Arabic as a heritage language: A scoping review
Abstract
Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: Second language researchers have focused increasingly in recent years on “heritage language learners,” or adult learners who wish to learn, relearn, or improve their linguistic proficiency in a family language they spoke while growing up. The present study examines this domain with a particular focus on Arabic. Design/Methodology/Approach: We present in this paper a “scoping review” that systematically examines the theoretical approaches, methods, contexts, instruments, and linguistic foci found in empirical research on Arabic heritage language learning and learners. Following a comprehensive search, 34 empirical studies (27 journal articles and seven dissertations/theses) were identified that met our criteria. Data and Analysis: Each study was coded for the samples, designs, theoretical approaches, data collection instruments, and a number of other substantive and methodological features and practices. Frequencies and percentages of study features were then calculated. Findings/Conclusions: Among other results, the study revealed a variety of approaches to defining heritage learners/learning. Although studies in this domain most often employed cross-sectional designs and interviews to collect data, a variety of theoretical approaches both socially and cognitively oriented can be found. Originality: This study presents the first attempt to apply synthetic research techniques to the growing body of research on heritage language learning/learners. Significance/Implications: Our results describe this growing domain, identifying current trends and potentially fruitful directions for future research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many manuscripts are titled 'a scoping review' without citing or appearing to follow any particular approach.
“There are many examples where manuscripts are titled ‘a scoping review’ without citing or appearing to follow any particular approach [5–9].”
From Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application (2021) · cites this paper as [6]
Many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines.
“Currently, many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines [6, 39–43].”
From Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application (2021) · cites this paper as [6]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 45
- Authors
- Visonà, M. W., & Plonsky, L.
- Affiliations
- Georgetown University (US)
- Northern Arizona University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Plonsky, Luke
- Venue
- International Journal of Bilingualism
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-05-16
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 599-615
- ISSN
- 1367-0069 (ISSN-L)
- 1756-6878
- OpenAlex
- W2946483872
- Semantic Scholar
- 24b31fdc97de5de3e15825a34cb660cafe40bb4e
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 12.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Bilingualism (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- heritage language learners, heritage language acquisition, second language acquisition, family language, adult language learners, relearning, language proficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review