Cited by 45Multilingual Education and PolicyEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

Arabic as a heritage language: A scoping review

Visonà, Mark Winston, Plonsky, Luke·2020·International Journal of Bilingualism

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

Crossref · 10.1177/1367006919849110

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”
  • 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].”

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
Published
2019-05-16
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
599-615
ISSN
  • 1367-0069 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-6878
OpenAlex
W2946483872
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