No description available.

Dual tracks - for Foreign (FL) and Heritage languages (HL) - in Spanish language programs are becoming increasingly common in U.S. higher education institutions, although most only offer HL courses for intermediate and/or advanced learners. Few universities have incorporated specialized courses for receptive bilinguals into their programs. Contradictory arguments can be found in the HL education literature regarding the type of curriculum (FL or HL) that would best serve the pedagogical needs of these students (Carreira, 2004; Lipski, 1996; Potowski, 2005).This study attempts to offer insights into this discussion by examining the effects of these two types of curricula on the written and oral language development of three groups of learners: two groups of HL learners enrolled in HL and FL courses, and a group of FL learners taking the same FL courses. The purpose of this study is four-fold: 1) delineate a profile of receptive bilinguals; 2) measure changes in oral and written production and other language-related variables after one semester of instruction; 3) examine the students' level of satisfaction with the language curriculum; and 4) uncover linguistic differences between FL and HL learners. The data collection consisted of series of written and oral-elicitation tasks and online questionnaires at the beginning and end of the semester.The results showed that all groups made significant gains in writing fluency and complexity but only the HL group in the HL course significantly improved their writing accuracy. Both HL groups made greater gains in oral fluency and complexity than the FL group but the HL group in the HL course outperformed both groups in syntactic complexity gains. The HL group in the HL course showed the highest level of satisfaction and the greatest improvement in self-confidence and language attitudes but no differences in language use outside the classroom and self-evaluation of language abilities. The results offer implications for the inclusion of receptive bilinguals in HL programs, their language placement, and pedagogical and curricular practices most suitable for these students in the HL classroom.

<p>This study examines the distribution of adverbs among child heritage speakers of Spanish. As demonstrated by previous research, the grammar of Spanish heritage speakers can be compared to that of monolingual speakers, but with slight differences in their use and interpretation that can occur given their language dominance, usage, and exposition to the heritage language (Camacho & Kirova, 2018). In adverb placement, a relevant difference comes with verb-raising, a syntactic feature that allows the verb (V) to move in the sentence, and that is common in romance languages, but uncommon in morphologically poor languages such as English (Camacho & Sanchez, 2017; Guijarro-Fuentes & Larrañaga, 2011). Other differences in adverb distribution also stem directly from their semantic use and interpretation (Zagona, 2002), differences that may create instances of cross-linguistic influence or transfer between English and Spanish grammars. Hence, this study intends to study the extent to which these phenomena are produced in adverb placement, considering the patterns of language dominance, use, and exposure of the participants and current bilingual research discussing language transfer in bilingual grammars. Hence, an elicited production task was administered to 14 child heritage speakers of Spanish from the U.S. Midwest and to a comparison group, 25 child monolingual Spanish speakers from Mexico. Results suggest that child heritage speakers behave differently in their production of adverb placement compared to monolingual speakers, showing lower accuracy and little use of verb-raising structures that allow them to produce the post-verbal adverb position Sub-Verb-Adv-Obj. These findings suggest a different developmental path in the acquisition of adverb placement for heritage children in comparison to that of monolingual children.</p>