Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 30:1 (2017) ► pp.52–73

Comparing advanced L2 and heritage language learners’ Spanish grammars

Some pedagogical considerations

| Loyola University Chicago
It is very well known that we should take a sociolinguistic teaching approach for Spanish heritage language (HL) learners' instruction. Potowski (2005) proposed that instruction be centered on literacy development and grammatical knowledge. However, not much has been said regarding grammar instruction: What does Spanish HL learners' grammar look like? What are the main similarities and differences between advanced L2 learners and HL learners? What are the most effective grammar teaching techniques for Spanish HL learners? Can those techniques used for L2 grammar teaching be applied to HL learners? In this article, an answer to all of these questions is offered. Moreover, practical examples of activities are provided using several techniques such as processing instruction, interactional feedback, dictogloss, and input enhancement, followed by pedagogical implications derived from current research on grammar instruction for both advanced L2 and HL learners of Spanish.
Keywords: grammar instruction, processing instruction, interactional feedback, dictogloss, input enhancement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What do advanced L2 and HL learners’ grammars look like?: Differences and similarities
  • 3.Subjunctive acquisition in L2 Spanish learners
  • 4.What focus-on-form techniques are effective for advanced L2 Spanish grammar acquisition?
  • 5.Which focus-on-form techniques are effective for Spanish heritage grammar acquisition?
  • 6.Examples of focus-on-form input techniques for the Spanish heritage classroom
    • 6.1Processing instruction
    • 6.2Interactional feedback
    • 6.3Dictogloss or text reconstruction
    • 6.4Input enhancement
  • 7.Pedagogical implications of research on L2 and HL Spanish grammar acquisition
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.03bur
References (89)
References
Alarcón, I. (2011). Spanish gender agreement under complete and incomplete acquisition: Early and late bilinguals’ linguistic behavior within the noun phrase. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(3), 332–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (2008). Towards an integrated second-language pedagogy for foreign and community/heritage languages in multilingual Britain. Language Learning Journal, 36(1), 79–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arroyo Hernández, I. (2007). Didáctica y adquisición de las construcciones existenciales y locativas con haber y estar: Instrucción basada en el procesamiento (Master’s Thesis). Antonio de Nebrija University, Madrid.Google Scholar
Au, T. K., Knightly, L. M., Jun, S. A., & Oh, J. S. (2002). Overhearing a language during childhood. Psychological Science, 13(3), 238–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaudrie, S. (2009). Receptive bilinguals’ language development in the classroom: The differential effects of heritage versus foreign language curriculum. In M. Lacorte & J. Leeman (Eds.), Español en Estados Unidos y otros contextos de contacto: Sociolingüística, ideología y pedagogía (pp. 325–346). Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert Verlag.Google Scholar
(2012). Introduction: Developments in Spanish heritage language placement. Heritage Language Journal, 9(1), i–xi.Google Scholar
Beaudrie, S., Ducar, C., & Potowski, K. (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2004). The effects of processing instruction and its components on the acquisition of gender agreement in Italian. Language Awareness, 13(2), 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 129–181.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 247–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. & Montrul, S. (2009). Instructed L2 acquisition of differential object marking in Spanish. In R. P. Leow, H. Campos, & D. Lardiere (Eds.), Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and acquisition (pp. 199–210). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Burgo, C. (2015). Grammar instruction techniques in the Spanish heritage classroom. Paper presented in the Spanish in the US conference, NYC.
Carreira, M. (2007). Teaching Spanish in the US: Beyond the one-size-fits-all paradigm. In K. Potowski & R. Cameron (Eds.), Spanish in contact: Policy, social and linguistic inquiries (pp. 61–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Advanced proficiency: A practitioner’s perspective on this special Issue. The Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (n.d.). Teaching heritage languages: An online workshop. Retrieved from [URL].
Collentine, J. (1998). Processing instruction and the subjunctive. Hispania, 811, 576–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The acquisition and teaching of the Spanish subjunctive: An update on current findings. Hispania, 93(1), 39–51.Google Scholar
Correa, M. (2010). Heritage language learner programs and life after the classroom: A not so critical approach. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 1(2), 221–240.Google Scholar
(2011). Heritage language learners of Spanish: What role does metalinguistic knowledge play in their acquisition of the subjunctive? In L. Ortiz (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 13th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 128–138). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
(2014). Heritage language learners in linguistics courses: At a major (but fixable) disadvantage. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 27(2), 107–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Amico, M. L. (2013). Approaching the direct object pronouns: How much grammatical form is necessary in instruction?. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3(4), 319–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, C. (2005). The grammars of Hungarian outside Hungary from a linguistic typological perspective. In A. Fenyvesi (Ed.), Hungarian language contact outside Hungary (pp. 351–370). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In S. Fotos & E. Hinkel (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. Tesol Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farley, A. (2000). The relative effects of processing instruction and meaning-basedoutput instruction on L2 acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
(2004). Processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive: Is explicit information needed? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, (pp. 227–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fenyvesi, A. (2000). The affectedness of the verbal complex in American Hungarian. In A. Fenyvesi & K. Sándor (Eds.), Language contact and the verbal complex of Dutch and Hungarian: Working papers from the 1st Bilingual Language Use Theme Meeting of the Study Centre on Language Contact November 11–13, 1999, Szeged, Hungary (pp. 94–107), Szeged: JGyTF Press.Google Scholar
Fernández, C. (2008). Reexamining the role of explicit information in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 277–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortune, A. (2005). Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14(1), 21–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallego, M. (2014). Second language learners’ reflections on the effectiveness of dictogloss: A multi-sectional, multi level analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 33–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillelmon, D., & Grosjean, F. (2001). The gender marking effect in spoken word recognition: The case of bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 29(3), 503–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gudmestad, A. (2006). L2 variation and the Spanish subjunctive: Linguistic features predicting mood selection. In C. A. Klee & T. L. Face (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 170–184). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Henshaw, F. (2012). How effective are affective activities?: Relative benefits of two types of structured input activities as part of a computer-delivered lesson on the Spanish subjunctive. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 393–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. D., VanPatten, B., & Jegerski, J. (2011). Who was walking on the beach?: Anaphora resolution in Spanish heritage speakers and adult second language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 193–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirk, R. W. (2013). The effects of processing instruction with and without output: Acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive in three conjunctional phrases. Hispania, 96(1), 153–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knightly, L. M., Jun, S., Oh, J. S., & Au, T. K. (2003). Production benefits of childhood overhearing. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 114(1), 465–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kondo-Brown, K. (2004). Do background variables predict students’ scores on a Japanese placement test?: Implications for placing heritage language learners. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 11, 1–19.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1991). What have we here?: Some observations on the effect of instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 197–212). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Llombart-Huesca, A. (2012). A modular approach to Spanish for heritage language learners courses. Hispania, 95(3), 509–522.Google Scholar
Lynch, A. (2008). The linguistic similarities of Spanish heritage and second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 41(2), 252–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikulski, A. M. (2010). Receptive volitional subjunctive abilities in heritage and traditional foreign language learners of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 217–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. (2000). Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition: toward a modular view oftransfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(2), 229–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(1), 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). On the bilingual competence of Spanish heritage speakers: Syntax, lexical semantics and processing. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(1), 37–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers: Chronological age or interfaces vulnerability? In H. Chan, H. Jacob, & E. Kapia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 299–310). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Incomplete acquisition of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 239–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Current issues in heritage language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 3–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Morphological errors in Spanish second language learners and heritage speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 155–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Is the heritage language like a second language? EuroSLA Yearbook, 12(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). How “native” are heritage speakers. The Heritage Language Journal, 10(2), 15–39.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Bhatt, R., & Bhatia, A. (2012). Erosion of case and agreement in Hindi heritage speakers. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(2), 141–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., & Bowles, M. (2008). Negative evidence in instructed heritage language acquisition: A preliminary study of differential object marking. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán, & R. Bhatt (Eds.). Selected proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 252–262). Somerville, MA: Casacadilla Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Is grammar instruction beneficial for heritage language learners?: Dative case marking in Spanish. The Heritage Language Journal, 7(1), 47–73.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Davidson, J., De La Fuente, I., & Foote, R. (2014). Early language experience facilitates the processing of gender agreement in Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 118–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008a). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning 58(3), 503–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b). Knowledge of wh-movement in Spanish L2 learners and heritage speakers. In M. Almazán, J. Bruhn de Garavito, & E. Valenzuela (Eds.), Selected papers from the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 93–106). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. (2012). Dominant language transfer in Spanish heritage speakers and second language learners in the interpretation of definite articles. The Modern Language Journal, 96(1), 70–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. (2011). Second language speaking. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Vol. 21, (pp. 444–454). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H., Lee, O. M., & Lee, M. (2011). An emergentist perspective on partial language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 223–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson, L. (2006). Patterns of development in Spanish L2 pragmatics acquisition: An analysis of novice learners’ production of directives. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 473–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2006). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 141, 192–265.Google Scholar
(2008). Without aspect. In G. Corbett & M. Noonan (Eds.). Case and grammatical relations, (pp. 263–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potowski, K. (2005). Fundamentos de la enseñanza del español a los hablantes nativos en los Estados Unidos. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Potowski, K., & Carreira, M. (2004). Teacher development and national standards for Spanish as a heritage language. Foreign Language Annals, 37(3), 427–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potowski, K., Jegerski, J., & Morgan‐Short, K. (2009). The effects of instruction on linguistic development in Spanish heritage language speakers. Language Learning, 59(3), 537–579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potowski, K., Parada, M. & Morgan-Short, K. (2012). Developing an online placement exam for Spanish heritage speakers and L2 students. Heritage Language Journal, 9(1), 51–76.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roca, A., & Gutiérrez, J. (2000). Sociolinguistic considerations. In American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (Ed.), Professional development series handbook for teachers K-16: Spanish for native speakers: Vol. 1, (pp. 21–28). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College.Google Scholar
Russell, V. (2012). Learning complex grammar in the virtual classroom: A comparison of processing instruction, structured input, computerized visual input enhancement, and traditional instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 42–71.Google Scholar
(2014). A closer look at the output hypothesis: The effect of pushed output on noticing and inductive learning of the Spanish future tense. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 25–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samaniego, F. A., Rojas, N., Alarcón, M. E., & Rodríguez, F. (2013). El mundo 21 hispano. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Song, M., O’Grady, W., Cho, S., & Lee, M. (1997). The learning and teaching of Korean in community schools. In Y. -H. Kim (Ed.), Korean Language in America 2: Vol. 21 (pp. 111–127). Manoa, HI: American Association of Teachers of Korean.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Differential effects of attrition in the L1 syntax of near-native L2 speakers. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), BUCLD 24: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 719–725). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition‐rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4), 435–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52(4), 755–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Fernández, C. (2004). The long-term effects of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, (pp. 273–289). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., Inclezan, D., Salazar, H., & Farley, A. P. (2009). Processing instruction and dictogloss: A study on object pronouns and word order in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 557–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 495–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. Weber (Eds.), Second language theory and pedagogy (pp. 169–186). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wong, W. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar