Children growing up bilingually are often treated as a monolithic group; however, heritage language (HL) bilinguals constitute an extremely heterogenous group that vary due to a wide variety of factors. In her keynote, Paradis provides a thought-provoking analysis of the research literature and identifies key internal and external factors that lead to individual differences. Specifically, she identifies age of second language (L2) acquisition, cognitive abilities, and social-emotional wellbeing as important internal factors. She also discusses both proximal and distal external factors. Proximal factors include children’s cumulative exposure to L2 and HL, L2 and HL usage at home, and the richness of the L2 and HL environment. Distal factors involve education in HL, parent language proficiency, socioeconomic status (SES), and family attitudes and identities. In my commentary, I expand on Paradis’ keynote to include the role of culture, which I consider to be both an internal and external factor, and respond to her discussion of two external factors, the impact of SES and the role of the classroom environment.
The Role of Culture
When researching individual differences in HL bilinguals, the role of culture needs to be at the forefront of the discussion. Culture pervades all that humans do. It is the lens through which the world is viewed and that guides all aspects of life, including parenting and interacting with children (Hall, Reference Hall1976; Rogoff, Reference Rogoff2003). Thus, when studying children’s development and the richness of the home language environment, it is critical that key points about culture are kept in mind. First, parents of all cultures strive to raise their children to become competent members of their culture and they act in the best interests of their children (Ochs & Schieffelin, Reference Ochs, Schieffelin, Shweder and LeVine1984; Ogbu, Reference Ogbu and Slaughter1988; Rogoff, Reference Rogoff2003). This means that parents may engage in practices that differ from those of researchers. Second, culture is inextricably linked to communication and language. As expressed by Schwartz (Reference Schwartz1981) over 40 years ago, “Language is a part of culture so essential to the specification of human nature that it both pervades the rest of culture and is most readily taken as its controlling metonymic analogy” (p. 7). What is observed during interactions is “linked to cultural patterns that extend and have consequences beyond specific interactions observed” (Ochs & Schieffelin, Reference Ochs, Schieffelin, Shweder and LeVine1984, p. 284). Thus, HL bilingual families display interactional behaviors that are rooted in their culture.
Therefore, researchers must be cognizant of their cultural lens and the potential differences in beliefs and practices that exist between their culture and the culture of parents and children they are studying. Otherwise, they run the risk of judging families and potentially viewing families as providing an impoverished language environment. As a result, researchers miss the strengths of the culturally-valued interactions that occur. I assert that in order to fully understand individual differences more research is needed that seeks to identify and build upon the cultural and linguistic strengths of the HL parents and children. The seminal works of Heath (Reference Heath1983) and Philips (Reference Philips1983) are great examples of the work that is required. These researchers were able to set aside their cultural perspectives and describe the rich language environments provided by the members of the cultural groups that they studied.
The Impact of SES
As Paradis’ discussion reveals, researchers often present observed differences or “delays” in the language development of HL bilingual children raised in under-resourced communities as being caused by an “impoverished” home language environment. Unfortunately, many researchers fail to recognize that poverty is a systemic problem that is not easily overcome and that poverty disproportionally affects individuals who are minoritized, including parents of HL bilinguals.
Living in poverty means that families do not have the resources that those with more economic means have. Unfortunately, families from under-resourced communities lack access to stable housing and employment opportunities, and experience higher rates of violence (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, McQueen, Croston, Luke, Caito, Quinn, Funaro and Kreuter2019). They face barriers to quality health care that result in poor health outcomes, which are exacerbated by exposure to violence and the stress of living in poverty. Individuals in under-resourced communities are also at greater risk for chronic disease, mental illness, higher death rates and lower life expectancy (Khullar & Chokshi, Reference Khullar and Chokshi2018). Regrettably, children living in poverty experience higher rates of toxic stress, nutritional deficiencies, and chronic illness, which can result in developmental delays and disorders (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2020). Thus, when researchers observe developmental differences in HL bilingual children from under-resourced communities, it is difficult to conclude that the children’s home language environment is the primary reason for the observed differences without investigating other factors that likely have a much greater impact.
Daily life in under-resourced communities is complex. To illustrate this, I briefly summarize the findings of a small study I conducted with 10 Latina and 10 African American mothers and their preschoolers. The purpose of the study was to learn about mothers’ beliefs about language development through semi-structured interviews (Hammer, Reference Hammer, Ball, Muller and Nelson2014) and observations of book reading interactions (Hammer, Nimmo, Cohen, Draheim, & Johnson, Reference Hammer, Nimmo, Cohen, Draheim and Johnson2005). Unexpectedly during the interviews, mothers expanded the discussion to include their experiences living in poverty. Understandably, the mothers did not separate their larger experiences from their parenting and support of their children’s language development. As a result, the mothers talked about separations from their parents as children due to deaths of a parent and placement in foster care, as well as the impact of teenage pregnancies, school dropouts, and the lack of paternal support due to incarcerations, among other challenges. Additionally, they discussed their mental and physical health concerns and the stress of raising children in poor-quality housing and violence. I never expected to hear about murder, rape and losing multiple children in an apartment fire during interviews about language development. Of course, none of the mothers had all of these experiences, but all experienced multiple challenges. I developed such great admiration for these women through these interviews and believe that a greater understanding of the larger impacts of SES on HL bilinguals’ development is needed.
The role of classroom environment
Paradis also identifies the classroom environment as a key source of support for HL bilinguals’ language development. I agree that HL bilinguals benefit greatly from language-rich classroom environments. However, Paradis also asserts that teachers “might proactively bolster language and literacy activities in the classroom for those bilingual children with relatively impoverished home language environments.” I have three concerns about this statement.
My first concern relates back to my discussion of the role of culture and the home language environment. Historically, the strengths of families’ culturally-valued interactional patterns and behavior have largely been ignored by the research community and the educational system. I believe that researchers should avoid portraying families as the creators of “impoverished” language environments that can be fixed in the classroom.
My second point relates to SES, to which my earlier discussion about SES and my concern about judging families applies. Not only do families from under-resourced communities have less access to resources, they also have less access to quality schools and instruction. It cannot be assumed that schools in under-resourced communities provide language-rich environments. Regrettably, schools in poor communities are also impacted by the lack of resources, which in turn, impacts children’s development. As an example, a recent study by McCoy and colleagues (McCoy, Connors, Morris, Yoshikawa, & Friedman-Krauss, Reference McCoy, Connors, Morris, Yoshikawa and Friedman-Krauss2015) revealed a direct relationship between neighborhood poverty, lower classroom quality and children’s lower gains in literacy and math.
My final comment questions what is meant by a high-quality classroom language environment. Educational systems are based on the dominant culture and privilege the interactional styles and funds of knowledge of that culture (Ogbu, Reference Ogbu and Slaughter1988). Unfortunately, educational systems typically do little to support and build upon the interactional styles and funds of knowledge that children from other cultures bring to the classroom, or to assist children in learning about the interactional styles of the classroom. There is a hidden curriculum based on the dominant culture that is not made explicit (Delpit, Reference Delpit2006).
Additionally, it cannot be assumed that teachers have been trained to use high-quality language practices or to promote the HL or L2 of bilingual children. Unfortunately, studies have shown that teachers use few evidence-based, linguistically-responsive language strategies to support children’s language development (Sawyer, Atkins-Burnett, Sandilos, Hammer, López, & Blair, Reference Sawyer, Atkins-Burnett, Sandilos, Hammer, López and Blair2018; Sawyer, Hammer, Cycyk, López, Blair, Sandilos, & Komaroff, Reference Sawyer, Hammer, Cycyk, López, Blair, Sandilos and Komaroff2016). Thus, I define a quality classroom environment as one that involves building on the cultural and linguistic strengths that HL bilingual children bring to the classroom, assisting children in learning the hidden curriculum, and using linguistically-responsive language strategies to promote children’s HL and L2.
Conclusion
Once again, I greatly appreciate Paradis’ keynote that identifies key factors that lead to individual differences in HL bilingual children’s language development. I expand on her conclusions and contend that in order to truly understand individual differences research needs to identify and build upon the cultural and linguistic strengths of HL bilingual families and children, and investigate further the complexities of raising children in under-sourced communities as well as the role of the classroom in children’s development.
You have
Access
Children growing up bilingually are often treated as a monolithic group; however, heritage language (HL) bilinguals constitute an extremely heterogenous group that vary due to a wide variety of factors. In her keynote, Paradis provides a thought-provoking analysis of the research literature and identifies key internal and external factors that lead to individual differences. Specifically, she identifies age of second language (L2) acquisition, cognitive abilities, and social-emotional wellbeing as important internal factors. She also discusses both proximal and distal external factors. Proximal factors include children’s cumulative exposure to L2 and HL, L2 and HL usage at home, and the richness of the L2 and HL environment. Distal factors involve education in HL, parent language proficiency, socioeconomic status (SES), and family attitudes and identities. In my commentary, I expand on Paradis’ keynote to include the role of culture, which I consider to be both an internal and external factor, and respond to her discussion of two external factors, the impact of SES and the role of the classroom environment.
The Role of Culture
When researching individual differences in HL bilinguals, the role of culture needs to be at the forefront of the discussion. Culture pervades all that humans do. It is the lens through which the world is viewed and that guides all aspects of life, including parenting and interacting with children (Hall, Reference Hall1976; Rogoff, Reference Rogoff2003). Thus, when studying children’s development and the richness of the home language environment, it is critical that key points about culture are kept in mind. First, parents of all cultures strive to raise their children to become competent members of their culture and they act in the best interests of their children (Ochs & Schieffelin, Reference Ochs, Schieffelin, Shweder and LeVine1984; Ogbu, Reference Ogbu and Slaughter1988; Rogoff, Reference Rogoff2003). This means that parents may engage in practices that differ from those of researchers. Second, culture is inextricably linked to communication and language. As expressed by Schwartz (Reference Schwartz1981) over 40 years ago, “Language is a part of culture so essential to the specification of human nature that it both pervades the rest of culture and is most readily taken as its controlling metonymic analogy” (p. 7). What is observed during interactions is “linked to cultural patterns that extend and have consequences beyond specific interactions observed” (Ochs & Schieffelin, Reference Ochs, Schieffelin, Shweder and LeVine1984, p. 284). Thus, HL bilingual families display interactional behaviors that are rooted in their culture.
Therefore, researchers must be cognizant of their cultural lens and the potential differences in beliefs and practices that exist between their culture and the culture of parents and children they are studying. Otherwise, they run the risk of judging families and potentially viewing families as providing an impoverished language environment. As a result, researchers miss the strengths of the culturally-valued interactions that occur. I assert that in order to fully understand individual differences more research is needed that seeks to identify and build upon the cultural and linguistic strengths of the HL parents and children. The seminal works of Heath (Reference Heath1983) and Philips (Reference Philips1983) are great examples of the work that is required. These researchers were able to set aside their cultural perspectives and describe the rich language environments provided by the members of the cultural groups that they studied.
The Impact of SES
As Paradis’ discussion reveals, researchers often present observed differences or “delays” in the language development of HL bilingual children raised in under-resourced communities as being caused by an “impoverished” home language environment. Unfortunately, many researchers fail to recognize that poverty is a systemic problem that is not easily overcome and that poverty disproportionally affects individuals who are minoritized, including parents of HL bilinguals.
Living in poverty means that families do not have the resources that those with more economic means have. Unfortunately, families from under-resourced communities lack access to stable housing and employment opportunities, and experience higher rates of violence (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, McQueen, Croston, Luke, Caito, Quinn, Funaro and Kreuter2019). They face barriers to quality health care that result in poor health outcomes, which are exacerbated by exposure to violence and the stress of living in poverty. Individuals in under-resourced communities are also at greater risk for chronic disease, mental illness, higher death rates and lower life expectancy (Khullar & Chokshi, Reference Khullar and Chokshi2018). Regrettably, children living in poverty experience higher rates of toxic stress, nutritional deficiencies, and chronic illness, which can result in developmental delays and disorders (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2020). Thus, when researchers observe developmental differences in HL bilingual children from under-resourced communities, it is difficult to conclude that the children’s home language environment is the primary reason for the observed differences without investigating other factors that likely have a much greater impact.
Daily life in under-resourced communities is complex. To illustrate this, I briefly summarize the findings of a small study I conducted with 10 Latina and 10 African American mothers and their preschoolers. The purpose of the study was to learn about mothers’ beliefs about language development through semi-structured interviews (Hammer, Reference Hammer, Ball, Muller and Nelson2014) and observations of book reading interactions (Hammer, Nimmo, Cohen, Draheim, & Johnson, Reference Hammer, Nimmo, Cohen, Draheim and Johnson2005). Unexpectedly during the interviews, mothers expanded the discussion to include their experiences living in poverty. Understandably, the mothers did not separate their larger experiences from their parenting and support of their children’s language development. As a result, the mothers talked about separations from their parents as children due to deaths of a parent and placement in foster care, as well as the impact of teenage pregnancies, school dropouts, and the lack of paternal support due to incarcerations, among other challenges. Additionally, they discussed their mental and physical health concerns and the stress of raising children in poor-quality housing and violence. I never expected to hear about murder, rape and losing multiple children in an apartment fire during interviews about language development. Of course, none of the mothers had all of these experiences, but all experienced multiple challenges. I developed such great admiration for these women through these interviews and believe that a greater understanding of the larger impacts of SES on HL bilinguals’ development is needed.
The role of classroom environment
Paradis also identifies the classroom environment as a key source of support for HL bilinguals’ language development. I agree that HL bilinguals benefit greatly from language-rich classroom environments. However, Paradis also asserts that teachers “might proactively bolster language and literacy activities in the classroom for those bilingual children with relatively impoverished home language environments.” I have three concerns about this statement.
My first concern relates back to my discussion of the role of culture and the home language environment. Historically, the strengths of families’ culturally-valued interactional patterns and behavior have largely been ignored by the research community and the educational system. I believe that researchers should avoid portraying families as the creators of “impoverished” language environments that can be fixed in the classroom.
My second point relates to SES, to which my earlier discussion about SES and my concern about judging families applies. Not only do families from under-resourced communities have less access to resources, they also have less access to quality schools and instruction. It cannot be assumed that schools in under-resourced communities provide language-rich environments. Regrettably, schools in poor communities are also impacted by the lack of resources, which in turn, impacts children’s development. As an example, a recent study by McCoy and colleagues (McCoy, Connors, Morris, Yoshikawa, & Friedman-Krauss, Reference McCoy, Connors, Morris, Yoshikawa and Friedman-Krauss2015) revealed a direct relationship between neighborhood poverty, lower classroom quality and children’s lower gains in literacy and math.
My final comment questions what is meant by a high-quality classroom language environment. Educational systems are based on the dominant culture and privilege the interactional styles and funds of knowledge of that culture (Ogbu, Reference Ogbu and Slaughter1988). Unfortunately, educational systems typically do little to support and build upon the interactional styles and funds of knowledge that children from other cultures bring to the classroom, or to assist children in learning about the interactional styles of the classroom. There is a hidden curriculum based on the dominant culture that is not made explicit (Delpit, Reference Delpit2006).
Additionally, it cannot be assumed that teachers have been trained to use high-quality language practices or to promote the HL or L2 of bilingual children. Unfortunately, studies have shown that teachers use few evidence-based, linguistically-responsive language strategies to support children’s language development (Sawyer, Atkins-Burnett, Sandilos, Hammer, López, & Blair, Reference Sawyer, Atkins-Burnett, Sandilos, Hammer, López and Blair2018; Sawyer, Hammer, Cycyk, López, Blair, Sandilos, & Komaroff, Reference Sawyer, Hammer, Cycyk, López, Blair, Sandilos and Komaroff2016). Thus, I define a quality classroom environment as one that involves building on the cultural and linguistic strengths that HL bilingual children bring to the classroom, assisting children in learning the hidden curriculum, and using linguistically-responsive language strategies to promote children’s HL and L2.
Conclusion
Once again, I greatly appreciate Paradis’ keynote that identifies key factors that lead to individual differences in HL bilingual children’s language development. I expand on her conclusions and contend that in order to truly understand individual differences research needs to identify and build upon the cultural and linguistic strengths of HL bilingual families and children, and investigate further the complexities of raising children in under-sourced communities as well as the role of the classroom in children’s development.