Linguistics with a designated emphasis in Second Language Acquisition from the University of California, Davis, and an MA in Spanish Applied Linguistics from New York University, Madrid. Her research and teaching interests include Spanish as a heritage language, Spanish in the US, bilingualism, language ideologies, community-based language education, and Latinxs in education. Meghann M. Peace received her PhD in Hispanic Linguistics from the University of Minnesota and is an Associate Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas. Much of her previous work examined second language Spanish, but since moving to San Antonio she has become interested in heritage language teaching and learning. In particular, she studies the ways in which heritage speakers’ attitudes are affected through study abroad, contact with other dialects, and linguistics classes. Her work has been published in journals such as Foreign Language Annals, the International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), and the International Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest. Rebecca Pozzi (PhD, University of California, Davis) is an Assistant Professor of Spanish Language and Linguistics at California State University, Monterey Bay, where she coordinates Lower Division Spanish, including the Heritage Language Program, and teaches courses in Spanish language, linguistics, and applied linguistics. Her research focuses on second and heritage language development, sociolinguistics, study abroad, and language pedagogy. Her publications include articles in journals such as Studies in Second Language Acquisition and Hispania as well as chapters in edited volumes from Routledge and Multilingual Matters. Tracy Quan, an Assistant Professor of Spanish Linguistics at University of Colorado Boulder, is an applied linguist whose research focuses on second and heritage language development and education, study abroad, identity, and critical language pedagogy. In particular, she is interested in exploring how language learning can be a transformative experience or an oppressive one depending on the context and the situation. She has published in Bilingual Research Journal, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, and Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition

290

List of contributors

and International Education, as well as in the Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice. Francisco Salgado-Robles (Ph.D., The University of Florida) is an Assistant Professor of Spanish at The College of Staten Island of The City University of New York. He specializes in second and heritage language acquisition and sociolinguistics. His research has been published in academic journals such as Boletín de Filología, Lenguas Modernas, Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, Heritage Language Journal, and Hispania. Additionally, he authored Desarrollo de la competencia sociolingüística por aprendices de español en un contexto de inmersión en el extranjero (2018, Peter Lang), edited Service-learning and Spanish for specific purposes in U.S. higher education (2018, Cuadernos de ALDEEU), edited Advances in Spanish for specific purposes in the United States: Connecting the heritage language pedagogy and the Hispanic community (2019, Revista Signos, Estudios de Lingüística), and coedited with Edwin Lamboy Spanish across domains in the United States: Education, public space, and social media (2020, Brill). Cristina Sanz is Professor of Spanish & Linguistics at Georgetown University, where she directs the Intensive & School of Foreign Service Spanish Programs, the Barcelona Summer Program, and the Catalan Lectureship. An expert on multilingualism, her edited volume Mind and Context in Adult SLA received the 2006 MLA’s Mildenberger Award. Dr. Sanz has published over 90 articles and book chapters in such scholarly venues as the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Language Learning, Applied Psycholinguistics, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, The Modern Language Journal, and Applied Linguistics. She recently coedited the Routledge Handbook of Study Abroad Research and Practice (2018). Rachel L. Shively is an Associate Professor of Spanish and Applied Linguistics at Illinois State University. She received her PhD in Hispanic Linguistics from the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on second language pragmatics, discourse analysis, and language and culture learning during study abroad. Her work has been published in journals such as The Modern Language Journal, Foreign Language Annals, and the Journal of Pragmatics. In 2011, Shively was awarded the prestigious ACTFL-MLJ Pimsleur Award for Research in Foreign Language Education. Megan Solon is Assistant Research Scientist in the Department of Applied Health Science at Indiana University. Her research focuses on the acquisition of phonetics and phonology in second and heritage language

List of contributors

291

Spanish and has explored the acquisition of variable phonetic features as well as the role of learning context and instructional practices on phonetic development. Her research has been published in journals such as Studies in Second Language Acquisition, The Modern Language Journal, Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, and Hispania. Analisa Taylor is Associate Professor of Spanish at the University of Oregon. Her research seeks to understand how subjects marginalized within white-supremacist heteropatriarchal discourses and practices reclaim epistemic authority as they occupy the art, literature, film, and other types of cultural production that document their stories and strategies of resistance. Her publications include Indigeneity in the Mexican Cultural Imagination and articles in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Latin American Literary Review, and the Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies. Carolina Viera currently works in the World Languages Department at Boise State University as an Assistant Professor of Spanish. She received her PhD in Spanish Linguistics from the University of California, Davis, specializing in second language acquisition, and her MA in Hispanic Linguistics from the University of New Mexico. Her research interests include heritage language studies, discourse analysis, and applied linguistics. Her more recent research has analyzed the discourse produced in academic conference presentations in the Spanish spoken in the United States.

Index

academic literacy 183 accommodation: linguistic choices based on 72; to Peninsular Spanish 52, 62, 68–70, 73; theory of 51, 53–4 ACTFL; see American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages activity theory 281 address form systems, of Romance languages 120 adequation 71 affordances 161 agency: in Guatemala 154, 160–76; in language learning 161; social inequality in 161; of Spanish heritage language learners 226–28 Alarcón, Daniel 112 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages 106, 121, 183, 256 Americanness 148, 150 APUNE 254 Arabic heritage learners 19 Argentina: Spanish heritage speakers in, pragmatic development of 117–38 authentication 71 “banking model of education” 229 basic language cognition 190 Bedolla, García 143 bilingual context: pragmatic competence in 119 bilingualism 107 CAF 182, 184, 186, 190, 200–1, 205, 209 Campo 230 Castilian Spanish 38 CBDA; see classroom-based dialect awareness China, study abroad in 20

Chinese heritage learners, identity development among 20 civic engagement and responsibility 268 CLA; see critical language awareness CLAN software 206 classroom-based dialect awareness 224 code-switching 144 communicative competence 13–4 community of practice: case studies of 83; definition of 80; legitimate peripheral participation 80; membership in 80–1 community service learning 269 community-based programs 228–30 complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures: for language development 182, 190, 200; for writing development 200 Computerized Language Analysis software; see CLAN software contact zone: definition of 160; identity formation in 161; linguistic agency in 160–76 content analysis 261 CoP; see community of practice critical language awareness 224 critical sociocultural linguistic literacy: definition of 220; heritage languagefocused 230–31; identity formation through 223–25; as learning outcome 225; sociolinguistic agency formation through 223–25; Spanish heritage language program based on 230; in study abroad 225–26, 228–31 CSLL; see critical sociocultural linguistic literacy Cuban Spanish: characteristics of 17; heritage speakers of 17

Index 293 cultural literacy 232 cultural understanding 264–67 DCT; see discourse completion task denaturalization 71 discourse completion task 109, 123–32 discourse markers: heritage speakers of Spanish use of 18–9 discrimination 149 distinction 71 Ecuador, /s/-weakening in 79–93 Ecuadorian heritage speakers: case study of 89–92; local variant use by 84; patterns of use by 19 Egyptian heritage learners 19, 22–3 e-journals 281 essentialism 72 ethnocentrism 240 ethnographic research 163 ethnoracial identity 153–54 ethnorelativism 240 event-related potentials 281 explicit pragmatics instruction 122–23, 131 extroverts 282 eye tracking 281 feminist theory 228 fluency: definition of 182; in writing 182; written 205 Freire, Paulo 229 geographically variable dialectal features: in heritage language learners of Spanish 36, 39–45; international service learning as cause of 33–4; as second dialect acquisition 34; in second language learners 33–4 global competence 232 global proficiency 183, 186 Guatemala: heritage language learners in 35; study abroad in 154, 160–76 heritage language learners: Americanness of 148, 150; in Argentina 35; discrimination of 149; displacement feelings of 150; ethnic identities of 144; in Guatemala 35; identity of 145, 150, 161, 175; language proficiency of 199; linguistic competence of 33; in Russian 191; second language learners and 144, 181, 210, 220, 223; in service learning

35, 37–8, 145; service learning for 37–8, 145; sociolinguistic competence of 33; stigmatization of 149; in study abroad 147–53; writing skills of 186–88 heritage language learning: at-home objectives for 222–23; definition of 175; of Spanish 161–62; study abroad program objectives for 221–22 heritage learners: definition of 3–4; heritage speakers versus 17; identity development among 20; instructed 4; knowledge types used by 19; noninstructed 4; outcomes for 21; regional adaptations by 23; research implications for 25–6; secondlanguage learners versus 210; in service learning 35, 37–8, 145; sociolinguistic competence of 21; Spanish; see Spanish heritage learners; studies of 22–3; in study abroad context 21–3, 211; variable structure acquisition by 24; writing development of 199–212 heritage scholar 19 heritage seekers 254 heritage speakers: accommodation by 73; attitudes of, toward target language 16–7; of Caribbean origin 18; constraints on patterns of use by 17; definition of 3–4; dialectical accommodation by 77–93; diversity of 77; essentialist definitions of 72; ethnicity of 53; in Guatemala 160–76; heritage learners versus 17; in immersion contexts 78–9, 81–93; language use by 53–4; patterns of use by 17–8; pragmatics research 18, 118–20, 280; second language learners versus 73; sociolinguistic competence in 17–20; sociolinguistic development of 280; Spanish; see Spanish heritage speakers; in study abroad 1–3, 53–5, 255, 278; subject expression by 17 HL; see heritage learner identity: in contact zone 161; critical sociocultural linguistic literacy for formation of 223–25; ethnoracial 153–54; in heritage language education 144; heritage language learner 161; of heritage language learners 145, 150; language’s role in development of 52, 69–73, 142–44; linguistic 153; overview

294

Index

of 6; sociocultural 142–44, 153; variability of 52 immersion contexts: case studies of 78–9, 81–93; heritage speakers in 78–9, 81–93; oral fluency development in 202; personality traits in 282 informality markers 16 Institute of International Education 2 instructed pragmatics 106, 110, 120 intercultural competence 107, 110–11 intercultural competence assessment 111 intercultural sensitivity 248 international service learning: cultural understanding benefits of 264–67, 270; description of 257; geographically variable dialectal features during 33–4; goals of 260; for heritage language learners 37–8; linguistic awareness 262–64, 270; in nursing home 254–71; personal growth from 267–70; sociolinguistic issues and 271; sociopolitical issues and 271; studies of 257–70 interpersonal skills 268 intersubjectivity 71 investment 282 ISL; see international service learning knowledge-based global economy 232 L2 learners; see second language learners LANGSNAP Project 188 language: heritage speakers of Spanish 69–72; identity development through 69–73, 142–44; indexical value of 143; relationship development uses of 71; social identity and 143; socialization of 120; sociocultural perspectives on 142–44 language anxiety 241 language development: complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures 182, 190; in Guatemalan classrooms 174; oral 182–83; research approaches for 182–83; sociolinguistic competence in 15 language learning, agency in 161 language proficiency: definition of 183; of heritage language learners 199; in Spanish 232 language programs, service learning in 256 Latinxs: geographic location of 1; growth of 1; Spanish fluency of 143; study abroad by 276–77

legitimate peripheral participation 80 lexical awareness 64 lexical development: measures of 209; in study abroad 201–2 lexical diversity 182, 206, 209 lexical growth 184–85 lexical richness 182 lexical sophistication 201 linguistic agency: in contact zone 160–76; definition of 160; in Guatemala 160–76 linguistic awareness 262–64 linguistic development: overview of 6–7; peer-to-peer interventions for 192; second language 184–85; of Spanish heritage language learners 35, 185–93; study abroad benefits for 210; study methodologies for 190–91 linguistic discrimination 226 linguistic identity 153 linguistic insecurity 148 linguistic proficiency 23–4 literacy proficiency 183 metapragmatic awareness 119–20, 126–27, 129–32 Mexican American heritage language learners 151 Mexican American heritage speakers: accommodation to Peninsular Spanish by 68–70; case studies of 121–38, 280; description of 54; identity issues for 69–72, 147; language issues for 69–72; pragmatics of 105; pragmatics research involving 121–38; in Spain 105; studies of 55–68; in study abroad 53, 78–9 “monolingual-centric” comparative approach 238 morphosyntax 59, 63 multilingualism 107 National Standards for Foreign Language Teaching 256 NGO; see nongovernmental organization nongovernmental organization 80–1, 90–1, 259–60 noticing hypothesis 81 ODCT; see oral discourse completion task Open Doors Report 2, 199 OPI; see Oral Proficiency Interview

Index 295 oral discourse completion task 40 orality, of Spanish heritage language learners 185–86 Oral Proficiency Interview 20, 85, 183 peer-to-peer interventions 192 Peninsular Spanish: accommodation to 52, 62, 68–9, 73; description of 145; dialectical differences of 264; morphosyntactic features of 59; politeness norms of 105; Spanish versus 145–46; studies of 55–68 personal growth 267–70 personality traits 282 Peru 222 phonetic variants 16 phonological context 80 pragmalinguistic skills 102, 108 pragmatic competence 102, 111–12, 117, 119, 132 pragmatic norms 103 pragmatics: development of, in study abroad 108–9, 117–38; explicit instruction in 122–23, 131; focus of 101; heritage speakers 18, 280; ideological concerns 118–20; importance of 117; instructed 106, 110, 120; intercultural competence and 107, 110–11; metapragmatic awareness 119–20, 126–27, 129–32; overview of 6; permeability of 105; research on 18, 118–20; of second-language learners 101–2, 109; sociolinguistic concerns 118–20; of Spanish heritage speakers 101, 105–12, 117–38; studies on 18; in study abroad 102–13, 280; uninstructed development in study abroad 108–9 priming 72 Puerto Rican Spanish: characteristics of 17; heritage speakers of 17 Radio Ambulante 112 relationships, language used to development 71 Romance languages, address form systems of 120 Russian heritage language learners 191 SA; see study abroad second dialect acquisition: factors that affect 106; by heritage speakers of Spanish 106 second language acquisition: description

of 241, 279; second dialect acquisition versus 106; in study abroad 2 second language development 184–85 second language learners: attitudes of, toward target language 16–7; as cultural outsiders 104; discourse markers used by 18; geographically variable dialectal features in 33–4; heritage language learners and 144, 181, 210, 220, 223; heritage speakers versus 73; identity of 148; lexical development of 201; personality traits of 282; pragmatics of 101, 103, 109; questionnaires for data collection 109; Spanish heritage speakers versus 104; in study abroad 15, 25, 36–7, 101, 103, 192; variable structure acquisition by 25 self-paced reading 281 self-regulation 282 service learning: community 269; definition of 255–56; differentiating factors of 256; geographically variable dialectal features affected by 36, 39–45; heritage language learners in 35, 37–8, 145; international; see international service learning; in language programs 256; personal growth in 267–69; for Spanish heritage language learners 35, 37–8, 145; for Spanish heritage speakers 256–57; studies of 39–45 sheismo 81 Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview 22 social identity, language and 143 social justice 219 sociocultural identity 153 sociolinguistic acquisition 5 sociolinguistic agency, critical sociocultural linguistic literacy and 223–25 sociolinguistic competence: communicative competence and 14; definition of 13; heritage learners 21; in heritage speakers 17–20; research implications for 25–6; roots of 14; sociolinguistic variation 14; in study abroad context 13–27 sociolinguistic phenomena, variability among 21 sociolinguistic variation 14 sociopragmatic skills 102, 108 SOPI; see Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview

296

Index

Spain 52–3 Spanish: language proficiency in 232; pragmatic competence in 111; pragmatic norms in 104; speakers of 1 Spanish coda constants 79–80 Spanish heritage language learners: agency among 226–28; in at-home context 181, 185–88; biliteracy among 187; as conversation partners in predeparture sessions 238, 245–49; critical language pedagogies for 220; cultural heritage of 147; development of 144; geographically variable dialectal features use by 36, 39–46; global proficiency assessment for 188–89; identity of 148; increases in 141; linguistic development of 35, 185–93; linguistic knowledge of 145; non-native-like errors by 185; orality of 185–86; in predeparture phase 243–45; regional features 34–6; regional variations of 151; service learning for 35, 37–8, 45–6; Spanish language proficiency of 145; stigmatization of 149; study abroad and 33–46, 146–52, 181–82, 188–93, 219–32; style-shifting by 44; stylistic practices among 226–28; vosotras/ vosotros 38–46; writing skills of 186–88 Spanish heritage learners: characteristics of 18; language; see Spanish heritage language learners; regional variations in 20; writing development of 199–216 Spanish heritage speakers: in Argentina 117–38; definition of 3–4; discourse markers used by 18–9; in Ecuador 77–93; experiences of 2–3; global competencies of 104; in Guatemala 160–76; identity issues for 3, 69–72; language issues for 69–72; metapragmatic awareness of 119–20; Mexican Americans; see Mexican American heritage speakers; pragmatic competence of 117, 119, 132–33; pragmatic development of 101, 105–13, 117–33; pragmatic systems of 119–21; regional variations used by 103; research on 160; second dialect acquisition by 106; service learning for 256–57; sociolinguistic variation of 93; Spanish age peers and

54; statistics regarding 254; in study abroad 1–3, 53–5, 104, 107–12; variationist investigations of 17 Spanish language classrooms 2 stigmatization 149 study abroad: benefits of 15, 51, 181; in China 20; community-based programs 228–30; critical sociocultural linguistic literacy in 225–26, 228–31; description of 1; diversity of 237, 282; growth of 141, 236, 276; in Guatemala 154, 160–76; heritage language learners in 147–52; heritage language learning objectives in 221–22; heritage learners in 21–2; heritage speakers in 255; Hispanic students in 254; Hispanic/ Latinx students in 2; history of 276; inequity in participation 236; informality marker development during 16; instructed pragmatics in 110; language development in 278; Latinxs in 276–77; learning experience of 239–43; length of stay 211; lexical development in 201–2; lexical growth during 184–85; linguistic development during 210; linguistic proficiency effects on 23–4; long-term impact of 111–12; as multiphase learning experience 239–43; negative experience 149; personal development in 278; in Peru 222; pragmatics development in 102–13, 117–38, 280; predeparture phase of 239, 242–43, 245–49; preprogram orientations for 237; reentry after 240; research areas for 280; scholarship of 2; second language acquisition in 2; second language linguistic development in 184–85; second language learners in 15, 36–7, 192; sociolinguistic competence in 13–27; in Spain 52–3; Spanish heritage language learners and 33–46, 146–52, 188–93, 219–32; Spanish heritage speakers in 1–3, 104, 107–12; students in 2; target language development during 181; uninstructed pragmatic development in 108–9; writing development in 201–2 /s/-weakening 79–81, 84–5, 87 translanguaging 144 T-unit 205

Index 297 UNESCO Institute of Statistics 33 usted 41–6, 120, 263 variationist sociolinguistics 14 Versant Spanish Test 82, 121 vocabulary: lexical diversity in 206 vosotras/vosotros 38–46, 53, 68, 263

writing: fluency in 182; by Spanish heritage language learners 186–88 writing development: complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures for 200; of Spanish heritage learners 199–216; in study abroad 201–2 written fluency 205