25.1420, Review: Applied Linguistics; Sociolinguistics; Japanese: Doerr & Kim (2013)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-1420. Mon Mar 24 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.1420, Review: Applied Linguistics; Sociolinguistics; Japanese: Doerr & Kim (2013)

Fund Drive 2014
http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2014/

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 22:46:19
From: Hsiang-Hua Chang [chang23 at oakland.edu]
Subject: Constructing the Heritage Language Learner

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-1420.html&submissionid=27628131&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=27628131


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-2179.html

AUTHOR: Neriko Musha Doerr
AUTHOR: Kiri  Lee
TITLE: Constructing the Heritage Language Learner
SUBTITLE: Knowledge, Power and New Subjectivities
SERIES TITLE: Contributions to the Sociology of Language [CSL] 103
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Hsiang-Hua Chang, Oakland University

SUMMARY

Heritage language (HL) education has a long history, but research on heritage
language education is a relatively new field. It is rising as a ‘hot topic,’
and becoming a sub-discipline in foreign language education and applied
linguistics. It is no surprise that many HL studies focus on the applied
aspect, or language instruction and acquisition. For these studies, research
subjects, or ‘heritage language learners (HLLs),’ are usually defined
objectively as learners who acquired competency of a non-dominant language in
their society mainly through interaction with foreign-born parents and other
family members. However, as the authors of this volume point out, “the
heritage language learner is often defined without critical discussion of what
it means...(p. 7)” and a more theoretically sound definition is needed. In
contrast to many other HL studies that treat the HLL as an agreed-upon
category of individuals, ‘Constructing the Heritage Language Learner’ argues
that it is a constructed notion whose meaning is contested and negotiated by
researchers, school administrators, teachers, and the students themselves. The
label ‘HLL’ does not objectively exist; rather, it is an identity on which
individuals ponder and use to (re)define who they are by relating themselves
to others, school programs, communities, and homelands.

Based on a longitudinal study with qualitative data from four years of
fieldwork at Jackson Japanese Language School (JJLS), a weekend school in the
northeastern United States (US), the goal of this study is to investigate two
main issues: how one comes to be considered a HLL and what the effects of
being considered a HLL are. It scrutinizes how the HLL is constructed --
through a process of contestation and negotiation -- which results in
different behavior regarding learning attitudes and performance. The volume
also offers practical suggestions for schools, especially concerning
administrative changes and policymaking.

JJLS was an ideal site for this study because it has three kinds of programs:
one supported by the Japanese government (hoshuko-bu, a weekend supplementary
Japanese language school approved by the Japanese government teaching kokugo
(‘national language’) with the same curriculum used in Japan and that has a
Japanese government-sent principal), one that is independent (Jackson Course,
keishogo (‘heritage language’) program), and one that is Japanese as a Foreign
Language (JFL, not discussed in this study). The coexistence of these programs
gives students and parents opportunities to ponder the subjectivities of each
program. The case of Japanese HL education presented in this book clearly
illustrates the constructing process of HLLs: although there are two programs
at JJLS -- hoshuko-bu and Jackson Course -- that can be theoretically
considered HL education, only the Jackson Course is construed by learners and
parents as HL education.

The two authors, Lee, a linguist and an administrator at JJLS, and Doerr, a
cultural anthropologist, both have children attending JJLS. Although not
without constraints, their multiple roles provided them with various entry
points, which were considerably advantageous when doing field work requiring a
great deal of trust from research participants. Their involvement at JJLS
contributed to obtaining a rich set of data.

This monograph consists of nine chapters, and nine appendices of research
questionnaires, student profiles, and a glossary of Japanese terms. References
and an index for terminology and proper names can be found at the end of the
book.
The opening chapter, entitled ‘The heritage language learner?,’ introduces the
main objectives of the book and provides a brief overview of the entire
volume, including brief mention about research on HLL, weekend Japanese
language schools in the US, kokugo vs. keishogo education, and the ‘heritage
language effect’ (i.e., the effect of calling someone a HLL). In general, this
volume argues that HLL is a social construct, whose meaning is constructed by
researchers, administrators and students. The process involves competing
regimes of difference, through which students’ subjectivities become
intelligible to themselves and to others. These subjectivities guide their
dreams about the future, create self-fulfilling prophecies, and steer the
camaraderie they form with others. The book’s objective is approached by
analyzing learners’ performative citations of various regimes of difference,
such as foreign vs. heritage language learners, top- vs. lower-track students,
native vs. heritage speakers, etc. Chapter 1 also introduces the three angles
used to examine how HLLs are constructed: (1) by constructing them as a new
object of investigation (Chapter 2), (2) through schooling and by governing
and molding students (Chapters 4-5), and (3) by giving meaning to programs and
students (Chapters 6-8).

Chapter 2, entitled ‘An emerging field of investigation: Construction of the
heritage language learner as a new object of study,’ surveys existing research
on HLLs and emphasizes constructing HLLs out of language learners. The authors
point out that common definitions of HLLs fail in many ways. For instance, the
self-esteem-based HLL approach concerns raising the self-esteem of minority
language speakers in mainstream schools, and the regime of difference it
relies on is English-monolingual American mainstream vs. HLLs of a minority
language.  However, at JJLS, many students who have family connection to
Japan, and who are HLLs by definition, chose to attend the JFL program due to
their lack of Japanese communication skills.  Based on another approach, the
linguistic proficiency definition of the HLL -- native speaker vs. HLL vs.
foreign language learner -- it is also difficult to define what type of
learners these students are. This definition is also questionable in terms of
how to set the criteria and how to evaluate proficiency.

Instead of seeking another “researchers’ definition” of HLLs, the authors
propose to focus on studying the ‘heritage language effect’ -- how a learner
comes to be considered a HLL and what are the effects of being considered as
such. They promote the importance of studying power relations and agency. In
this new approach of investigation, power relations among researchers, school
administrators, teachers, and HLLs need to be acknowledged and scrutinized.
The last part of Chapter 2 illustrates the effects of research on HL
education, including supporting reified notions of language, linguistic
community, and language speakers (i.e., HLLs, native and non-native speakers).

Chapter 3, entitled ‘Ethnographic fieldwork at Jackson Japanese Language
School,’ introduces JJLS in terms of its history, structure, and programs. It
discusses how and why the Jackson Course was developed, how the authors’
subjectivities affected the fieldwork process, and how data were collected.
Ethnographic fieldwork is valuable and is able to provide practical suggestion
for educators. For instance, this research made school administrators, such as
Lee, realize that the relationship between an individual and her HL is
personal and cannot be judged only from linguistic proficiency standpoint. The
research results confirmed that the decision to join the Jackson Course should
come from students and parents. In addition to linguistic proficiency, other
issues that matter to them when choosing a program were identified as: their
sense of belonging, future plans, peer relations, scheduling, and the kinds of
occasions in which the student used Japanese.

Chapter 4, ‘Betwixt and between Japanese and the heritage language learner of
Japanese,’ outlines the process of constructing kokugo and keishogo students
at the level of the institution and beyond. Research on HL education rarely
discusses the gap between the policy of the homeland government and its local
implementation in language schools. Yet, in the case of Japanese kokugo, the
constructing process of HLLs has to be examined beyond local schools due to
the Japanese government’s policies regarding financial support. HLLs were
constructed in opposition to ‘Japanese’ students, who were assumed to have
returned to Japan, thus deserving of Japan’s tax money. The reluctance of the
Japanese government to cater to increasingly diverse student bodies in the US
contradicts Japan’s policy to encourage local outreach and results in schools
struggling to define Japanese vs. HL learners and to figure out how to serve
them. The second half of the chapter examines the way JJLS negotiated
balancing the Japanese government’s policies and the needs of the local
community, which evolved to include both hoshuko education and locally rooted
programs for the community.

Chapter 5, ‘Designing the heritage language learner: Modes of governmentality
in the classroom,’ examines the design and implementation of the hoshuko-bu
and the Jackson Course, with a focus on intended governmentality -- ‘the
attempts to shape rationally human conduct’ -- based on administrators’ vision
of specific programs and imagined target students. Hoshuko-bu assumes the
student subjectivities as Japanese living in Japan or students living overseas
but who will return to Japan, while the Jackson Course views students as
having multiple subjectivities, one of which is Japanese. Obviously, as the
authors point out, the design of hoshuko-bu ignores these students’ complex
sense of belongings. This can be exemplified by one hoshuko-bu teacher, who
stated she did not consider students’ different cultural backgrounds when
leading discussions in class. In contrast, a Jackson Course teacher made a
conscious effort to present various culturally connected viewpoints. The
grading system is different in these two programs as well: hoshuko-bu gives
quantitative grades of A, B, and C, while the Jackson Course provides
qualitative reports with a description of students’ accomplishments. This
chapter presents detailed descriptions and real cases of teacher and student
behavior in classes. It illustrates how different modes of governmentality in
Japanese and HL education construct students’ linguistic proficiency,
behavior, and subjectivities.

Chapter 6, ‘Defining the heritage language learner,’ shows that HLLs are not
passive objects, but rather active participants in deciding what a HLL is.
Research results show that students’ and parents’ perceptions of the Jackson
Course are consequential and influential in the operations of the Jackson
Course. Cases discussed in this chapter highlight the importance of
mentalities of government: i.e., different mentalities may regard the same
activity as different practices of governmentality. Some students and parents
interpreted modes of governmentality different from the administrator’s
intent. Students and parents compare hoshuko-bu and the Jackson Course by
wavering between top- vs. lower-track classes and kokugo vs. keishogo
education rather than Japanese native speakers vs. HLLs. These perceptions
influence students’ and parents’ decision to enroll in the Jackson Course,
which they consider as being for dropouts from hoshuko-bu. However, the
authors also present interesting cases about changes of perceptions. For
example, a Jackson Course student changed from considering students in the
Jackson Course as dropouts to thinking of them as students learning Japanese
outside of kokugo education, and thus, redefined herself as a ‘Japanese
speaker’ (HLL) rather than an American learning Japanese (FLL). This shows a
shift in her perception, from a deficit (i.e., top- vs. lower-track) to a
difference (i.e., native vs. heritage) model. The importance of these
perceptions when analyzing the governmentality effect is obvious, yet it has
received little attention because modes and effects of governmentality are
usually determined by researchers, not by research participants’ perceptions.

In Chapter 7, ‘Shifting frames of reference,’ the authors address questions
that concern not only researchers but also school administrators and parents:
What makes students keep learning their HL? What contexts support students’
learning of HLs? Longitudinal research data invigorate this chapter’s
examination of students’ various trajectories and changing frames of
reference, as well as the factors that influenced them. For example, students’
motivation for learning Japanese changed from communication with relatives in
Japan during preschool and early elementary school to promoting a sense of
self -- being bilingual and Japanese among Americans -- in late elementary and
middle school. However, the lack of recognition of Japanese language
proficiency as educational capital in middle schools made some students leave
JJLS. Language policies that make knowledge of HLs as educational capital in
the mainstream educational system, such as the inclusion of Japanese as an
Advanced Placement (AP) exam subject, are crucial to inspiring students to
continue learning the language. In this sense, part of the construction of
HLLs is achieved by bridging the gap between the Japanese proficiency students
developed in JJLS and the mainstream American educational system. The authors
argue that students who change their frame of reference of learning Japanese
from Japan to the US are constructed anew as HLLs, in contrast to learners of
Japanese as a FL.

Chapter 8, ‘Adjusting the Jackson course,’ describes how the program developed
in response to parents’ perceptions, students’ needs, and the Japanese
government’s position. JJLS established the Jackson Course with consideration
of its students’ diverse level of Japanese proficiency, various interests and
experiences in the US, bilingual proficiency in Japanese and English, and
heritages other than Japanese. The analysis of the Jackson Course experience
through observation, interviews, and program operation offers insights for the
study of language education and practical suggestions for how language schools
can cater to diverse student bodies. In the JJLS experience, this may involve
textbook choices, course packet creation, re-organization of course structure,
and information sessions about courses in order to modify the perception of
students and parents toward these courses.

The concluding chapter, Chapter 9, ‘Implications and departure,’ discusses and
summarizes what this study offers to the wider theoretical understanding of HL
education, knowledge and power, and governmentality, while also providing
practical suggestions for HL schools in six areas, e.g., educators should
refrain from labeling students as HLLs or assigning HLs to a program, should
inform parents and students about pedagogical approaches, etc.

EVALUATION

‘Constructing the Heritage Language Learner’ is an important contribution to
the emerging field of HL. This book offers a fresh perspective on HL
education, which usually assumes the existence of HLLs. It devotes itself to
the ethnographic investigation of individuals’ perceptions of what being a HLL
means, how individuals (re)define themselves as HLLs, and how it affects daily
interactions and school settings. This volume presents HL education from
psychological, social, and political perspectives, which provides a new angle
from which to examine HLLs and HL education. Doerr and Lee did this with
clarity, while engaging their readers with interesting interviews and
fieldwork. The authors’ longitudinal study obviously generated a great deal of
data; however, only the representative cases of some students and parents are
discussed in this volume. This decision makes the discussion focus solely on
key data and does not distract readers with tangential stories.

This book relies on ethnographic fieldwork to illustrate the construction of
HLLs and has both theoretical and practical contributions. For instance, the
perception and subjectivities of the students and their parents toward the
Jackson Course were complex and cannot be analyzed adequately by existing
frameworks of HL education, which focus on the learner’s position in
mainstream society or on language acquisition. Students’ and parents’
resistance to being interpellated as dropouts or keishogo learners (HLL)
influenced the naming of the Jackson Course (without the label of HL). In the
same vein, as the Jackson Course continued to develop, it had to respond not
only to its student needs but also to perceptions of prospective students and
parents.

Another application is that the relationship between an individual and his/her
‘heritage’ is personal and cannot be judged only from the ‘expert’ viewpoint
of linguistic proficiency.  Accordingly, Lee realized that some people choose
a given program for reasons other than linguistic needs, such as the sense of
who they are. This new perspective led to a change in the school’s operation,
which made her reject a linguistic proficiency-centered approach to students’
placement.

Overall, I find the book refreshing and inspiring. It provides not only a new
angle for examining HL education, but also inspires its readers to re-examine
their understanding about it, and motivates them to further explore this young
subfield of language research. It motivates me to practically reflect on my
own teaching and how I mold my students in terms of their perceptions about
the subject matter as well as themselves. Even though parents and educators
will not find explicit course advice in this book, which is not within the
scope of the study, this book does offer practical implications for them. It
should certainly appeal to those interested in bilingualism and heritage and
minority languages, especially linguistic sociologists and anthropologists,
educators, researchers, and policymakers. I look forward to reading more
articles generated from these qualitative data addressing developments in and
changes to the JJLS’s curriculum and students, as well as case studies of
other HL schools.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Hsiang-Hua Chang is Assistant Professor of Chinese in the Department of Modern
Languages and Literatures at Oakland University. She has a Ph.D. in
Linguistics and her research interests include first and second language
acquisition, Chinese linguistics, and foreign and heritage language education.








------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $75,000. This money will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2014 site!

http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2014/

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit: http://linguistlist.org/donation/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-1420	
----------------------------------------------------------