Armenian-American parents' role in Armenian heritage language development

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 1

ARMENIAN-AMERICAN PARENTS’ ROLE
IN ARMENIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

by

Nathalie Christina Karimian

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Nathalie Christina Karimian
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the memories of Anita Torosian and Emil Dergevorkian.
With the short time you each had, you profoundly touched my life, and the lives of many others.
Thank you both for your guidance and unmatched humor. I strive to honor your legacies as I
continue my involvement in the Armenian community.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 3

Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without my chair, Dr. Artineh Samkian.
She has gone out of her way to support me by offering to chair my dissertation, providing
extensive feedback, and having high standards for quality work. She pushed me to become an
exponentially better researcher and writer, and make this study the best that it could be. It is
because of her that I am truly proud of the work I was able to produce with this dissertation.
Thank you!
My dissertation committee members were exceptional supports. Dr. Shushan Karapetian,
thank you for pioneering research on Armenian as a heritage language and providing a
foundation for something that is near-and-dear to so many of us. Also, thank you for meeting
with the random girl who emailed you years ago and helping her figure out how to bring together
her passions of education, psychology, and Armenian Studies. Dr. Ekaterina Moore, thank you
for your contributions to the theoretical framework of this study and pushing my research to be
of the highest quality.
I would like to acknowledge the Armenian-American community of which I have been a
member. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Anahid Keshishian for showing me that to be
Armenian was not to fit into one specific mold, and that our literature and history are true
dynamic treasures that all Armenians should be able to access. I would also like to thank my
Ararat family for giving me a taste of leadership and progressive thinking from a young age,
making me crave more.
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of the individuals in
my personal life. My parents have always put education first and supported me endlessly.
Thank you for making me go to Armenian class, scouting, and so much more. Thank you for
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 4

still reminding me to speak in Armenian! I want to thank my siblings for always listening,
checking in, and making me laugh. My parents, siblings, and extended family members have
been essential in holding high value for education and serving as role models. Thank you to my
dear friends for bearing with me, helping me figure it all out, and reminding me that that it would
eventually payoff. Akop, from getting me to talk about my dissertation for thirty minutes the
first time we ever talked, to eventually helping with the many details, thank you for cheering me
on through the finish line. I would also like to thank my therapist, who provided valuable
support and guidance at each step of this journey.
Growing up, I knew I wanted to attain the highest level of education possible, though I
was not sure of the field. Unsurprisingly, with such high regard for learning, I chose the field of
education. With this dissertation, I accomplish something I have dreamt of my whole life and
have the tools to impact change in something so precious to me. I am eternally grateful for this
opportunity.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 5

Table of Contents

List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 11
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 25
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 26
Significance of the Study 26
Organization of the Study 27
Chapter Two: Literature Review 29
Bilingualism 30
Bilingualism Pathways 32
Simultaneous Bilingualism 33
Sequential Bilingualism 34
Influential Factors 35
Use in Conjunction 37
Heritage Language 41
Acquisition 46
Maintenance 47
Armenian as a Heritage Language 50
Conclusion 56
Language Through Social Interaction 56
Sociocultural Theory 58
Participation in Practice 58
Actors 59
Interplay and Reciprocity 61
Language 61
Tools 65
Language Socialization 68
Language Input 75
Significance in Language Development 76
Reciprocity 81
Various Mediums 85
Play and Language 89
Tools in Play 92
Books 94
Technology as a Tool 99
Technology as Supplemental 102
Social Interaction through Technology 103
Access and Preservation 105
Conclusion 108
The Armenian-American Parent 109
Identity Development 110
Identity Development and Heritage Language 111
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 6

Parents Fostering Heritage Language 114
Generational Status 118
Armenian-Americans Today 120
Language Use 121
Resources and Challenges 123
Motivation 125
Expectancy-Value Theory 125
Self-Efficacy Theory 128
Attribution Theory 129
Belongingness Motivation 131
Investment 132
Conclusion 134
Conceptual Framework 135
Chapter Three: Research Methods 146
Research Questions 146
Sampling and Participants 147
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols 156
Observations 156
Interviews 158
Data Analysis 160
Limitations and Delimitations 162
Limitations 163
Delimitations 165
Credibility and Trustworthiness 166
Ethics 168
Conclusion 169
Chapter Four: Findings 170
Motivators 171
Multilingualism as Cultural Capital 171
English as a Prerequisite for Success 180
Safety and Familiarity 183
Multifaceted Cultural Identity 187
Responsibility 202
Pride 208
Conclusion 214
Outsourcing 215
Language Programs 216
Grandparents and Caregivers 222
Extracurricular Activities 230
Toys, Books, and Technology 237
Conclusion 239
Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction 240
Effort 241
English Language Development is Inevitable 242
Armenian Language Development is Constant Effort 245
Access 257
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 7

Obtaining Resources 258
Quantity of Resources 263
Quality of Resources 269
Quality of Interaction 280
Generational Status 286
Parents 287
Grandparents 292
Peers 296
Prioritization of English 301
Birth Order 307
Conclusion 315
Conclusion 316
Chapter Five: Discussion 318
Summary of Findings 319
Implications 325
Recommendations 336
Resources 341
Community Attitudes 342
Future Research 343
Conclusion 344
References 346
Appendix A 359
Appendix B 360
Appendix C 364
Appendix D 371
Appendix E 377
Appendix F 382
Appendix G 387

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 8

List of Tables
Table 1 Sample 155

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 9

List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 135
Figure 2 Data Collection Sequence 156

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 10

Abstract
Minority languages in the United States are typically lost with succeeding immigrant
generations. This study focused on the pivotal generation in a specific population that had the
potential to impact language loss. The purpose of this study was to uncover the experiences,
perceptions, and motivations of Armenian-American heritage language learners as parents and
the ways they supported heritage language learning with their children. This was a qualitative
study framed by sociocultural theory and language socialization. The seven participants in this
study were selected through purposeful maximum variation and were 1.5 and 1.75 generation
Armenian-American parents who wanted their children to learn Armenian as their heritage
language. Data collection included interviews with parents and observations during interactions
with their children. The study uncovered 1) various motivators that shaped parents’ language
decisions for their children, 2) parents’ practice to outsource their children’s heritage language
learning, and 3) discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the English and Armenian
languages for participants’ children. The overarching implication of this study is that, unless
approached differently, generational transmission of Armenian as a heritage language for
Armenian-Americans is at risk for attrition.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 11

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Bilinguals are said to make up about half of the world population, if not more (Bailey &
Osipova, 2016; Nicoladis & Montanari, 2016). The last few decades have spurred a shift in
language research to better understand the differences between monolinguals and bilinguals, and
the characteristics of knowing more than one language (Bailey & Osipova, 2016; Nicoladis &
Montanari, 2016). Bilingualism, which is often used interchangeably with multilingualism
(Bailey & Osipova, 2016), will be used in this study to refer to the use of two or more languages
by an individual. Research in the field has grown and shifted from the archaic deficit ideology,
where bilingualism was thought to confuse and take away from a speaker’s dominant language
proficiency, to a more asset based approach (Bailey & Osipova, 2016; Paez & Hunter, 2015).
The 21
st
century, and particularly in contexts where multilingualism is common, has brought
about policy and institutional changes that reflect bilingual values (Bailey & Osipova, 2016;
Joseph & Evans, 2018) and see bilingualism as an asset rather than a deficit.
This dissertation is a study on a unique population of bilinguals, Armenian-Americans, in
order to learn about their experiences, perceptions, and motivations in language development,
and consequently, their access to the rich resource of bilingualism. It looks at Armenian as a
heritage language (HL), where members acquire and/or maintain a language because of a
connection through their ancestral roots (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Montrul, 2010; Polinksy &
Kagan, 2007; Valdés, 2001). This study focuses on the most critical time in language
development, early childhood (Hoff, 2014), and how Armenian-American parents influence
language learning through interactions with their children.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 12

Background of the Problem
The United States (U.S.) has customarily hosted immigrants and languages from a myriad
of countries. In 2015, Suárez-Orozco, Abo-Zena, and Marks reported on the historic rate of
immigration in the U.S. At that time, 12.5 percent of people in the U.S. were immigrants, which
included 25 percent of the children under the age of 18. This percentage was still growing, and
the authors projected that the U.S. was moving toward becoming a majority-minority country,
where more members would belong to minority groups than the majority group(s) (Suárez-
Orozco, Abo-Zena, & Marks, 2015).
Immigrant groups bring with them rich cultural histories and languages. Literature
reporting on the number of languages spoken in the U.S. varies, but there is no denying the
diversity of languages hosted by the U.S. (Bailey & Osipova, 2016; Nicoladis & Montanari,
2016). Suárez-Orozco et al. (2015) reported 460 different languages represented by families in
the U.S.. Paez and Hunter (2015), focusing on student dual language learners, reported over 350
languages represented by them. They supported Suárez-Orozco et al.’s (2015) assertion that
non-English speakers were a prominent population, reporting dual language learners as the
fastest growing population in the school system. Further, they identified a concentration of these
demographics in five states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois (Paez & Hunter,
2015). Other authors acknowledged the nuances in reporting accurate numbers of the languages
represented by children in the U.S., nevertheless reporting that they were a large population and
more than that of monolinguals (Bailey & Osipova, 2016; Nicoladis & Montanari, 2016).
Historically, while different language groups have been able to have their own private
language schools, the trend has not been very friendly for bilinguals. In 1998, Proposition 227
was passed by California voters, which stated that children in the California school system would
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 13

be taught English as quickly as possible, and through the use of English only. Bilingualism was
viewed as a deficit in language development. However, in recent decades, this perspective has
shifted as the field of research has grown (Bailey & Osipova, 2016; Nicoladis & Montanari,
2016). Very recently, in 2016, this proposition was repealed by Proposition 58, the California
Multilingual Education Act, stating that languages other than English could be used for this
purpose, as schools deemed suitable (Joseph & Evans, 2018). The passing of this proposition is
still current at the time of this study. It is notable because it indicated changing attitudes and
public interest in the direction of multilingualism (Joseph & Evans, 2018; Paez & Hunter, 2015).
The existing research justifies the value of bilingualism. Multilingualism is a global
resource and asset, particularly during a time when there is globalization of the English language.
Multilingualism is now slowly being seen as something that should be maintained and cultivated.
Research on bilingualism has overwhelmingly supported the advantages of knowing more than
one language across the lifespan. Bilingualism shifts aspects of cognitive development (Bailey
& Orellana, 2015; Bailey & Osipova, 2016; Nicoladis & Montanari, 2016; Paez & Hunter,
2015). There are differences between monolinguals’ and bilinguals’ executive function and
control, cognitive flexibility, metacognition, social cognition, emotional processing, and aging
declines. Bilinguals tend to have higher executive function and cognitive flexibility. They are
more aware of the pragmatics in social interactions, better understanding what is socially
appropriate and typical depending on the given context (Bailey & Orellana, 2015; Bailey &
Osipova, 2016; Nicoladis & Montanari, 2016; Paez & Hunter, 2015). Bailey and Orellana
(2015) even connected some of the advantages of bilingualism with specific items from the new
national education standards, the Common Core State Standards, to show that bilingualism
fosters skills valued at the national level (Bailey & Orellana, 2015). Research also supports that
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 14

bilingualism can lead to the development of transcultural dispositions, where one is aware of and
flexible in taking on different perspectives (Orellana & Guan, 2015). Bilingualism can be an
asset academically and for one’s career, especially if one resides in a community that hosts
speakers of the language (Paez & Hunter, 2015). Bilinguals are also more likely to develop
metalinguistic awareness, which helps their ability to understand language as a system (Bailey &
Orellana, 2015). Last, bilingualism has been found to delay or mitigate the effects of aging such
as Alzheimer’s disease and dementia (Nicoladis & Montanari, 2016). Research on the
advantages of bilingualism is vast and supports the value of cultivating this skillset.
Of the many languages spoken globally, most are not mandatory for communication. In
fact, globalization of English and its use across the Internet (Jarvis & Krashen, 2014) have made
it a universal language that is largely sufficient for communication (Bailey & Osipova, 2016).
However, there are multiple reasons that languages other than English are important and worth
maintaining. One such purpose for maintaining a language is connection to one’s ancestors and
identity. HL is the language one learns at home to maintain a connection to his/her roots. HLs
are often learned as a byproduct of being born into a family that holds a certain identity. For this
reason, HL speakers can range from knowing a few words in their HL to advanced fluency. HL
learners, like all bilinguals, are further characterized by the things that make their own heritage
unique (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Montrul, 2010; Polinksy & Kagan, 2007; Valdés, 2001).
Generational status and identity are some of these unique characteristics that shape
bilingual individuals and HL speakers. Rumbaut, Massey, and Bean (2006) wrote about the life
expectancies of immigrant languages in Southern California. Their research showed a similar
decline in most languages by the middle of the second or the third generations. While languages
had different trajectories, the number of speakers reached minimal proportions, almost zero, by
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 15

the 2.5 generation (Rumbaut et al., 2006). Part of this shift can also be attributed to shifting
cultural identities as families become more established in their host country over succeeding
generations (Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007; Rumbaut, 2004; Rumbaut et al., 2006). This shift to
lack of fluency in immigrant languages is also impacted by societal pressures to assimilate in the
U.S. and, by doing so, learn the English language at the detriment of the home language (Suárez-
Orozco et al., 2015). These findings are represented throughout the work on generational status,
identity development, and language. Unless there are evident factors that help mitigate the
population’s shift to the dominant language, there is almost a complete language shift by the
third generation. Therefore, the generational status and identity development of HL speakers
affects their acquisition and maintenance of the language and is demonstrative of differences that
can exist among them (Gollan, Starr, & Ferreira, 2015; Orellana & Guan, 2015; Paez & Hunter,
2015; Rumbaut et al., 2006; Tse, 2001; Valdés, 2001).
HL is important in the way that speakers relate to it. It is not usually an elective
language, but rather a consequence of family origin. Therefore, it indicates an existing supply of
language capital, at least at some point after migration. For this study, the aim is to look at the
point in migration that this rich resource begins its decline, beginning with first-generation
immigrants who arrived to the U.S. before the age of 12. Rumbaut (2004) classified these as 1.5
or 1.75 generation immigrants. The decline is not as observable in the 1.5 or 1.75 generations
themselves but rather in their children. They typically learn the language, at least at a minimum
level of proficiency while growing up. Research indicates that, later in adulthood, it is then far
less likely for them to then transmit their language knowledge to their children successfully
(Gollan et al., 2015; Orellana & Guan, 2015; Paez & Hunter, 2015; Rumbaut et al., 2006; Tse,
2001; Valdés, 2001).
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 16

It is true that language is learned throughout the lifespan, though, early childhood is a
critical period for language development (Hoff, 2014). Regardless of available language
resources and programs outside of the home, the first language experiences begin at home (Tharp
& Gallimore, 1991), and even prenatally (Gervain, 2015). There is a lot of language learning
that happens before a child begins preschool and formal schooling and this learning depends on
the primary caregiver, typically the parent
1
(Melo-Pfeifer, 2015; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991).
Therefore, this study focuses on the HL experience between parent and child.
Experiences between parents and their child(ren) are a central tenet of sociocultural
theory, which views social interaction between actors to be the substance of learning (Gutierrez,
Baquedano-Lopez, & Tejeda, 1999; John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). When
children are born, their primary caregivers, typically parents, are the first people they interact
with and are socialized by (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Sociocultural theory
provides a framework to understand that interaction as learning. Since parents are more
knowledgeable and socialized than children, they impact the interaction more heavily than the
child (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). Language socialization is a framework that
specifically focuses on language learning as the process of being socialized. As children learn a
language, they are simultaneously socialized to learn the ways of being in their given context.
Combining the tenets of sociocultural theory and language socialization with research on
parents’ experiences, perceptions, and motivations supports their great potential to shape and
influence language goals and outcomes for their children. Parents’ own identity, generational
status, language skills, language learning and socialization experiences, and motivation shape the

1
The role of the parent can be extended to any primary caregiver or guardian.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 17

ways they use language with their child, and consequently, their child’s language development
(Gutierrez et al., 1999; Packer & Goicoechea, 2000).
A primary way that language interaction is impacted in early childhood, whether
intentionally or not, is through language input (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Tharp & Gallimore,
1991). Language input is language that a child is exposed to and research has found its effects
throughout language development, beginning even before birth (Hoff, 2014). A common
opportunity for language interaction in early childhood is through play (Hirsh-Pasek &
Golinkoff, 2008; Weisberg, Zosh, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2013). Mediums for play can
include toys, books, and technology (Sosa, 2016; Wooldridge & Shapka, 2012). In focusing on
language interactions in childhood through play, this study examines a critical age for language
development through a type of interaction that is ubiquitous.
There are endless intricacies to consider in each language population. This is especially
true of Armenians, who are the focus of this study. Greater Los Angeles, which is also my place
of work and residence, is home to the third largest population of Armenians globally
(Karapetian, 2014). Armenians previously had a larger presence in other parts of the U.S. like
Watertown, Massachusetts, and Fresno, California, though waves of immigration in the late 20
th

century made Greater Los Angeles home to the highest concentration of Armenians in the U.S.
This presence is represented throughout the community with stores, organizations, churches,
schools, and so on. Armenian-Americans in Greater Los Angeles today consist largely of
Armenians from the Middle East, the former Soviet Union or the current Republic of Armenia,
and Iran (Karapetian, 2014). In order to understand the intricacies of the population for this
study and their HL use, it is important to acknowledge the diverse histories of each group.
Armenians are an ancient people, with the first historical reference recorded in 518 B.C.E.,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 18

inscribed on a rock at Behistun (Russell, 2004). Armenians have lived under Armenian
kingdoms as well as host countries as a diaspora for millennia. They have come into contact
with other nations and cultures and been impacted by diverse circumstances depending on where
they lived. It is difficult to provide an all-encompassing snapshot of Armenian-Americans’
history and language. With that said, it is incredibly important to understand the unique
circumstances that shape the population of this study.
The Armenian nation has had a diaspora from the earliest periods in Armenian history
2
.
Until the late 14
th
century, there was an existing Armenian kingdom in which many Armenians
lived, in addition to diaspora members. Since the fall of that kingdom, Armenians maintained
their identity and language as a diaspora in different host countries all over the world. For the
next six-hundred years, they went through wars and persecution, as Armenian lands were sought
after, first between the Ottoman and Persian Empires, and later between the Ottoman and
Russian Empires. During that time, the Armenian Church served as a unifying authority for the
different diaspora communities (Hovannisian, 2004), which also partially explains the prominent
role of religion in Armenian institutions until today.
One diaspora community that represented a large portion of Armenians living in Greater
Los Angeles at the time of this study, and my own family’s heritage, were Iranian-Armenians.
In the early 1600s, Shah Abbas I of Persia forcefully relocated over 60,000 Armenian families to
Persia and destroyed the land they lived on as a war strategy against the Ottoman empire. The
Armenians that migrated to Persia developed an Armenian quarter and were supported by Shah
Abbas I as well as his successors. They formed a thriving Armenian community in Persia.

2
An example of the centuries-old existence of vibrant Armenian communities outside of Armenian territory is the
Armenian kingdom of Cilicia that some may even call a diasporic kingdom. Cilicia was located outside of historic
Armenian territory from 1080 to 1375 (Bournoutian, 2004).
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 19

Armenians living in Persia, and later Iran, largely remained there until the late 20
th
century,
where political instability led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. During that time, Iranian-
Armenians relocated around the world in large numbers, many moving to Greater Los Angeles
(Dekmejian, 2004; Kouymjian, 2004; Mirak, 2004; Sharifzadeh, 2015).
Classical Armenian was the language Armenians spoke until the 11
th
century. After the
11
th
century the language became a diglossia, as spoken Armenian evolved to various vernacular
forms which diverged from Classical Armenian and the official literary language remained
Classical Armenian. In the mid-19
th
century, the vernacular found its way into literature and the
Armenian language was split into the Eastern and Western standards. Both standards continue to
be spoken by Armenians today. Eastern Armenian is more diglossic, varying more in formal
situations than when spoken. The spoken varieties are largely dependent on the histories of the
people speaking them. In the case of Eastern Armenian, there are also different orthographies
used by different groups of Armenians (Karapetian, 2014).
Overall, Iranian-Armenians spoke the Eastern dialect of Armenian and used the Classical
Orthography, maintaining use until today in the U.S., rejecting the Reformed Orthography
adopted by Armenians in the Soviet Union in 1922. Historically, even within themselves
Iranian-Armenians spoke different varieties of Eastern Armenian based on the ancestral
provinces they descended from in Persia, which later became Iran. However, they still share
overarching influences from the Persian language on their Armenian language use due to
centuries of contact. Today, Iranian-Armenian speakers’ intonation, rhythm and cadence
resembles that of Persian, especially when compared to Armenian speakers from other diaspora
communities. Prolonged contact with the Persian language has also introduced calques,
borrowed words or phrases. There are also some morphological and phonemic innovations that
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 20

have entered the language, such as the phoneme ä pronounced in the use of “mähät” or “mät”
instead of the Armenian “մի հատ” or “mi hat” (one piece). Though Iranian-Armenians’
language contact with the Persian language is apparent to a linguist, these innovations have been
modified to fit into the Armenian language and become so integrated that they are
indistinguishable for most speakers from that population and Persian speakers (Sharifzadeh,
2015). In addition to the influence from the Persian language, an Iranian-Armenian immigrating
to the U.S. undoubtedly has contact and influence from the English language, though to different
extents with the English being less integrated than the Persian because less time of exposure
(Karapetian, 2014).
Another large diaspora community was the Armenians living under the rule of the
Ottoman Empire, in historic Armenia. In 1915, the Ottoman Empire carried out systematic
killings of Armenians living in the empire, in what is now known as the Armenian Genocide.
Again, large groups of Armenians fled all over the world, many fleeing to the Middle East, to
countries such as Lebanon and Syria. Similar to the Iranian-Armenians, they established a
thriving Armenian community there until about the 1970s. In the 1970s, after political instability
and the Lebanese Civil War of 1975, many immigrated to the U.S. and primarily to Greater Los
Angeles (Dekmejian, 2004; Mirak, 2004).
Armenians from the Middle East speak Western Armenian and use the Classical
Orthography. As a result of their migration path, Armenian language use in this population is
impacted by the Arabic, Turkish, and French languages as well as others. Again, after
immigrating to the U.S. there is an additional layer of contact with the English language. It is
also worth noting that Western Armenian was classified as an endangered language on
UNESCO’s atlas of endangered languages since 2010. The most compelling difference between
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 21

Eastern and Western Armenian today is Western Armenian's diasporic status. The standard and
dialect has no national or political support system, with no country, army, or navy. It is entirely
dependent on diaspora institutions, which is yet another reason why a study such as this one is
critical. In contrast, Eastern Armenian is the language used primarily by the current Republic of
Armenia.
The third large group of Armenian diaspora members that make up the Armenian-
American population today are those from the former Soviet Union or the current independent
Republic of Armenia. After the Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire in 1915,
some Armenians briefly established the first independent Republic of Armenian from 1918-
1920. This republic was bordered by the Republic of Georgia, Republic of Azerbaijan, Persia,
and the Ottoman Empire. The land, although small, mostly contained territories that were
previously a part of Russia, also referred to as Russian or Eastern Armenia (Hovannisian, 2004).
In 1920, the first independent Armenian Republic collapsed and had no choice but to become
part of the Soviet Union (Dekmejian, 2004; Karapetian, 2014; Mirak, 2004; Suny, 2004).
Additionally, between the years of 1946 and 1949, there was a major wave of repatriation from
diaspora communities all over the world to the Republic of Armenia under the Soviet Union
(Laycock, 2012). Laycock (2012) reported that about 100,000 Armenians from Europe, the
Middle East, and the U.S. repatriated at this time. Some of these repatriates, that undoubtedly
represented diverse Armenian language repertoires, were now in contact with this diasporic
community as well as the Russian language. In the 1980s, some Armenians in the Soviet Union
fled from oppression and largely relocated to Greater Los Angeles. Then, there was another
point of immigration for that population in 1988, after the Spitak region of Armenia suffered
from an earthquake that made living conditions extremely difficult. After the fall of the Soviet
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 22

Union in 1991, Armenians in that region were able to establish the independent Armenian
republic that remains until today. Despite their newly gained independence, Armenians living in
Armenia suffered in the coming years because of poverty and poor living conditions.
Consequently, they continued to immigrate to the U.S., again mostly to Greater Los Angeles
(Dekmejian, 2004; Karapetian, 2014; Mirak, 2004). This group largely speaks the Eastern
dialect of Armenian and used the Classical Orthography until 1922, where it took on the
Reformed Orthography. This was one big diversion from their Eastern dialect counterparts, the
Iranian-Armenians, who maintain the Classical Orthography until today. Armenian language use
for Armenians from the Soviet Union and the current Republic of Armenia is impacted by
contact with the Russian language as well as others. Yet again, after migration to the U.S.,
contact with the English language influences their use of the Armenian language as well
(Karapetian, 2014). Last, it is worth noting that the language used in the Republic of Armenia
today is largely representative of the population that lives there, descendants of the Soviet
Union
3
, which has implications for Armenian language worldwide.
Unsurprisingly, there are divisions created by all of these differences that continue in
Armenian diasporic communities and institutions today (Karapetian, 2014). The history of these
three groups shows at least two main points of migration for each group. Then, within each
group, the different generations have different nuances, including contact with other languages
degrees of assimilation in the U.S. (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016; Hovannisian, 2004;
Karapetian, 2014, 2017; Samkian, 2007). While I reviewed the history of Armenian-Americans

3
Recent political events are changing the demographics and language of the current independent Republic of
Armenia. Many of the Armenians living in Syria relocated to the current Republic of Armenia because of the Syrian
Civil War that began in 2011 and was ongoing through the end of this study. That population primarily spoke
Western Armenian. Another political change that impacted the demographics and language of the Republic was the
Armenian Velvet Revolution of 2018. After the revolution, renewed patriotism amongst Armenians worldwide has
spurred an increase of repatriates with diverse HL histories.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 23

from three major diaspora centers, it is important to note that Armenians have settled all over the
world. Though in smaller populations, the current population of Armenian-Americans living in
Greater Los Angeles is also representative of those migration histories. For centuries, all of
these communities developed simultaneously yet separately, as Armenians. As a result, cultural
elements from their host countries, beyond language, became enmeshed with their own. Moving
to the U.S. added an additional layer of acculturation to centuries of cultural and language
development. Another element that created differences within the same diaspora groups were
differences in time of arrival to the U.S., even if previously from the same geographical locations
(Dekmejian, 2004; Mirak, 2004; Samkian, 2007). Then, in Greater Los Angeles, all of these
diaspora groups came into contact with one another after centuries of separate development.
Adding another layer of complexity, as a result of this contact, Armenian-Americans that
represent different Armenian language histories are increasingly intermarrying and need to find
ways to navigate the different HL varieties as they teach their children Armenian as their HL
(Karapetian, 2014). At the time of this study, these previously isolated groups have all been in
contact with one another for a few decades in Greater Los Angeles, creating a complex
anthropological, historical, and linguistic goldmine. Some of the work conducted by Karapetian
(2014) on Armenian-Americans and their HL will be covered in Chapter 2.
Another important aspect of the context is its setting in the U.S. In some ways, the
opportunity for such a large group of diaspora members to reunite was unique to U.S. national
identity and immigration policies. On the other hand, it created confusion and even friction
across groups. It also spurred the creation of numerous Armenian language programs, schools,
youth organizations, and so on in Greater Los Angeles (Chahinian & Bakalian 2016; Karapetian,
2014, 2017; Samkian, 2007). More recently, the Armenian language became institutionalized in
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 24

the U.S. public school system, through dual-language immersion programs in both the Los
Angeles and Glendale Unified School Districts in Los Angeles County (Karapetian, 2014, 2017).
However, all of these institutions exist with minimal to no research on Armenian as a HL. The
community exists and functions yet there is a lack of research to serve it (Chahinian & Bakalian
2016; Karapetian, 2014, 2017). Not only does research on the Armenian-American community
in Southern California have potential to help the current community but it also has potential to
transfer to other Armenian communities worldwide as well as other HL communities.
The minimal research that does exist on language for Armenian-Americans in Southern
California acknowledges a need for research. The population today shows signs of language
shift from Armenian to English, in and outside the home (Chahinian & Bakalian 2016;
Karapetian, 2014, 2017, 2018a, 2018b). Armenian proficiency is faltering, while current
educators lack adequate support and there is a shortage of new incoming educators. One of the
difficulties faced in the classroom is that students enter the Armenian language classroom at
different levels (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016). Other possible obstacles for HL development
could be cost and location of language programs, and competing goals and priorities for children.
Instead of being forced to make half-satisfactory decisions because of such obstacles, a viable
approach is to support learning in the home, during a critical time for language development, and
before students enter the classroom. Further, understanding HL practices inside the home can
inform institutions outside of the home.
In addition to the importance of filling gaps in pedagogical research, there is evidence in
HL research to show great value in the family’s role in language development. A common
distinction between the home and classroom is in the language variants typical to each
environment. The Armenian language is still being taught to Armenian-Americans as a first
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 25

language in institutions of learning (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016). However, the variants spoken
at home are less indicative of standard Armenian and more of the rich migration histories that
differ from family to family (Karapetian, 2017). This is important because motivation to acquire
and maintain a HL is typically to maintain connections to a heritage (Carreira & Kagan, 2011;
Montrul, 2010; Polinksy & Kagan, 2007; Valdés, 2001). Further, informal use of a language is
often overlooked when it can support academic goals (Bailey & Orellana, 2015; Fairclough,
2016). Family and community members, outside of the classroom are rich resources for
language development in socially relevant variants of a HL (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015). The greater
the variety of exposure to interlocuters, the more repertoires speakers are privy to, the richer the
opportunities to learn and strengthen their HL (Gollan et al., 2015; Melo-Pfeifer, 2015). This is
even more justification to focus on how HL is fostered in the home.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of focus for this study is the loss of the Armenian language as Armenian-
American generations move further away from time of arrival to the U.S. Specifically, what is
parents’ role in mitigating that loss? Although research has found that languages are lost with
increasing generational status, it is shortsighted to assume it is because that is what families
want. Instead, there are experiences, perceptions, and motivations that can support or hinder
language learning. Therefore, the question is, how do parents work to help their child(ren)
acquire and maintain Armenian as a HL, especially in a diasporic community? The limited
research on HL, and Armenian as a HL, makes this an even more pertinent problem and area of
need.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 26

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
This study will add to the body of research on Armenian as a HL. It aims to safeguard
and capitalize on an existing resource, the existing language proficiency of 1.5 and 1.75
generation parents, that is often lost with succeeding immigrant generations of a minority
population (Gollan et al., 2015; Orellana & Guan, 2015; Paez & Hunter, 2015; Rumbaut et al.,
2006; Tse, 2001; Valdés, 2001). It will do so by focusing on parent-child language interactions
in childhood. The research questions that frame this study are:
1. What are parents’ experiences, perceptions, and motivations in relation to fostering
heritage language acquisition and maintenance?
2. How do Armenian-American parents support heritage language?
Significance of the Study
The acquisition and maintenance of Armenian as a HL is an important area of research
because of the changing and increasing immigrant population nationally. Additionally, given the
critical role of parents in early childhood, parents’ role as gatekeepers to language, the
advantages of bilingualism, and relevance to the setting are important factors to examine.
Currently, the Armenian language is at risk for following the trajectory typical to minority
languages as immigrant generations move further away from time of arrival to the U.S.
(Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016; Karapetian, 2014, 2017, 2018b). If nothing is done, the
dissipation of human capital that can be leveraged to support Armenian acquisition and
maintenance, Armenian-American parents, will inevitably lead to language loss. With loss of the
language, Armenian-Americans will lose a rich resource that gives them access to all of the
advantages of bilingualism, without electing to take language courses later in school. Learning
the home language with family members also allows for individuals to participate in social
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 27

exchanges that are not possible with another foreign language. On a broader scale, loss of
Armenian speakers globally endangers access to the culture and history. This study is important
because it addresses the generation that is pivotal in determining whether future generations have
access to those benefits by learning their home language. This study will add to the limited body
of literature on HL as a whole, and more narrowly, acquisition and maintenance of Armenian as
a HL. This research is directly applicable to many existing language programs and cultural
organizations. It can help Armenian-Americans today better serve future Armenian immigrants.
It also has potential to extend to Armenian diaspora members globally and other minority groups
who speak a HL. Potential goals for this study are to shape trainings for parents and educators
who want to teach Armenian as a HL, Armenian language program curricula, and resource
development.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction and overview of
the study. It presents the problem, its significance, and the research questions framing this study.
Relevant areas of research are broadly reviewed before delving deeper in the next chapter.
The next chapter, Chapter 2, is the literature review. The literature review consists of
three main sections: “Bilingualism,” “Language Through Social Interaction,” and “The
Armenian-American Parent.” Each section of the literature review is divided into subsections
reviewing the relevant theories and literature used to inform this study.
Chapter 3 of this dissertation proposal is the research methods. In the third chapter, I
break down how I intend to select the sample for this study, collect and analyze data, and ensure
a credible and trustworthy study.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 28

Chapter 4 presents the findings of this study. It is divided into three overarching themes
titled “Motivators,” “Outsourcing,” and “Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction.” Each
theme is comprised of smaller sections that are supported by data to represent the larger theme.
Last, this dissertation ends with a discussion in Chapter 5. The discussion summarizes
the findings of the study, deliberates the implications of the findings, recommends various
approaches to address the implications, and suggests areas for further research.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 29

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Research uses what has already been explored and expands on it. Therefore, creating a
strong foundation of research from which this study can grow is essential. This chapter is a
literature review of the relevant literature for this dissertation. It is divided into three larger
sections of literature titled “Bilingualism,” “Language Through Social Interaction,” and “The
Armenian-American Parent.” It concludes in the “Conceptual Framework,” a final section that
connects all of the concepts from the literature in the three sections and my own worldview
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The section on bilingualism sets the background for the other two
sections. It discusses various pathways to bilingualism, factors that influence learning more than
one language, ways in which speakers use more than one language together, and ends with a
focus on HL. The second section is about the process of learning language through social
interaction. It begins with reviews of sociocultural learning theory and language socialization
and how each characterize language learning. It then moves to language input and its significant
role in language development. The last two subsections focus on things that are omnipresent
across homes with children today, play and technology, and their potential to impact language
development. The third section of this literature review focuses on Armenian-American parents
and their role in fostering HL development. The section covers identity development, parents’
own language use, resources and challenges in fostering language, and motivation theories. The
three sections of literature are then surmised into the “Conceptual Framework.” The
“Conceptual Framework” is built from all of the reviewed literature and brings the concepts
together to show how they are related to each other and shape my worldview in conducting this
study. The conceptual framework also provides a basis for the research methods and findings
that come next in this dissertation, in Chapter 3.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 30

Bilingualism
Bilingualism is some level of proficiency in two or more languages and can take many
forms (Bailey & Orellana, 2015; C. Suárez-Orozco, M. Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008).
Bilingualism is often used interchangeably with multilingualism (Bailey & Osipova, 2016), and
will be used as such in this study. There are several lenses through which researchers describe
bilinguals, which demonstrates the layers of complexity. The two main paths to becoming
bilingual are simultaneous and sequential. Simultaneous bilinguals learn two languages in
conjunction from birth; this is also called bilingual first language acquisition (Genesee &
Nicoladis, 2007; Paez & Hunter, 2015). Sequential bilinguals learn one language first and then
another. This path can be children who are born into a monolingual environment at home and
then later learn the majority language upon entering formal schooling or interacting with the
community. It can also be children who learn one language at home and then later a new one
electively, whether in school or through other means (Paez & Hunter, 2015). Sequential
bilingualism is more typical for HL speakers. In a host environment where the home language is
a minority language, some sequential bilingual children begin as dominant in the minority
language but shift to dominance in the majority language over time. One consequence of
language shift is attrition of the first language. Just because a child speaks a language in early
childhood does not mean s/he will maintain the skills throughout his/her life (Paez & Hunter,
2015; Tse, 2001). There are additive and subtractive environments for learning a second
language that shape whether nondominant languages are maintained. Additive environments
support the learning of both languages whereas subtractive environments take away from and
replace the first language (Paez & Hunter, 2015; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). The “Influential
Factors” section will discuss some of these factors.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 31

Bilinguals are heterogenous in their characteristics and therefore there are many
classifications to describe them. Acquisition and maintenance of a language depend on the
contexts in which it is used and the opportunities one has to practice the language (C. Suárez-
Orozco et al., 2008). Covering all of the classifications would divert too far from the present
study but familiarity with some will provide a clearer picture of the complexities that surround
bilingualism. There are dormant bilinguals who can understand their native language but have
difficulty expressing themselves using it. This may be in the case of a family who speaks the
home language but also understands the majority language. As children grow up and shift their
dominant language to the majority language, they may be spoken to in the home language but
always respond in the majority language. Another lens is the balanced bilingual who is capable
of using his/her native language across different contexts. This demonstrates proficiency in both
languages and usually means that proper supports were available in both languages (C. Suárez-
Orozco et al., 2008). Elite/elective bilingualism is the form that many become familiar with
through schooling. Elite bilinguals speak the dominant language of their context but choose to
learn an additional language, much like taking a required foreign language course at school.
Folk/circumstantial bilinguals usually do not speak the dominant language of the society in
which they live and must learn a new language because of a change in their context. This may
be a result of immigration, where a new language is needed to succeed in a host country.
Another way that bilinguals may vary is the contexts through which they are exposed to each
language. If a speaker only speaks his/her home language at home, it is likely that s/he is
conversing about things relevant to the home and is thus less academic. Then, at school, a
language learner would learn about academic subjects in the dominant language but engage in
less conversation about topics related to the home. This would result in a discrepancy between
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 32

the languages and the domains of proficiency. Speakers may be fluent in interpersonal
communicative skills in one language and cognitive/academic language in the other (C. Suárez-
Orozco et al., 2008). “Kitchen language” is one attempt at describing this phenomenon, where
speakers are able to use language to express themselves on topics related to the home but lack
proficiency in other areas (Birman & Addae, 2015; Paez & Hunter, 2015; C. Suárez-Orozco et
al., 2008). HL is yet another way to classify bilinguals where speakers’ motive to learn a
language is because of its connection to their ancestry (Polinksy & Kagan, 2007).
Bilingualism also introduces the occurrence of switching between two languages in the
same interaction. This has been defined in various ways because of the contexts that shape the
interactions and the lenses being used to understand it. Some common terms are code-switching
and code-mixing, language brokering, and translanguaging (Bailey & Orellana, 2015; Garcia,
2009; Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007; Hoff, 2014; Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012; Orellana & Guan,
2015; Paez & Hunter, 2015).
This section will begin with an overview of simultaneous and sequential bilingualism,
factors that support and inhibit bilingualism, and some of the ways languages interact for
multilingual speakers. Next, this section will include a discussion of HL and how it relates best
to the present study. I will hone in on Armenian-Americans as HL learners and the existing
research on the community.
Bilingualism Pathways
Historically, bilinguals have been viewed as two separate monolinguals in one, instead of
individuals with a unique expression of interconnected knowledge. Not only are bilinguals
different from two monolinguals, there are endless nuances amongst bilinguals. This
misconception has been unfair to bilinguals and has resulted in an inability to adequately address
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 33

their needs in fostering a rich resource (Grosjean, 1989). Bilingual acquisition can take different
routes and is affected by several variables. Despite varying contexts, two ways to conceptualize
bilingual acquisition are simultaneous and sequential as previewed above (Bailey & Osipova,
2016; Nicoladis & Montanari, 2016; Paez & Hunter, 2015; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008).
Simultaneous bilingualism. Simultaneous bilingualism is the acquisition of two
languages beginning at birth. It is also called bilingual first language acquisition, indicating that
the first language one acquires is two languages in conjunction (Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007;
Paez & Hunter, 2015). This is a typical course for children of second generation parents because
parents are likely proficient in both languages, home and host (Gollan et al., 2015; Orellana &
Guan, 2015; Paez & Hunter, 2015; Tse, 2001; Valdés, 2001).
Children who acquire two languages as their first language have similarities and
differences with monolinguals across the domains of language. In a literature review, Genesee
and Nicoladis (2007) summarized the available literature on bilingual first language acquisition.
Morphosyntactic development is the combination of the meaningful parts of a language (i.e.
words, adding “-s” to make a word plural, the suffix “-ed” to change a word to the past tense)
and sentence structure. There was some evidence of morphosyntactic overlap in bilinguals
learning two languages at the same time. Commonly, the dominant language affected output in
both languages and was shaped by context. Language milestones, such as age of first word,
between monolinguals and simultaneous language learners were similar. In lexical development,
monolinguals interpreted new words as mutually exclusive with other words; no two words
could have the same meaning. Bilinguals, on the other hand, produced translation equivalents in
both languages. There was limited research on phonological development differences between
monolinguals and bilinguals. This review showed that monolinguals and bilinguals followed
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 34

similar phonological paths but bilinguals developed a little later (Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007).
Genesee and Nicoladis (2007) concluded by stating the need for more research in the field
overall.
Sequential bilingualism. Sequential bilingualism is when one language is acquired in
early childhood and a second language is acquired sometime later, typically at the start of formal
schooling (Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007; Paez & Hunter, 2015). Regardless of which language is
learned first, speakers can stay dominant in the first language or shift to dominance in the second
language. Typically, the first language learned is the home or minority language and the second
language learned is the host or majority language. After formal schooling, the dominant
language for many speakers shifts to the majority language. This is a common trajectory for
immigrant children and HL speakers with earlier generational status because parents are only
proficient or more proficient in the home language yet the host language is required for success
at school and work (Gollan et al., 2015; Orellana & Guan, 2015; Paez & Hunter, 2015; Tse,
2001; Valdés, 2001). This population is not the focus of this study. Rather, the present study
focuses on the generation who were likely sequential learners but are now parents with children
of their own. They are Armenian-American parents of 1.5 or 1.75 generational status and have
children who are probably simultaneous bilinguals or English dominant. While HL learners have
been studied, as children and individuals, research on their language use in adulthood and as
parents is scant.
The theories that apply to sequential bilingualism start off the same as monolingual
language theory and then incorporate the second language. In line with the overall complexity of
bilingualism, there are several theories that try to explain this process through their own lens.
Some of these theories, like sociocultural theory, are broader learning theories that also apply to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 35

language. Others, like language socialization, apply directly to language learning. There is no
consensus in the literature of the major theories and it proved to be too extensive to be applicable
to this study. Some of these theories are stated in the following works: Hoff (2014), Montrul
(2010), VanPatten and Benati (2015). In a later section, sociocultural theory and language
socialization will be covered as they apply to this study, as those are two of the most relevant
theories in the case of this study.
Influential Factors
Second language acquisition, whether simultaneous or sequential, is influenced by
individual and social factors. Internally, age and cognitive maturity play a role in language
learning. Externally, exposure to the language, family and home environment, parental
involvement and education, SES, schooling, community attitudes towards the language or ethnic
group, and level of social integration impact language learning. For each learner, these factors
interact to form a unique situation. Some may have an easier time acquiring and maintaining
more than one language whereas others face more challenges with less supports (Paez & Hunter,
2015).
Alongside the intricacies of bilingualism, the approaches to study bilingualism in
different fields provide various perspectives. Dixon et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis
examining roughly 2,000 sources from 1997 to 2012 through four perspectives of second
language acquisition. The four perspectives were foreign language education, child language
research, sociocultural studies, and psycholinguistics. The researchers outlined distinctions
between the four perspectives. Foreign language instruction is the teaching of a language that
students have had little exposure to through their community. Learners are typically adolescents
or adults and the field is primarily concerned with developing and improving teaching of foreign
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 36

language. Child language research observes naturalistic language output by children and can be
conducted in the home or classroom. Learners are young children and research looks at factors
that influence their language acquisition, including monolingualism, simultaneous bilingualism,
and sequential bilingualism. Sociocultural research is concerned with naturalistic and classroom
language learning for learners of all ages. This perspective looks at the social and cultural
differences between language learners and how language acquisition affects identity and
interpersonal interactions. This perspective extends the purpose of language to the social sphere,
beyond linguistic functions. The fourth perspective that Dixon et al. considered is
psycholinguistics. Psycholinguistics looks at cognitive and brain processes in all settings
including laboratories, classrooms, and in naturalistic contexts. This lens aims to understand the
process of language acquisition and the transfer of first language skills to the second language. It
focuses on the inner processes of language by observing external expressions (Dixon et al.,
2012). Psycholinguistics observes that L2 acquisition is very similar to L1, the biggest
difference being that L2 learning starts with more information (Dixon et al., 2012). The child
language research and sociocultural studies perspectives are most relevant to this study.
However, I review the findings Dixon et al. (2012) were able to draw across all four
perspectives.
Dixon et al. (2012) combined research from sources worldwide in the four perspectives to
identify optimal conditions for L2 acquisition. Optimal conditions for L2 acquisition included
high socioeconomic status, higher education, use at home, access to bilingual education
programs, good instruction, more time, and explicit instruction (Dixon et al., 2012). Good
teachers had higher proficiency in the L1 and L2 and the desire to teach well (Dixon et al.,
2012). Students were also key in measuring success, where accomplishment was higher in
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 37

younger students for ultimate attainment but also higher for older learners because of maturity
(Dixon et al., 2012). Reasonable expectations for speed were two years for intermediate
accomplishment and five years for 92% proficiency. Educational status, increased hours of L2
instruction, and the quality of input and teaching also increased accomplishment. Of the
methods that worked, it is implied that the opposite was not effective. For example, in Dixon et
al. (2012) lower socioeconomic status and proficiency of the teacher were less effective in L2
acquisition. Dixon et al. (2012) also found that characteristics of unsuccessful learners included
low aptitude, lack of motivation, low L1 skills, and anxiety (Dixon et al., 2012). These supports
and challenges will be further explored in the later sections of this literature review. Language
input and the use of play and books will be discussed in the section on “Language Through
Social Interaction.” Motivation, language ability, and self-efficacy will be addressed in the
section on “The Armenian-American Parent.”
Use in Conjunction
A common phenomenon observed across all bilinguals is the combining or mixing of two
languages in one interaction. This combining can be done at many levels of speech and for
different purposes. Further, there are different lenses through which we look at this mixing
(Bailey & Orellana, 2015; Garcia, 2009; Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007; Hoff, 2014; Lewis et al.,
2012; Orellana & Guan, 2015; Paez & Hunter, 2015). In this section I will review code-
switching, language brokering, and translanguaging.
Code-switching, also referred to as code-mixing, is the concurrent use of two languages
in the same conversation. The switches can occur at any level, within and between sentences,
between speakers where different languages are being spoken to one another, and sometimes
even within morphemes (Bailey & Orellana, 2015). Code-switching was once considered a
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 38

negative aspect of language development. It was thought that bilinguals were confusing the two
languages and even that knowledge in one language took away from the other. Now, it is
believed that the level of proficiency in one language is not directly related to proficiency in the
other and code-switching is a strength with unique advantages for the bilingual speaker (Bailey
& Orellana, 2015). Code-switching is a deliberate switching of two languages and is a common
characteristic of proficient bilinguals. It is linguistically constrained, meaning that the language
use is governed by the pragmatic and syntactic rules of the two languages. Bilingual speakers
can use the two languages with proper linguistic constructs as young as the age of two, showing
that it is not an indicator of language confusion. Further, bilingual children know whom to code-
switch with. They are aware of where and with whom to use the second language and are able to
use it accordingly (Hoff, 2014). Last, children as young as three have shown understanding of
using the second language to clarify a misunderstanding in a conversation (Hoff, 2014). For
example, if a child asks for milk in English and is not understood, s/he may switch to their
second language for clarification. Though code-switching was once regarded as confusion
between two languages, research increasingly supports the cognitive complexity and
deliberateness of the phenomenon (Bailey & Orellana, 2015). Code-switching provides specific
benefits in the ways that it is used. Code-switching by bilingual speakers is used to identify who
they are speaking to, provide emphasis, fill lexical gaps, clarify misunderstandings, communicate
an emotion that is better represented in one language, set the tone, exclude certain people from
the conversation, or represent social status (Hoff, 2014). Further, code-switching is a normative
practice in many urban communities today, especially due to the rising rates of immigrants in the
U.S. Code-switching can help with skills such as working memory, inhibition control, identity
formation, and group membership (Bailey & Orellana, 2015).
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 39

In their review on bilingual first language acquisition, Genesee and Nicoladis (2007) also
reviewed research on code-switching in bilinguals. They used the term code-mixing. This
source also confirmed that code-mixing was grammatically-constrained in speakers, meaning
that nouns filled in for nouns in the other language, and so on. Further, bilinguals mixed
languages more when they were speaking in their less proficient language. Genesee and
Nicoladis (2007) reviewed research that showed code-mixing was dependent on the context,
interlocutor, topic, and purpose. Use of both languages fulfilled pragmatic and identity purposes.
Examples of pragmatics can be for emphasis and to change topics. Representations of identity
can be observed when members from different generations speak more or less of the HL. For
example, first-generation members typically use more of the HL and this could be representative
of stronger ethnic identity (Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007). Last, bilingual children demonstrated
the ability to understand language appropriateness in interactions and match the speaker’s ability,
whether or not they had previously met the interlocuter (Bailey & Orellana, 2015; Genesee &
Nicoladis, 2007).
The next phenomenon, language brokering, is applicable to immigrant children.
Immigrant children may belong to the first, 1.5, and second generation of immigrants and most
are dual language learners (Orellana & Guan, 2015; Paez & Hunter, 2015). Language brokering
takes place when children must translate between languages for their family. Context makes a
difference in the child’s language brokering responsibilities. This includes family practices such
as household size, stress, the level of acculturation within the host-culture, the child’s own value
orientations, and age. Language brokering can be both burdensome and advantageous. Stressors
have potential to cause higher rates of depression, stress, and internalizing symptoms or
depression in immigrant children (Orellana & Guan, 2015). However, it also has benefits for the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 40

immigrant child. Bilingualism and family responsibilities place the immigrant child in unique
experiences that monolingual natives do not experience. Language brokering increases the
development of transcultural dispositions where immigrant children are better able to take
different perspectives. It strengthens their ethnic identity and sense of biculturalism. Language
brokers also develop metalinguistic processing skills across different languages. These children
have been found to have higher self-reported grades, self-efficacy, and scores on standardized
reading and math tests. This phenomenon is more characteristic of 1.5 or second-generation
speakers (Orellana & Guan, 2015). As such, it is most applicable to the parent population in the
present study and their experiences growing up.
Bailey and Orellana (2015) discussed the benefits of code-switching and language
brokering in education and their metacognitive advantages. These language patterns are
normative in many urban communities today and allow children to develop skills they would not
have otherwise. An interesting point made by the article was that multilingual environments
require complex skills that are part of the new Common Core State Standards, such as audience
awareness. This example shows that we value these skills even though we may not credit
multilingualism for them (Bailey & Orellana, 2015).
Last, translanguaging is a unique concept from other terms such as code-switching.
“Translanguaging is the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding
and knowledge through the use of two languages’’ (Baker, 2011, p. 288). It is different from
code-switching and language brokering because it does not separate two languages, it rather
embraces the natural and intentional combination of them to create shared meaning. It is also
different from language brokering because the purpose of language brokering is to translate and
negotiate meaning between two parties (Garcia, 2009; Lewis et al., 2012). Creating shared
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 41

meaning with interlocuters in a given context is further covered in the “Sociocultural Theory”
section. Translanguaging is social and political because its focus is to encourage the embracing
of multiple languages used in one setting; it is not a term to explain a linguistic phenomenon. It
encourages simultaneous use of multiple languages in one setting (Garcia, 2009; Lewis et al.,
2012). This is likely something that is occurring in a multilingual home already. As I explored
the literature available on Armenians as a diaspora and their use of Armenian as a HL, it became
increasingly apparent that translanguaging could apply to Armenian language practices globally,
given their diverse histories and identities. The mixing of two languages is common for all
bilinguals and can be characterized as code-switching, language brokering, or translanguaging
depending on different factors.
Heritage Language
Another lens through which language can be viewed, and the one most relevant to this
study, is heritage. HL is the language of one’s ancestors and is maintained to stay connected to
one’s cultural roots (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Montrul, 2010; Polinksy & Kagan, 2007; Valdés,
2001). The present study views Armenian as a HL, as it is learned and maintained in the U.S. in
the 21
st
century.
Valdés’ 2001 article is a foundational piece in HL literature and is one of the earlier
sources to define HL and address various issues. She defined HL as the language one learns at
home with the family, usually before switching to a dominant language. HL exists on a
continuum and shifts towards the dominant language as generational status changes. According
to Valdés (2001), HL speakers emigrate as monolinguals in the language of their home country,
then with succeeding generations in the host country, they gradually move away from the HL,
through variations of bilingualism, and eventually become monolingual in the host country
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 42

language by the fourth generation (Valdés, 2001). Research in the field since has uncovered
more about the various trajectories this process can take. For example, HL for Armenian-
Americans is unique because the language has been maintained for generations in host countries
such as Iran, Lebanon, and the Soviet Union before arrival to the U.S. Therefore, many first-
generation Armenian-Americans actually arrive to the U.S. speaking more than one language,
more so than as monolingual. Another example is the globalization of English and increased use
of technology and the Internet which have had implications for HL development (Jarvis &
Krashen, 2014).
Valdés (2001) discussed the mythical bilingual, which applies to language learning
through a sociocultural context. This concept will be further discussed in the later section titled
“Sociocultural Theory.” It is often assumed that bilinguals have equal ability in both languages
but, as Valdés (2001) explained, this assumes that the individual has had exactly the same
language exposure in both languages, which is impossible. Therefore, differences between the
languages an individual knows are inevitable. Understanding these differences is thus crucial in
learning how to support acquisition and maintenance. Differences can exist within speakers of
the same HL and between different HLs. Later in this section, literature about Armenian as a HL
will shed light on some of the unique characteristics that have affected the population of this
present study.
Communities have been exposed to different linguistic repertoires over centuries
depending on social class, geographic location, access to education, exposure, and so on. Given
their history, HLs have developed different varieties. Valdés (2001) classified these as
nonprestige, or rural, and prestige varieties (Valdés, 2001). I use a personal example to
demonstrate my family’s history in developing a nonprestige variant of Armenian as a HL. None
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 43

of my four grandparents attended school. When my parents went to school, my father attended
an Armenian private school that taught the Armenian language as one subject, and my mother
attended a Persian language school. My father attended an Armenian private school but
continued his highest level of education at the University of Tehran where Persian was the
primary language of instruction. Therefore, there is little to no exposure in my family ancestry to
the academic use of Armenian. My own formal schooling has been predominantly in English.
Therefore, through generations, my development of Armenian as a HL has mostly had access to
non-academic, non-prestige, variants of Armenian. Depending on place of origin and
generational status, as discussed in Chapter 1, this differs across Armenian-American immigrants
and HL speakers of Armenian. When a speaker is learning and maintaining a language to stay
connected to their heritage, the history linked to their heritage shapes the language they use and
it is less likely that the language is a standard variant. This is a key example of how teaching a
HL is unique from an academic foreign language class. Therefore, in or out of the classroom,
HLs should be taught differently than elective foreign languages and the developed resources
should coincide accordingly (Valdés, 2001).
Valdés (2001) discussed the lack of research and policy on HL in 2001. It is worth
reviewing the issues because they can help understand the context for HL today. As HL learners
are stuck between prestige and nonprestige varieties of their HL, foreign language educators are
forced to come up with their own solutions to shape instruction whether or not they are equipped
with adequate knowledge to do so. According to Chahinian and Bakalian (2016), this was still
the case for Armenian language schools, where Armenian language teachers had to come up with
their own resources and curricula without formal training and/or adequate pedagogical
knowledge on teaching Armenian as a second language. Valdés (2001) wrote that scholars were
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 44

doubtful of improvements for HL classrooms because of the many variables that affect a HL,
classrooms are limited spaces to grow language, and assimilation is an impending force. For a
HL classroom to be successful, educators have to acknowledge that HL speakers are likely going
to enter the classroom with an underdeveloped language repertoire, particularly in the standard
variety. Educators’ goals should be the expansion of the bilingual range rather than mastery of
all language components. Students’ strengths should be valued because they maintain heritage,
rather than trying to teach one standard (Valdés, 2001). This is a useful lens through which
Armenian-American parents should view their own language abilities. This sentiment is also
evident in Karapetian’s (2014, 2017) works, where she notes that generations of Armenian HL
speakers have been compared to the standard dialect of their language, which has developed into
lack of self-efficacy in language ability and may impact transferring language abilities to future
generations.
Polinksy and Kagan (2007) defined HL with a broad and narrow definition. The broad
definition of HL is when one is raised in a family with a strong connection to a language, they do
not speak the language but interact with pieces of the culture as a means to maintain heritage.
The narrow definition of HL is when children are raised in a home where the dominant language
is not English and therefore become speakers of that language to some degree; these children are
bilingual because they eventually acquire English through formal schooling. HL skills are on a
continuum and speakers achieve mastery at different levels based on their contexts and
circumstances (Polinksy & Kagan, 2007). The field of HL is relatively new and Polinsky and
Kagan (2007) identified a need for further study.
Carreira and Kagan (2011) conducted and analyzed the results of a comprehensive survey
of different HL learners. The survey targeted university students enrolled in HL classrooms
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 45

across the U.S. While they tried to represent speakers from diverse locations and languages,
respondents ended up being primarily from California, female, and some languages had far more
representation than others. The purpose of the paper was to find characteristics across HL
learners and create a common profile. Carreira and Kagan (2011) found that HL learners were
commonly sequential bilinguals who learned their HL at a young age, and then the dominant
language of the community as they entered formal schooling. They typically had limited access
to the HL outside of the home. For this reason, they were strong in aural and oral skills of the
HL, but not necessarily in literary skills. HL learners commonly had positive attitudes toward
their HL and learned the language primarily to connect with their community and roots. As
other sources supported, HL acquisition and proficiency were affected by place of birth and age
of arrival to the host country, in other words, generational status. The article reported that
diversity in HL learners poses challenges when teaching in the HL classroom because learners
enter at varying proficiencies (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). For this reason, it is worth looking at
HL learning in the home before formal schooling. Exploring the HL learning context as well as
finding avenues to move towards a common path can have implications for classroom learning of
that HL.
Carreira and Kagan (2011) further suggested that foreign language instruction programs
are insufficient to meet the needs of HL learners. Instead, they suggested that teaching HL
learners effectively should be commensurate with their motivation for learning their HL, which
is to connect to their community and gain insight into their roots. This kind of language learning
is different from the formal academic purposes of language programs. As mentioned in the
introduction of this section, there is a contrast between HL learners and elite/elective bilinguals
and these differences should inform instructional strategies in the classroom. The authors of the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 46

article suggested that teachers of HL learners should foster a multilevel classroom, and know the
community and learner and connect them (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). While the classroom
implications are not as relevant to the present study, they can have implications for the home
environment. Parents in the home are able to tailor their language scaffolds to their child’s
ability level, as will be discussed further in the sections titled “Language Input” and
“Sociocultural Theory.” Further, they have existing connections to their identity and community
and can utilize those as a means to support HL development.
Montrul (2010) reviewed HL research, compared learning a HL to first and second
language acquisition, viewed acquisition through three theoretical perspectives, and ended by
establishing a need for more research. In line with other literature, HL speakers were broadly
defined as members of a linguistic minority who speak a language at home in addition to the
majority language where they live. Typically, they have a partial command of the language
because their overall access to the HL is limited, and they attend school in the dominant
language. HL learners and speakers are usually more proficient in the majority language of their
community and the differences between HL speakers vary substantially. Speakers’ use of their
HL becomes simplified after contact with other languages and new varieties begin to emerge
(Montrul, 2010). This variation in the use of HL is largely evident in the historic migration
patterns of various groups in the Armenian diaspora that were isolated for centuries from their
coethnics, as covered in Chapter 1 (Karapetian, 2014).
Acquisition. Here, I briefly review characteristics that make HL acquisition unique from
first and second language acquisition. Montrul (2010) reviewed literature that supported that HL
speakers overall had good mastery of phonology of their language, although some nonnative
features could be present. Their vocabulary was unique to the contexts, experiences, and ages
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 47

they had been exposed to. This is in line with the concept of “kitchen language,” where
bilinguals are able to use language common inside the home but lack the ability to express
complex thoughts and emotions (Birman & Addae, 2015). As a result of limited exposure, HL
learners’ vocabulary had gaps. Morphosyntax was the area most affected with errors. In
particular, speakers had a tendency towards overgeneralizing and simplifying syntax and
transferring from their dominant language because of limited HL exposure and use (Montrul,
2010).
Montrul (2010) portrayed HL as having characteristics of both first and second language
acquisition because it overlapped in areas such as exposure, linguistic features, and motivation,
but was not exactly the same as either trajectory. She looked at HL acquisition through the
theoretical perspectives of formal linguistic, cognitive, and emergentist. Montrul (2010)
concluded by stating that classroom research for HL is inadequate and that HL speakers have the
potential to reach native proficiency with the correct support, if that is in fact the goal.
Therefore, there must be research to determine and subsequently create those supports, the
research must produce actionable items that are disseminated among the populations, and the
goals must be clear (Montrul, 2010).
Maintenance. It would be naive to assume that acquisition indicates maintenance.
Language attrition is common among language learners, particularly when the language is not
dominant in the society in which the learners live. If a HL is to be maintained over generations,
it must be maintained over one’s lifetime to make teaching future generations possible.
Therefore, I turn to look at literature that supports HL maintenance and informs characteristics
that promote stronger continuity of a HL.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 48

One type of support that fosters HL maintenance is exposure to a variety of HL speakers
at all levels, a rich language community. Gollan et al. (2015) conducted a two-part experiment
to explore the extent to which frequency of HL use and number of HL speakers independently
influenced HL proficiency. In Experiment 1, their sample consisted of about sixty Chinese-
English and Spanish-English undergraduates at the University of California, San Diego.
Participants completed a language history survey and a multilingual naming test where they were
asked to name pictures in English and their HL. There was no further information about this
instrument in the article nor did I gain access to it after an online search. The participants in
Experiment 2 were 22 Hebrew-English children in San Diego. The procedures were the same as
Experiment 1, except the language survey was completed online by a parent, due to the age of
the participants. Findings from both studies confirmed that HL benefits from exposure to a
broad range of speakers. The higher the number of speakers HL learners were exposed to in
childhood accounted for the variance on the multilingual naming test beyond the effect of
frequency of use; it was positively correlated for picture naming in the HL and had no effects on
the English portion of the test. This effect was demonstrated in all three bilingual groups.
Further, there were many factors that were positively correlated with performance on the HL
picture-naming performance and negatively with the English, such as age of acquisition,
frequency of English use, and primary caregiver’s English ability (Gollan et al., 2015). These
findings reinforce the importance of social interaction in language learning.
Language shift is commonly observed in HL speakers once they begin formal schooling.
They may be dominant in the home language at birth and shortly thereafter, but typically switch
to the majority language when they start school. Tse (2001) studied language shift with HL
learners, from their HL to a dominant language. She conducted 10 semi-structured interviews
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 49

with purposively sampled HL learners, between the ages of 18 and 24. Participants were
selected by purposive sampling for cases that would provide unique information. The purpose of
this study was to examine the characteristics of HL learners who were able to resist or reverse
the language shift to a dominant language. Tse (2001) found that causes for language shift
included differential power within the dominant and HL, parental language use and attitudes
towards the HL, and lack of exposure to the HL. Differential power and exposure are both
largely affected by the host community. Tse (2001) conceptualized two main influences for
students who were able to resist language shift and maintain biliteracy: language vitality, and
literacy environments and experiences. Language vitality is the perceived status of the HL and
thrives when supported by one’s peer group, contact with institutions, and parents who speak and
encourage the HL. Literacy environments and experiences best fostered the HL when speakers
had access through a variety of sources in different contexts, they developed the HL as part of
their identity, and received formal instruction in the HL (Tse, 2001). These factors can be
largely affected by geography alone. Armenian-Americans living in Greater Los Angeles have
access to a rich Armenian community shaped by the constant influx of new immigrants, and
existing community organizations, schools, markets, and so on (Karapetian, 2014, 2017).
Armenian-Americans living somewhere with less Armenians, Texas for example, have limited
access to such a community. The difference in exposure, as confirmed by Tse (2001),
consequently has power to influence HL maintenance.
The following studies that were previously mentioned in the section supported Tse
(2001). Genesee and Nicoladis (2007) reviewed research that supported explicit discourse
strategies in the target language to foster better learning. Children of parents who stuck to one
language or did not encourage code-mixing were less likely to do it (Genesee & Nicoladis,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 50

2007). Montrul (2010) briefly addressed factors that fostered and maintained HL. Among these
were parental discourse strategies, language attitudes of the community, linguistic community,
access to education in the HL, age of arrival, and generational status. Those who learned
sequentially, meaning the HL first and dominant language second, had an advantage in HL
acquisition over those who learned both simultaneously at birth (Montrul, 2010). In the
following section, I will turn to the characteristics that further define the context of this present
study.
Armenian as a heritage language. In reviewing the literature on HL, it is important to
look at the population of interest to this study, Armenian-Americans as HL speakers, especially
because the literature on the topic is very limited. I will review relevant features of some sources
to better explain the Armenian diaspora as HL speakers.
The only known research that directly addresses this topic is by Chahinian and Bakalian
(2016), Karapetian (2014, 2017). All three sources provided an overview of the diverse
migration patterns of Armenians up to that point and are fairly recent, with the oldest from 2014.
As extensively covered in Chapter 1, turmoil in the 21
st
century relocated Armenians from
various geographical locations to the U.S. and diluted the previously rich cultural hubs. As a
result, the sources that historically produced rich resources and helped keep the language alive
and growing were compromised as the diasporic population emigrated. This took a larger toll on
Western Armenian since Eastern Armenian remains supported because it is the prominent
language of use in the current Republic of Armenia
4
. Nonetheless, there are differences even
between speakers of Eastern Armenian depending on their origin (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016;

4
The official language of the current Republic of Armenia, as written in the constitution, is “Armenian,” without an
Eastern or Western standard distinction. However, the Eastern standard is omnipresent in the country. The
constitution itself is written in the Eastern standard.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 51

Karapetian, 2014, 2017). For example, an Armenian who emigrated from Iran speaks a different
variety of Eastern Armenian than one from the former Soviet Union. Speakers also borrow from
the language of their own or their descendants’ former host country. Chahinian and Bakalian
(2016), Karapetian (2014, 2017), and Samkian (2007) provided comprehensive sources to
understand the history of the population for this study. It is reasonable to deduce that there is
more than one language being used to create meaning in an Armenian-American’s regular use of
the Armenian language. They are likely using a particular variety of Armenian that is affected
by the language of a former host-country and mixed with the new dominant language, English.
This makes translanguaging a valuable lens when looking at Armenian-American language
practices because one can embrace the use of many languages to make meaning.
Chahinian and Bakalian (2016) conducted a qualitative study on the preservation efforts
of Western Armenian in Armenian-American communities. The Armenian language has two
standards, of which Western Armenian has been on UNESCO’s atlas of endangered languages
since 2010. The study collected data on all of the Armenian schools in the U.S., and interviewed
principals and Western Armenian teachers in many of those schools. As the research assistant
for this study, I conducted the interviews. The authors’ methods and support for their findings
were not made clear in the article. However, this was one of few studies addressing Armenians
as HL speakers and I have tried to use more than one source, when possible, to support their
claims. Their overall aim was to describe the status of Armenian language programs and
community demographics and identify gaps in Western Armenian instruction that pose a threat
to the longevity of language maintenance. Their premise stemmed from the contradictory
evidence that Western Armenian was an endangered language yet it was also the primary
language of the majority of Armenian schools established in the U.S. Both Chahinian and
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 52

Bakalian (2016) establish their credibility as authors and practitioners in the field alongside their
claims.
Armenian as a HL is affected by its unique characteristics. One major critique by
Chahinian and Bakalian (2016) was the disconnect between the existing Armenian language
classroom and its students. The teachers seemed to be lacking understanding of their students’
needs and/or lacked the resources to meet them. The aim of this dissertation is, therefore, to
address this student population before they reach the classroom, in early childhood and at home.
Another point made by Chahinian and Bakalian (2016) was that Armenian had been confined to
the classroom, where families did not focus on using it at home and instead relied heavily on the
classroom for Armenian language acquisition and maintenance. Their shortcoming in providing
evidence for their claims leaves room to question this claim. Though, this is a similar analysis
shared by Karapetian (2014, 2017). Last, Armenian institutions and classrooms usually have a
link to a religious entity or political party which may affect parents’ motivation to participate in
them (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016; Karapetian, 2017).
Another important characteristic to consider is generational status (Chahinian &
Bakalian, 2016). Based on the U.S. Bureau of the Census American Community Survey
conducted from 2009-2011, 67% of foreign-born Armenians spoke Armenian in the home,
whereas only 19% of U.S. born Armenians did. They added that, of the 19%, many were
probably born to immigrant families (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016). For example, I am the third
child of an Armenian immigrant family from Iran, but first to be born in the U.S. I am U.S. born
and speak Armenian in the home, but that is likely influenced by proximity to my family’s time
of arrival to the U.S.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 53

The themes found in the interviews conducted by Chahinian and Bakalian (2016) were
that current instruction methods did not meet the needs of their population. Teachers followed a
model that treated Armenian as a first language when it was a HL. They identified an
inadequacy in teacher training programs and lack of new teachers to replace retiring ones.
Overall, they identified a lack of existing and upcoming supports for learning Armenian as a HL
(Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016).
Karapetian (2014) conducted her dissertation on Eastern Armenian as a HL in Los
Angeles. The dissertation detailed the historical context and changes in the Armenian language.
The development of Armenian has been historically pluricentric and in Los Angeles we see a
conglomeration of these differing histories across a common language and culture (Karapetian,
2014).
While Chahinian and Bakalian (2016) looked at the preservation of Western Armenian in
schools, Karapetian (2014, 2017) added to the discussion on Armenian as a HL, particularly in
Los Angeles. Karapetian (2014) conducted a qualitative study that used in-depth audio-recorded
interviews with 27 HL learners of Eastern Armenian in college. Karapetian’s (2014) dissertation
was the first study of its kind on Armenians as HL learners. The dissertation gave an overview
of the historical context of Armenian as a HL, then looked at the use of Armenian as a language
in Greater Los Angeles, including signs of language loss (Karapetian, 2014).
Phonology in the HL speakers of the sample was indicative of a lack of exposure to the
written and formal forms of Armenian. Most of the HL learners were exposed to Armenian
aurally and therefore their speech was representative of what they had heard in pronunciation
rather than the written form. In morphology, Karapetian (2014) found that HL learners
understood and used the general rule for declensions but were less likely to use exceptions to the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 54

rule when speaking in Armenian. Thirdly, HL learners were aware of the various registers of
Armenian, and that they could not speak in the formal register or, as they called it, “like an
adult.” Last, Karapetian (2014) identified the impact of language contact and transfer for the
Armenian language. The sample exhibited signs of borrowing words from other languages,
calques (or loan translation), and semantic extension (Karapetian, 2014).
Karapetian (2014) defined four spaces that influence the compartmentalization of
Armenian among HL speakers: age, gender, medium and space. Her findings indicated that
Armenian HL speakers were most likely to use Armenian when speaking to community
members who were older than them and English with same-age or younger coethnics. They
reported speaking more English with their mothers compared to their fathers. Armenian HL
speakers were most likely to interact with and use oral forms of Armenian versus written. Last,
Armenian was confined to specific spaces such as home, school, church, and using it as a secret
language when non-Armenian speakers were present. English, however, was not confined and
was spread over all spaces (Karapetian, 2014).
Karapetian (2014) also discussed the issues of shame and self-efficacy that Armenian
HLs experience. In her findings, participants reported experiencing teasing, error correction, and
criticism when speaking Armenian with community members. Further, interlocuters switched to
the English language when they perceived the HL speakers to be struggling, restricting
interaction with the Armenian language. Participants voiced the security they felt when speaking
with interlocuters of similar ability but not higher. Karapetian (2014) outlined this as a vicious
cycle of teasing and ridicule which breeds fear of judgement and limits interactions and access in
the HL with competent speakers, culminating in weak development of the HL, and finally
returning to the beginning of the cycle where speakers are even more susceptible to teasing and
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 55

ridicule because of their low proficiency. She concluded by calling for awareness from the
community to interrupt the cycle and foster HL acquisition and maintenance by reducing the
shaming (Karapetian, 2014).
The dissertation highlighted the differences in the Armenian communities present in
Greater Los Angeles. While the communities were previously geographically isolated in other
host countries, after immigration to the U.S. they were in regular contact in Los Angeles and,
thus, new challenges in acquisition and maintenance emerged. Participants in the study
emphasized a moral responsibility to maintain Armenian to preserve the culture. They felt that
their Armenian identity was contingent on mastery of the language, but did not find practical use
in their Armenian knowledge. Feeling like they had to be proficient in the language to be
Armenian yet not having the proper supports created a paradoxical and disappointing reality for
Armenian HL speakers. Karapetian (2014) concluded her dissertation urging Armenian
language curriculum planning to target the areas of need uncovered in her dissertation. Further,
she suggested areas for further research, pointing out that hers was the first study of its kind and
any further research would be adding to the field (Karapetian, 2014).
Karapetian (2017) shares many similarities with her 2014 dissertation. The main addition
presented in this work was the three task forces in the Armenian HL community that had been
formed and the challenges those task forces faced. One challenge she outlined was overall
teacher resistance to change in training sessions. Teachers of Armenian as a HL are typically
immigrants with no formal training in education. Therefore, classrooms lack uniformity in
objectives and teaching styles and tend to be teacher-centered and grammar-focused. Armenian
has been confined to specific subjects and is not used in diverse contexts, thus limiting HL
learning. The article discussed the many variants present in the Armenian community between
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 56

the previously geographically isolated language groups. In Los Angeles, a new challenge is the
introduction of new hybrid families, where Armenians from different immigration and language
backgrounds are marrying and having children (Karapetian, 2017). Karapetian (2017)
emphasized the importance of being proud of all the variants of Armenian as a HL and warned
that threat of language loss was high if things remained unchanged.
HL and particularly Armenian as a HL are central to this study. HL is different from
other forms of bilingualism in its acquisition and maintenance. The unique characteristics of
each population are key to understanding their needs and conducting strong research to support
them. I have explored the existing literature on HL as a lens to examine bilingualism, which
although limited, provides shared understanding from which this dissertation can grow.
Conclusion
This section briefly reviewed the diversity in classifying a bilingual, various pathways to
becoming bilingual, and factors that can help or inhibit the journey. I reviewed some of the
characteristics of this journey by looking at the ways that more than one language can interact in
a conversation, which is typical of bilinguals. Last, I concluded with a focus on HL and
Armenian as a HL to gain insight into the specific population of this study. The next sections of
this literature review will grow narrower, focusing on learning language through social
interaction and the role of Armenian-American parents.
Language Through Social Interaction
Learning theories are the ways we understand how individuals make meaning of their
experiences as they grow and develop. There are several learning theories that can be used to
understand this process. In the prior section on bilingualism, the literature review focused on
different pathways and factors that influence bilingualism. The research reviewed spoke to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 57

several aspects of the social environment that contribute to language learning. Consequently,
despite there being several different language theories, this section focuses on learning and
language as a social process by reviewing literature on sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory
emphasizes learning through social interaction. This section also reviews literature on language
socialization because of its direct relevance to this study and the specificity it provides to shape
the research methods and data collection. Language socialization is a linguistic framework that
has language and social interaction at its forefront. It views the learning of language as
symbiotic with socialization (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). In addition to the theoretical
components covered in this section, I review literature on specific aspects of social interaction
and language, which are language input, play, and technology.
Before presenting the literature in this section, it is important to situate this study in its
larger context. Bronfenbrenner (1981) provided an ecological model for human development,
accounting for the systems that can interact in any one context and impact the individual. The
model uses concentric circles to represent the larger systems, with the individual as the center
circle. The largest system in the model is the macrosystem, which includes the ideologies and
subcultures that are implied throughout the other smaller systems. The example Bronfenbrenner
(1981) provided is the differences in the simple concepts of classroom or post office in France
versus the U.S. Though the same words, they imply different things in each system. The
macrosystem is all shared understandings that operate throughout the rest of the systems. The
next level inside the macrosystem is the exosystem, which is comprised of the settings that
individuals do not directly interact with but that affect the ones they do interact with. The
example provided by Bronfenbrenner (1981) was that of the school board making decisions for
the school that a child attends. The next level inside exosystem is the mesosystem. The
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 58

mesosystem consists of the interrelatedness of two or more settings that an individual is involved
in. For example, the relationships connecting a child’s school and home life. The smallest
system in Bronfenbrenner’s (1981) model is the microsystem, which is an individual in a given
context. Microsystems are unique to the characteristics of the individual and context. For
example, a child at home with their Armenian-American parents who is the oldest of his siblings.
Each of those characteristics impact the child’s interactions in that environment. Finally, the
smallest circle and the center of the model is the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1981). The focus
of this study is the individual parent operating in the microsystem of the home and with their
children. Though the other systems are not the focus, they are pervasive throughout the study,
therefore making Bronfenbrenner’s (1981) ecological model for human development important
in understanding the systems this study is embedded in.
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theory contends that learning happens through interaction within larger
contexts. In this section, I review literature on how learning comes from participating in a
context and is shaped by actors. I also discuss how the novice becomes an active member in the
interaction as s/he learns and that language and other tools are actors in this social process.
Participation in practice. Sociocultural theory posits that learning is a social practice
that takes place with others. This practice is shaped through continuous reciprocal interaction
between the social context and the individual. According to sociocultural theory, learning occurs
simultaneously and continuously through participation. As one participates in a context, s/he
changes his/her way of being in that community accordingly, and that continuous change in
practice is the embodiment of his/her learning (Gutierrez et al., 1999). This means that learning
occurs while an individual is a participant in a social setting. As the participant gains different
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 59

experiences, his/her participation changes and that change is the representation of their gained
knowledge (Gutierrez et al., 1999).
Lave and Wenger (1991) described this process as legitimate peripheral participation,
which is “engagement in social practice that entails learning as an integral constituent.” In
legitimate peripheral participation, learners are members of a community of practice. These
communities of practice define what happens in different contexts. For example, ways of being
in a classroom are different than ways of being at a gym. Further, these ways of practice vary
between cultures, even in a seemingly similar context such as a school. Mastery in participation
in a community requires that people learn the ways of practice and gradually move from
peripheral towards full participation. Learning is in every aspect of participation (Lave &
Wenger, 1991). This connects to the places and ways in which we acquire a language and
participate in a culture. Lave and Wenger’s concept is important to this study because learning
Armenian as a HL in the 21
st
century U.S. is situated in various contexts, from immigration
history to identity development, motivation, and so on. HL speakers build an understanding of
their HL community which impacts their identity and forms of membership. Learning is also a
part of the cultural tools used to facilitate learning, which will be discussed later in this section
(Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Actors. Since social interaction is central to sociocultural theory, learning becomes
dependent on other actors as they shape experiences. In early childhood, this process is
particularly true for parents and children. Children in the U.S., typically, spend the most time
with their primary caregivers who are their parents, before they begin school. Parents heavily
shape their children’s first socialization experiences. Sociocultural theory acknowledges any
change in behavior as learning but, there are settings where change in behavior is the goal.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 60

These are experiences where the desired outcome is learning and the parent shapes their own
behavior to teach their child(ren) something. Vygotsky (1978) described actors, in this case
parents, who are doing the teaching as more knowledgeable others (MKOs).
In a social interaction, the person with more knowledge is able to push the interaction in
the direction of learning. Vygotsky (1978) highlighted this through the concept of Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD), where learning takes place when a MKO interacts with a
participant in the community and brings about change in practice (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996).
The ZPD is the knowledge beyond what the less knowledgeable actor already knows but before
what is too challenging or past their developmental level. Sociocultural theory holds all learning
takes places in the ZPD and the parameters of the ZPD vary in each interaction. The parameters
of the ZPD vary depending on the contexts and the actors affecting the interaction (Vygotsky,
1978). One way this is demonstrated through the literature on language learning is through the
concept of kitchen language, where immigrants learn their home-country language to the extent
that it is used in the home (Birman & Addae, 2015). They know how to hold all types of
household conversations but cannot talk about academic concepts, such as physics, in their home
language (Birman & Addae, 2015). This is because they have been in contexts and around
MKOs that are proficient in their use of HL in the home but the same is not true for other
contexts.
In early childhood, learning takes place formally and informally with caregivers, and
happens similarly whether in the home or the classroom. Caregivers deliberately engage in some
practices with children to target learning outcomes and other outcomes occur unconsciously
through modeling. Learning for both children and adult takes place in ZPDs, however for
children the caregiver has a more active role. For young children, the caregiver is a resource that
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 61

supports learning that would not be possible for the child independently. The caregiver
continuously monitors the child’s developmental level and growth and adjusts his/her support
accordingly (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). That requires parents to have advanced knowledge in
the areas they need to scaffold for their children, if not, they cannot support the ZPD beyond a
certain level. Then, as the child grows other actors would support the ZPD. In the case of HL,
either parents, community actors, or resources should be able to support advanced language
skills. In the sections on “Access and Preservation” and “The Armenian-American Parent,” I
address some of the issues surrounding this. Further, Tharp and Gallimore (1991) supported
training of teachers to provide more targeted scaffolds to children and contrasted them with lay
scaffolds provided by parents. Since HL is very connected to the home, it is worth considering
training parents in fostering a HL at home.
Interplay and reciprocity. In social interaction, there is an interplay between the
community and individual (Gutierrez et al., 1999; Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). First, the norms
and rules of a community shape an individual’s learning by determining his/her experiences and
mode of participation. Then the individual’s role becomes increasingly active as s/he begins to
influence the social context. This is also true for actors interacting together (Gutierrez et al.,
1999; Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). In this study, I focus on this interplay and reciprocity in
parent-child language interactions. Parents begin as the primary actors influencing the
interaction, then child(ren) gain an increasingly active role as they learn and are able to impact
the interaction, and so the cycle is reciprocal and continuous. The section on “Language Input”
addresses “Reciprocity” and connects sociocultural theory to relevant literature on language.
Language. Language is a system of symbols that represent human consciousness. This
system of symbols is modeled by members unintentionally, as they participate in larger
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 62

sociocultural contexts (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Oral language development in early
childhood sets the foundation for all later language development. Tharp and Gallimore (1991)
described meaningful discourse as the vehicle to literacy. Any long-term advancement in the
language is dependent on these foundational skills. According to sociocultural theorists,
language is constructed socially and therefore learned throughout the same process. Word
meaning is itself socially constructed in joint activity. Members create word meanings through
social use and this use continues to evolve with its members (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). There
are many examples of this in the modern-day use of the Internet and social media, such as the
creation of words like “email,” “selfie,” and “cryptocurrency.” Children learn language in this
sociocultural context as they interact with mature members of their community. These natural
language learning experiences happen with or without the awareness of parents and children
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1991).
As children learn, they appropriate mature members of a sociocultural context and get
closer to becoming full participants in their context. Adults in the setting communicate which
behaviors are desired and not desired through their feedback (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). This
management can also have negative effects, as was demonstrated by Karapetian’s (2014)
findings with Armenian community actors and their shaming of less proficient HL speakers,
regardless of their intentions. Through shaming, Armenian community members were, whether
intentionally or not, communicating what levels of language proficiency were desired for group
membership. Karapetian (2014) provided a graphic to demonstrate the cycle, where learning
Armenian as a HL was the goal but shaming by community members was a deterrent and so the
language was not learned proficiently. The feedback from community members was
contradictory to their goals (Karapetian, 2014). Tharp and Gallimore (1991) discussed that
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 63

feedback should be individualized per child. Undoubtedly, there will be incongruencies between
the standards held by different members of the community and consequently the feedback they
provide. Karapetian’s (2014) research uncovered one subset of this feedback in Armenian HL
contexts. Providing feedback that is in line with the desired goals is important for all community
members, from parents to institutions, and there is need for research on the standards by which
young HL learners are measured.
Another way to view this feedback is through Clark’s (1996) presentation of using
language to create common ground. Clark (1996) wrote about the purpose of language as a co-
ordination device, where speakers work to establish commonalities in order to better understand
each other. Clark (1996) referred to this as the common ground between speakers and divided it
into two levels, communal and personal common ground. Communal common ground is “all the
knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions” the speakers believe to be universal to the communities
with which they identify (Clark, 1996). Personal common ground is all of the components of
communal common ground, but that are shared mutually through personal experience with
another person. In a conversation, speakers begin with some assumptions about the
commonalities shared with the other speaker. During the conversation, they continue to establish
commonalities to gain understanding (Clark, 1996).
Clark (1996) offered a similar sociocultural lens through which communication is
established. According to him, communication is the establishing of common ground between
two speakers. He viewed speakers as members of a community and held that their established
identity and position in the community, previous practice, and perceptions of the community
shape their practice with one another (Clark, 1996). Through conversation, members gain new
understanding of each other’s identity and one another, which is what sociocultural theory
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 64

identifies as learning. Moreover, Clark (1996) discussed the effects of culture on coordinating
conversation; as a culture shifts in practice, lexical conventions reflect the changes. Thus,
language is a social practice. This continuous shift is also representative of the section on
“Interplay and Reciprocity” above, where language continues to build and grow with its
members as it is used and shaped, back and forth.
Gutierrez et al. (1999) viewed the ideas of feedback and language as coordination
through yet another lens. They used their previous ethnographic data of literacy practices in a
dual language immersion elementary classroom to discuss third spaces. Third spaces are
moments in a classroom that may seem peripheral but can be taken advantage of as learning
experiences. Gutierrez et al. (1999) provided several examples from their classroom data where
students would say things that could be turned into a lesson, using new language and learning
more about different levels of the sociocultural context. For example, students added words like
“sharing” or “tadpole” to the conversation. Another conversation turned into a new topic where
the teacher took advantage of the students’ spontaneous interest and created a new lesson
(Gutierrez et al., 1999). These teaching/learning opportunities are student-initiated, just like in
play, which will be discussed in a later section, and make the motivation inherent on behalf of
the child. These third spaces provide opportunities to teach children how to act in different
sociocultural contexts and expand their use of language. This includes the learning of other
language skills such as pragmatics, beyond skills like phonetics and syntax. These third spaces
with children, whether at home or in the classroom, can be turned into greater learning
experiences by caregivers (Gutierrez et al., 1999).
Gutierrez et al. (1999) looked at the classroom context as an activity system. An activity
system is the “norms, values, division of labor, the goals of a community, and its participants'
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 65

enduring dispositions toward the social practice.” In a multicultural context, various activity
systems exist simultaneously, in hybridity (Gutiérrez et al., 1999). It is the MKO’s responsibility
when working with young children to reconcile these differences. For example, an Armenian
HL speaker may have a transcultural identity, where s/he is Armenian, living in the U.S., with a
family immigration history from Lebanon. As a result, s/he may identify with more than one
culture or language. These are points of negotiation that should be reconciled.
It is worth briefly noting a language development theory that is relevant here: social
interactionist theory. Social interactionist theory is rooted in Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural
theory, including MKOs and the ZPD. Language is deemed a social process that is learned by
communicating with others, and this communication is crucial to language development.
Through this perspective, simply receiving language input is not sufficient for language learning.
Language input is an important way for MKOs to influence the process but children must also
participate in the exchanges (Bailey & Osipova, 2016; Hoff, 2014). The tenets of social
interactionist theory are in line with the sociocultural theory literature reviewed here as well as
the other components presented in the “Language Through Social Interaction” section.
Tools. Tools are mediators between two actors in a given context. They are socially
constructed and include a broad range of things, both abstract and concrete, such as words and
books. MKOs use these tools to interact with children and teach them to become members of a
community. Language is one such cultural tool (Gutierrez et al., 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Vygotsky, 1978).
John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) provided an overview of sociocultural theory and
methodology and how they relate it to teaching. A major tenet of sociocultural theory is that
teaching is not something that only happens in the classroom. Their study focused on teaching in
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 66

early childhood and the importance of caregivers for development. Caregivers used tools to co-
construct knowledge with their child. John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) called this semiotic
mediation through the use of cultural tools. Cultural tools include language, texts, technology,
rules that govern a society, and so much more. These tools are products of sociocultural
evolution. They were created, molded, and evolved over time as a product of their sociocultural
context. Caregivers are the mediums through which children come to know these tools, as they
progress towards becoming full participants in a community. This learning is a continuous
process of development, it is not something that culminates in one final product (Clark, 1996;
Gutierrez et al., 1999; John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Packer & Goicoechea, 2000).
Adults use the existing environment to help children communicate, and then modify their
scaffolds accordingly as children learn. The availability of resources, both human and physical,
affects this process. In the educational context, Tharp and Gallimore (1991) pointed out that
these natural language learning opportunities are important for schools and discussed the
potential discrepancies of exposure for minority languages. This can also apply to the limited
use of a HL when compared to a dominant language. These discrepancies can exist across
cultures and SES and across languages (Paez & Hunter, 2015). Formal and informal variants of
a language are valuable because they work in conjunction to support skills in the language
overall. This is important to consider in the case of HL, especially if there is heavier reliance on
one form over the other, such as an informal variant at home or formal variant through a
language program. The larger social context affects what variant(s) of the language are used by
actors, which highlights the importance of having culturally relevant tools for language learning
that are shaped by the given sociocultural context and connect across contexts where the HL is
learned.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 67

Another example of a cultural tool is literature because it is authored by a member of a
community and representative of a particular community. Heath (1982) defined literacy events
as the opportunities from which we learn ways of behaving in a community through literature.
The literature is a product of a specific culture and, thus, teaches about that specific culture.
Even our practices in interacting with literature, taking meaning, listening, talking about them,
are shaped by cultural practices. Heath (1982) looked at language use around book-reading in
three literate communities in the U.S.. The study reemphasized the role of sociocultural contexts
and that cultural tools are representations of those contexts. When interacting with books, both
in oral and written form, MKOs model ways that children should behave and learn. It is worth
asking how the cultural tools surrounding acquisition and maintenance of Armenian as a HL are
different and how this affects the available supports.
A child reading a book is interacting with the author as an MKO and is learning language
as well as information about the norms and rules of a community (Gutierrez et al., 1999). For
this reason, it is important that context be considered when specific toys and books are used as
materials for language learning. Mismatched cultural tools may seem too distant to the life of a
HL speaker or are better suited for understanding different contexts. Given the pluricentric
migration history of Armenians, and the established diaspora that exists alongside the Armenian
Republic, there are multiple layers of sociocultural contexts to understand and reconcile in
creating tools to support learning Armenian as a HL.
Overall, learning is participation in practice that is reciprocal and continuous, and shaped
by actors. Language is a tool that is used to coordinate these ongoing interactions between
actors. Social interactions are the mediators through which children can become full members of
a community and learn to speak a language.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 68

Language Socialization
Language socialization applies a linguistic lens to language learning and socialization and
overlaps with sociocultural theory (Duff, 2007). It is particularly distinct from sociocultural
theory because it focuses on the function of learning language whereas sociocultural theory looks
at all types of learning from a broader angle. The focus of language socialization on language
learning allows for deeper exploration and understanding of specific speech practices and their
implications for speakers’ socialization. Language socialization views language learning as a
process of socializing actors as they gain competence and move closer to expertise in a
community of practice. Further, the actors using language shape the language as they develop.
Therefore, the socialization process is reciprocal and ongoing between the language and the
actors throughout one’s life (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011; Schieffelin &
Ochs, 1986). In language interactions, there is a particular target group that frames and directs
socialization (Duff, 2007). Therefore, it is important to consider who the target group is and
what makes it unique. For the population of this study, that will be covered in the next section
titled “The Armenian-American Parent.” It is also important to understanding the specific
practices that guide the socialization process, which will be covered in the rest of this section on
language socialization.
Before delving deeper into the language socialization research, it is worthwhile to briefly
address the broader context of child socialization. Child socialization centers on how children
are socialized to fit appropriately into the norms and expectations of their context. Maccoby
(1994) traced historical shifts of the research on child socialization. Child socialization research
focuses on the parent and home as a major arena for socialization, though also acknowledging
that children are socialized through a variety of other actors and settings. Child socialization
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 69

research used to view parent socialization as largely unidirectional, with most or all of the
influence coming from the parent. Overtime, the unidirectional focus has changed to take a
bidirectional and reciprocal perspective. The emphasis has shifted to the relationship between
parent and child as each actor fluctuates between influencer and influence in an exchange, both
contributing to the interaction and socialization process. While the interaction is reciprocal, the
level of influence is weighted towards the more expert other and gradually balances as the novice
gains competence towards expertise (Maccoby, 1994). This idea is also represented in
Vygotsky’s concepts of MKOs and the ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). It is also a major component of
the language socialization framework (Duff, 2007; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). Last, Maccoby
(1994) discussed that socialization occurs through every stage of life as a continuous process.
Child socialization is yet another framework that reinforces my study’s focus on the role of the
parent in HL acquisition and maintenance. Now, I turn to the narrower lens of language
socialization which is most relevant to this study because of its specific focus on language as a
socializing agent.
Language socialization views language learning and socialization as interdependent.
Speech events transfer information to individuals about how to be in a given context.
Simultaneously, the individuals shape that information and one another. This is a continuous
process that occurs across the lifespan (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011;
Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). In an interaction, interlocuters exchange information that is shaped
by several variables such as identity, activity, affect or emotion, and so on. In most interactions,
there is social asymmetry between interlocuters and their prior experiences. Consequently, when
more expert interlocuters, adults, interact with novices, children, the interaction is more heavily
influenced by the parent. Experts use semiotic resources such as language to orient individuals
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 70

towards a specific understanding of the social world. As children gain knowledge, they
increasingly influence the interaction, similar to the “Interplay and Reciprocity” discussed
previously in the “Sociocultural Theory” section (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). Vygotsky referred
to this as the MKO (1978). In language interactions, parents are teaching children about social
expectations whether or not they are doing so intentionally. Repeated participation in these
interactions socializes children to fit appropriately into a particular social context or community.
This is similar to sociocultural theory, though it focuses on language as the socializing medium
(Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986).
In their first paper addressing language socialization, Ochs and Schieffelin (1984) drew
attention to the differences across cultures and societies between caregiver practices by looking
at three cultures: White middle class, Kaluli (Papua New Guinea), and Western Samoan. They
highlighted that the ways children are exposed to language is not universal across cultures. The
differences in how children are exposed to language are indicative of and promote a specific set
of social values and beliefs. This was their foundation for language socialization because it
showed that language learning was interdependent with socialization (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984).
In their 1986 paper, Schieffelin & Ochs represented a clearer conceptualization of
language socialization, outlining specific ways through which language is a socializing force.
The field of language socialization studies particular aspects of language exchanges to
understand how they socialize individuals (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). For example, power
dynamics are communicated to children depending on how often they are addressed by adults
and for what topics. Some children may never be addressed directly when they are young and
others may be the center of all familial interaction when they are present. Other examples of
language that have been studied as socialization are baby talk, turn-taking, how feelings are
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 71

discussed (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), and how meaning is taken from written forms of a
language (Heath, 1982). Heath’s (1982) work was discussed earlier in the “Tools” subsection of
the larger “Sociocultural Theory” section and looked at the ways families from different cultures
read bedtime stories and the implications for socialization of children.
Blum-Kulka (2008) looked at literature about another context where language
socialization is highly observable, dinnertime. She synthesized literature regarding language
socialization and family dinnertime discourse. In Western societies, dinnertime is considered a
speech event where socialization takes places, whether overtly or covertly. Dynamics that can be
observed during dinnertime discourse are social roles and power dynamics, social rules for
speaking, ways in which knowledge and morality are discussed, the varieties of language used,
and genres of conversation. Dinnertime discourse is just one setting to observe language
socialization and is heavily shaped by the given culture and context (Blum-Kulka, 2008).
A specific area of language socialization that can be relevant to HL is affect socialization
and the role of indexicality. HL is a language that is connected to one’s identity (Montrul, 2010;
Polinksy & Kagan, 2007) and language socialization views language learning and socialization
as symbiotic (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986).
Indexicality is the use of implicit and explicit markers in language that point to specific traits,
dispositions, and so on. These markers can be used in isolation or as a set. For example,
speaking in a softer tone may indicate one’s gender is female. Another example can be the use
of higher pitch and/or repetition which can indicate that the interlocuter is speaking to a young
child. There are also markers of indexicality that are more overt, such as the consistent use of
positive/negative words when talking about something (Ochs, 1990). In Moore’s (2020) work,
as one part of a longitudinal study, she conducted discourse analysis of a Russian HL teacher’s
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 72

speech surrounding affect socialization of Christian Orthodox values. The transcript analysis
also included frame grabs of facial expressions and pitch tracking. A specific example from
Moore’s (2020) analysis, demonstrates the tools the Russian HL teacher used for language
socialization. While reviewing a religious story in the classroom and asking students questions,
the teacher used positive indexicality when talking about clergymen. She used the words
“beautifully dressed” as well as a whispering voice, awe-like inhaling, and vowel lengthening. In
contrast, when correcting a child’s response about the “devil,” the teacher instead used a laughing
voice and stretched specific vowels for emphasis, indexing negative affect toward the devil
(Moore, 2020). Affect socialization and indexicality are seemingly boundless, and language
socialization is continuous throughout one’s life. It has great potential to impact HL learners.
For example, instilling a sense of responsibility and/or pride in HL learners for their heritage
may encourage them to identify with their culture and learn their HL. On the other hand, a
constant negative experience in a language program may make the HL feel dreadful and
discourage the HL learner. Understanding and capitalizing on these aspects of language learning
can be critical for generational transmission of a HL.
Work conducted by He (2008, 2011) explicitly addressed the relationship between
language socialization and HL. Language socialization is the process of becoming socially
competent through language and HL proficiency is also the learning of a set of norms, a culture
as well as a language (He, 2008). Learning HL is a social process through many perspectives.
HL speakers are often caught between two identities, what He calls blended or blurred identities.
The messages novices hear in the HL as well as the ways the HL is used affect how it is
perceived and are part of a socialization process (He, 2008). HL is learned in formal and
informal contexts and is positioned against the dominant language (He, 2008, 2011). This
affects socialization of the HL. For example, only being exposed to one’s HL in the home may
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 73

communicate that it lacks importance in areas outside of the home such as work and school.
Socialization of HL encompasses countless domains. Many of these domains are addressed and
expanded on throughout this literature review. He (2011) creates a long list that is worth noting
here. Variables that are commonly involved in HL socialization include the role of school
systems, institutions, historical experiences, language ideologies, proficiency assessments,
literacy development, social prestige, number of speakers, affinity to native country, positioning
in the community, family bonds, discourse and interactional practices, use in informal settings,
technology, and popular culture (He, 2011).
Morris and Jones (2008) provided an overview of language socialization and its relevance
to minority languages in European populations. The aim of their paper was to show that
language socialization could be a valuable framework for language research in Europe. Their
paper reviewed relevant literature and the results of a European survey. The most relevant piece
of their paper was their review of a study they conducted in 2005 and the connections they made
from that study to other European language literature (Morris & Jones, 2008). For my study,
their paper is a helpful synthesis of literature that applies language socialization to minority
language maintenance and identifies markers for language socialization that can be used in data
collection. Morris and Jones’ (2005) study looked at 12 families that had children between the
ages of zero and two, consisting of one parent who spoke Welsh and another who did not. The
study and literature review found that children were more likely to learn Welsh if they spent
more time with the Welsh-speaking parent. If the mother was the Welsh-speaking parent, then it
was even more likely. Further, the Welsh language was fostered if children spent time with their
Welsh-speaking grandparents. This had a more significant effect when the grandparents were
the Welsh-speaking maternal grandparents, and particularly the maternal grandmother. Another
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 74

factor that affected language development was parental decisions on childcare, including access
to Welsh-speaking caregivers and schools. When older siblings were present, their language
development and use had an effect on the younger siblings (Morris & Jones, 2008). Further,
Morris and Jones (2008) discussed access and exposure to technology, resources, media, and
globalization as variables in language socialization and learning. Last, power relations between
the two parents determined the child(ren)’s learning of Welsh, including their values, perceptions
of language prestige, and experiences in their own upbringing (Morris & Jones, 2008).
Moore’s (2014) work used the language socialization framework to conduct research on
Russian as a HL. In one work that was part of a larger longitudinal study, she analyzed discourse
from video- and audio-recordings in a Russian HL classroom. The discourse analyzed in that
work was specific to teachers’ socializing students on how to speak to their parents through the
HL classroom. Teachers demonstrated hypothetical scenarios of students talking to their parents
that were made relevant to all of the children in the classroom. They modeled the words students
should use as well as pause, pitch, and intonation. Using contrasting examples, they
demonstrated examples that showed acceptable and unacceptable ways of talking to their
parents, teaching specific characteristics such as being humble while disobeying parents. The
use of language allowed for teachers to impact children’s socialization (Moore, 2014). This
work from Moore (2014) demonstrated an almost explicit use of socialization in the HL
classroom. Other examples may be more embedded within the language.
It is also worth noting that Karapetian’s work (2014) covered throughout this literature
review used language socialization as one of its theoretical frameworks. In her work, she
covered the use of the plural form of the personal pronoun “you,” used when addressing
strangers or people of higher status, such as elders. This is a practice that socializes speakers of
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 75

the Armenian language to demonstrate respect for elders while speaking the Armenian language
and is not present in all languages (Karapetian, 2014). Another example of socialization from
the Armenian language is the use of different verbs to describe the death of an animal versus a
person. The verb “սատկել” is used for animals, and “մահանալ” is used for people, to indicate
a difference between the value of the life lost, placing the human life at higher value. In the HL
classroom, implicit and explicit indexicality socialize HL learners as they learn the language.
Language socialization is a linguistic lens, looking at the components of sociocultural
theory that were previously discussed from a different angle (Duff, 2007). Language and
socialization are interdependent and actors continuously shape this process (Ochs & Schieffelin,
2011). The largest contribution of language socialization to this dissertation is for data collection
and analysis. The next section turns to the research on the language input and the many domains
of language that it affects in acquisition and maintenance.
Language Input
Learning in early childhood is characterized by interactions between parent and child.
The focus of this dissertation is language learning, therefore, here I focus on the most significant
way that parents affect language learning through their interactions, language input. Language
input is the speech children hear or are exposed to (Hoff, 2014). It is the language that one hears
from speakers and different media. It is also the texts that one is exposed to. It can be anything
from overhearing a phone conversation on the street to having a direct conversation with
someone. It can be seeing a billboard with text when in the car or reading a novel. All of these
forms of language are inputs and they have significant effects for oral language development,
and consequently are the foundation for literacy development.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 76

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the extensive effects that language exposure
can have on language development. Through the literature, I looked at language input and its
far-reaching effects, reciprocal relationship between caregiver and child, and use through
different mediums. It should be noted that there is significantly more research available on
monolinguals and many of the studies discussed in this section are about English language
development. This literature is still important, despite the focus on language development for
monolinguals, because many of the same patterns can be extrapolated, albeit in slightly different
ways, for children learning a HL as well as the dominant language of their host country.
Significance in language development. There is vast literary coverage on the effects of
language input in early childhood, beginning prenatally and extending to and beyond schooling
age. The literature explores many facets of language, including gesturing, phonetic recognition,
vocabulary, and pragmatics. They all demonstrate the magnitude of the role of language input
on language development.
Beginning prenatally, children develop a preference for specific languages depending on
their mother’s use of language(s). Gervain (2015) presented literature on prenatal language
experiences and their effect on language acquisition. The research she reported shows that, at
birth, infants have a neural preference for their mother’s voice and native language, and their
sound productions mimic the prosody of that native language. Bilingual children show neural
preference for both languages. This is important because it shows neural specialization for
language and the effects of language input even before birth (Gervain, 2015).
In later generations, HL speakers typically switch to English as their dominant language
(Tse, 2001; Valdés, 2001). This means that pregnant mothers who are also heritage speakers
from later generations are more likely to expose their child(ren) to more English or only English,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 77

prenatally. In such cases, children may be born with neural specialization to decipher the
English language over the HL. There is certainly opportunity for language learning through
exposure to the HL postnatally as well as potential for intervention (Kuhl, Tsao, & Liu, 2003).
Nevertheless, language input has effects prenatally and so has implications for families who want
their child(ren) to learn a HL but are dominant in another language that they speak throughout
their pregnancy.
In another study, Kuhl et al. (2003) looked at phonetic ability in infants. When children
are born, they have the potential to learn the phonetics of all global languages (Kuhl et al., 2003).
As time progresses, and infants are exposed to the particular language(s) in their environment,
they continue to develop the select language(s) and lose the phonetic ability for others. Kuhl et
al. (2003) conducted a two-part quasiexperiment looking at the learning of foreign-language
phonetics in infancy. With their first experiment, Kuhl et al. (2003) used an intervention to
prevent the attrition of infants’ phonetic ability to learn a foreign language. In their second
experiment, they tested the effects of this learning through audio and visual components, in
contrast to the live social interaction in Experiment 1. The second experiment in this study is
applicable to the section on various mediums for language input and will be reviewed there
(Kuhl et al., 2003).
In Experiment 1, the sample consisted of 32 full-term infants, averaging 9-months of age.
Infant participants were from monolingual English homes. They were separated into two groups:
Mandarin as the exposure group and English as the control group. 12 sessions were held over
the course of four weeks, each lasting 25-minutes. Over the course of the sessions, infants
interacted with four alternating native speakers in the assigned language to ensure exposure to a
variety of the language. The native speakers read books for 10 minutes and played with toys for
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 78

15 minutes. Native speakers interacted with children using intonation typical for that age,
motherese. The sessions were controlled for sound, eye-contact, and distance from speakers.
Mothers were present but did not interact with their children. Infants then went through a head-
turn test, which is commonly used in testing infant-speech perception. They were first
conditioned to turn their heads when they heard a phonetic change, then they were tested (Kuhl
et al., 2003).
In Experiment 1, Kuhl et al. (2003) found that the Mandarin intervention was effective.
The English control group showed declined foreign language speech perception, as the
researchers said was typical of 9-month-olds, but the Mandarin intervention group showed better
perception than that of the control group. Live exposure to Mandarin reversed the decline of
foreign language speech perception in 9-month old infants. This supports that short-term
intervention can prevent foreign-language perception attrition in infants. One strength of this
study is that it extensively outlined procedures used at each step of the research to control for
bias (Kuhl et al., 2003).
Another study that demonstrated the far-reaching effect of language input is a
longitudinal study conducted by Goldin-Meadow et al. (2014), following toddlers into preschool.
Their study extended the effects of language input across socioeconomic statuses and in children
with both typical development or brain injury. Their purpose was to inform language
development across a wide range of environments and learners and, additionally, provide
diagnostic tools and interventions for children with neonatal injury. In this study, Goldin-
Meadow et al. (2014) conducted a four-year longitudinal study, comparing families with children
of either typical development or brain injury. The study included 64 families with typically
developing children. This subset of the sample was made to closely resemble the demographics
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 79

of the local context using 2000 U.S. Census data. The study also included 40 families with
children who had brain injury. Given the smaller population of this group, there were no
exclusions based on demographics. Longitudinal data were collected through videotaped
observations. Each observation lasted for 90 minutes and focused on gestures and speech during
ordinary daily interactions between the child and parents, whether or not other members were
present. Investigators took on the role of overt observers. They conducted 12 total home visits
at four-month intervals with children between 14 and 58 months, roughly one to five years old.
Observations were transcribed and coded for typical language development. Interrater
agreement of codes was checked through random selection of segments and was above 88%
(Goldin-Meadow et al., 2014).
The findings of this study begin at language input in the form of gesturing and connect it
to later language skills. Goldin-Meadow et al. (2014) found that early gesture use predicted later
language use for both groups of children. Early gesture during spontaneous parent-child
interactions predicted later vocabulary whereas producing gesture combined with speech did not.
This could mean that early gestures predicted a specific skill, like vocabulary development.
Next, quantity of parent speech varied by socioeconomic status whereas quality of input did not.
Quality of input used a measure developed by other researchers, where the easier a word was to
guess in an environment, the more likely children were to learn it; higher chance of learning
meant higher quality. Quantity and quality of input were predictors for later language. Third,
amount of parent input was a predictor for vocabulary development in both groups of children.
For syntax, it was a stronger predictor for children with brain injury. Last, parent speech about
numerical and spatial relationships, and abstract relationships like similarity, predicted later
domain-specific language and skills. This study took the effects of language input beyond just
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 80

the domain of language ability to cognitive ability and considered atypical development (Goldin-
Meadow et al., 2014).
Dickinson and Porche (2011) also demonstrated the effects of language input
longitudinally, beginning in preschool and extending into formal schooling. Children’s early
oral language development affects their development of later literacy skills; it is the foundation
for reading and writing skills to be learned later in formal schooling. Indicators of quality input
are adults who are tuned in and responsive, extending child-initiated topics. These
characteristics increase the quantity and quality of speech produced. Thus, Dickinson and
Porche (2011) designed a longitudinal study to examine these elements in a preschool classroom.
They hypothesized that the quantity and content of preschool teachers’ language interactions
with children would predict language skills in kindergarten, and consequently those skills would
predict language skills in fourth grade (Dickinson & Porche, 2011).
The original preschool sample consisted of 83 low-income children from 65 preschools.
The preschools were either Head Start schools or private schools that children attended with
vouchers. By the end of the longitudinal study, the kindergarten sample had 74 children
remaining and the fourth-grade sample had 57 children remaining. The initial classroom settings
and schedules were similar. Classroom observations and teacher interviews were collected as
part of other studies and used in this study. For this study, audio-recordings were collected from
each child participant in different settings. They were then transcribed and coded for specific
types of speech (Dickinson & Porche, 2011).
In their findings, Dickinson and Porche (2011) found specific relationships between
preschool, kindergarten, and fourth grade. Teachers’ use of sophisticated vocabulary during free
play and attempts to get and maintain attention were related to fourth grade English language
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 81

comprehension. Preschool teachers’ corrections and analytic talk during book reading were
related to fourth-grade vocabulary. Also, children’s mean length of utterance (MLU) at age 3
had a direct effect on fourth grade vocabulary. Children’s MLU was likely a result of the home
environment prior to entering preschool, reinforcing the importance of language input from
caregivers. This study is valuable because of the specific and longitudinal effects it connects
from preschool to fourth grade. It emphasizes the importance of oral language skills and input in
early childhood even before school starts, and how they affect development of later, more
complex, language skills. The study is limited because of its potential for selection bias, a small
sample size, and data collected 20 years prior (Dickinson & Porche, 2011).
The studies reviewed here provide an overall picture of the literature on language input.
They demonstrate the impact of language input for unborn children to fourth grade, across
socioeconomic statuses, different courses of development, domains of language, and domains
beyond language. Language input at the earliest developmental stages is instrumental in
language development and therefore undoubtedly has implications for HL development.
Reciprocity. Language input is a key component of social interaction and, arguably, the
largest contributor to language development. Just like social interaction, it is reciprocal.
Parents’ input affects children’s output and vice versa. Language input is how parents expose
their child(ren) to language and socialize them to learn the mechanics and ways of being a
member of a language context. Then, as children learn to speak, they begin to affect the
interactions and this continues back and forth as they establish and reestablish common ground
(Clark, 1996).
In the previously mentioned study, Goldin-Meadow et al. (2014) presented a finding that
confirmed this reciprocal relationship to be true for children with typical development and brain
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 82

injury. This study extended language input to encompass gesture and examined the content of
the language to extend its effects beyond language, to other domains. For the domain of
vocabulary, parent speech predicted child speech and child speech predicted parent speech.
Overall, the findings confirmed that variability in parent input was associated with variability in
child output (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2014).
Vigil, Hodges, and Klee (2005) conducted a comparative study of children with typical
and delayed language development. The study looked specifically at parent interactions with
children and whether or not they adjusted their language input based on children’s language
ability. Their review of prior research did not find a consensus. Therefore, the purpose of the
study was to compare parent input in naturalistic settings between children with typical language
development and children with delayed language development. The sample was made of up 64
children and their parents. The majority of the sample had a socioeconomic status in the middle
class. Most of the parents held a high school diploma or higher, were married, and English was
the dominant language in the home. In 96% of the parent-child dyads observed, the parent was
the mother. All parent-child dyads were provided a room with the same toys and told to interact
as they would while playing at home. They were videotaped for 20 minutes. Conversations
were coded and checked for interobserver agreement, which was deemed adequate on Cohen’s
kappa measure (Vigil et al., 2005).
Overall, Vigil et al. (2005) found that the quantity of parental language input was similar
in both groups but not the type. Both groups of parents produced similar quantities of language,
both in the number of utterances and the MLUs. The differences were that parents of children
with typical development responded more to their children and took more turns with them. Vigil
et al. (2005) interpreted that parents of children with language delay were changing topics
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 83

frequently and not holding conversation that was child-initiated. In contrast, parents of typically
developing children were more likely to stick to the child-initiated topic and expand on it, which
may in turn indicate higher child interest. The design of this study does not allow for a causal
conclusion but does provide evidence that points in a certain direction. Children’s output
affected parent input and, based on the other research reviewed, has implications for language
development. While language delay as examined in this study is not the same as limited language
proficiency, which is the focus of my study, Vigil et al.’s (2005) finding that there is limited and
elementary language being produced by children with language delay is similar to the experience
of many HL speakers. This study points to the potential that both types of situations can affect
parent responses similarly and ultimately affect language development (Vigil et al., 2005).
In another study, Kelly and Bailey (2013) conducted a longitudinal study examining
mother-child dyads engaging in co-constructed narratives, storytelling. They looked at how
children’s participation in narrative co-construction changed over time, how maternal scaffolding
influenced children’s participation, and how these affected children’s overall participation. The
study consisted of 31 mother-child dyads, examined at the ages of 3, 4, and 5 and was a subset of
the Harvard Home-School Study of Language and Literacy conducted by Snow, Tabors,
Nicholson, and Kurland in 1995. Participants were visited at home where mothers were asked to
elicit conversation. At ages 3 and 4, topics were about any specific past events. At age 5, they
were about a scary past event to generate greater interest from the child. Difference between
story types was tested and had no significant effects. Data were coded at three levels. Beginning
at the maternal scaffold, first the presence of the child’s response was coded, then the type of that
response as imitative, contingent, or noncontingent on the mother’s scaffold. At the third and
last level, Kelly and Bailey (2013) coded the content of the child’s response in one of four
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 84

categories. Coding considered whether children talked about information related to the story, an
action in the story, shared their opinion, or gave a yes/no response (Kelly & Bailey, 2013).
This study demonstrated that the type of prompt used by MKOs in conversation with
children is important for language development. Overall, the contingency of children’s replies
was dependent on increased age and type of maternal scaffold; children provided better
responses when mothers used questions and prompts about events rather than giving their own
narrative contributions, and prompts were more successful at eliciting elaborative responses
rather than yes/no responses. This demonstrates the importance of the type of input for language
development and its role in shaping the interaction between parents and child(ren) to foster
language. Direct requests for details elicited more substantive responses from younger children
whereas event prompts were better for storytelling with older children. Last, when children gave
noncontingent replies, meaning they answered the maternal scaffold with something off-topic,
mothers responded in one of two ways, either returning to the original prompt or continuing the
new topic (Kelly & Bailey, 2013). Kelly and Bailey (2013) highlighted that narrative co-
construction is dependent on children’s existing ability, both in contributing to the conversation
and their understanding of pragmatics. This study was limited in its small sample size and used
data collected in the 1980s, which may not be indicative of current times (Kelly & Bailey, 2013).
Language input is dependent on the actors taking part in the social exchange. As parents
socialize children, their children grow to become members of their sociocultural environment
and increasingly contribute to that social interaction. As a result, parents and child(ren) shape
each other and their language development. Research demonstrating the reciprocity of parent-
child input demonstrates the overlaps between language, sociocultural theory, and language
socialization.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 85

Various mediums. The mediums used in social interaction shape that exchange and,
thus, language development. As previously discussed, cultural tools are representative of
sociocultural aspects of a community and their role in shaping interaction is represented in
literature. The use of specific mediums, such as toys, books, and technology, have implications
for language input.
Kuhl et al. (2003) conducted a two-part quasiexperiment. In Experiment 1, detailed
above, they found that an intervention using an in-person native speaker of Mandarin was able to
reverse the attrition of infants’ phonetic ability. In their second experiment, Kuhl et al. (2003)
looked at the role of live social interaction using the findings from Experiment 1 and compared
them with audio-only and audiovisual conditions. The infants were divided into two groups
where they were exposed to Mandarin. One group was exposed to Mandarin through only audio
and the other through audio and visual. In the audiovisual group, many aspects of the quality
and interaction were controlled. Videos and sound were professionally produced at high quality,
lighting was controlled, and they were filmed from the infants’ perspective. The goal was to
provide the optimal environment for infants to pay attention to and interact with the video. The
same head-turn testing procedure from Experiment 1 was used in Experiment 2, where infants
were conditioned to turn their heads when they heard a phonetic change before testing. Much of
the study design and methods were identical to Experiment 1. The sample consisted of a
different set of 32 infants, averaging 9-months of age (Kuhl et al., 2003).
Experiment 2 found that neither group using recorded media showed phonetic learning,
whereas the group in Experiment 1 with a live person did. While the audiovisual group in
Experiment 2 paid significantly more attention to the video than the audio-only group, this did
not produce more phonetic learning. The results of this study imply that, while audiovisual
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 86

exposure may help vocabulary development, it does not help in the learning of a more complex
component of language such as phonetics, at least at that developmental stage. The role of a live
person is critical. In fostering language development in early childhood, the presence of a live
person can be combined with research-based practices to bring about better language learning
(Kuhl et al., 2003).
Another study conducted by Sosa (2016) looked at the effects of different types of toys as
mediums for language development during parent-child play interactions. Participants were
volunteers, recruited through fliers posted in places that parents and children typically go. The
study did not detail the types of places. The sample consisted of 26 pairs of parents and infants.
Infants were between 10 and 16 months. Parents were given a log, audio recording device, and
three toy sets to take home. The toy sets included traditional toys, books, and electronic toys.
Over a three-day period, parents played with each toy set twice, for 15 minutes each time. The
toy sets were intentionally selected for their potential to elicit speech. The play sessions were
transcribed and coded by the researchers (Sosa, 2016).
The study found that books were the most valuable elicitor of parent language input, both
in quantity and quality, followed by traditional toys. In comparison, play with electronic toys
decreased quality and quantity of language input. Sosa’s (2016) findings combined with the
other literature reviewed allow for the assertion that the specific medium used to interact with
children, type of toy, has implications for language input and consequently output.
Weisberg et al. (2013) posited that there is value in looking at language input specifically
during play and its effects on children’s language development. They reviewed literature on
play and language, though they did not specify their selection criteria. In play, adults use more
language because they are attentive and sensitive to children, and children produce language
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 87

higher in quantity and complexity. Furthermore, the type of toy elicits domain-specific
vocabulary (Weisberg et al., 2013). For example, playing with a pretend grocery store set may
elicit conversation about food and money, whereas a fire truck would elicit conversation about
first responders and transportation. Play and toys foster input that can contribute to more
advanced language development.
Another study by Szecsi and Szilagyi (2012) conducted an autoethnography using open-
ended interviews with their own families. This is the only study in this section to directly
address HL. The purpose of the study was to explore parent and family perceptions of media
technologies in their children’s development and maintenance of Hungarian as a HL,
relationships with relatives, and identity (Szecsi & Szilagyi, 2012).
Both authors were first-generation immigrant parents, having arrived to the U.S. 11 years
before conducting the interviews. They had PhDs in education and were professors in the field.
Both had two children, with whom they visited Hungary every summer, and had relatives that
visited them in the U.S. every year for weeks at a time. The first author and her husband were
both Hungarian and spoke only Hungarian with their children at home. The second author was
Hungarian and her husband was American. In the home, she spoke to her children solely in
Hungarian and her husband to them only in English. Her husband was supportive of their
children’s maintenance of their HL and culture. Data were collected through interviews with
family members, consisting of both sets of parents, three of the four children who were old
enough, and three grandparents. All interviews were conducted in Hungarian, except for the one
with the monolingual English-speaking father. The interviews were transcribed, translated, and
coded (Szecsi & Szilagyi, 2012).
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 88

Szecsi and Szilagyi (2012) found that media technologies positively affected their
children’s language ability in the HL but stressed the importance of their active role as parents.
They were careful and deliberate in the resources they picked and creative in their interactions
with them. Some of the ways they used the resources were video chats with family members
overseas where the relative would sing children’s songs paired with gestures, use folktales to
read and discuss lessons, online games, social media to chat with friends from the home country,
and so on. They found that the media technologies helped foster language ability and biliteracy,
and their children’s understanding of their heritage history and cultural norms (Szecsi &
Szilagyi, 2012). This is different from the studies above because it had a smaller sample, was
self-reported, and observed language growth at an older age. The studies reviewed previously
about the role of language input and technology had larger samples, experimental designs, and
were with younger children. Next, I consider the limitations and strengths of this study.
While media technology supported language development in this study, it is important to
note its many limitations. This study had a small sample and potential for bias because it was
authored by the mothers of the two families (Szecsi & Szilagyi, 2012). Their expertise
undoubtedly affected their parenting and language practices with their children. Language
development was affected by additional factors other than technology, such as regular summer
visits to the home country, academic language input in the HL from the parents, and determined
efforts to avoid code-switching (Szecsi & Szilagyi, 2012). Another significant factor in this
study was the children’s generational status. HL attrition is less common in generations with
closer proximity to the family’s arrival in the host country (Rumbaut et al., 2006). This study is
insightful but not representative of a variety of HL speakers.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 89

Despite the limitations, however, Szecsi and Szilagyi’s (2012) study also had strengths
that contribute to the present study. It supports the assertion that technology is a helpful
complement in supporting a HL with children, but not as the only method/medium. It is one of
the few studies found addressing many components of the present study, including HL, language
input, and technology. The overall idea and design, combined with other research, add to the
present study but are approached with caution given the limitations.
The implications of language input for early language development are prevalent and
supported by the literature. Language input affects many domains of language development and
begins as early as prenatally. Children are born with neural preferences for their mother’s
dominant language(s) and markers of child language development indicate language skills into
adulthood. The relationship between caregiver input and child output is reciprocal in many
regards; the child’s speech productions are contingent on the language input available to them
and the child’s speech and ability affect adults’ input. Last, the specific mediums used to
facilitate language interactions with children affect the amount and type of input. Use of
technology to foster language learning in early childhood does not have effects as strong as
resources that foster more social interaction between parents and children. However, if used
intentionally, and especially with older children, technology can help foster some language
development goals. Though most of the studies reviewed here are about monolingual language
development, language input is relevant to all language acquisition and therefore these studies
are relevant.
Play and Language
Thus far, I have discussed sociocultural learning, language socialization, and language
input as critical components of interactions in early childhood. One of the most common ways
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 90

to interact with children is through play. Accordingly, play research supports the important role
that play has for children’s learning. Through the lens of sociocultural theory, all interactions
can affect learning and play is one common type of interaction in early childhood. Early
childhood is also characterized by rapid language development. During this period, children
typically spend most of their time under the care of adults, either at home or in a preschool
setting, and engaging in play. The previous section reviewed how language input is critical to
language development. Play can affect that input and promote language development.
Language is inherent in play. Therefore, if caregivers can be intentional about their language use
during play, it can be used as a vehicle to cultivate language in children. This section will review
the role of adults, toys, and books in guiding play to foster language development.
Overall, the literature on play and language use is scarce and outdated. Many sources
approach the topic through different lenses that are not directly about the interaction of play and
language in early childhood. In addition to that, research on the comparison of traditional and
electronic toys was difficult to find. The current toy market and availability of technological
supports for children makes it easy to assume that there would be accessible research on the topic
but that assumption proved to be misleading.
The first source I address on this is a literature review by Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff
(2008). This review first defined play, then asked whether play fosters learning, and if any type
of play is more advantageous. They outlined four types of play: object, pretend, physical/rough-
and-tumble, and guided. In object play, children explore objects to learn about what they are and
their functions. In pretend play, children use their imagination to take on different social roles,
either alone or with others. Physical play involves play that uses the body, like a jumping rope.
Last, guided play is when enjoyable activities are implicitly guided by adults (Hirsh-Pasek &
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 91

Golinkoff, 2008). Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff (2008) also outlined eight general characteristics
of play that are supported by the wider body of literature. Play is enjoyable, intrinsic,
spontaneous, actively engaging, engrossing, often has a private reality, nonliteral, and includes
fantasy (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2008).
In their review, Hirsh-Pasek and Golinkoff (2008) confirmed that play fosters social and
academic development, language, math, self-regulation, and coping. While play is often
devalued as silly and traditional academic learning is prioritized, this review affirmed that play is
important for academic success and career readiness. The source was limited because it was a
brief overview of many studies. It was written in 2008 and claimed that the field for play and
learning was young at the time and still needed more research. Thus, it helps confirm that
literature in the field is lacking (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2008).
In early childhood, children primarily have access to language through oral input because
they cannot read or write yet. Even when interacting with written forms of the language, their
access is through a MKO reading to them. Up until formal schooling begins, the primary source
for children to interact with MKOs is through play, whether the actors are adults or other
children, at home or in preschool. Therefore, Weisberg et al. (2013) reviewed literature on how
play fosters language development. They posited that there is value in looking at language input
specifically during play and its effects on children’s language development.
Play supports language in several ways. First, play fosters symbolic thinking. It is
representational in nature, just as language is. One aspect of language development is learning
that arbitrary sounds match up with objects or ideas. Pretend play is similarly representative in
nature (Vygotsky, 1978; Weisberg et al., 2013). For example, children pretend that a banana is a
telephone or that imaginary fruits are being purchased at a grocery store. Next, play has a
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 92

pretend context that is similar to the learning of pragmatics and audience awareness in language.
Children may partake in roleplay where they are acting like a policeperson or teacher, in which
their tone of voice, actions, and vocabulary is different. Play context also influences vocabulary
development. Children playing with dinosaurs produce different language than those playing
with cars. Play in early childhood allows for opportunities to practice these skills orally, which
then translates to more advanced literacy skills later (Weisberg et al., 2013).
An inherent component of play is that it is social. When interacting with MKOs, children
are exposed to and produce more language and more complex language. When MKOs in play
are adults, rather than other children, more language is used because adults are more attentive
and sensitive to children, which consequently contributes to more advanced language
development (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Dickinson, Griffith, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2012;
Kelly & Bailey, 2013; Sosa, 2016). This reinforces the critical role of the adult in parent-child
social interaction in early childhood to support language learning. Since play is a primary mode
of interaction in childhood, the tenets of sociocultural theory can be used in play to foster
language development.
Another factor inherent in play and language development is motivation. During play,
children are the ones in control, and therefore engaged. The topic of conversation is more likely
to be child-initiated, which is one of the strategies supported by the literature to support language
development in children (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Dickinson et al., 2012; Kelly & Bailey,
2013; Sosa, 2016). Next, I turn to the available literature on toys and books to look at possible
resources to shape parent-child play interactions.
Tools in play. Overall, research on toys is limited. However, the use of toys in play
supports different types of play and the language used. This shapes the sociocultural learning as
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 93

children learn to become members of a community. The differences in language input, as
demonstrated by the research, affect language development. The different types of tools that can
be used in play are traditional toys, books, and electronic toys.
Sosa (2016) conducted an experiment looking at different toys and how they affected
language in parent-child dyads. The study observed 26 pairs of parents and infants between 10
and 16 months. The methods of this study were previously reviewed in the “Language Input”
subsection. The study observed each parent interacting with their infant using three types of
toys: traditional, books, and electronic (Sosa, 2016).
Overall, Sosa (2016) found that the richest context for language was when books were
the medium for play. Books were closely followed by traditional toys. Electronic toys had the
largest discrepancies from the other two toy types, the larger discrepancy being with books.
When playing with electronic toys, parents produced fewer words, took less turns, responded
less, and used less content-specific words than in play with traditional toys or books. Children
also spoke less when compared to play with books. In play with traditional toys, parents said
less overall and content-specific words than with books (Sosa, 2016).
This source provided evidence that social interaction during play is critical for language
development. Further, the more guided option of using books for play fosters a richer
environment for language learning. The medium itself, as well as its specific characteristics
affects language development. Playing with a traditional toy elicits language but needs more
intentional engagement from the MKO than with books (Sosa, 2016). Language support is
inherent in the book itself when parents use books in play. Also, Sosa’s (2016) findings
supported that books are most likely to use strategies that support language. Both traditional toys
and books support content-specific vocabulary. This idea was also addressed in the “Language
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 94

Input” subsection. Play using specific toys elicits similar language. For example, play with
building blocks is likely to elicit the use of more spatial language and play with a doll is more
likely to encourage language related to childcare and nurturing. This study pointed to the
possibility that electronic toys eliminate the interactive aspect of play, one that is critical to
language development. Electronic toys allow parents and children to both take a more passive
role in play, thus be less engaged (Sosa, 2016). Less engagement indicates less intentional
conversation, which then indicates less opportunity to develop language (Dickinson & Porche,
2011; Dickinson et al., 2012; Kelly & Bailey, 2013; Sosa, 2016).
Wooldridge and Shapka (2012) also observed mothers and toddlers playing with
traditional and electronic toys and coded them using the “Parenting Interactions with Children:
Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes,” a checklist for parent-child interactions. The
checklist looks at the four domains of responsiveness, encouragement, teaching, and affection.
The study found that mother-child interactions in the traditional toy conditions scored higher in
responsiveness, teaching, and encouragement. The largest differences between toy conditions
were within the categories of responsiveness and teaching. These findings also support that
electronic toys limit the meaningful interactions between caregivers and child(ren) that can foster
learning, and specifically language learning (Wooldridge & Shapka, 2012).
The themes that come up in the existing literature on toys and language support the
importance of social interaction in learning for children. Toys that promote greater social
interaction bring about characteristics that better foster language learning. Of the tools that can
be used in play and language development, books are prevalent in the literature.
Books. In the literature on play and language, the mention of guided play and books
were prevalent. Books are cultural tools that can and are used to facilitate parent-child
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 95

interaction. Through the literature search, the role of books in language development emerged
and solidified its importance.
Dickinson et al. (2012) reviewed literature linking early language development and later
reading skills, environmental factors that can affect language learning, and parent-child book
reading interventions used primarily in the U.S. and Europe. Dickinson et al. (2012) reviewed
literature to affirm the foundational nature of oral language for literacy development. Each
successive step of language development builds on the next. They outlined the literature into six
principles for language learning that can be employed by adults to foster language, highlighting
how each could be used in book reading. Last, they reviewed international parent-child reading
intervention programs that have been successful (Dickinson et al., 2012). While the current
study is not international, the findings of an international study are still relevant. Further,
because Armenians are a global diaspora and incorporate transcultural histories into their
identity, looking at international programs has potential to more comprehensively address the
population. I will review the six principles set forth by Dickinson et al. (2012) and connect them
to HL.
The first of the six principles is that children need to hear many words, both in variation
and quantity. Parents with higher education typically expose their children to more words, and
more novel words because this indicates a specific level of language development (Dickinson et
al., 2012). HL speaking parents in the U.S., and particularly second and later generations, are
likely to be educated and dominant in English, thus providing more English input both in
variation and quantity (Tse, 2001; Valdés, 2001). Further, based on the availability and
relevance of existing resources, it is more likely that their children will be exposed to English,
even if only implicitly because it is the language of the larger host community. Books in English
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 96

or a HL resource provide a scaffold for parent and child. They may introduce words, grammar,
and contextual language that the parent would not produce regularly but has the ability to
through the guidance of the book. Essentially, this principle shows how a book in the HL can be
an advantageous scaffold for both parent and child.
The second principle is that children learn best when they are interested. In one word,
this refers to motivation. Motivation is inherent in play, or else it would not be considered play
(Dickinson et al., 2012). Books, like toys, can be used to practice joint attention with child(ren)
beginning at infancy (Kelly & Bailey, 2013). The third principle is that children learn better with
attentive adults as guides, which is a concept widely supported in the literature. Book reading in
early childhood needs to be done with a parent. The entire process is learned: holding a book,
opening it, scanning the text, and so on (Heath, 1982; Kelly & Bailey, 2013). The fourth
principle is that words are learned when they are clear. There is research showing that children
learn words with higher imageability (McDonough, Song, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, & Lannon,
2011). Book reading helps make words clear because it has pictures to match with words in the
immediate context, as they are being used. The fifth principle is that vocabulary and grammar
are learned in conjunction. Learning a new word teaches linguistic context, and hearing variety
in linguistic context teaches nuances in the word meaning. The sixth and last principle is to keep
things positive and elaborate on child-initiated language. Book reading, again, provides a setting
for both of these things to take place between parents and children. All of these principles are
relevant to first and second language acquisition, whether it is a HL or not. For HL learning, the
issue then would be access to materials which will be discussed later in this section. Overall,
books provide a supportive medium to engage in language learning between parents and
child(ren) (Dickinson et al., 2012).
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 97

Dickinson et al. (2012) also reviewed specific book distribution programs in Europe and
the U.S. At the most basic level, providing books for families made it more likely that they
would read with their children. Many of these programs also provided tutoring for parents on
how to best engage in book reading with children. Two large-scale studies conducted in the U.S.
with libraries found that any type of training for parents was better than no training, and in-
person training was better than video training. This review made it clear that providing access to
rich books and guidance to parents on reading with children is optimal for language learning.
They provided directions for future research. The most relevant contribution to this study is that
research in this area must be done from the perspective of the population being served, which the
present study intends to do with the researcher and population both being Armenian HL
speakers.
Up until this point, I have discussed parent-child interactions separate of schooling. In
addressing language learning in early childhood, I must also acknowledge schooling age.
Children begin preschool at different times and their early childhood experiences at home and
school affect their future language development and schooling. This study focuses on early
childhood with the goal of providing a strong foundation to extend HL acquisition into
maintenance over time. Therefore, this review looks at some articles that consider play and
language in the classroom, using strategies that can be used both at home and school.
Massey (2013) discussed how teachers could extend book reading to play in an early
childhood classroom to cultivate oral language. This article, while sparse on its explanation of
the study’s design and methods, reaffirmed the importance of oral language development in early
childhood because it is the primary route to language development and to better prepare students
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 98

for academic success for language skills that they will encounter in formal schooling (Massey,
2013).
Massey (2013) reviewed incidental and elaborated exposure to language. Incidental
exposure is through informal contexts where language is present in the child’s environment.
Incidental exposure is more prevalent in English than in HL. Elaborated exposure is
conversation that is deliberate and can be used in book readings. When speaking with children,
adults must strive to maintain an appropriate level of challenge based on the child’s level, just
like the ZPD. Massey (2013) broke the levels of language that can be used into four categories,
moving from concrete and becoming increasingly abstract, contextualized to decontextualized.
Level 1 language is labeling objects that are present and level 2 expands on labeling objects by
describing their characteristics. Level 3 language elicits summary, inference, and judgments
where children used what they know to form associations. Level 4 language extends beyond the
current text, encouraging children to reason, predict, problem solve, and explain. This connects
to Vygotsky’s ZPD, where MKOs can push learning further from the baseline of the student or
less knowledgeable other but should be careful to not push too far past the learner’s ability.
Massey (2013) took book reading and conversation a step further, combining it with toys that
relate to the book. This directly connected reading and play to foster language. Massey (2013)
concluded that there is need for more research on language input and play, again confirming the
lack of literature in this field.
Another article, by Tsao (2008), reviewed how literacy play with adult scaffolding
promotes language development. This article provided more direction to combine reading and
play. Literacy is a social process and combining play with reading can help initiate and optimize
it. Book reading is best when it appeals to children’s interests, is imaginative, and starts young.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 99

In structured play, adults provide guidance for children’s learning. In unstructured play, children
are able to show what they know. Reading, which is structured play, can be paired with
dramatized, sensory, and motor play to maximize language use and exposure. Literacy kits are
sets that provide materials to support learning from a book (Tsao, 2008). Tsao (2008) supported
that these kits should include toys to go along with a book. Adults can support language learning
using tools, toys and books, to elicit conversation, encourage play activities, and model (Tsao,
2008).
Overall, play brings about abundant opportunity to foster language. Tools used in play
have great potential to shape the characteristics of the interaction including the language input,
which then consequently affect learning and language development. The literature supports that
the type of tools used in play and the strategies used with them make a difference in language
learning. Technology is rampant in almost all aspects of 21
st
century life, however the literature
on electronic toys did not provide compelling evidence for their use in play with children to
foster language. I now turn to the larger body of literature on technology and language learning
to address the role of technology.
Technology as a Tool
The rapid growth and prevalence of technology in the 21
st
century makes its place in this
literature review inevitable. Many forms of technology are used in daily life, play, and
education. Technology is used to interact with others and market learning products and toys to
parents and educators. This section looks at the literature available on these resources to support
language learning.
There are several types of technology that can supplement language education but the
literature always returns to the same point, that it is in fact supplemental. Learning technologies
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 100

refer to a vast array of tools. Bateson and Daniels (2012) reviewed the existing technologies for
computer assisted language learning (CALL). Their review covered a broad scope of tools in
CALL, among them online communities, resource sharing, conferencing, collaboration and
resource creation, learning management systems, teaching services, virtual worlds and gaming,
file editing, quiz authoring, self-study materials, and mobile devices and apps. The literature on
these technologies and their role in language development is limited. Further, most do not apply
to early childhood. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge what these technologies are to
have a better understanding of how technology finds its place in language learning.
Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson, and Freynik (2014) conducted a similar review but
applied it to foreign language learning. Soft technology is tools that are put to work by people,
such as paper and pen. Hard technology is when the device itself is doing the work. In current
times, the conversational use of technology refers to hard technologies. Golonka et al. (2014)
looked specifically at the most recent hard technologies and conducted a literature review on
each mode’s efficacy in foreign language learning. Like Bateson and Daniels (2012), this review
looked at a wide variety of tools, including interactive whiteboards, electronic portfolios,
electronic dictionaries, electronic annotating, intelligent tutoring systems, virtual gaming, chat,
social networking, blogs, tablets, iPods, and smartphones. Their review on each hard technology
is not relevant to this study, again because they are all not applicable to early childhood.
However, the overarching themes of this literature are important for this study. The review
found strong support for learning in two of the hard technologies and specific functions of some
of the technologies. The one with potential relevance to this study was that chatting was cause
for learners to produce more speech and more complex speech. This support for chat again
demonstrated the importance of social interaction in language learning, given that chatting
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 101

requires interacting with others. Thus, the authors found that technology used to increase that
interaction has potential to be effective for foreign language learning. Another relevant finding
linked many of the hard technologies, showing that they captured the interest of the learner better
than traditional technologies and learners showed a preference for them. Thus, interest and
motivation are more important than the actual technology. This review’s findings provide two
possible directions for the use of technology for language learning in early childhood;
technology is more likely to be effective if it makes it easier to interact with others in a language
and if it initiates interest. Overall, this review was limited because the research in this field is
limited (Golonka et al., 2014).
Grgurović, Chapelle, and Shelley (2013) conducted a meta-analysis of 37 studies
comparing classrooms that used computer assisted language learning (CALL) and classrooms
that did not. Their meta-analysis found a small positive effect size favoring technology-
supported pedagogy, confirming that CALL is at least as effective as language instruction
without technology.
Jarvis and Krashen (2014) revisited CALL in a short article in 2014, asking whether it is
still relevant in technology today, since its origins in the 1960s. Language is learned more
subconsciously than consciously, and social uses of technology teach language. CALL was
originally developed with a different computer in mind. Since then, technology and the internet
have evolved at an incredible speed. Jarvis and Krashen (2014) concluded that CALL is an
outdated term today and needs to be modified to encompass the growth in technology. This
means that existing literature on CALL is no longer representative of language learning through
technology today. The literature brings up newer terms such as MALL, mobile-assisted
language learning, but the research is not consistent across a larger body of work and is still
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 102

merging. I reviewed this study because it is comprehensive and one of the more thorough pieces
available.
Technology as supplemental. The relevance of this section to the larger study is in the
commonalities across sources. Overall the literature is limited, especially in its application to
early childhood. However, one major idea that connects the literature on technology and
language learning is that its effectiveness depends on how the technology is used, not necessarily
on the technology itself.
Chun, Kern, and Smith (2016) provided an overview of the available literature on
technologies that can be used for language learning. They established the importance of their
review by discussing how technology is unavoidable in life today and there is pressure to use it
in learning. Chun et al. (2016) discussed that there is great variability in technology and each
medium has unique contexts and genres. For example, learning to write an email is different
from writing a blog. In addition to learning the contexts and conventions of communicating
through different mediums of technology, cultural differences add more variation. For example,
interacting in English through email is not the same as in Armenian, because there are different
conventions and abbreviations that are used within each language community. This source
provides a current view on technologies for language learning (Chun et al., 2016). It is important
to reemphasize the inevitability of addressing technology. As Chun et al. (2016) supported,
technology is a part of everyday life and children learn many technologies socially, outside of the
classroom. For example, young children may be exposed to apps at home, which provides
language input. By understanding the variability in technology, one can better understand how it
can support language learning. Therefore, to take advantage of what is already happening,
different forms of technology should be used as a means to specific language goals (Chun et al.,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 103

2016). This source is applicable to all levels of language learning through technology, and in the
home or the classroom.
Szecsi and Szilagyi’s (2012) work, an autoethnography covered in the “Language Input”
subsection, addressed the same point. The authors conducted interviews with each other and
their families to discuss the role of media technologies in supplementing the maintenance of
Hungarian as a HL. They welcomed the use of various forms of technology but made clear in
their own interviews that they were used alongside other strategies and the mediums were used
deliberately based on their expertise with language (Szecsi & Szilagyi, 2012). Two of the
articles mentioned above, by Bateson and Daniels (2012) and Golonka et al. (2014), also
reinforced that technology should not be the goal itself. Rather, the actual pedagogical goals
should guide parents and teachers to pick specific forms of technology.
Social interaction through technology. Language is learned through social interaction
and using technology for language learning is no exception. In the aforementioned meta-analysis
by Golonka et al. (2014), chat was the only medium with strong support for language learning.
As mentioned above, social interaction is inherent in chat. In Sosa (2016), the electronic toys
produced the least support for language learning in children, whereas traditional toys and book
reading, both social, produced greater results. Similarly, sources that provided suggestions for
fostering HL suggested strategies that promoted social interaction in the language.
Cummins (2005) wrote a proposal for action based on research, proposing strategies to
use HL in the mainstream classroom. He provided three main strategies: pointing out
relationships between languages, creating student-authored dual language books, and doing sister
class projects with students who speak other languages (Cummins, 2005). Although his work
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 104

was not specifically about the use of technology, all three of his suggestions have the potential to
be done in collaboration and using multimedia. The third suggestion is a social activity in itself.
Gollan et al. (2015) conducted a two-part experiment, covered in the “Bilingualism”
section, exploring the extent to which frequency of HL use and number of HL speakers
independently influenced HL proficiency. Both of their experiments found that HL development
benefits from exposure to a broad range of speakers (Gollan et al., 2015). While this source is
not suggesting the use of technology directly, it supports the role of social interaction in fostering
HL and so, technological programs can be designed to do so.
Thorne, Black, Sykes (2009) conducted a literature review specifically looking into the
use of L2s in online communities. Their review covered literature about language in fan
communities, online diaspora groups, and multiplayer online and virtual gaming. All of these
contexts were outside of L2 instruction settings and allowed for creative application of the
languages used as well as language socialization. The authors argued that these environments
were important to the L2 classroom because they were real-life social contexts where the
languages were applied. Therefore, they suggested that L2 instruction should bridge the gaps
between these social contexts and the classroom instead of only teaching prescriptive and limited
varieties of language. Since language use in online communities contributed to individuals’
language socialization and relationship with the language, the researchers saw it as obvious to
include it within the L2 classroom (Thorne et al., 2009). Although these specific technologies
are again not directly applicable to early childhood, this is yet another source to encourage use of
technologies that foster social interaction for language learning. This article communicated the
advantages of incorporating social contexts, where the language is actually used, into classroom
language learning (Thorne et al., 2009). This is especially important in the case of a HL like the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 105

Armenian language that has developed in diverse social contexts for millennia. Social use of
language through technology can be incorporated into the language classroom in order to
positively impact language development.
Last, in their autoethnography, Szecsi and Szilagyi (2012) interviewed their families to
explore parent and family perceptions of media technologies used for their children’s HL
development. They found that media technologies had positive effects on their children’s
language ability in the HL. Many of the forms of media they referenced were social, such as
video chatting with relatives and connecting through social media. Additionally, they made
many of the nonsocial forms into conversational activities with their children. For example, they
read folktales, which alone are social because the story is a cultural tool, but then they extended
the reading into discussing the lessons with their children (Szecsi & Szilagyi, 2012). They used
many technological sources that were already social and emphasized the importance of their own
facilitation as parents, thus, suggesting many layers of social interaction to foster a HL through
technology.
The literature on language learning and technology overall is limited but the successful
strategies reported tend to have social components. Anecdotally, I know there are software and
apps that claim to foster language learning and are not inherently social. However, there was no
research addressing or supporting these popular forms.
Access and preservation. Another component of technology and HL development is
access and preservation of the language. A challenge prevalent in the literature reviewed is that
resources are scarce in non-English languages, and in some languages more than others.
Technology is a part of the problem and the solution. A majority of the Internet is in English
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 106

(Jarvis & Krashen, 2014). At the same time, technology can be used to create and preserve
language resources more readily as well as increase access to resources (Villa, 2002).
Jarvis and Krashen (2014) pointed out that much of the Internet is in English, which
poses a challenge for minority languages and HLs. Finding ways to access more social spheres
of interaction can alleviate the lack of resources because speakers themselves can be the
resources. Technology, such as chatting and social media, can be used to facilitate these
interactions with language goals in mind.
Technology can help in the creation and dissemination of resources to help HL learners.
It can be designed for children directly or for MKOs who interact with those children. Villa
(2002) conducted a pilot study with native speakers of Navajo attempting to address the loss of
non-English languages in the U.S. by considering culturally appropriate ways to use technology
for language preservation. Villa (2002) discussed the dearth of authentic materials for non-
English languages, which are original materials that show how a community uses its HL and are
not produced specifically for academic purposes. Villa (2002) supported the use of authentic
materials, but did not adequately represent their importance in his study. I connect his study to
Armenian as a HL because authentic materials would be more representative of the language
spoken by Armenians in their daily lives. The diverse migration histories of Armenians all over
the world are represented in the evolution of the spoken varieties of the language (Karapetian,
2017). However, from my own observations, there is a lack of resources representing those
spoken varieties, instead focusing on the standard variants of the Armenian language. I did not
find literature directly supporting this lack of resources for Armenian as a HL but I did find
support for overall lack of HL resources, as presented here. Chahinian and Bakalian (2016) did
mention that Armenian is taught like a first language to speakers when it is their HL. This
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 107

suggests but does not confirm that the resources being used to teach Armenian may also be
representative of that. Therefore, Villa’s (2002) approach to the creation of authentic resources
is relevant here.
Advances in technology have made it easier and less costly to preserve heritage and
indigenous languages. Villa’s (2002) study trained an in-group member, who was a native
speaker of Navajo, to create authentic materials of the language using technology. The native
speaker was trained in interview and oral data collection and went home to conduct interviews
with family members and other members of her tribe. The data she collected were compiled into
a set of compact-discs to be used for samples of authentic Navajo language, ultimately creating a
resource. Language preservation can be controversial even within members of the same culture,
but it is important that in-group members have control of this process rather than out-group
members. Villa’s perspective was to resolve this by showing that an in-group member was able
to be trained and conduct data collection, keeping the authority within the culture despite
potential for disagreements within the tribe. This study was limited because of a small sample
size. However, it stands as an example of authentic resource creation by an in-group member
(Villa, 2002).
In addressing preservation, I briefly turn to a point made by Cummins (2005). Cummins
(2005) emphasized the importance of young HL learners by pointing out that when HL is not
fostered in children, production of language resources decreases because they grow into adults
that are not equipped with the skills to create new resources. Therefore, production and
continuity of language resources depend heavily on successful language learning over
generations.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 108

Overall, the literature on technology, language use, and its application to early childhood
is limited. However, technology is highly relevant to life today and so it is important to
understand the role it can play in language learning. This can be done by creating resources
directly designed for children or by creating resources to support the MKOs who are working
with them. The themes that prevailed in the literature on technology and language use are that
there is need for more research on technology and language learning, it is great when used as a
supplement but should not be the primary source itself, tools used to foster social interaction in
the language are effective, and it can be pivotal in creating resources and widening access to
preserve language.
Conclusion
Social interaction is critical to language development. Sociocultural theory holds that
learning is through participation in a context, dependent on other actors, and mediated by
language and tools. Language socialization views language learning and socialization as one and
as a process that is continuously shaped by interlocuters. One major area of literature in
language development is language input. Language input is concerned with the ways in which
MKOs provide language exposure for children and shape those exchanges. The literature shows
that language development can be heavily affected by the amount and types of input. All
speakers, including children, have an active role in language interactions as they learn, and the
mediums used to teach language are not all equal and depend on factors such as developmental
level. Play is one such setting for social interaction where language input can be cultivated,
which consequently affects children’s language development. Tools that can be used in play are
toys, including books and electronic toys. Though research is scant, books support the types of
social interaction that foster language development most successfully, traditional toys second,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 109

and electronic toys the least. Last, I considered the role of technology because of its prevalence
in 21
st
century life. Technology and language learning research is also limited but the literature
does support the use of technology that promotes interaction with other speakers and is used as
means to goals rather than being the goal itself. Technology also has great potential to help
create and preserve resources in a HL and increase access to those resources. Overall, the
literature reviewed on language input, play, and technology support the tenets of sociocultural
theory. Social interaction is critical to language development and is shaped by parents in early
childhood. The next section moves to addressing the role of the parent as the MKO in the
interactions.
The Armenian-American Parent
The previous two sections outlined bilingualism and language learning through social
interaction as a way to contextualize this study on HL acquisition and maintenance. Inherent in
the definition of HL is that it is a language linked to family and identity (Montrul, 2010; Polinksy
& Kagan, 2007). It is not typically the majority language and children of immigrants usually
undergo attrition or language shift (Paez & Hunter, 2015; Tse, 2001). This attrition or shift is
exacerbated over successive generations (Valdés, 2001). Language development, and by
extension prevention of such attrition, depends on the supports available (Hoff, 2014). In early
childhood, and with a minority language, the choice often falls on the parent(s) (Shin, 2010). If a
child needs to learn the majority language, s/he will likely acquire it upon entering formal
schooling (Paez & Hunter, 2015). When the parent is fluent or dominant in the majority
language and trying to maintain the minority language with his/her child(ren), it poses new
obstacles. It is less probable that the child(ren) will acquire the minority language without
decided effort. Thus, the role of the parent is critical to understand when exploring HL
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 110

acquisition and maintenance, especially for children in early childhood. In this section, I look at
parents’ identity development, parents’ own language use, existing resources and challenges, and
motivation theories that shape Armenian-American parents’ decisions on whether to foster the
Armenian language.
Identity Development
Identity development takes places during the developmental stages of adolescence and
emerging adulthood, roughly from the ages of 12 to 25. Identity formation is connected to many
things, including ethnicity, gender, and sexuality (Schwartz, Cano, & Zamboanga, 2015; Suárez-
Orozco, 2004). In this study, I focus on cultural identity and how it is connected to language in
the Armenian-American context.
The sample for this study will consist of 1.5 and 1.75 generation Armenian-American
parents who immigrated themselves. Generational status will be defined and further explained in
its own subsection later in this section. Immigration paths can be unique based on factors such
as time of immigration, host-country demographics, and family structure (Suárez-Orozco et al.,
2015). Individuals can acculturate in additive or subtractive environments. In an additive
environment, the individual integrates two identities by maintaining aspects of both. This
develops a bicultural identity where the self is seen through both lenses (Birman & Addae,
2015). In the Armenian-American context, this merging of cultures involves a third culture
depending on the previous host-country, whether Armenian-Americans were immigrants
themselves or children of immigrants impacted by the previous host culture (Chahinian &
Bakalian, 2016; Karapetian, 2017; Samkian, 2007). These multiple identities foster the
development of a transcultural identity, encompassing at least three different cultures in
Armenian-Americans that vary across individuals. This diversity is also evident in their
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 111

language use, such as Iranian-Armenian-Americans versus Russian-Armenian-Americans
(Karapetian, 2014, 2017; Samkian, 2007), and will be addressed in a later section.
Another possible trajectory for identity development is a subtractive environment, where
individuals lose connections to their previous culture and identify more with the new one. When
an individual gives up their native cultural identity, this is called assimilation. Individuals may
also take on reactive identities due to stress they faced through lack of acculturation. They may
identify strongly with their native culture and reject U.S. culture (Birman & Addae, 2015).
Identity development has many variables and is unique to each individual.
Identity development and HL are linked (Montrul, 2010; Polinksy & Kagan, 2007). In
reference to the previous section on “Sociocultural Theory” in “Language Through Social
Interaction,” language is constructed through reciprocal participation in a social context (Packer
& Goicoechea, 2000). According to Packer and Goicoechea (2000), identity is developed when
humans must negotiate between different social constructs. They define the first step of this
process as a splitting from the self to categorize into social constructs, that motivate the search
for identity. This search is ongoing, and negotiations are recurring over time (Packer &
Goicoechea, 2000). This is one way to view the negotiation that transcultural individuals go
through. Armenian-American parents have had to negotiate these identity decisions for
themselves, and are still doing so, and then they must facilitate them for their children, who then
negotiate their own identity. The relationship between the personal and social contexts is
reciprocal and therefore a perpetual game of tug-of-war.
Identity development and heritage language. He (2010) writes about the sociocultural
nature of HL. The definition of HL is characterized by the people who speak it, therefore it is
sociocultural. Identity and HL are related in many ways. HL is fostered when people have
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 112

positive attitudes toward their language and ethnic group. Their identities come from social
interaction within the community and are shaped in every interaction; they are constantly
changing. HL is learned in formal and informal settings. Too often, learning is viewed as
something that is limited to formal settings such as school and textbooks. In the case of HL, the
home language, it is especially important to consider informal contexts (He, 2010). If parents
want to pass on their HL knowledge to their children, it is important to consider things outside of
formal instruction. Therefore, this study looks at the home context and play in early childhood,
an informal and universal context.
Language depends on the contexts in which it is learned, therefore it is social and
intertwined with identity (He, 2010; C. Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008). Through these interactions,
there is potential for new identities to emerge (Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). Samkian (2007)
wrote her dissertation on Armenian-American students negotiating their identities in high school.
The high school setting had a large percentage of Armenian students but from different countries
of origin, characterizing their families’ immigration histories. As students entered the school and
interacted with each other, they were faced with splitting from their original categorizations as
Armenian and adding a new layer, such as “white-washed,” “vtec,” or “armo.” Samkian’s
(2007) dissertation further demonstrated this division through language use. One chapter was
aptly named “’We say ‘babam,’ they say ‘arra:’’ Divisions in the Armenian Community,” which
called attention to the divisions felt by the different groups of Armenians because of varying
language conventions (Samkian, 2007).
Samkian’s (2007) work on this population was in agreement with Packer and Goicoechea
(2000) and He (2010). As individuals interact, there are emergent identities. He (2010) also
expands on “language crossing,” a term used to characterize a single setting in which multiple
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 113

languages are used. Part of the identity negotiations between groups of Armenians with different
origins are their day-to-day use of the Armenian language and dynamic cultural conventions
shaped by many cultures. For these reasons, HL acquisition and maintenance are complex and
must consider many factors. He (2010) also points out that these considerations must include the
role of technology and popular culture, an area covered in the “Language Through Social
Interaction” section. Another point highlighted by He (2010) is that ideological differences often
affect the facilitation of HL learning and individuals’ attitudes, also supported by Villa (2002).
The different viewpoints held by in-group members are points of disagreement in what should be
done to support language development. Identity is a centerpiece of HL acquisition and
maintenance and is continuously transforming as it is used; the social context influences users
and users influence the context (He, 2010; Packer & Goicoechea, 2000; Samkian, 2007).
Another perspective of identity development worth noting is Shin’s (2010) work on
mixed-heritage members of a HL community. This is applicable to the dual or multiple identities
Armenian-Americans experience in their identity formation. Shin (2010) conducted in-depth
autobiographical interviews with 12 mixed-heritage adults in the U.S. Each member had a
parent that spoke English and another parent who was a first-generation immigrant whose native
language was a HL (Shin, 2010). While mixed-heritage Armenians are an important population
to study, for the purposes of this study, I focus on the implications of Shin’s (2010) work for the
transcultural identities of Armenian-Americans who are not mixed heritage. As Karapetian’s
(2017) work points out, an emerging issue in the Armenian-American population of Greater Los
Angeles is the emergence of hybrid families consisting of Armenian parents from different
countries of origin or who speak different varieties of Armenian and have to make language
decisions for their child(ren). Shin (2010) found that individuals’ opinions on whether or not
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 114

they would teach their children their HL was contingent on their own proficiency, confirming the
idea that parents act as gatekeepers for generational transmission of HL. This source affirms the
practical limitations in learning and maintaining a HL, especially because the lack of relevant
resources makes the task more difficult.
Another finding was that adolescents valued their HL more when they were older, and
they felt a sense of sadness and loss when they had not learned their HL. This indicates that
parents’ efforts against reluctant children may be worthwhile in the long run. A point that is
important to consider is that some of the mixed-heritage participants experienced isolation when
they did not fit in to cultural norms (Shin, 2010). This alludes to Samkian’s (2007) work on
Armenian high school students from different home countries, and the section on belongingness
motivation that will be covered later. Depending on their identity experiences, Armenians may
feel isolated. For example, an Iranian-Armenian may not feel welcomed or supported by an
organization that primarily serves Armenians from the Republic of Armenia. Shin (2010)
concluded that HL acquisition is dependent on the parent. In order to be effective, parents
should be educated on their role and power in generational transmission of HL. Further, helpful
supports would be to provide broad contexts to use and learn HL, and provide HL classes for
adults. Shin’s (2010) study is limited because of its small sample size, but it provides relevant
support for points made by several other sources. Here, I turn to the literature that explores and
supports parents’ role in children’s identity and HL development.
Parents fostering heritage language. Parents are the primary actors in children’s lives
during childhood. They model and facilitate learning of all kinds, whether intentionally or
unintentionally (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). They affect language
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 115

and identity development. When looking at a HL, the influence of language and identity
development takes on an even more significant role.
Park and Sarkar (2007) conducted a qualitative study of nine Korean immigrant parents
living in Montreal. They used a questionnaire and interviews to explore parents’ attitudes on
language and cultural identity for their children. The children were between the ages of 6-18.
The study found that the parents wanted their children to maintain their HL to cultivate a Korean
identity and have relationships with grandparents and extended family. The participants in the
study also attended events held by the Korean church. The findings highlighted the role of
community support, in this case provided by the church. The parents felt it was their
responsibility to teach their children Korean and used supplemental materials at home, such as
books, the Bible, videos, and the Internet. Some of the parents viewed their responsibility to
teach the HL as a burden, especially because Montreal already hosts two languages, neither of
which is Korean. Overall, the study found that the parents had positive attitudes towards their
children’s development and maintenance of Korean as a HL. One limitation of the study was the
small sample size. Another limitation, in relation to the present study, was that it looked at first-
generation immigrant parents and their children (Park & Sarkar, 2007). As the research
supports, it is not atypical for this generation to be able to maintain a HL with their children,
rather it is subsequent generations that have a harder time (Rumbaut et al., 2006; Valdés, 2001).
Melo-Pfeifer (2015) conducted an experiment from the perspective of children. The
author used drawings by children and student participation in an online discussion forum. She
also collected a questionnaire from parents. Her findings highlighted the role of familial support
in maintaining HL, including extended family. The findings supported the family’s role in
providing affective and emotional support through identity development and teaching of
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 116

traditions, particularly by grandparents. She also observed a cognitive and verbal role of HL
because HL acquisition happens during a time when socialization depends primarily on family,
early childhood (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015). Melo-Pfeifer (2015) found another two roles specific to
non-parent family members. First, other members fulfill a societal role by providing a larger
social context for HL use. They also play an acquisitional role because they serve as
opportunities for speakers to access other registers and varieties of the HL. Generally, increased
exposure to a language helps in learning and, based on these findings, extended family is a great
resource in fulfilling that role with HL (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015). Melo-Pfeifer (2015) concluded that
the responsibility of HL acquisition and maintenance should not fall solely on HL schools.
Especially given the lack of human and material resources. The author emphasized that parent
involvement is critical for schools. One challenge she addressed was that HL teachers may be
reluctant to accept the familial help with the HL because they tend to adopt a monoglossic
ideology, meaning they favor and stick to one variety of the HL, and family inevitably introduces
variations of the HL (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015).
Another study, conducted by Phinney, Romero, Nava, and Huang (2001) addressed the
role of parents in fostering HL with their children. Phinney et al. (2001) surveyed high school
students and their parents from 216 families in Southern California. Their study focused on
Armenian, Vietnamese, and Mexican families, with 81 of those families being Armenian. The
adolescents in the study were either born in the U.S. or arrived before the age of 7 and had a
mean age of 14.86 years. This specific population posed a potential duality in identity
development, where the adolescents were raised by parents that had a non-American ethnic
identity yet in the U.S. school system. The results of the study were represented as separate
models for each ethnic group because one did not fit all three. Their sample was also
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 117

representative of students who would be at child-rearing age at the time of the present study,
much like Karapetian (2014) and Samkian (2007), making this a relevant study in this literature
review. Phinney et al. (2001) defined ethnic identity as a subjective sense of group membership
and hypothesized that it would be linked to language proficiency, cultural maintenance efforts by
parents, and interactions with peers in the same ethnic group. Language, while not necessary for
identity, is one of the most prevalent things considered across the identity development literature.
Phinney et al. (2001) found that family is a major socializing influence on ethnic identity
maintenance. All three factors considered had positive impacts on ethnic identity: knowledge of
the HL, role of the family in cultural maintenance, and ethnically similar peer groups. Specific to
Armenians, parental cultural maintenance had a direct influence on identity. Many of the parents
enrolled their children in extracurricular Armenian language programs which fostered language
development as well as opportunities to interact with Armenian peers. However, these results
are correlational and should be approached with caution (Phinney et al., 2001). Further, the
generational status of the parents and children is closer to arrival time to the U.S., which has
repeatedly come up as the generation with less challenges in language and ethnic identity
maintenance over later generations (Rumbaut et al., 2006). A final inference that Phinney et al.
(2001) drew from their results is that language and ethnic identity maintenance are not
definitively dependent on the community and can be largely affected by the parent.
When discussing parents’ role in fostering HL with their child(ren), siblings and birth
order are inherent to the context. Shin (2002) conducted a survey study on parents of Korean-
American children who were second generation immigrants to the U.S. Shin (2002) was able to
collect 204 completed surveys where parents had two or three children. The majority of the
parents had two children. Of the responses, the results found that later-born children were more
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 118

likely to speak the English language with their parents before they began school, with the
percentage increasing from second to third-born children. The later the birth order, the more
likely children were to speak English or mix the English language with Korean. The researcher
speculated that this was because later-born siblings were exposed to the English language at an
earlier age than their first-born siblings, impacting their preference for the English language over
Korean. Another finding in the study demonstrated that the language input parents provided for
their children was dependent on birth order. Parents provided more direct language input and
more Korean language input for their first-borns than their later-born children. Last, the study
found that the later-born siblings were more English-dominant than first-born siblings. Overall,
parents interactions with their children are impacted by other children present in the home. Birth
order has implications for the HL exposure children get from their parents. Another factor worth
mentioning was the role of parents’ gender in fostering HL with their children. As previously
reviewed in the “Language Through Social Interaction” section, in the “Language Socialization”
subsection under “Specific Language Populations,” Morris and Jones (2008) conducted a study
where they found that children were more likely to learn their HL if their mother was the one
who spoke the HL. Therefore, parents’ gender has potential to impact children’s HL
development as well. Now, I turn to literature on generational status and its implications for
identity and language development.
Generational status. Generational status is determined by immigrants’ time of arrival to
a host country. It has many implications for individuals including language development,
identity development, academic success, peer groups, and so on. These processes are not the
same for each individual but generational status allows us to identify similarities in each cohort
(Rumbaut, 2004). Historically, the literature has divided immigrants into two groups, first and
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 119

second generation, those born in the host country and those not (Rumbaut, 2004). In his seminal
piece, Rumbaut (2004) broke down these generations into specific cohorts, separated by
developmental age of arrival. Immigrants who arrived in adulthood were in the first generation.
Immigrants who arrived in adolescence between the ages of 13-17 were in the 1.25 generation, in
middle childhood between the ages of 6-12 were in the 1.5 generation, and in early childhood
between the ages of 0-5 were in the 1.75 generation (Rumbaut, 2004). Additionally, Rumbaut
(2004) drew a distinction between members of the second generation, those born in the U.S. to
one or two foreign-born parents. The second generation he deemed as those born to two foreign-
born parents, and the 2.5 generation he deemed as children born to one parent born in the U.S.
and one parent born in another country. This 2.5 cohort represented a mix of characteristics
between second and third generation children (Rumbaut, 2004). Rumbaut (2004) used
educational, occupational, and language data to then demonstrate differences across the cohorts.
As generational status shifts away from the first generation, language and identity are more
likely to do the same, especially when considering the developmental differences upon age of
arrival (Rumbaut, 2004; Rumbaut et al., 2006). The distinction most relevant to this study is that
of the 1.5 and 1.75 generation immigrants. These two groups immigrated to the U.S. before
identity development and spent much of their formative years in the U.S. Therefore, they are
more likely than 1.25 and first-generation immigrants to be English language dominant when
they reach adulthood. However, they are immigrants raised by first-generation parents and had
ready access to the culture and HL. This makes their role as parents in fostering the next
generation a pivotal one that can maintain the culture or further assimilate, which is why they are
the focus of this study.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 120

Armenian-Americans today. Chapter 1 detailed the migration patterns of the prominent
Armenian groups in Greater Los Angeles. It is important to note that these are not the only
migration patterns and there are Armenian diaspora members in Greater Los Angeles and
globally with diverse and rich histories. This section shifts to look more specifically at the
generational status of the Armenian-American parent population in Greater Los Angeles today.
The Armenian population in Los Angeles today is composed of largely third generation
immigrants from the Middle East, and newer generations from Iran and the Republic of Armenia
(Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016; Karapetian, 2014, 2017). Chahinian and Bakalian (2016)
surmised this in their interviews of teachers and principals in Armenian schools across the U.S.
Interviewees reported that the majority of the student body at Armenian day schools in the U.S.
were third generation immigrants who were English dominant. Teachers reported that most of
their students spoke English at home and during recess. The most common challenge stated by
teachers was that there were different levels of Armenian within the same classroom, which is
typical of a HL classroom (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016). Chahinian
and Bakalian (2016) did find one school as an exception, whose population consisted mostly of
Armenians from the Soviet Union or Republic of Armenia. This is in agreement with
Karapetian’s (2017) claim that the third major wave of Armenian immigrants coming to the U.S.
was characterized by Armenians from the Republic of Armenia. Further, Chahinian and
Bakalian (2016) supported these immigration trends by reporting on the lack of new teachers due
to slowed immigration from the Middle East and that the existing population was not producing
strong Armenian speakers. In short, a substantial portion of the Armenian-American population
in Greater Los Angeles at the time of this study has been living in the U.S. for at least one
generation, simultaneously alongside an influx of new immigrants. There is limited research on
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 121

this population and topic, yet these sources provide some information to better understand the
generational status of the Armenian-American parent population today, characteristics and
research that pertain to them, and direction for study.
Language Use
There are trends in language use that are shared by speakers of the same cohort. Many
children of immigrants, particularly older siblings, partake in the phenomenon of language
brokering, as covered in the “Use in Conjunction” subsection, in the section titled
“Bilingualism.” Language brokering is when one person is interpreting two languages for two
other speakers. Immigrant children or children of immigrants often fill in as translators for their
parents in a variety of contexts. During childhood, these children master their home language
because of their parents and the host language of English for their academic and professional
success (Orellana & Guan, 2015). Over generations, this shift is exacerbated because newer
generations are more skilled in English (Rumbaut et al., 2006). Therefore, brokering between
two languages is no longer a necessity and children of later generations are able to communicate
with their parents in their dominant language of English. As the generations progress, children
have higher potential to be simultaneous bilinguals because of their parents’ proficiency in both
languages. Genesee and Nicoladis (2007) observed that members of further generations, that
learned two languages from birth, were more likely to fill in gaps with English. They mixed
their home and host languages more because they were less proficient in their home language.
This is symbolic of the generational gaps that later generations may feel from previous ones.
Their language shift shares similarities with their identity shift over the course of generations, as
they become less tied to their family’s former home country (Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007;
Rumbaut, 2004; Rumbaut et al., 2006). As it relates to this study, participants likely grew up
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 122

with need to language broker for their parents, at least at times. Though in adulthood, as parents
themselves, they likely have a more bicultural identity and proficiency in the English language
which impacts interactions with their children.
Another layer that applies to language use and the population of this study is the
compartmentalization of Armenian. Karapetian (2014) conducted her dissertation with
Armenian-American college students in Los Angeles. As previously covered, Karapetian (2014)
found that her participants compartmentalized Armenian to specific contexts and felt the need to
select a particular language based on four categories: the age and gender of interlocuter, and the
medium and space of the interaction. Karapetian’s (2014) dissertation focused on the population
of Armenian-Americans that is reaching parenting age at the time of this present study. Her
findings have implications for the language skills of the next generation of Armenian-Americans
because they have to be taught by her participants’ generation as their parents.
Karapetian (2017) also addressed the emergence of hybrid families in the Greater Los
Angeles Armenian communities which has implications for language use in the population.
Formerly, the Armenian Diaspora was spread throughout different countries in the world that
predominantly spoke one dialect or variety of Armenian. As Armenians from different locations
have migrated to the U.S. and to Greater Los Angeles, the formerly isolated varieties are now put
in regular contact with one another (Karapetian, 2014, 2017). Further, the growth of media and
technology have helped all people, including Armenians, across the world communicate. This
creates a predicament for hybrid couples who speak different dialects or varieties of Armenian,
and are both proficient in English. It requires negotiating between different varieties of
Armenian that have unique histories, alongside the context-bound use of Armenian, and in
addition to balancing English as the dominant language. The next part of this literature review
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 123

focuses on resources and challenges in fostering Armenian as HL, and later, the role of
motivation theory in this study.
Resources and Challenges
Southern California is unique in the Armenian population it hosts (Chahinian & Bakalian,
2016; Karapetian, 2014). The large presence of Armenians cultivates supports and challenges
for HL acquisition and maintenance. Southern California, specifically the city of Glendale, is
home to the third largest Armenian community in the world, following the Republic of Armenia
in first and Russia in second (Karapetian, 2014). This presence in Glendale is evident
throughout the community. There are stores and markets with Armenian signage, bookstores,
and churches. There are several private Armenian day schools, dual-language immersion public
school programs, and after-school or Saturday language programs in Southern California.
Further there are many Armenian organizations (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016; Karapetian,
2014). The large population of Armenians inevitably fosters concentration of resources in the
location. To demonstrate this, I look at the geographic landscape of some of the institutions of
learning. In 2014, there were twenty-two Armenian day schools in the U.S. Fifteen of those
schools were in Southern California, with an additional two in Northern California (Chahinian &
Bakalian, 2016). Further, at the post-secondary level, Glendale Community College; California
State University, Northridge; University of California, Los Angeles; and the University of
Southern California, all have courses or institutes in Armenian Studies, among other schools
across the State of California (Karapetian, 2014). The large presence of Armenian institutions in
Southern California makes it even more important to have access to research-based strategies to
be the most effective.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 124

This plethora of Armenian organizations has potential to support parents in fostering the
Armenian language and cultural identity, yet it is not without challenges. Many of the
organizations have religious and political affiliations, and their own shortcomings, which push
parents to make choices between them and other non-Armenian institutions in the community.
Similar to the parents, these institutions are subject to some of the same challenges and pressures
covered thus far. First, the community is constantly exposed to and competing with English
resources, both because there are more products available and because technology assists
dissemination (Jarvis & Krashen, 2014; Villa, 2001). Second, succeeding generations are
becoming English dominant without adequate HL supports and returning to lead the programs
and organizations (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016). Last, the issue of standard or variety is an
added obstacle as leadership tries to manage several languages and varieties in one setting, and
within emerging hybrid families (Karapetian, 2017). These same challenges also allude to
challenges with Armenian language resources. Armenian has been taught through oral
socialization for much of its history, with a reverence for literature and books. However, that
literature has moved further out of reach for recent generations, as their oral skills have struggled
to move past elementary levels (Karapetian, 2014). Available children’s resources in the
Armenian language attempt to fit alongside English language resources by mimicking them but
do not fit the cultural context quite the same. The resources also face challenges in addressing
diglossia and contact with languages from former diaspora host countries, where written
standards often do not match with HL learners’ spoken varieties. The existing organizations and
resources, although concentrated in Southern California, need better ways to address issues
facing the community. Their mere existence should not be mistaken for effective HL support.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 125

Motivation
In addition to Armenian-American parents’ abilities to develop their children’s HL, it is
important to also examine their motivations to do so. Motivation theories can be used as a lens to
understand Armenian-American HL speakers and parents so as to find avenues to help them.
Parents’ and child(ren)’s motivation are related and consequently impact achievement
(Pomerantz, Cheung, & Qin, 2012). Here, I look at Armenian-American parents through some
of the applicable motivation theories: expectancy-value theory, self-efficacy theory, attribution
theory, belongingness motivation, and investment.
Expectancy-value theory. A salient motivation theory is expectancy-value theory. As
the name implies, the major tenets of the theory are expectations and values. The values are split
into four types, which are intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, and perceived cost
(Eccles, 2006; Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014; Wigfield, Tonks, & Klauda, 2009).
Expectancies are individuals’ beliefs about their capability in accomplishing something
(Eccles, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014; Wigfield et al., 2009). At the onset, individuals’ beliefs
about their ability shape their behavior in approaching or avoiding a task. These expectancies,
combined with the different values, affect behavior (Eccles, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014; Wigfield
et al., 2009). Therefore, it is important for parents to feel competent in their Armenian skills, or
their variety of Armenian if they are to take on the task of teaching their children. As Karapetian
(2014, 2017), and Chahinian and Bakalian (2014) found through their work, heritage speakers of
Armenian lack confidence in their Armenian language abilities and existing Armenian language
schools teach the language as a first language, which undoubtedly impacts efficacy development.
A parent who knows colloquial Armenian may become stumped at a homework assignment in a
formal variety of Armenian. A speaker may be proficient at home but be intimidated in formal
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 126

settings. These types of scenarios affect parents’ expectancies in teaching their children the
Armenian language.
In expectancy-value theory, expectancies are weighed alongside the four types of values.
The first type of value is intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the enjoyment or interest one
experiences in doing something (Eccles, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014; Wigfield et al., 2009).
Intrinsic value can be viewed as inherent to HL. One maintains a HL mainly because they feel a
connection to it through their culture and identity, rather than extrinsic rewards. The goal of HL
is to stay connected to something beyond the self, a people and history, and to pass it on across
generations.
The second type of value is attainment value. Attainment value in this context refers to
the importance of learning Armenian to the individual (Eccles, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014;
Wigfield et al., 2009). Firstly, as discussed in Chapter 1, bilingualism has several benefits such
as increased executive function, metalinguistic awareness, transcultural awareness, and so on
(Bailey & Orellana, 2015; Orellana & Guan, 2015). This alone is of importance and impacts
success. Second, language is connected to identity because it is the primary tool of expression
(Paez & Hunter, 2015). Identity and expression are both critical to an individual. Third, one
common goal for HL proficiency is to speak it in close circles, to belong and create close bonds.
Speaking a HL in close circles requires acquisition of the language in the conversational variety,
not necessarily academic, and perhaps basic reading and writing skills. This last goal has
implications for the types of Armenian fostered by existing resources. Many parents speak the
home language whereas institutions and the minimal available resources support the academic
variety (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016). That is a potential mismatch in attainment value.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 127

The third type of value is utility value which is the usefulness of a task (Eccles, 2006;
Schunk et al., 2014; Wigfield et al., 2009). Through the lens of Armenian language acquisition
for Armenian-Americans, it would be how useful the language is to their lives. Armenian is
usually acquired in the home, like most HLs, and to speak in close circles (Polinksy & Kagan,
2007). Personal learning goals for Armenian-Americans in the diaspora may be simple like
reading a few words, writing one’s name, and visiting their homeland, or they may be to reach
expert fluency. There is, again, potential for mismatch, particularly between individuals’
perceived utility value and what is supported through existing resources (Chahinian & Bakalian,
2016). It is important to keep in mind that utility value is important but not the entire picture.
Aside from use, HL is unique in its intrinsic value, as covered above.
The last type of value is perceived cost. Perceived cost refers to the level of negativity
one believes a task holds. This cost includes the anticipated effort and emotions, such as fear of
failure and anxiety. The higher the cost, the less likely it is to be counterbalanced by the other
positive values and the less likely an individual is to be motivated to engage in the task (Eccles,
2006; Schunk et al., 2014; Wigfield et al., 2009). Armenian-Americans may want to maintain
the HL to speak to people in close circles and pass on to their children. They need
conversational skills and basic reading and writing skills to enhance these conversations and
cultural connections. The cost of academic mastery has potential to be too high and not serve the
community’s needs. Further, Karapetian’s (2014) findings relate to the value of perceived cost
because her participants avoided speaking the Armenian language because they anticipated the
negative emotion of shame.
The tenets of expectancy-value theory illuminate potential mismatches between parent
goals and the existing supports for learning and maintaining Armenian as a HL. This
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 128

demonstrates need for data uncovering parent values and perceptions in order to provide
adequate supports.
Self-efficacy theory. Individuals form self-efficacy beliefs about their abilities as they
experience successes and failures. Self-efficacy theory, like most motivation theories, focuses
on people’s perceptions of their abilities rather than their actual abilities. There are four main
sources of self-efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, and
physiological and emotional states (Pajares, 2006). I will go through each source and how it can
relate to Armenian-American parents’ interactions with their children in fostering Armenian as a
HL. Mastery experience is one’s actual performance on a task (Pajares, 2006). Armenian-
American parents who have a goal to support their children’s learning of Armenian and succeed
are more likely to have positive feelings about their ability to do so. In the opposite case, if
parents exert effort and their child(ren) do not become proficient in Armenian, then they may
make judgements about their own efficacy. This perception of self-efficacy can also be related
to their own history of learning Armenian. Self-efficacy in their prior ability to learn Armenian
will undoubtedly affect their beliefs in how they can support their children (Pajares, 2006). The
next source of self-efficacy is vicarious experience, which means observing others’ successes
and failures (Pajares, 2006). This vicarious experience can be through observing other parents in
similar contexts succeed or fail in transmitting the HL to their child(ren). That vicarious
observation can be used as a reference for one’s own potential. Conclusions drawn from mastery
or vicarious experience can be especially problematic because, as the reviewed research shows,
language shift and attrition are inevitable trajectories for succeeding generations of immigrants
(Genesee & Nicoladis, 2007; Rumbaut, 2004; Rumbaut et al., 2006; Tse, 2001). These
experiences can easily be misinterpreted as markers for self-efficacy rather than the differential
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 129

power between the dominant language and HL, unrelated to the individual. The third source of
self-efficacy is verbal messages and social persuasions. These are messages passed on by others
and can be intentional or unintentional (Pajares, 2006). This relates directly to Karapetian’s
(2014) work where individuals were shamed for lack of Armenian ability, covered in the
“Bilingualism” section. In her dissertation, one of Karapetian’s (2014) key findings was that
Armenian HL speakers experienced teasing, error correction, and criticism with interlocuters. A
common experience was that people they spoke Armenian to switched to English when they felt
the HL speaker was struggling (Karapetian, 2014). Karapetian (2014) described this as a cycle
where individuals end up limiting their interactions in Armenian, thus limiting their practice and
exposure to develop the HL, and the cycle repeats. Karapetian’s (2014) findings can be linked
with self-efficacy theory to understand the potential implications for Armenian-American
parents. These social exchanges shape self-efficacy beliefs and affect behavior (Pajares, 2006).
The last source of self-efficacy is physiological and emotional states (Pajares, 2006). Again,
relating to Karapetian’s (2014) work, associating feelings like shame, guilt, and failure with task
performance has implications for future behavior. Conversely, experiencing success and pride
has other implications (Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy theory is important to consider because it
has great capacity to affect Armenian-American parents’ actual implementation of teaching their
children Armenian as a HL.
Attribution theory. The attribution theory of motivation posits that behavior is shaped
by the reasons individuals attribute to their successes and failures. These attributions are shaped
by environmental and personal factors and can be affected by teachers and parents (E. Anderman
& L. Anderman, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014). For this study, it is important to look at the
attributions that parents can have for their successes and failures in teaching Armenian as a HL
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 130

to their children. The specific attribution is not important but rather the characteristics of the
attribution (E. Anderman & L. Anderman, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014). Bernard Weiner’s
attribution model outlines three causal dimensions for attributions: locus, stability, and
controllability. Locus refers to whether the attribution is internal or external to the individual, in
this case parents (E. Anderman & L. Anderman, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014). For example, one’s
child(ren) may struggle in speaking a HL because, externally, the HL is hard or because,
internally, the parent(s) did not exert enough effort. The opposite can also be true where one’s
child(ren) may learn a HL because the HL is, externally, easy or because, internally, the parent(s)
made a determined effort to speak the HL frequently at home. If the locus is perceived as
internal it implies more control to affect success, and if it is internal and successful it brings
about greater pride and self-esteem in the achievement, which subsequently affects self-efficacy
(E. Anderman & L. Anderman, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014). The second causal dimension is
stability, which refers to whether the attribution changes across time and situations (E.
Anderman & L. Anderman, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014). For example, a parent may feel like
there is a lack of relevant resources or too many competing resources in the English language
overall. This is a stable attribute that remains the same across time and contexts. On the other
hand, parents may feel that their child(ren) lack(s) access to Armenian contexts and resources,
but they can be gained or created. This is an unstable attribution because limited access to HL
contexts or resources is perceived as changeable. The causal dimension of stability can foster
feelings of hopefulness or hopelessness (E. Anderman & L. Anderman, 2006; Schunk et al.,
2014). The last causal dimension is controllability. This dimension applies to the role of the
individual in affecting the achievement outcome (E. Anderman & L. Anderman, 2006; Schunk et
al., 2014). Parents may feel their children’s success in learning and maintaining a HL is due to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 131

the time they spend working with their child(ren) or they may think that, despite the time they
put in, formal English language schooling will overpower any amount of Armenian language
input. This changes their perception of the controllability of the task. Some feelings associated
with controllability are shame, guilt, anger, gratitude, and pity (E. Anderman & L. Anderman,
2006; Schunk et al., 2014). Attributions depend on several variables and lead to specific
behaviors. The actual objective cause of something is not important, rather the perceived
attribution is what shapes the individual’s motivation. Some ways to affect attribution are to
raise awareness of attributions and educate parents on how to structure feedback to foster
positive attributions that lead to motivation. Another way is for parents to engage children in
conversation about their attributions in order to help them reframe them into more positive ones
(E. Anderman & L. Anderman, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014).
Belongingness motivation. Another motivation theory that is worth mentioning is
belonginess motivation, which is human behavior guided by the desire for social acceptance and
belonging. For their well-being, humans need to feel socially accepted. They are most likely to
want to associate with people who like and accept them because rejection is considered a threat
to well-being. Potential groups of membership have implicit or explicit criteria for acceptance
and people exert considerable effort to become accepted. Cultural groups are one example of
groups that can satisfy the need for belonging. If these cultural groups threaten to reject
members, individuals may be discouraged and adjust their behavior accordingly (Leary & Cox,
2008). Through the literature I have reviewed, a potential interpretation is that language shaming
communicates to individuals that they are different and inadequate for group membership
(Karapetian, 2014). Second, the lack of relevant resources further perpetuates an in and out-
group message, where acceptance is for those proficient in the formal Armenian language variety
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 132

and not those who are less proficient or proficient in different varieties. Further, the relevancy of
available resources in Armenian is contingent on the cultural representations, such as including
elements of American culture rather than using sources produced in the Middle East or decades
ago. These details communicate in-group and out-group messages as well and can foster
feelings of acceptance or rejection. The limited research in the field and the lack of relevant
resources represent Armenian as a HL in unicultural and ethnocentric ways whereas most
members of the community have transcultural identities. Through the lens of belongingness
motivation, there is great reason for immigrants to want to embrace a transcultural identity
because they want to be accepted and belong in the country they live in. Depending on the
context, individuals may also want to purposely distinguish themselves from an out-group, such
as for religious differences. Still, they are motivated to belong to their in-group by rejecting the
out-group. Belongingness motivation undoubtedly guides Armenian-American parents'
motivation and shapes their behavior in the language decisions they make for their children.
Investment. This literature review covers many overlapping areas that are approached
through the perspectives of different fields. For example, sociocultural theory viewed learning
as social interaction through the fields of education and psychology whereas language
socialization explored similar ideas through the field of linguistics. Thus far, I have covered
motivation theories that are a broader lens on what catalyzes action, through the field of
educational psychology. I now shift to a sociological construct proposed by Peirce (1995) to
explain motivation specifically for second language acquisition. Peirce (1995) identified a gap in
the language motivation literature that did not account for the individual and the social context,
and how they impact language learning behaviors. Instead of motivation, Peirce (1995)
proposed the concept of investment for second language acquisition. Having knowledge of the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 133

ways to be in a social context means one has cultural capital. Language is one way of
participation in a context and therefore is cultural capital. These pieces of cultural capital give
one access to a specific community and positionality within that community. The exchange
value of these pieces vary. For example, speaking a native language can be considered more
cultural capital than eating native food because speaking the language allows one to identify with
a more exclusive group whereas food is something that many people can access. However,
learning a language and food have different costs as well that may or may not be commensurate
with their payoffs. According to Peirce (1995), cultural capital must also be worth the effort it
takes to attain. This is similar to the ideas presented earlier through expectancy-value theory.
Peirce (1995) distinguished her theory of investment from other types of language
motivation because she identified that a second language learner may be highly motivated but the
behaviors they exhibit may implicate otherwise. Investment looks at the wide range of social
goals an individual may have in their given context (Peirce, 1995). For example, an Armenian
living in the U.S. may be highly motivated to learn Armenian as their HL but simultaneously
driven to build a career and network amongst a professional community where English is the
dominant language. While the individual is motivated to learn both languages, their given
context and goals push them to make decisions about their investment in both languages.
Therefore, if this individual spends most of their time speaking English with English-speaking
colleagues, and rarely engages with others using the Armenian language, this does not indicate
lack of motivation but rather a decision on investment given the context and wide range of goals
and desires. This can also explain a parent’s decision to foster the majority language of English
for their child(ren)’s future success despite HL goals. Peirce’s theory of investment integrates
the social sphere with motivation in language acquisition (Peirce, 1995). Her theory is especially
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 134

relevant to HL because HL learning is intricately connected with identity and a larger community
(He, 2010).
Peirce (1995) also described imagined communities, which is worth briefly noting here.
An imagined community is one that an individual is trying to gain access to but may never
actually see because it exists in our social perceptions of the world (Peirce, 1995). HL speakers,
especially those belonging to a centuries-old diaspora nation like Armenian-Americans, are loyal
to an imagined community. While the Armenian diaspora has been dispersed throughout the
world for centuries, and is unlikely to ever exist as a cohesive unicentric nation, there is an
imagined community among many that all Armenians belong to this group and strive to belong
to this group. Language is deeply intertwined with identity (He, 2010; C. Suárez-Orozco et al.,
2008), as covered earlier in this section under “Identity Development,” and therefore also with
this perception of an imagined community and investment towards it. Overall, Peirce’s theory of
investment for second language acquisition is undoubtedly relevant to the population for this
study.
Conclusion
Armenian-American parents were once children too, and participants, in a context where
Armenian was the home language. As parents, they become gatekeepers of the generational
transmission of Armenian as a HL. They use their own experiences, perceptions, and
motivations in learning the Armenian language to make decisions for their child(ren)’s HL
development. Key factors that play a role in this process are their own identity, language skills,
and motivations. Further, parents are susceptible to the language resources that can support HL
development and existing challenges that can hinder it. Understanding the components that
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 135

shape Armenian-American parents’ decision-making for their child(ren)’s language development
is critical to the generational transmission of Armenian as a HL and, therefore, this study.
Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework
The tenets of this literature review come together to formulate my view of HL
development in families led by 1.5 and 1.75 generation Armenian-American parents. To situate
this study, the most general component of the Conceptual Framework is the gray circle
encompassing the entire Figure 1, representative of the larger systems in Bronfenbrenner’s
(1981) ecological model for human development. As explained earlier in Chapter 2, while the
focus of this study is the microsystem created between Armenian-American parents and their
children, the findings of this study showed just how pervasive the other systems were in this

Experiences,
Perceptions,
& Motivations
HL Acquisition
HL Maintenance
Social
Interaction
HL Sources
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 136

microsystem. Therefore the gray circle was added to Figure 1, changing the initial version of
this conceptual framework, yet maintaining the focus on parent-child interactions. The initial
version of the Conceptual Framework is included in Appendix A.
Through the lens of sociocultural theory, learning is characterized by interaction with the
world and becoming a participant in a community. Other actors are essential to this
socialization, whether they do it consciously or not (Gutierrez et al., 1999; John-Steiner & Mahn,
1996). Language socialization also views interaction as central to language learning, where
individuals come to learn the ways of the world around them as they develop language (Ochs &
Schieffelin, 2011). During childhood, the primary actors in one’s life are typically parents and a
key component of socialization is language acquisition (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Therefore,
this conceptual framework focuses on parent-child interactions in childhood around a HL and the
nuances that must be considered in this interaction.
As parents participate in these first socialization experiences with their child(ren), they
are already socialized from their previous sociocultural contexts and are practicing members of a
social world. This is represented in Figure 1 by the bubble stemming from the larger person, the
parent, on the left. Their past, generational status, identity, motivation, skills, disposition, and so
on, are key to the interactions and the decisions they make for their children. Parent speakers of
a HL have their own immigration and personal history, an existing identity that embraces one or
many cultures, and an understanding of their heritage. All of these factors shape their social
exchanges with their children and can support or impede HL development (Packer &
Goicoechea, 2000; He, 2010). Based on their past experiences and competing cultures, they can
be motivated to or discouraged from being active members in their heritage community and/or
speaking their HL. Part of their motivation is even contingent on their own language use, ability,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 137

and experiences (Shin, 2010). All of these factors, represented by the bubble to the left of the
parent in the figure, contribute to the goals and motivations they have surrounding HL
interactions with their child(ren). This motivation can present itself in different ways. Some of
the relevant motivation theories discussed previously in this chapter are expectancy-value theory,
self-efficacy theory, attribution theory, belongingness motivation, and investment. These
theories are possible ways that parents’ motivation can be framed. That framing depends on
various experiences and is pulled in many directions by things such as HL sources and their
child(ren) as they become socialized to be more active members of the context. Regardless of
how parents reconcile or try to reconcile these competing factors, those values and perceptions
affect their behavior with their child(ren) and consequently the outcomes.
As we move right from the parents’ experiences, perceptions, and motivations we enter
an interactional space between the parent(s) and the child(ren), representative of the major tenets
of sociocultural theory and language socialization. This is represented in Figure 1 by the bubble
between the parent and child labeled “Social Interaction.” Language is learned through social
interaction (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). The parent(s) shape their child(ren)’s language while
being influenced by their own perceptions and values. These perceptions and values are shaped
by things such as the parents’ identity development and motivation. The social interaction
between parent(s) and child(ren) is characterized by things like language input, play, and
homework. Language input and play in early childhood contribute significantly to language
development. I have presented evidence from the vast research on language input showing how
it fosters the quantity and quality of language input (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Gervain, 2015;
Goldin-Meadow et al., 2014, Kuhl et al., 2003). Play is one way to grow this input because it
affects what is being discussed and it is child-initiated, implying motivation on behalf of the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 138

child (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Dickinson et al., 2012; Kelly & Bailey, 2013; Sosa, 2016).
The play and language literature that does exist supports the importance of guided play between
adults and children using toys and books to foster language development (Hirsh-Pasek &
Golinkoff, 2008; Sosa, 2016). Later, when children begin formal schooling, their education also
becomes central to the home environment and, thus, parent-child interactions. This social
interaction bubble encompasses all mundane and intentional social interactions that children are
exposed to and engage in as they develop language with their parent(s).
As child(ren) are socialized, they also become a participating member of the social and
language interaction. As children become socialized, the interaction grows increasingly
reciprocal, which means that parents and child(ren) influence each other’s behavior back and
forth and continuously by changing through their shared interactions (Gutierrez et al., 1999;
Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). Figure 1 represents this reciprocity by representing the parent’s
and child’s relationship to the social interaction bubble with black bidirectional arrows. Children
can affect the exchange through their own language development and likes and interests. As
children develop language ability, parents may shift their language use to incorporate certain
phrases or encourage a specific language. For example, a child who is attending an English-
speaking preschool may come home with more English vocabulary and the parent may support
that so they ensure success in school. The reverse can also be true with an Armenian-speaking
school. This reciprocity, according to sociocultural theory, is continuous (Gutierrez et al., 1999;
Packer & Goicoechea, 2000). The children do not have their own bubble in this model for three
reasons. First, we know from developmental research that they have yet to build solid
foundations for identity, motivation, and language. Second, what they learn about these things
during childhood – which is the focus of this study – depends largely on their parents (Tharp &
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 139

Gallimore, 1991). Last, data collection for this dissertation focused on the parent perspective
and how it is actively shaping the child. However, it is important not to negate the active role of
the child, which is why this model has a separate bidirectional arrow that connects the child and
the social interaction.
While the parent-child interaction is central to HL development in childhood, there are
several HL sources that can that have a role in this social interaction between parent(s) and
child(ren). In Figure 1, this concept is represented above the social interaction and labeled HL
sources. HL sources represent HL actors, institutions, and toys, books, and technology that
parents may use to impact HL development for their children. Sociocultural theory emphasizes
the role of all actors in a community. The parent is a prominent figure in early childhood but
there are several ways that other members are involved, from authoring a children’s book to
babysitting a child every day. The earlier version of this conceptual framework had a box
around the parent and child and the HL actors were in a separate bubble outside of that box,
generally impacting the entire interaction. The previous bubble in place of HL sources was titled
“Resources” and only encompassed community institutions and toys, books, and technology.
Those sources still remain the same, and are now joined by HL actors. After data collection and
analysis, it became apparent that HL actors were specifically sought and/or acknowledged by 1.5
and 1.75 generation parents as a source that fostered HL development. Therefore, instead of
being external to the interaction and generally affecting language development, HL actors were
moved in Figure 1 to show that they are employed deliberately by parents. In other words, they
are not “outside” affecting the interaction. They are brought in and seen as a critical part of HL
development. HL actors can include extended family members, friends, community members,
and institutional agents, really anyone in the HL community, but grandparents and other
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 140

caregivers were particularly prominent in the findings of this study. These actors interact with
children and can influence the child’s own processes with identity and language development
(Gutierrez et al., 1999; John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Melo-Pfeifer, 2015). Mostly, they provide
language input. Family members with earlier generational status, such as grandparents, are more
likely to be dominant in the HL and can be used as extended language support for parents (Melo-
Pfeifer, 2015; Rumbaut et al., 2006; Valdés, 2001). Also, the more speakers children are
exposed to, the larger variance in exposure, the stronger their language skills can become (Gollan
et al., 2015; Melo-Pfeifer, 2015). Community members can do the same. Children’s peers at
school can be models as well, contributing to the language of input within an exchange.
HL sources also represent the role of language programs and extracurricular activities
that parents may employ to foster HL development and/or cultural identity. Institutional agents
from language programs and extracurriculars can provide cultural experiences that can attract or
detract from identity and language development with the HL. They can also initiate interaction
involving the HL between parent and child, such as completing Armenian language homework
or attending a cultural ceremony. The last source represented by the HL sources bubble is HL
toys, books, and technology that has potential to foster HL learning. Given the great potential of
play and toys to foster learning, and more specifically language learning (Weisberg et al., 2013;
Sosa, 2016), resources are an important part of HL sources.
Originally, the HL sources bubble had only two solid arrows, one going directly into the
social interaction and one stemming from the parent to the bubble and then ending up in the
social interaction. After conducting this study, not only were those arrows modified, an
additional arrow was added stemming from the “HL sources” directly to the child, bypassing the
parent. The arrow extending from the parent to the HL sources remained solid but changed to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 141

bidirectional. The arrow between the HL sources and social interaction became dashed. Finally,
a wavy line was added, interrupting all three arrows.
The arrow on the left, between the parent and HL sources, stayed solid because the
findings of this study indicated that parents did try to access HL sources. While use of these
resources was intentional, parents were still selecting from what was available which still had its
limitations. The solid arrow stemming from the parent to the HL sources was also changed to a
bidirectional arrow after the findings of this study. This study’s sample was purposely delimited
by the generation of parents who were HL learners themselves and likely to have limited
proficiency in their HL as adults. Their own HL skills were constantly molded and changed by
the actors, institutions, and resources they interacted with, even if accessed primarily for their
children. Further, as will be covered in Chapter 4, parents admitted to intentionally using
sources for their own learning, whether it was separate of their children or with them, such as
trying to enroll in a college HL course when pregnant or learn through their child’s HL
homework. Yet another reason that this arrow was changed to bidirectional was because
parents’ own actions could be shaped by the HL sources too. For example, parents may be
shamed or praised by their own parents, the grandparents, in their HL efforts and adjust their
behavior accordingly.
The dashed lines pointing away from the HL sources represent the faultiness of the
sources employed to foster HL development. While they likely have some impact on HL
development, preliminary observations point to their inadequacies. These limitations will be
thoroughly outlined in Chapter 4. Parents choose to use these HL sources yet their role in HL
development may not have the impact they think it will. For example, extracurricular activities
were one HL source that parents outsourced to yet, when asked to reflect in interviews, they
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 142

realized that their children mostly got English language exposure through the programs.
Furthermore, in the sections on toys and technology, I discussed the importance of relevant
resources and the lack of resources in non-English languages globally (Jarvis & Krashen, 2014;
Villa, 2002). The arrow that bypasses the social interaction with the parent and points to the
child alone is representative of parents’ outsourcing of the HL to sources outside of the home,
mitigating their own role.
The wavy line that interjects all three arrows represents the pervasiveness of any and all
of the systems in Bronfenbrenner’s (1981) ecological model of human development, as
represented by the larger gray circle. In other words it represents the many challenges and
variables that can get in the way of HL development in this study’s context, such as competing
goals and the omnipresence of the English language, among other things. What becomes an
issue with a HL, and is the case with Armenian, is that sources are fewer and compete with those
in the dominant language of English. Driving on the street or walking into a local store provide
endless examples of English text alone. English language resources are also more culturally
relevant and age-appropriate than the existing Armenian resources. They contribute to the social
interaction and create discrepancies in opportunities for interaction with the HL, regardless of
parents’ intentions because they are what the larger social context provides and supports. The
prevalence of English resources and lack of Armenian ones undoubtedly influence socialization
and language development, creating a subtractive environment (Birman & Addae, 2015).
Further, the limited accessibility to resources in the Armenian language overall make it even less
probable that the resources embrace different varieties and registers of the language which are
more relevant for Armenian HL learners. Parents have control over many HL sources that their
child(ren) can be exposed to or shielded from. Parents can deliberately expose their child(ren) to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 143

and facilitate use of HL sources that support language development in a specific direction.
Given that the context for Armenian-Americans is English dominant, deliberate effort to foster
the Armenian language may be necessary but it does not need to be as intentional for English.
The wavy line in this conceptual framework is important because of how the larger systems that
this study is situated in impact the sheer availability of resources in either language as well as
how parents attain, utilize, and facilitate interaction with them.
The last element of the conceptual framework for this study is the cycle stemming from
the child, and away from the parent-child interaction. This cycle begins with a dashed line and
links to HL acquisition. HL acquisition is contingent on many factors, as discussed, and may or
may not happen. It is in a constant tug-of-war with the other pieces represented in the model. If
the social interaction between parents and child(ren) is unable to foster the HL, the dashed line
shows that it will not lead to HL acquisition and cut off the cycle. Generational transmission of
the HL is less likely to continue after this point. If HL is fostered and is able to overcome certain
challenges, then the HL can be acquired and move to the next step of the cycle. The dashed line
represents the potential for both trajectories.
Next in Figure 1, HL acquisition has a dashed line stemming from it because acquisition
does not necessarily signify maintenance. Language attrition and shift are possible paths
depending on supports in the environment throughout one’s life (Paez & Hunter, 2015; Tse,
2001). In fact, a common path for HL speakers is sequential bilingualism, where children
learned the HL in early childhood but switch to English as a dominant language thereafter due to
formal schooling and a different host language (Paez & Hunter, 2015; Tse, 2001). Therefore,
HL should continue to be fostered after acquisition and over the course of the life, if HL
proficiency is in fact the goal. Consistent and determined effort over time can bring about HL
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 144

acquisition first and then maintenance. Successful HL maintenance can then be fostered through
new means, in line with the child’s changing developmental level. For example, as children
grow, making home country visits are one way to foster Armenian language use. The dashed
line is used again here to represent the possibilities of maintenance and attrition. If the HL is not
maintained then, again, the model stops and the cycle is not complete. If the HL is maintained, it
is then most likely that the cycle makes its complete loop and the child becomes the parent, and
the cycle continues. Therefore, the line turns solid here. Though, it should be noted that once
the child becomes the parent, all of the original factors that affected the parent in the model
remain. The child as an adult will have their own identity development and motivations. It then
becomes the child’s turn to be the parent and determine whether the cycle continues through
social interactions with their own child(ren).
This model is comprised of the key elements of HL acquisition and maintenance through
parent-child interactions. It has parent-child interaction at the center. Parents are affected by
their prior values and perceptions. They deliberately employ HL sources to foster development,
though the shortcomings of the sources make them unreliable. Then, the child has a dashed line
connecting to HL acquisition, and then to maintenance. Both of these are not definite outcomes,
they are merely possibilities that may come to fruition. If they do, the child then becomes the
parent and, again, it is up to the new parent to determine what HL and cultural goals they have
for their child(ren) and navigate the existing sources and challenges to attain them. This
conceptual framework is my view on how the concepts from the literature and the findings of
this study are interconnected and influence one another. However, inherent in the model are
many variables, in each bubble, person, interaction, and step. This dissertation combines
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 145

literature from many schools of thought in an attempt to acknowledge the challenges involved in
the transmission of HL through generations and create a framework for this study.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 146

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
Qualitative research is interested in process, understanding, and meaning. It looks at the
subjective realities in people’s lives to understand or learn something. This study aimed to add
to the body of research related to Armenian-American parents’ role in early childhood HL
development. Qualitative inquiry was most appropriate for this study because it helped collect
in-depth information to better understand the choices and challenges parents faced (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This chapter outlines the research methods of this dissertation, taking into
account the presented literature and areas of need for research.
The reviewed literature focused on learning language through a sociocultural lens, where
more knowledgeable actors influence and guide learning (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996;
Vygotsky, 1978). It also reviewed language socialization literature, where language learning
was synonymous with socialization (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). In early childhood, the actors in
charge of fostering language skills are typically parents. In the case of a HL, language learning
experiences can be even more dependent on the parent because, unlike the dominant language, it
is not omnipresent (Tse, 2001). Therefore, the unit of analysis for this study was the individual,
specifically parents. Given the sociocultural and language socialization frameworks, this study
examined parents’ perceptions regarding HL development in their children as well as observed
parents’ interactions with their child(ren).
Research Questions
The research questions that originally guided this study were:
1. What are parents’ experiences, perceptions, and motivations in relation to fostering
heritage language acquisition and maintenance?
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 147

2. How do Armenian-American parents support heritage language learning through play,
books and technology?
During data collection, when it became clear that play, books and technology played a limited
role in supporting Armenian HL, the second research question was changed to the following:
2. How do Armenian-American parents support heritage language learning?
Originally, I chose to focus on play interactions between parents and children during
observations. However, when I observed play, there was a lot of independent play and use of
toys that were not specific to a language. Also, other responsibilities such as children’s
homework and making food superseded play interactions and impacted language use. Therefore
the second research question became more general without specifying play.
The first research question asked Armenian-American parents directly about their
experiences, interpretations, and views on teaching their child(ren) Armenian as a HL. It aimed
to understand how parents’ own experiences, self-efficacy, and characteristics such as
generational status shaped how they perceived the development of a HL in the U.S. The second
research question prompted observations of parent behavior with their child(ren) to triangulate
data with the first research question. The goal was to see parents in action, using language with
their kids in order to examine whether and how parents supported their child(ren)’s HL
development. Some things are not in individuals’ consciousness and so interviews alone would
have limited the findings of this study, whereas interviews and observations in conjunction
provided a more thorough picture (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Sampling and Participants
Parents were the unit of analysis in this study because they were the ones that could affect
child(ren)’s language abilities the most in childhood (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). They knew the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 148

language and made choices for their child(ren) every day. Their goals and intentions were
evident through their own self-report as well as their interactions with their child(ren). Parents
acted as gatekeepers to their child(ren)’s learning of HL because they had access to the language
through their own language ability and family members. As supported by the literature, as the
generations after immigration progress, the language declines accordingly (Rumbaut, 2004;
Rumbaut et al., 2006; Tse, 2001; Valdés, 2001). Typically, if second generation speakers still
know the language, there is a significant drop in the third generation (Rumbaut et al., 2006).
Therefore, this study focused on the generation of transmission between those two, roughly from
the second generation to the third. I will provide more details on how I narrowed the
generational status later in this section.
The prominent and consistent role of the parent in children’s lives is why I designed my
research questions and data collection to focus on their role. I chose to use a purposeful
maximum variation sample. Purposeful sampling is when selection of participants is designed
intentionally to gain the most insight possible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maximum variation is
a type of purposeful sampling that tries to capture a wide range of participants to be as
representative of the population as possible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The maximum variation
sought in this study was based on parents’ language goals for their children, children’s language
programs, and participants’ and spouses country of origin and age of arrival which also
accounted for the varieties of spoken Armenian represented by the families. I also looked for
variation in siblings’ ages and gender. The selection process will be detailed below.
To identify and recruit members of this population, I used social media and contacted
existing organizations in the Armenian-American community. These included institutions of
learning and community organizations. I am an Armenian-American myself and have been a
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 149

member and employee of some of these organizations. I used my existing network for assistance
in distributing the initial screener to select participants for the study. I will discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of my membership later when I review the limitations of this
study, and the ways in which I maximized the credibility and trustworthiness of this study.
It is important to note that, while I selected parent participants who had child(ren), and
observed those parents interacting with their child(ren), I specifically studied the parents’ role.
Even when there were other actors present such as spouses, grandparents, or babysitters, I still
focused primarily on parents’ interactions with their children. My data collection focused on the
parents’ interactions with their child(ren) and how that aligned with their self-report in the
interviews. Therefore, I paid great attention to how I selected the parents for this study using
criteria and a screener.
The larger population from which this sample was drawn was Armenian-American
parents. The unit of analysis was the individual. The focus of my study was parents fostering
HL before and while child(ren) reached schooling age. Parents are the first prominent figures in
child(ren)’s lives and can influence much of their initial socialization and language development
(John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Melo-Pfeifer, 2015; Vygotsky, 1978). Further, oral language
development is the foundation for later language ability (Dickinson & Porche, 2011). When
parents were HL learners themselves, there is often incomplete acquisition of the HL (Carreira &
Kagan, 2011; Montrul, 2010) and dependency on others to foster the HL for their children.
However, they are a consistent MKO throughout their children’s lives and serve as a model
heritage community member whether or not they are proficient in their HL. Therefore, in both
types of data collection, the focus was the Armenian-American parent.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 150

There was an initial screener used to look for and choose participants. Items on the
screener included generational status of the parents’ and spouses, country of origin, age and
gender of their child(ren), and their goals in developing Armenian as their child(ren)’s HL. The
full screener can be found in Appendix B. Research on immigration and language development
supported that parents with later generational status are less likely to transmit their HL to the
next generation (Rumbaut et al., 2006; Tse, 2001; Valdés, 2001). They serve as gatekeepers to
the language and, based on several supports and challenges, transmit the language or do not.
This study aimed to look more closely at that generation. Therefore, the first criterion for
sampling was that parents belonged to the 1.5 or 1.75 generation, based on Rumbaut’s (2004)
classification of immigrant generational status. Immigrants belonging to the 1.5 and 1.75
generations arrived to the U.S. before the age of 12. They were younger upon arrival, had not
completed identity development, and received most of their schooling in the U.S. This criterion
negated potential participants who arrived in the U.S. in adolescence or adulthood, 1.25 or first
generational status (Rumbaut, 2004). That was because of their likelihood of already being
dominant in their HL and having begun or completed identity development upon arrival to the
U.S. This meant that they were more likely to have formed a cultural identity and language
skills in their former host country (Birman & Addae, 2015; Schwartz et al., 2015; Suárez-
Orozco, 2004), enabling a different level of support for their child(ren)’s HL development.
While there are always exceptions, the views presented are on the overall trends across
generational statuses confirmed by the literature.
The second criterion for sampling was their child(ren’s) age. Children under the age of
one are in the prelinguistic stage meaning they are receptive of language and minimally
communicative. There will not be enough language production on behalf of the child(ren) for
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 151

me to be able to observe interactions more fully. Children in the emergent stage are between 12
and 24 months and children in the early linguistic stage are between two to five years of age. In
the emergent stage, children are producing sounds and are aware of pragmatics in language use
in a social setting. They are actively developing semantics and receptive of morphology and
syntax. In the early linguistic stage, they are producing sounds, and words, and are aware of
pragmatics. They are beginning to develop morphology, syntax, discourse, and literacy. At this
stage, all elements of children’s linguistic development have begun (Hoff, 2014). Therefore, all
participants had at least one child who was between one and five years of age. I also selected for
siblings over the age of five for maximum variation. The role of siblings at schooling age
impacts their younger siblings’ language development as well which is why I made sure to
include them (Shin, 2002). After the age of five, formal schooling begins and has great potential
to influence HL development. As I have reviewed in the first two chapters, I focused on language
in early childhood because it is foundational for all later language development and a common
challenge in HL classrooms is that students enter at varying levels of proficiency which makes it
increasingly difficult to teach in a single classroom (Carreira & Kagan, 2011). The third
criterion for the study was that parents had at least some interest in their child(ren) learning the
Armenian language. If parents had no interest in their child(ren) learning Armenian, then my
research questions would not have been relevant to their experiences.
To choose participants based on maximum variation, I looked at language goals, school
choice, country of origin for both participants and spouses, and gender. Parents were asked on
the screener whether they wanted their children’s Armenian proficiency to be fluent in both
speaking and literacy, just in speaking, or only whatever they picked up from their environment.
There were very few parents who picked the latter two options so the final sample resulted in
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 152

only one parent whose goal was mainly speaking. The rest of the participants wanted their
children to be fluent in speaking, reading, and writing Armenian. This limits the sample because
it is possible that only the most motivated parents volunteered for this study. Next, I looked at
school choice because it was telling in some part of their parents’ intentions and had implications
for their children’s HL development. Available language education choices in Southern
California for Armenian-American parents at the time of this study included the choice of private
Armenian day schools which taught Armenian as a foreign language through extra subject
classes, extracurricular Armenian language programs and tutors usually afterschool or on
weekends, Armenian-English dual-language immersion programs in public schools, and no
language classes at all (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016; Karapetian, 2014). The participants in the
final sample had 19 children total, with 12 enrolled in Armenian private day schools and
preschools, two in a dual-language immersion program, two in only English language schools,
and three not in school yet.
I also considered parents’ and spouses’ countries of origin, which were indicative of the
variety(ies) of Armenian spoken by the families. As reviewed through the literature, Armenian-
American immigrants in Southern California today come from diaspora communities that
developed separately for at least some part of their history. This diversity is still evident in the
spoken language varieties in Los Angeles today. Further, families that speak different varieties
are intermarrying which introduces different challenges not yet explored (Karapetian, 2017).
Therefore, for maximum variation, I considered both parents’ and spouses’ countries of origin
which was indicative of language variety. During recruitment, it was challenging to find
participants who spoke Western Armenian. This may have been because of the institutions I
recruited through, my own network, and historical factors. As a result, I contacted an institution
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 153

that predominantly served Western Armenian speakers, which was successful in helping get the
participants I needed. This was also indicative of the degree of separation that remains within
Armenian-Americans based on previous host countries, which made it even more important to
consider language variety for maximum variation. The final sample had three participants and
two spouses that spoke Eastern Armenian in the variety that is common to descendants of
Armenians formerly from the Soviet Union; two participants and two spouses that spoke Eastern
Armenian in the Iranian-Armenian variety; and two participants and one spouse who spoke
Western Armenian only. There was also one spouse who spoke both Western Armenian and the
variety of Eastern Armenian spoken in the current Republic of Armenia. Last, there was one
spouse who spoke no Armenian at all because he was not ethnically Armenian. Of the seven
participants’ families, two families spoke two different varieties of Armenian. Of all participants
and their spouses, one spouse was not ethnically Armenian and one spouse was half-Persian.
I also considered sibling’s ages for maximum variation. As mentioned earlier, I selected
families with siblings in school as well as families with no children in formal schooling. Two of
the families had children ages four and under with no one in kindergarten yet. The rest had
siblings in kindergarten or higher.
Last, I considered gender for both children and participants. For participants’ children,
the final sample included eight female children and eleven male children. For participants, the
parents, there was less diversity in the people who were interested in participating in the study
and so there was one male participant and six females. To allow for as much of the full range of
participants as possible, multiple factors were considered for a purposeful maximum variation
sample.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 154

An online screener using Google Forms was created with the above criteria in mind and
disseminated through social media and existing Armenian institutions that chose to participate.
Recruitment was through the types of institutions mentioned above that offered Armenian
language programs, as well as Armenian-American community organizations, and social media.
The screener began with a letter communicating the criteria for involvement in the study if
participants were to be selected. The letter explained the general purpose of the study and that it
would involve two interviews between 30-90 minutes, and about five hours of observations of
parent(s) and child(ren) interacting. The screener asked participants to indicate a) country of
origin and age of arrival, for both parents if applicable b) number of children they had c) their
children’s ages and genders, d) interest in their children learning the Armenian language and
their HL goals for their children, e) school choice for their child(ren), f) languages they spoke at
home, and g) their current geographic location. The sample was not selected based on location
as criteria but ease of access and feasibility were considered. After receiving completed
screeners, I selected participants using the maximum variation detailed above, totaling seven
participants. The extensive details of the sample selection process can be found in Appendix C.
Table 1 provides an overview of the final sample.

Running head: PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 155
Table 1 Sample

Child 3
(Sex/Age)
-
F/5
F/3
F/4
M/2
-
M/5
months
Child 2
(Sex/Age)
M/5
M/7
M/5
M/6
F/6
M/10
months
M/3
Child 1
(Sex/Age)
F/7
F/9
M/6
F/7
F/8
M/4
M/4
Armenian
Language
Program
Private
Dual-language
immersion
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Armenian
Language Goals
for Children
mainly speak
speak, read, write
speak, read, write
speak, read, write
speak, read, write
speak, read, write
speak, read, write
Spouse Language
Variety
Eastern (Armenia)
Eastern (Armenia)
No Armenian
Eastern (Iran)
Western/Eastern
(Armenia)
Eastern (Iran)
Western
Age of
Arrival
0-5
6-12
0-5
0-5
6-12
6-12
6-12
Language Variety
Eastern (Armenia)
Eastern (Armenia)
Western (Lebanon)
Eastern (Iran)
Western (Lebanon)
Eastern (Iran)
Eastern (Armenia)
Participant
Anna
Julia
Maya
Allison
Jack
Rebecca
Bella
Running head: PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 156
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
In this study I used interviews and observations to learn about the perceptions and
practices of Armenian-American parents and their child(ren)’s acquisition and maintenance of
Armenian as a HL. The first research question asked about the challenges and opportunities that
supported parents in teaching their child(ren) Armenian as a HL. This question was primarily
answered through interviews. The second research question asked how Armenian-American
parents supported HL learning through interactions with their child(ren). This question was
answered through interviews and observations. Insight into both realms, the inward and outward
expressions of HL development in Armenian-American parents’ interactions with their
child(ren), thus combined to provide rich sources of data for this study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The data collection sequence began with two observations and then the first interview, so
parents would not be primed to know the things I was looking for in observations had I
interviewed them first. Then, I conducted the last observation and finished with the second
interview. My total time in the field, conducting both interviews and observations, was 45 hours.

Figure 2 Data Collection Sequence

Observations
Observations are used to observe participants in a naturalistic setting. They aim to get as
close to what actually happens as possible. Observations are used to look for things that
participants do but may not be aware of, as opposed to what they say they do through self-report
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This is similar to what interview questions
try to uncover by asking participants about their behavior. However, in an observation, the
researcher is the one to directly observe and reflect on the participants’ behavior (Bogdan &
Observation 1 Observation 2 Interview 1 Observation 3 Interview 2
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 157

Biklen, 2007). Observations are another form of data that can triangulate what participants say
they do in their interviews, to what they actually do. Together, they help mediate the weaknesses
of each method of data collection used alone (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I conducted at least five hours of observations with each participant interacting with their
child(ren), totaling just over 35 hours. Observations were in any naturalistic environment where
parents were interacting with their child(ren). There was use of both English and Armenian
during observations. The location and time was determined by the suggestions and preferences
of each participant. They were split across three visits at each participants’ home, during
activities such as play, meals, and homework.
I used an observation protocol to document the actors, time and date, location, and
activity/setting. I also recorded a quick drawing of the physical setting for later reference and to
use as data. The physical setting was important because it held several cultural scripts that were
indicative of day-to-day living and regular practices that took place during or outside of that
observation time. The physical setting provided insight into things such as the cultural tools
covered in the sociocultural theory literature that could help facilitate HL development and even
elements of identity fostered by the family. They added to the information on the types of
language input and resources families had access to and used to support language interactions.
The biggest focus of the protocol was my own notes and reflections. I wrote field notes
throughout and added to them immediately after the observations, as I continued to reflect in
writing and through the use of my audio-recorder away from the participants as suggested by
Merriam & Tisdell (2016).
During the observations, I looked for the language(s) and types of language supports
parents used with their child(ren). I looked for components from the literature such as the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 158

influence of generational status and a dominant language, code-switching, types of resources
used, and the child(ren)’s active role in the interaction. I had a checklist with me for specificity
in observing characteristics related to language socialization such as presence of other actors like
siblings, diglossia, and language prestige. I also looked for areas of overlap and misalignment
between what parents reported in their interviews and what they did during the naturalistic
observations.
During the observations, I took on the most natural role for the context (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I tried to find a balance between an overt observer and participant because of my
relationship with the participants and perceived cultural norms. I was an evident outsider to the
participants, therefore I was overt. As a member of the Armenian-American community myself,
and as I built rapport with participants, it was more normative for me to partake in some of the
activities rather than sit out. I knew that it was important to receive participants’ hospitality as a
guest in their home, yet remain humble. All participants offered me something to eat and drink
each time I was at their home, and sometimes when I said I did not want anything, they brought
me something anyway, in which case I took it. During a memorable instance, a participant told
me it was “weird” if I did not sit on the dinner table and eat dinner with the family. I participated
in dinner, though still taking brief observation notes that I added to afterwards. I adjusted
between my roles of observer and participant as the research contexts and relationships needed
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews
Interviews are conducted to collect information that is not observable and may be the
only way to access certain types of information (Weiss, 1995). People use what they know to be
true about the world and their experiences to shape their lives every day. These thoughts may
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 159

not be visible to the interviewer and are likely not in the present conscience of the interviewee,
but they shape their actions (Patton, 2002). Therefore, I chose to use interviews to answer the
first research question of this study about parents’ perceptions. As the conceptual framework
highlighted, parent experiences, perceptions, and motivations influence their motivations and
goals and shape their interactions with their child(ren), which consequently affects language
development. The interviews asked about what parents did as well, so, while self-reported,
interviews could help glean insights into parent practices too, which helped partially address the
second research question.
I conducted two formal semi-structured interviews with each of the seven parents. Both
interviews were guided by an interview protocol to make sure I covered all intended areas
(Weiss, 1995). The interview protocols were guided by the reviewed literature and addressed
themes such as identity, migration history, access to resources, goals, and so on. They ended
with general demographic questions, because as Patton (2002) stated, it is better to ask less open-
ended questions at the end, so as not to set a less open tone at the beginning. The full interview
protocol for both Interviews 1 and 2 can be found in Appendices D and E. The first interviews
took between 30 and100 minutes and the second interviews lasted between 15 and 50 minutes. I
collected a total of 14 interviews, totaling just under 10 hours of data. The purpose of the first
interview was to collect most of the data to answer the first research question and to support the
observations. I covered the topics and questions in my protocol and probed participants to
understand their perceptions more deeply. The purpose of the second interview was to avoid
overburdening the first interview, clarify any information from the first interview, and act as a
member check, which I will discuss further in the “Credibility and Trustworthiness” section. In
addition to the two formal interviews, there were informal interviews that came up in general
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 160

conversation throughout my observations and after interviews with participants. These were
unplanned and unstructured.
All formal interviews were conducted by me and confidential. They were conducted in a
quiet space that was convenient and determined by the parent(s), all at their homes. Only the
parent(s) and I were present during most interviews. Interviews were scheduled to be the most
convenient for participants so during some of the interviews, children and spouses were in the
background. In one interview, the mother held her infant during the interview. The interview
protocols were in English, because the generation I interviewed was mostly English dominant. I,
the researcher, though fluent in Armenian, am also English dominant. Some of the interviewees
responded in Armenian or code-switched because it was naturalistic. Since my goal was the
content and not the language, code-switching did not hinder my data collection. I asked for
permission to audio-record the formal interviews and later transcribed them for coding and
analysis. I made jottings during the interviews, which allowed me to keep track of ideas to come
back to in the interview or to note non-verbal behavior that could not be captured on the audio
recording. No participants objected to being recorded. I also audio-recorded my additional
thoughts immediately upon leaving participants’ houses. For informal interviews, I took notes
during my observations as they came up and immediately after. I de-identified all interview data
and stored it in two places, a password protected computer and backup drive.
Data Analysis
Throughout the process of data collection, I used jottings and audio-recorded connections
I made as they came up. This was helpful because analysis started once I began collecting my
data and ensured that I had a record of my thoughts as they developed. I had the interview
recordings transcribed by a transcription service, adding later the Armenian portions of the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 161

interviews, and I typed up notes made during observations
5
. To begin coding, I started with a
priori codes connected to my conceptual framework and research questions. I began with
thematic codes for parents, child(ren), other actors, parents’ perceptions and values, resources,
and language(s). I created emergent codes during analysis and modified the existing codes as
themes came up, as suggested by Harding (2013). Some of the emergent codes included parent-
child interactions that included homework instead of the original focus on play, and the use of
toys that were not specific to any language which ended up being more prevalent than language-
specific ones. The last set of coding included four overarching categories—“Goals,”
“Outsourcing,” “Competing Forces,” and “Uphill Battle,”—with thematic codes branching from
each. The category codes ended up comprising the themes in Chapter 4, with the latter two
collapsing into one theme (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The complete codebook is provided in
Appendix F. I consulted my committee and peers to review the codes before I recoded the data
set numerous times (Harding, 2013; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used the
coding software Atlas TI to organize my transcripts and field notes as well as to facilitate the
coding process. I also used other analytic tools during this process. I asked questions about the
data and recorded observations that were odd or interesting to reflect on later. I made
comparisons across participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). One comparison I made was between
the families who had children in formal schooling and those who did not, which had implications
for the frequency of Armenian and English spoken at home. My own personal experiences also
acted as a guide and reference point throughout data analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). For

5
As an HL learner of Eastern Armenian myself, my Armenian language knowledge is most proficient in Eastern
Armenian using the Reformed Orthography. Therefore, I used the Reformed Orthography to record all Armenian
language data. Non-standard Armenian language used by participants was maintained and written as phonetically
accurate as possible, using the Reformed Orthography. In Chapter 4, data in Eastern Armenian was represented
using the Reformed Orthography. Data in Western Armenian was written in the Classical Orthography through the
guidance of an Armenian language expert.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 162

example, participants’ children were assigned the same types of homework and stories that I was
when I was in an Armenian language program growing up. This showed me how little the
curricula had changed and that there were issues with relevancy. Another analytic took I used
was to pay close attention to key words or emotions displayed by participants during data
collection, and inquire about them when appropriate. This included looking for words that
indicated time and shifts over time (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I looked specifically at shifts in
how participants supported Armenian as a HL for their kids as they got older. This led to the
finding about birth order and HL exposure. Yet another analytic tool I used was looking for a
negative case (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). There was one participant’s family where the youngest
child spoke the most fluent Armenian of the children, where the opposite was expected. Further
analysis uncovered that the child spent most of her time with the Armenian language dominant
babysitter. This added to the finding that parents outsourced HL learning to caregivers. Finally,
as I reported my findings, writing was a reflective process that helped continue to shape my
analysis throughout (Harding, 2013). The most prominent example of analysis while writing
was when the two category codes, “Competing Forces” and “Uphill Battle,” evolved into the
“Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” theme in Chapter 4, which was more fitting for
the findings I was presenting. Here I have provided specific examples, yet each analytic tool
facilitated analysis across the data corpus.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study, like all others, had limitations and delimitations. The goal of qualitative
research is not generalizability; it is rather to tell a story in an in-depth way. Therefore,
limitations should be acknowledged as an inevitable part of data collection but not as deterrents
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 163

Limitations
I anticipated certain limitations for this study and, at the same time, I did my best to stay
aware of and minimize them. I cover my practices concerning the latter in the upcoming
“Credibility and Trustworthiness” section. This study was limited to Armenian-Americans in
Southern California due to feasibility and access. This may restrict the transferability of the
findings, at least in part, to the population of Armenian-Americans living in Southern California.
This study was limited to 1.5 and 1.75 generation Armenian-Americans, although intentionally,
which may also limit transferability of the findings to those generations.
Another limitation of this study was my existing role as an educator and in the
community. In addition to being a general Armenian-American community member, throughout
the course of my life I have held several positions in Armenian organizations, language
programs, and schools. I have been a member and leader in organizations, a student of a
language program, and an all-English-subjects teacher and administrator at an Armenian day
school. My experiences in these organizations shaped the ways I perceived the ideas that
participants presented to me. For example, as an educator, I approached the study thinking
parents would have a much more deliberate perspective on teaching their children language
through their daily interactions. Through data collection I realized that parents were less
deliberate in their daily interactions and more focused on getting through their many daily
responsibilities with language as a byproduct. Also, given my own English language dominance,
I was surprised to find that participants spoke more Armenian with their children than English.
This bias also could have affected the way I took my observation notes, specifically noticing
participants’ use of the Armenian language because it was surprising to me.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 164

My network in the connected community and the organizations through which I recruited
also meant that participants knew about my previous work and involvement which shaped their
presentation of information to me. For example, some parents told their children that I was
writing down what they were doing so they should speak in Armenian or behave. There were
also instances like a conversation after an interview with a participant. The participant’s spouse
approached me defensively and asked me the same interview questions in an attempt to defend
their family’s choices. The conversation ended as a positive one, but showed me that he had
preconceptions about my beliefs which made him protective of his own. This may have been
true for other participants too, where they may not have been completely truthful about their
perceptions and practices during interviews if they perceived certain comments socially
inappropriate, or at least ones I would judge as negative. This made it extremely important that I
establish good rapport with participants and ensured that they were comfortable with me and
knew that my role was not to judge, but to understand (Glesne, 2011), as I was able to do when
approached by the participants’ spouse in the aforementioned example.
My positionality in the community and the sensitivity of the research topic also impacted
sampling. Even after participants had indicated interest in becoming participants through the
screener for this study, one potential participant explicitly rejected participating in this study
because it was a sensitive topic and two avoided my attempts to contact them. Also, one of my
participants ended up being a former student of mine. While this impacted data collection
because I had an existing relationship with the family, the participant’s involvement in the study
was more valuable to maximum variation than not being included.
The interview data being collected was through self-report. Self-report comes with its
limitations because people do not always do as they say, and they may adjust the information
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 165

they present based on other factors, such as their knowledge of my role in the community
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specific limitations of this study that came up through sampling
were that participants were largely mothers who did not work full time and all children of
schooling age attended an Armenian language program, mostly private schools. This limitation
was likely related to availability and socioeconomic status. In other words, only those who were
mothers without full time employment and the ability to pay for private schools could entertain
partaking in a study such as this. In analysis, it also became a likely possibility that the people
who felt most comfortable opening up to research about a sensitive issue were the ones who
thought they were successful in developing their children’s HL because their kids were enrolled
in a language program. As such, this study was not able to explore the experiences and practices
of families whose children were in afterschool Armenian or tutoring programs. Despite these
limitations, the data collected in this study provided valuable insight into an understudied
population.
Delimitations
In addition to the limitations of this study that I did not control, there were delimitations,
which are ways that I intentionally bounded my study. The delimitations of this study included
the location and my conceptual framework. Greater Los Angeles has the third most Armenians
globally, and the most in Armenians in the U.S. (Karapetian, 2014). It was also my place of
residence and most feasible for access to participants. Further, this study was born out of my
personal experiences as a member of the Armenian-American community and shaped by the
reviewed literature. This study was also delimited to the role of the parent in HL development
because parents are constant actors over the course of children’s lives and act as a HL model
even if they do not actively foster the HL. Parents’ generational status was yet another
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 166

intentional delimitation because of its pivotal potential for generational transmission of
Armenian as a HL. All of these were ways that intentionally narrowed my conceptual
framework and, consequently, data collection.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Every study has potential limitations, but there are ways to help mediate those
limitations. Additionally, all qualitative research have the threats of bias on the part of the
researcher and reactivity on the part of the participants (Maxwell, 2013). I used a variety of
methods to maximize credibility and trustworthiness of this study. First, I spent prolonged time
in the field, conducting more than one interview per participant and observing many hours of
parent-child interactions. Prolonged time in the field made it less likely that participants were
reactive to a researcher’s presence and so they could act more naturalistically (Maxwell, 2013).
During my time in the field, I aimed for saturation. Once I begin to observe the same things for
each participant and across participants, I knew that I had been in the field for a sufficient
amount of time (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Next, using two methods,
interviews and observations, triangulated my data. I wanted to see parents actually using
language with their child(ren) because some behaviors are not in parents’ consciousness.
Interviews alone would have been limited, especially given the possibility of parents adjusting
their self-report because of guilt, shame, and their perceptions of socially appropriate responses
(Maxwell, 2013).
Another tactic I used to ensure credibility and trustworthiness was member-checking.
Member checking, or respondent validation, is when a researcher checks initial emergent
findings with participants in the study. My second interview with each participant served this
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 167

purpose, as I checked in with participants about my understandings and thoughts upon initial
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To check for my own reflexivity, I did my best to stay aware of my biases by journaling
my reflections during analysis. Looking back on these reflections allowed me to address biases
that may have found their way into my analysis, some of which I mentioned in the former
subsection on “Limitations.” For example, my role as an educator led me to believe that parents
would be a lot more intentional about their daily language interactions with their children and
use specific resources, like toys. The findings of this study uncovered that parents were less
deliberate in the Armenian language resources they used in the home and instead outsourced to
others whose job it was, such as teachers. Another bias with which I entered this study was the
assumption that parents would be speaking more English than Armenian within the home. It was
even after coding and seeing the total code counts that I realized that participants spoke more
Armenian than they did English. Despite my biases as a member of the community, it is
important to note that methodologists consider it simultaneously a strength as a researcher
(Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) because it gave me unique access to
be able to conduct this study at all. Last, my field notes were rich with detail and recorded.
Interviews were audio-recorded and I took and saved notes immediately after all interviews and
observations to ensure accuracy in my audit trail (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ensuring credibility and trustworthiness is an ongoing process and critical to the merit of
a researcher’s findings (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These were the ways in
which I did my best to mediate the inevitable limitations of this study with its strengths.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 168

Ethics
It was my responsibility as the researcher to consider ethical issues that came up
throughout the entire research process and safeguard participants to the best of my ability. I
maintained participants’ confidentiality. All data were de-identified and names were replaced
with pseudonyms. Further, all data were stored in two places, on a password-protected computer
and backup drive, as suggested by Glesne (2011). Participants received thorough information on
all of these procedures and I collected data only once I received their consent (Glesne, 2011).
The study began only after I obtained approval from my university’s institutional review board
that my study was exempt. An additional factor of ethical concern was the researcher-participant
relationship. I did my best to communicate that I wanted to learn from participants and showed
them the value their contributions had. In one interview, I could tell a participant was struggling
with expressing a negative view of Armenian institutions from her body language and because
she was overly cautious in the way she expressed it. I interjected to let her know that her view
was valuable because it was representative of what she and others believed, and she was
providing it as data for systematic research so it could evolve from hearsay to something that
could actually be addressed. I wanted to comfort her and dispel any preconceived notions she
had that I may judge her negatively, yet maintain the privacy of my own personal views so as not
to bias the data. I built rapport with each participant and child and showed genuine interest and
care for their well-being. During an observation, one child was in a silly mood and saying funny
phrases and laughing. She said something that her mother mistook for an inappropriate word. I
sensed the participant considering how she should approach the situation with me there. Even
though I had the role of observer and not participant, I felt it was in the best interest of the child
to reassure her mother that I, the other adult in the room, had heard the initial word and it was not
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 169

inappropriate. Instead of an uncomfortable misunderstanding, we all laughed at the mishap and
quickly moved on. Since I was in participants’ homes, occurrences like these were common and
called for me to make decisions in the immediate context. I did my best to achieve a balance
between researcher and warm rapport with all of my participants so that they were comfortable,
but so I was still able to fulfill my duties as the researcher. Last, in my findings and analysis, I
checked for anything that could be potentially harmful to participants (Glesne, 2011).
Conclusion
The research questions guiding my data collection asked about Armenian-American
parents’ perceptions of the challenges and opportunities to support HL, and how they supported
HL through interactions with their child(ren). The sample for this study was narrowed to
Armenian-American parents from the 1.5 and 1.75 generations who wanted to foster Armenian
as a HL with their children. This study had a total of seven parent participants and all data
collection focused on the parents’ role, even though their interactions with their children and
other actors were also a large part of the data collection efforts in this study. Interviews and
observations were used together to answer the different components of the research questions
and triangulate data. Data collection and analysis was a reflective process, keeping in mind the
limitations of the study as well as the measures in place to ensure credibility, trustworthiness,
and ethical concerns.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 170

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The analysis and findings of this study were representative of the complexities Armenian-
American parents faced each day as they navigated generational transmission of their HL for
their children. Each example of data represented overlapping findings, many of which did not
have strong foundations in the larger literature yet. The first section of this chapter discusses the
“Motivators” that guided participants’ behavior, relevant to their children’s HL development.
Each motivator was critical in better understanding Armenian-American parents process in
generational transmission of the Armenian language. Some of the motivators were directly
linked to HL development, others tangentially, and some even presented challenges. The second
section in this chapter focuses on parents’ practices in outsourcing their children’s Armenian
language learning. Parents used resources such as language programs, grandparents and
babysitters, extracurricular activities, and sometimes toys, books, and technology to teach their
children the Armenian language. The phenomenon of outsourcing was especially interesting
because the very nature of a HL is that it is connected to the family’s heritage and roots; it is
deeply internal, yet outsourcing could make it external. The last, and largest, section uncovered
the discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the English and Armenian languages
for participants’ children. Not only were parents explicitly aware of the discrepancies between
the two languages, but it was apparent throughout their interview responses as well as
observation data. Overall, the findings in this chapter aim to examine Armenian-Americans’
journey towards the goal of HL development for their children. Gaining that understanding has
potential to help overcome some of the challenges families face, of which there are many.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 171

Motivators
Motivators are what instigate action towards a goal. This sections on motivators explores
the different things that participants considered when making decisions regarding their children
and HL development. Ideally, motivators would lead to sustained behavior over time in order to
reach a goal. This section focuses solely on what stimulated parents to foster Armenian as HL
with their children. Later sections will address what behavior was sustained and its implications
for HL development. The screener used for sample selection maintained that all participants in
this study were interested in their child(ren) learning the Armenian language. Parents surely had
other interests for their children alongside HL development. This section explores the broad
ranging motivators that participants shared in this study, not all of which had to do with their
children’s development of the Armenian language.
Parents’ motivators, even when not directly related to HL development, still impacted HL
development. Participants in this study valued multilingualism overall, regardless of language,
because it increased cultural capital for their children. They believed that the English language,
above Armenian, was a prerequisite for their children’s success. Some participants cited safety
and familiarity as a priority over or alongside language when making choices for their children.
Participants wanted to foster Armenian cultural identity in their children which may or may not
have included the language. Participants felt responsible for maintaining the Armenian culture.
Last, participants felt a great sense of pride when they were successful in developing their
children’s HL.
Multilingualism as Cultural Capital
All participants in this study viewed multilingualism as valuable for their children,
regardless of the languages spoken. Language is a way to gain access to a specific context. It
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 172

creates access that would not otherwise exist. Peirce (1995) explained the motivation for second
language acquisition through a sociological perspective, as investment. Peirce’s (1995) approach
viewed language as cultural capital, which is knowledge of how to be in a social context.
Cultural capital gives a person unique access to a community that they would not have had
otherwise and affects their positionality within that community; language is one way to gain that
access (Peirce, 1995). Parents in this study showcased beliefs that were commensurate with this
view of cultural capital. All participants were motivated for their children to learn more than one
language because they would gain cultural capital and they represented this cultural capital in
different ways. All parents mentioned ways that multilingualism would make their children
more dynamic to succeed in specific contexts and some shared their awareness of the cognitive
benefits. This section is not specific to the Armenian language, it focuses generally on the
benefits of multilingualism mentioned by participants because their responses did not necessarily
specify the Armenian language. Last, it is noteworthy to mention that all participants in this
study were multilingual themselves, speaking English and Armenian, and all had at least some
previous experience with a third language.
Five of the seven participants in this study talked about multilingualism increasing
cultural capital as it contributed to success in different contexts. Anna was asked if she thought
it was critical to know more than one language. She answered:
They're so like sponges right now, I think it's important to teach them as much as you
could and they'll just take in. I mean, even if they take in 80% or 70% of what you're
giving them, it still will help them out. I think it's important.
Anna approached the idea of multilingualism generally. She felt it “important” to teach her
children as many things as she could. Exposure to anything, language and others things, would
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 173

“help” her children. No matter the amount that her children took in, “it will still help them out.”
Anna believed that multilingualism added to her children’s knowledge and increased their
cultural capital, even if she did not know exactly how it would help them yet.
Maya’s response to the same question was “You're wealthier in knowledge the more
languages you know.” She connected multilingualism to more knowledge. Her use of
“wealthier” showed that she viewed language as an asset to be gained. When I asked her to
elaborate on what she meant by wealth, she described “So I think knowing multiple languages
will, one, give them more opportunities in life. But just knowing the more languages I think the
more languages, you know, I guess the better it is.” Maya’s response emphasized having
increased “opportunities in life” because of multilingualism. She then struggled to explain the
specifics, but it was clear she thought knowing more than one language was “better,” it added to
one’s cultural capital.
This idea of multilingualism making one more dynamic and adding to character was
pervasive in participants’ responses. After addressing the cognitive benefits, which will be
discussed later, Rebecca concluded with, “and then it also increases character, I guess, in a
person.” Rebecca did not provide details about what it meant to increase character, but her use
of the word “increases” clearly indicated that she thought something was gained. She described
it as “character,” which influences one’s interactions with the world around them, thus positively
affecting cultural capital.
Julia also explained language as cultural capital through the advantages she had
experienced in her own life:
When I'm explaining something to my kids and I'm saying something and it's hard for me
to explain it in one language, all I have to do is switch to another language and I find a
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 174

different way to express that same idea and that diversity is what helps communicate
better.
Julia used an example from typical interactions with her children, where she would code-switch
to communicate more effectively. She finished by calling her ability to do that “diversity” that
helped in conversations. Knowing more than one language gave Julia unique ability to
communicate better and she wanted her children to have that same cultural capital.
Allison explained that she valued multilingualism because it gave a person the ability to
connect with others better, and she extended this to a professional advantage. When asked how
she felt about the statement “It’s critical to know more than one language,” she answered:
Oh, absolutely. I think it's critical. For me, it's also being able to connect with people. I
think, especially in a field like medicine, your ability to connect and convey information,
and the ability to entrust people in what you're offering them happens on a different level
when it's in their own language. So, I think that, for me, it’s important. It's ... You know,
when you speak to an Armenian in Armenian, you'll develop a different level of
connectivity. When I speak to a Spanish speaking patient in their language, it's a
different level of connectivity. I think when you have that translator in the middle, it
creates a rift, or it drives a wedge. So, I'm coming at it from more of a professional
standpoint.
Allison began by agreeing emphatically with the statement, with the use of the word
“absolutely.” She then related it to her own field, medicine, and how she used it to connect with
people and gain their trust. She said that speaking to someone in “their language,” indicating
ownership and familiarity, created a “different level of connectivity,” one that she felt was better
than not having the ability to do so. Allison explained that as well, by saying that the use of a
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 175

translator would mean something was “in the middle,” cause a “rift,” and “drive a wedge,” all of
which created distance and none of which were positive. She concluded by saying she was
viewing multilingualism from a “professional standpoint” because of the ways it had been an
advantage for her in her career. She felt that this cultural capital allowed her unique access to
connect effectively with patients and, the other option, being monolingual, would not allow her
to accomplish the same thing.
Three of the participants also approached multilingualism and cultural capital from a
broader approach as a form of survival. Bella explained her view through a historical survival
perspective related to her identity as an Armenian:
I think it just makes you a more well-rounded person. I always try to think, how would I
think about this question if I maybe was living in Armenia and the primary language was
Armenian? Would I, at that point, would I want my kids to know English or another
language? I think so. Just because growing up, I think because Armenians’ somewhat
tragic history that we've always had to speak another language, right, Armenians as a
race, so I think that there's some value in that to know another language.
She started by discussing well-roundedness, which connects with the previous examples about
increased character. Then, she reflected out loud about separating her desire for her kids to
speak Armenian from being multilingual. She assumed that if her kids were living in Armenia,
they would be proficient in Armenian and she would have to exert less effort to develop the
language. So then, she wondered if she would still place emphasis on them learning another
language to be bilingual, to which she answered “I think so.” Bella then justified her response
by explaining Armenians’ historical need for language, as they managed living in host countries
as a diaspora for centuries. Knowing more than one language helped those Armenians succeed
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 176

in difficult and diverse circumstances, wars and persecution, and she connected that experience
to how she wanted to raise her children as multilingual and “more well-rounded.”
Julia shared an even broader viewpoint. She explained, at length, her value for all
language globally as her justification for wanting her children to know more than one language.
She concluded with:
So what I feel like every time there's a language that's lost, every time there's a culture
that's lost, not only is it cutting off our contact with our ancestors, cutting off our contact
with knowledge that exists, because each language, I believe, carries in itself something
that we no longer know today about our world, our life.
Julia discussed the value of every language. She deemed language as cultural capital that gave
the world access to “ancestors” and “knowledge,” things she felt could not be gained through
other means if the language was lost. Peirce (1995) called this “exchange value,” where
different types of cultural capital had higher and lower gains. Expectancy-value theory views
this as attainment value, where knowing another language would be a valued asset (Eccles, 2006;
Schunk et al., 2014; Wigfield et al., 2009). Julia valued multilingualism for her children because
she viewed language as having incredibly high exchange value or attainment value.
Another way that participants viewed increased cultural capital was through the cognitive
benefits of multilingualism. Four participants mentioned cognitive benefits as a reason for
valuing multilingualism. Rebecca and Julia addressed it directly because they were familiar with
the research and Maya and Jack assumed that there were cognitive benefits in knowing more
than one language.
Rebecca said, “I think that intellectually, it's really good for the brain and for cognition.”
This example is clear and succinct, relating multilingualism to its neural advantages. Rebecca
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 177

happened to be in a profession where she was likely to know about the cognitive advantages of
multilingualism and she used that knowledge in shaping her language goals for her children.
Julia explained that the research she had been introduced to had helped her understand
the benefits of multilingualism better:
Well, yeah, I mean just knowing multiple languages, I’ve always felt like it was a part of
my life. I grew up with it. But then when I started hearing about it statistically, like it's
better for this and better for that, then I realized that we're on the right path.
In this example, Julia represented the process she went through. Multilingualism was embedded
in her upbringing and she accepted it as the norm without giving it much thought. Then, she
started learning about the research that explained the advantages of bilingualism and realized that
what she had accepted as the norm was the advantageous “right path.” Therefore, she wanted
her children to learn more than one language as well.
Maya and Jack did not say they knew, but rather assumed, that multilingualism was
advantageous for cognition. After explaining that knowing more than one language added to
wealth of knowledge, Maya added, “And I'm sure there's a study about how your mind works
differently… the more languages you know.” She indicated that she did not know about the
existing research but she was “sure” that it existed and that it showed that “your mind works
differently” when you know more languages. It was clear that she assumed this difference was
advantageous because it followed her claim, “You're wealthier in knowledge the more languages
you know.” Jack represented his view even more briefly, by mentioning “it's educational, I
think.” He thought it was educational which was one reason he valued multilingualism for his
children.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 178

In closing this subsection, I analyze the entire quotation from Jack. This example
represented all viewpoints represented in this section on how multilingualism increased cultural
capital. When asked whether he thought it was critical to know more than one language, Jack
explained:
To me, while we were kids, my dad used to say, every language is a person. For some
reason I believe in that. By saying that is, if you go throw me in middle of Mexico, I can
communicate with people and speak it, or if you take me to France, or if you take me to
Lebanon, or whatever the case may be. So it's good to know more than one language, it's
educational, I think. Especially nowadays, you know, the country we live in, let's say
you were to apply for a job, you have better chances to get that job if you put down you
speak English and Spanish.
He started by referencing an adage his father used to say in Armenian, “Ամեն լեզու մեկ մարդ
է,” which translated quite literally to “every language is a person.” Jack used this saying to
communicate that each language learned gives one unique ability to connect with others, as if
they were a whole other person. This piece was in line with the dynamic character viewpoint
shared by participants. Then, Jack approached the idea of increased character with another
viewpoint shared by participants, the role of language in success and survival. He used a
hypothetical about being in difficult situations. His use of the phrase “if you go throw me in
middle of Mexico” represented him abruptly being in a new and difficult environment, but one in
which he had the tools to succeed because of his language knowledge, “I can communicate with
people and speak it.” Jack’s use of Mexico, France, and Lebanon were intentional because he
spoke Spanish, French, and Arabic. He was using his own experiences to communicate that he
could be successful in “whatever” different environments he needed, if he was thrown in the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 179

middle. Next, Jack alluded to the potential of cognitive benefits for multilingualism by saying
that he thinks it is “educational.” Last, he discussed the advantage of speaking more than one
language in competing for jobs by saying “you have better chances to get that job if you put
down you speak English and Spanish.” This example from Jack walked through all of the ways
participants felt multilingualism increased cultural capital: dynamic character, help with success
in the workforce, survival, and cognitive advantages.
Before closing this subsection, it is important to address the specificity of this finding to
Armenians and, even more so, this sample. As a diaspora, many Armenians have been able to
maintain some cultural autonomy in previous host countries and learn the Armenian language
while learning the host language. Therefore, Armenian-Americans arriving to the U.S. have
typically been multilingual, knowing two or more languages. Multilingualism for Armenians is
not the exception but rather the norm (Karapetian, 2014). This is not the case for all immigrant
cultures arriving to the U.S. Unique to this study, there is also an issue of socioeconomic status.
The sample of this study had an overrepresentation of families whose children were enrolled in
private school, with six of seven families enrolling their child(ren) a private Armenian language
program. It is possible that these families had easier access to learning more than one language
or more demanding expectations for their children as it related to their socioeconomic statuses.
While unique, the value of multilingualism was shared across all participants and is one reason
that research specific to a culture is critical.
Multilingualism was valued across participants as something that increased cultural
capital. For this reason, participants wanted their children to learn more than one language as
well. These views did not apply only to Armenian, as participants mentioned other languages
they wanted their children to learn too. Many of the participants themselves knew more than
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 180

Armenian and English at the time of the study and all had at least some previous experiences
learning a third language. Participants valued multilingualism because they felt it created a more
dynamic person who could better connect with others, succeed in diverse environments, and
compete in the workplace. Some participants were also aware of the cognitive advantages of
knowing more than one language. Overall, multilingualism was a motivator across participants
because it increased cultural capital and that affected the language decisions they made for their
children.
English as a Prerequisite for Success
All parents viewed English as a prerequisite for their children’s success in the U.S.
English was necessary for daily communication as well as future success. Expectancy-value
theory explains motivation through individuals’ assessment of expectancies, what they think they
can accomplish, and their values. The theory focuses on four types of values, two of which are
particularly relevant to this section: attainment value and utility value. Attainment value is the
importance of accomplishing the task. Utility value is how useful the task is (Eccles, 2006;
Schunk et al., 2014; Wigfield et al., 2009). Participants viewed the English language as having
high attainment and utility value for their children because they linked it with their children’s
daily lives and overall success. This view motivated parents to prioritize English, as will be
represented later in the “Prioritization of English” subsection in the “Discrepancies in
Opportunities for Interaction” section, even though it was at odds with the “English Language
Development is Inevitable” subsection, where parents felt they did not need to focus efforts on
English language development.
Children’s English language development was very important to participants because it
was necessary for daily communication and success in the U.S. Jack presented this viewpoint
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 181

most plainly: “You want your children to speak the language that's spoken around them twenty-
four/seven so they can communicate with people and get somewhere.” The language he was
talking about was English. Jack’s statement was phrased as a general declaration that, he felt,
everybody would obviously want. He represented this by beginning with an impersonal “you” to
generalize his statement to everyone. He also described English as “the language that's spoken
around them twenty-four/seven,” emphasizing the omnipresent reality of the English language
and the countless embedded supports that go unnoticed. He then justified its importance for his
children’s communication and success, “so they can communicate with people and get
somewhere.”
Rebecca also communicated this same perspective when she said:
Obviously life runs in English, even other places in the world. So I guess if you only had
to pick one language to learn and that was it, English would be the language, because that
would help them be most successful, I think, in life.
She started her statement with “obviously” and talked about the omnipresence of English, “life
runs in English.” She pointed out the effects of globalization by highlighting that English was
used largely around the world, not just in the U.S. Then, she presented a hypothetical dilemma
where she would have to pick only one language for her children and she said it would be
English because it would “help them be most successful.” Rebecca saw English as “obviously”
critical to her children’s success, as did all participants. Connecting the English language with
success or “getting somewhere,” allowed participants to justify the move away from Armenian
as a HL. Peirce’s (1995) theory of investment implied as such. The theory held that the payoff
associated with the goals can influence behavior. In this case, the connection between the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 182

English language and success could override HL goals because its payoff was higher and the
Armenian language was not a prerequisite for success (Peirce, 1995).
Allison extended the importance of English beyond success. She discussed her language
goals for her children and explained why mastery of English is important, not only for her
children’s success in the U.S. but also to accomplish her goal of raising “good Armenian kids:”
Yeah. So, if I go back to sort of, the premise on which I base my job as a parent, it’s to
raise good Armenian kids who are going to continue to promote the culture and
understand their place in the world. And without the English language, that's impossible
to do in the U.S. So, I want them to be completely proficient in the English language,
and when I say proficient, it's speech. It's ability to understand the intricacies of the
language. Use it in different ways. Read complex things. Analyze. Things that maybe I
realized that I needed to do much later in life, I want them to know now. And for me,
speech, speaking, reading, writing effectively in English is important. And if I were to
sort of categorize things into the very important things in life, it's this idea of speech in
English, reading and writing in English, because once that base is there, then it just builds
onto so many other things.
Allison began by explaining that her “job as a parent [was] to raise good Armenian kids,” which
she explained as “kids who are going to continue to promote the culture” and understand their
identity, “their place in the world.” To do so in the U.S., she believed that mastery of the English
language was imperative to reaching those goals. She said, without English, it was “impossible”
to raise her kids to be successful individuals and be able to understand and promote their
Armenian culture. The rest of this example then focused on the various arenas of English that
she thought her children needed to master, “speaking, reading, writing,” and at advanced levels,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 183

“read complex things, analyze,” and so on. She concluded by explaining proficiency in English
as the base that affects “so many other things.” Allison viewed the English language to be of
paramount importance for her children’s success, both as “good” Armenians and for “many
other” arenas. However, she did not specify just how the proficiency in English would help
promote Armenian language and/or culture.
All participants viewed English as a prerequisite for their children’s success which
undoubtedly guided language decisions they made for their children. At the same time, they
were not explicitly worried about their children’s English development. When explaining their
perceptions, they viewed English language development as inevitable, and thought it was more
necessary to focus on Armenian language development. This will be covered in the “English
Language Development is Inevitable” subsection in the “Discrepancies in Opportunities for
Interaction” section. Contrary to the views expressed in that section, and in line with the views
represented in this section, the “Prioritization of English” subsection in the “Discrepancies in
Opportunities for Interaction” section showed that participants actually spent a great amount of
focus on English language supports.
Safety and Familiarity
Institutions and institutional agents have great potential to support cultural minorities
through the social networks. Characteristics of a positive relationship with an institution or
institutional agent are trust and shared meaning. Participants looked for trust and shared
meaning in the sources they sought (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Some of the choices participants
made for their children appeared, on the surface, to be primarily for HL support, but safety and
familiarity accompanied or superseded language in those decisions. Some participants expressed
that the decisions they made regarding language programs and babysitters for their children were
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 184

based more heavily on their desire to provide a safe and familiar environment. This finding was
not the focus of the study and therefore not all participants were asked about safety and
familiarity as a source of motivation. If asked, other participants may have also expressed
similar views.
When Jack and Allison were each asked if they hired Armenian babysitters for their
children with the goal of supporting Armenian language development, they voiced that language
was not their primary consideration. Jack answered “Yes, because I wasn't gonna bring an
օտար to the house to watch my kids and me not being here.” The word Jack used to describe
someone who was not Armenian was, quite literally, “other,” and is a common word used
amongst Armenians to describe an outsider. Jack expressed that he hired an Armenian babysitter
because he was not going to bring someone that he was unfamiliar with to watch his kids while
he was not there, implying that he felt safer hiring someone he considered an insider. In other
parts of the interviews, Jack and his wife both shared that they knew the babysitter provided HL
support for their children, but the primary motivator for seeking an Armenian babysitter was
safety and familiarity.
Allison also expressed similar views when asked if she hired an Armenian babysitter for
the purpose of Armenian language development. Allison answered:
I haven't, for me it was not a language thing, it was more of a safety thing. I wanted
someone with the same cultural background. That's why we took on Armenian
babysitters, but not necessarily because we wanted them to speak the language. Yeah.
But, I do know of people who specifically choose their caregivers because of that. But I
wasn't, that was not my...
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 185

In her response Allison was very clear that she did not hire Armenian babysitters to support
language with her children. Allison communicated that she knew people who had hired
babysitters specifically with the goal of supporting language, but that was not the case for her
family. Instead, it was because she felt safer with an Armenian person watching her children.
Safety and familiarity were also motivators for why participants chose their children’s
school, aside from the Armenian language support the schools could provide. This could also be
linked to belongingness motivation, where participants wanted their children to be in an
environment where they would be socially accepted (Leary & Cox, 2008). Maya shared that the
Armenian community was a big part of her consideration in deciding on the private Armenian
school she ultimately chose for her children. She explained:
We want them fluent in both. So I think kind of when we're done with the [Armenian
preschool] last year we were, cause [the local school] is a really good public school. We
toured both. We were open to both, but just for the aspects of them speaking Armenian,
being around Armenian community friends, we went that route.
In this example Maya started out by expressing that she and her husband wanted their children to
be fluent in both Armenian and English. She explained that when her two older children finished
with the Armenian preschool and kindergarten the year before, Maya and her husband toured
both the local public school and the Armenian private school that her children ended up
attending. Maya indicated that they were open to both options for their children but ultimately
chose the Armenian private school because it would support their children speaking the
Armenian language and being around an Armenian community and friends. In this example,
Maya placed the goals of language and Armenian environment side-by-side, showing that they
were equally important considerations in deciding her children’s school.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 186

Allison also represented this viewpoint when sharing how she felt about her children's
Armenian private school. Allison clearly expressed that she saw positives and negatives in the
school that her children were enrolled in. When speaking about the positives she specifically
mentioned the social advantages of familiarity and safety. She said:
Oh, gosh. So many positives. You know, I think the social set up, for my kids, and I don't
want to speak for everyone. Socially, they're very happy, and I think happiness in a social
setting lends itself to success in all avenues of life, because if you're not ... if, again, you
don't have a good group of friends, if you don't feel you belong, and you feel isolated,
then I think for some children, that might be a reason to get depressed, or just not reach
their full potential. So, I'm happy that the kids are happy socially. They're in a safe
environment. They're learning about their culture. They're learning about the traditions.
They're learning their songs.
The way that Allison began explaining the positives showed just how important she thought her
children’s social environment was for their well-being. Allison expressed that her children's
well-being was linked to their success in, not just some, but “all avenues of life.” She felt it was
important to the point that it may affect their mental health or keep them from fulfilling potential.
In concluding her thought, she mentioned the safety of the environment and then added the
cultural component as well. By using “their” to describe the culture, it was easy to see that
Allison felt that the school environment was familiar.
Even though this study focused on factors that motivated Armenian-American parents to
foster Armenian as a HL for their children, it became clear that other motivators were important
and could even supersede their language goals. If the study design directly addressed safety and
familiarity as a motivator, it may have been a more prominent finding. This finding was
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 187

important to note because it explained a motivator for participants’ decision-making process that
could impact HL development. Some decisions that appeared on the surface to be for language
in fact represented safety and familiarity when explored.
Multifaceted Cultural Identity
Belongingness motivation posits that humans desire social acceptance and belonging.
Cultural identity is one way people fulfill this need. Depending on the group of membership,
there are different implicit and explicit criteria that members are expected to fulfill (Leary &
Cox, 2008). Cultural identity can consist of many different components, such as religion, art,
food, language, and so on (Schwartz et al., 2015; Suárez-Orozco, 2004). This study was not
directly about Armenian identity but identity and HL are closely linked (Montrul, 2010; Polinksy
& Kagan, 2007). Even though I did not ask many questions specific to identity, the theme was
prevalent throughout the data corpus. Participants’ relationships to their Armenian identity
impacted decisions they made for their children.
In this study, five out of seven participants identified as “Armenian,” and two identified
as “Armenian-American.” When asked about how their spouses would identify, four participants
said “Armenian” and one said “Armenian-American,” the same as their own responses. The
other two spouses were identified as “white American,” and “half-Persian, half-Armenian.”
Further, regardless of how each participant or spouse identified, they had all grown up in the
U.S., undoubtedly with some acculturation. As their bicultural or transcultural identities had
developed, they had come to embrace different components of being Armenian as part of their
cultural identity (Birman & Addae, 2015). Participants portrayed their Armenian identity using a
multitude of cultural components.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 188

One of the most observable ways that Armenian identity was embraced was through
items displayed in participants’ homes. Four participants’ homes had at least some type of décor
that represented Armenian identity. At Julia’s and Bella’s homes, there was photography of
Armenian monuments and sites on the walls. At Allison’s home, there was a painting on the
wall by an Armenian artist. Other than artwork, at Julia’s house there were Armenian letter
magnets on the refrigerator and at Maya’s house there was a tray displayed in the kitchen with
Armenian dancers in traditional costumes. Last, at Bella’s house, there was a homemade poster
with Armenian writing in her son’s room that looked like a reward system she could have
created. There was also some Armenian classwork on the wall. These items were indicative of
Armenian identity and embraced various aspects of the culture such as geography and
monuments, dance, traditional costume, and so on.
During some of my visits to the homes, the children were still in their Armenian school
uniforms which had Armenian writing on them. There were two instances when someone wore
clothing representing their cultural identity, that was not a school uniform. The first was a shirt
that Bella’s husband wore that had “Zoravar” written in English, which means “military general”
in Armenian. Second, at Jack’s house, his oldest daughter was putting on a necklace with her
first initial in Armenian letters during an observation. Overall, given the study’s focus on
interactions between parents and their children, when conducting observations, I did not pay
close attention to participants’ jewelry so there may have been more examples.
Presence of Armenian artwork and attire was most likely deliberate because it was
something that had to be sought intentionally. As covered in the “Access” section, obtaining
Armenian resources in the U.S. was not as easy as obtaining English or American ones. This
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 189

same access can be extended to art and attire. Therefore, purposely seeking and displaying these
items was likely linked with identity and an attempt to showcase identity.
It should be noted, briefly, that there was English language décor present in some
participants’ homes. There were items such as pillows and frames with feelgood quotes, like
“It’s a good day to be happy” at Maya’s house, and “This house runs on love and laughter” at
Anna’s house. Also, in the “Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” section under the
“Access” subsection I cover the English language attire worn by children. Pervasiveness of
these materials in the English language, home décor and clothing, was linked closely with the
U.S. context and the ease of access to all things in the English language. Therefore, those topics
are covered thoroughly in the “Access” section and not as relevant to the main idea of this
subsection.
Another component of cultural identity was the role of religious traditions and
celebrations in participants’ lives. This is a result of the prominent role religion has had in
Armenian history as well as the unifying role of the Armenian Church for the Armenian diaspora
when there was no Armenian kingdom or republic (Hovannisian, 2004). When asked what
supported her children’s learning of Armenian, Rebecca listed cultural celebrations:
The celebrations. Easter we go to church. We're not very religious, but we do church, for
example, during Easter. Other cultural things, he's been a ring boy a couple of times. I
feel like there's a lot of kind of Armenian-ness in that. And then the food we eat, kind of
the way we talk about the food. The Christmas celebrations, you know the different kind
of traditional holidays that we have. We went to Armenia and we baptized him there.
In this example, Rebecca represented many different pieces of her cultural identity that she was
also trying to instill in her children. In the first part, she talked about following religious
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 190

traditions on Easter that she associated with being Armenian, even though her family did not
practice religion. Then, she talked about her older son being a ring boy in Armenian weddings
and how she felt that supported cultural identity, “Armenian-ness.” She included food in this
description, communicating that traditional celebrations and food were connected to her cultural
identity. Then, she referenced the various traditional Christmas celebrations celebrated by
Armenians. Again referencing Christian celebrations that she viewed more as part of her
Armenian identity than religious. Last, she brought up another religious ceremony, baptizing her
oldest son. The baptism also included travel to Armenia as a cultural component which will be
covered later in this section. In her response, Rebecca mentioned three different religious
traditions but also said her family was not religious. These holidays and ceremonies had shifted
foci from religion to cultural identity maintenance.
Allison also discussed religious ceremonies as part of her cultural identity. After the last
interview with Allison, she and I had some conversations as I was leaving her house. She
expressed some of her frustrations with Armenian religious institutions. She spoke of difficulties
from two events. First, she discussed a baptism they were planning for one of her children.
Allison and her husband had wanted to use a 12 year old godfather and thirty year old
godmother. After being denied by the church they had been involved with for years, her family
found another Armenian church that would let them use the people they wanted. Overall,
Allison was disappointed with the experience. She discussed another event, when one of
Allison’s friends tried to get an Armenian priest to conduct her wedding ceremony outside of the
church and it was so challenging that she gave up and did not have an Armenian priest at her
wedding. Allison shared these stories with me because she considered religion, christenings, and
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 191

weddings to be components of her cultural identity. At the same time, she was dissatisfied with
them because their approach had not acculturated to the U.S. the same way she had.
Another component of cultural identity that participants referenced were visits to the
home country, Armenia. In her interview, Rebecca continued to list the things that supported her
son’s development of the Armenian language. One thing she spoke about was her son’s baptism
in Armenia:
We went to Armenia and we baptized him there. I think that also kind of supported his
awareness of like what is Armenia. He remembers it, he was two and a half. He
remembers it, and is aware of all of that. And we’ll look through the album and talk about
it. I think all those things support, little pieces that support his learning in Armenian.
She explained her son’s development of Armenian identity. He was able to understand that there
is a place in the world that Armenians identify with. She then said that they have conversations
about that visit and that helps maintain her son’s awareness of his culture. She concluded that
she felt traveling to Armenia was one of the pieces that supported his learning of the Armenian
language. In this example, Rebecca connected religious ceremonies, visiting the country of
Armenia, and Armenian language development, to represent components of her Armenian
cultural identity.
Anna also mentioned traveling to Armenia when asked how her children were exposed to
the Armenian language. Part of her answer was “We've been planning that we're gonna go [to
Armenia] too, but we haven't had time, but maybe this year we will, to take them now that
they're older.” In her family’s plans, they had been considering taking a trip to Armenia to
expose their children to the Armenian language there.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 192

Julia also discussed the role that the country of Armenia played in their home and her
children’s cultural identity.
And they're exposed to it through me, I mean through our house. Every day we talk about
what it's like in Armenia. They've been there when they were really young. We took them
to get [baptized]... They still talk about it. They still every year ask about, "Do they have
this in Armenia?" And this and that. We had been very seriously talking about moving
back. That conversation is constantly ringing in their ears. That's the exposure they get
that way.
Just like Rebecca, Julia’s family had gone to Armenia to baptize their children and it was still a
topic of conversation at home. In the context of the interview, Julia shared that they had those
conversations about Armenia to communicate that they were in the Armenian language, but she
made it a point to specify that they talked about the country of Armenia rather than another topic.
Yet another way that participants elected to support their children’s cultural identity was
through language programs and extracurricular activities. In the “Extracurricular Activities”
subsection of the “Outsourcing” section, I will extensively cover how participants outsourced
Armenian language learning to language and extracurricular activities. However, participants
also shared their awareness that both types of sources faced challenges in developing the
Armenian language. Despite the obstacles for language, participants wanted their children in
these programs. A quote from Jack exemplified this view: “We try to keep our Armenian
heritage because մենք հայ ենք (we’re Armenian), you know. We need to know where we're
from. And we send our kids to Armenian schools so they learn that and they keep it within.”
Jack solely relied on identity here to justify his desire to foster the Armenian heritage for his
children. He used the word “need” which demonstrated just how seriously Jack felt about his
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 193

Armenian cultural identity. Jack ended by saying his children attend Armenian schools to learn
their identity and maintain it, demonstrating the strong link between the two.
After my first interview with Anna, she reflected on the questions I had asked and sent
me a text message. The interview questions had reminded Anna of something she had posted on
social media and she felt it was representative of what she had been trying to communicate. The
post was a picture of her two young children in t-shirts in support of Armenian Genocide
recognition, yet another example of attire to represent cultural identity. The picture was
accompanied by a lengthy reflection that she had written about teaching her children about their
identity. One part of the message particularly stuck out: “I take great pride in teaching [my
children] about our beautiful culture and exposing them to our remarkable history, full of art,
music, literature, and philosophy.” In this sentence, Anna mentioned many pieces that made up
her cultural identity, and she used the word “our” to indicate ownership of those components.
Language was not specified in her reflection.
When asked how she wanted her children to use the Armenian language in their lives,
Anna discussed the importance of raising good people regardless of language: “Pick up on the
traditions, know the language, but it doesn't have to be where they're proficient in it. I think my
goals are more about them being good people. I mean, Armenian yes, they will be too.” Anna
answered by saying she wanted her children to be familiar with Armenian traditions and the
language, but she made sure to distinguish that it was not imperative for her children to be
proficient in the language. She then mentioned her larger goal to raise “good people.”
Participants and their families used a vast variety of ways to represent and foster
Armenian cultural identity in their families. Just these examples showcased the use of art, attire,
traditions and celebrations, travel to Armenia, language and extracurricular programs, and the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 194

Armenian Genocide as displays of identity. This subsection largely served to establish
participants’ cultural identity as Armenians.
Thus far, I have discussed the multifaceted approach participants took towards their
Armenian cultural identity, apart from language. Parents’ goal for their children to learn
Armenian as a HL was embedded in a larger goal of building cultural identity, where language
was not the only focus. However, it was undeniable that identity was deeply intertwined with
participants’ desire for their children to learn the Armenian language. Karapetian (2018b)
addressed the interrelatedness of the Armenian language and identity and its shift from daily
language to symbolic identity. She discussed how the language was viewed simultaneously as
something that was threatened and valued. As successive generations used the language less and
less, their interaction with it shifted to heightened value as a symbol of identity (Karapetian,
2018b). Participants’ views on language and identity represented different degrees of this shift.
Cultural identity was a driving motivator for why participants wanted their children to learn the
Armenian language, as is usually the case with HL.
When asked if he felt teaching his children Armenian was the most important thing, Jack
answered:
Armenian doesn't need to be something we have to teach them because they should know
that we're Armenian. You can't add coffee to the coffee. It's coffee already, right? You
know what I'm saying? It's not something we have to teach them, that's something they
already know.
In the first sentence of this example, Jack used the Armenian language interchangeably with the
ethnicity. He felt the Armenian language should come naturally to his children because they
were ethnically Armenian. He linked the language and the identity so tightly that he used them
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 195

synonymously. Jack continued to explain his point using a metaphor about coffee, again, using
the Armenian language and identity interchangeably. He referred to both of them as “coffee”
and claimed that adding more of a substance to itself does not make any difference, the substance
remains the same. In his example, the substance being his Armenian children and the additional
coffee being the language. He finished by saying that the Armenian language was something
that should be automatic for someone who was ethnically Armenian, and not something that he
needed to help his children develop. Jack linked the Armenian language and identity so strongly
that there was no distinction between the two in his response, “you can't add coffee to the coffee.
It's coffee already, right?” This example does not mean that to be ethnically Armenian
automatically implies Armenian language proficiency. Rather, it showed the compulsory
relationship Jack connected between Armenian language proficiency and identifying ethnically
as an Armenian.
When asked why her children’s Armenian language development was important to her,
Maya replied “No matter what, they are Armenian and they need to know where they came from
and speak their language.” Maya started off with “no matter what,” indicating that she felt so
strongly about it that there were no exceptions. Then she identified her children as Armenian,
and concluded by saying they “need” to understand their identity and “speak their language.”
She used the word “their” to describe the Armenian language because she ascribed her children
to an Armenian identity and therefore the language. In another part of the interview, Maya
extended this assumption to all Armenian parents. She said “I think, in my mind, every
Armenian feels that they want their kids to speak Armenian. I could be wrong.” When asked for
clarification, she answered, “I don't know. From all my friends, obviously that's how it is. You
want your kids to speak your language.” Maya felt that wanting one’s children to learn their HL
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 196

was a given, and she had observed this in her own environment with her friends. Her closing
statement again used a possessive, “your,” to describe the connection she felt with the Armenian
language, which is why she wanted her children to learn it.
Allison described at length that her motivation to teach her children the Armenian culture
and language was to build a strong foundation for them.
So, a lot of what I do now, through language and through culture, is to promote to my
children that this is who you are. This background and this footing that you develop now
is going to be part of the base on which you want to build. It's like building a house. You
have the footings that go in. That's your Armenian-ness. That's your culture. That's your
home life. And then you build on that. I almost feel like if you don't have that base, you're
going to topple.
Allison explained that her purpose of teaching her children their language and culture was so
they know who they are, in other words, it was their identity. She likened raising children to
building a house with a strong base. The “footings” of that house for her children was their
“Armenian-ness.” She felt that the base of cultural identity was so critical that her children’s
well-being depended on it, or else they would “topple.”
Participants identified as Armenians and wanted to foster that same identity in their
children. They wanted to do so through various means, including language. However, within
language, there was a nuance that shaped their behavior and decisions, standard and variety.
Over their history, Armenians have come into contact with other cultures and been a
diaspora nation, living in various host countries or empires, sometimes even when on Armenian
territory. Even during the times when Armenians have had an established republic, diaspora
communities have continued to thrive. Undoubtedly, Armenians’ cultural identities acculturated
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 197

with their host countries after centuries of living there, impacting aspects such as traditions,
cuisine, and language. Then, over the course of the 20
th
century, several detrimental
circumstances were cause for Armenians to move to yet another host country, the U.S., a large
portion eventually settling in Los Angeles, California. Those various populations that had
developed away from each other for so long came back into contact creating a unique and
fascinating circumstance, and thus the population of this study. In studying the convergence of
HL and identity of Armenian-Americans in this population, it came as no surprise when I
encountered identity specifically linked to former host countries that impacted HL development,
standard and variety.
Samkian (2007) conducted a study on Armenians at a high school in Greater Los Angeles
with a large population of Armenians. The study explored the subgroups created amongst the
Armenian high school students based on their differences. In her study, Armenian-American
students differentiated themselves based on language standard and variety, country of origin, and
time of arrival to the U.S. Those components of cultural identity created divisions within a
shared ethnicity (Samkian, 2007). Unsurprisingly, participants in this study held tightly to their
cultural identity through language variety, and it impacted the choices they made for their second
generation children. Similarly influential in this study, language variety was a factor considered
in decisions regarding language programs, extracurricular activities, language spoken in the
home, babysitters, and resources purchased. Throughout Chapter 4, individual sections
showcase the consideration of standard and variety when making decisions. In this section, I
will focus on examples that showcased participants’ identities as connected with their language
standard and variety.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 198

All participants in this study preferred for their children to learn their own standard or
variety of Armenian, even when they were accepting of others. In the two hybrid standard
families, Bella’s and Jack’s, each participant spoke about how they had come to decide which
standard they would support with their children. Bella spoke Eastern Armenian and her husband
spoke Western Armenian. When asked about how she and her husband agreed on decisions
regarding language and their children, Bella answered:
We agree and we also, from the get-go, because ours is kind of like a split household
where we speak Western dialect and Eastern dialect, we agreed that the parent would
speak the dialect of their fluency, meaning the one that they're most comfortable with.
And the kids of course naturally just speak a combination of both, or they speak one with
one parent and the other with the other parent. We didn't pick a dialect because we didn't
think that that would be fair. I kind of respected my husband's desire for the kids to also
speak Western Armenian because it is an endangered language.
This example showed how Bella and her husband each identified with and valued their spoken
dialect. For their children, it was a decision that they had to actively discuss and agree on. As
Bella continued to share throughout her two interviews, it was also a consideration that came up
when deciding on a school and interacting with other Armenians.
Rebecca discussed how language standard affected the school they chose for her son.
Rebecca’s husband was half-Persian, half-Armenian and had attended a Western Armenian
school growing up. Rebecca shared that his experience had been tainted because he had felt like
an outsider at the school. Therefore, the language standard supported at their children’s school
was particularly important to Rebecca and her husband. Rebecca explained:
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 199

I think, you know, we chose the school that we did because it's Eastern Armenian for the
most part, and we feel comfortable with the population there and the way language is
used there. There are other Armenian schools that are more like Russian-Armenian. For
example I wouldn't necessarily put him in, so I think there's that.
They had chosen the current preschool they had because they felt comfortable that the population
spoke the same variety of Armenian as their own family. It was interesting that Rebecca
mentioned “Russian Armenian” in this example. By Russian-Armenian, Rebecca probably
meant the variety of Armenian that was spoken by Armenians whose families lived under the
Soviet Union until its fall. Even though Armenians formerly from the Soviet Union or Armenia
also speak the Eastern dialect of Armenian, Rebecca identified Russian-Armenian as separate
from her family’s spoken language. Rebecca was identifying the difference in language
varieties between Armenians formerly from Iran and the Soviet Union. School choice for her
children was distinguished by language standard and by variety. When the interview ended,
Rebecca shared more about their considerations in picking a school once their son finished
preschool. Rebecca said that they were considering moving to an area the next year where the
nearby Armenian private school would provide instruction in only Western Armenian. This
difference in standard was so important that it was a consideration in the family’s entire move.
When I asked Maya if she thought there was a correct dialect of Armenian, she answered:
“The correct dialect? I think there's a big controversy over what the correct dialect is. I want my
kids to speak my dialect.” Maya dismissed the question and asserted that she wanted her kids to
speak her dialect regardless of the “big controversy.” Also, her use of the word “my” showed
that her dialect was integrated into her identity. Participants showed a broad cultural
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 200

understanding and acceptance of language standard and variety, but they clearly identified with
their own and they were aware of the decisions they were making because of it.
Admittingly, when I created the question “Some would say that they speak the correct
dialect or variety of Armenian. What does that mean to you?,” I suspected that participants
would respond with a misconception of the “correct dialect.” However, six of seven participants
showed understanding that there was no such thing as a “correct dialect,” and all seven wanted
their children to learn their own. Even in the two hybrid dialect families, it was clearly
expressed that parents wanted their children to learn both dialects even though they had to make
some decisions in favor of one standard, especially when it came to deciding on a language
program where HL literacy would be taught.
Rebecca and Julia also mentioned the divisions they felt in the Armenian-American
community based on language standard and variety. When asked about the correct dialect,
Rebecca explained:
Yeah, I mean Eastern ... I guess depending on where you come from and the dialect that
you learned, you may feel as though that's the correct way to speak. But I have kind of a
larger understanding of that concept in the sense of geographically, where people were
from, and how that was impacted by the other countries around, and how language was
even established in Armenia and dispersed. So I think I have somewhat of an
understanding of how that happened, and I think it's pretty cool that there are these
differences, although it does divide us quite a bit, and that's unfortunate.
Rebecca instinctively said Eastern, but then she corrected her statement. She communicated her
knowledge and understanding about the history of Armenians and how it impacted language.
She pointed out that Armenian history can be traced through language use and the diversity can
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 201

be a positive. Then, she also communicated that it divided Armenians amongst themselves,
alluding to the subgroups created amongst Armenians based on their unique ancestral histories,
just like the high school students in Samkian’s (2007) study.
Overall, language standard and variety was ingrained in participants’ cultural identities.
Participants were aware of the language differences across the Armenian-American community
and considered it in the decisions they made for their children. Ultimately, all participants
wanted their children to learn their own standard and variety, maintaining their unique identities
shaped by their place in the Armenian diaspora. Cultural identity through standard and variety is
rich with history and adds yet another nuance to the generational transmission of Armenian as a
HL for Armenian-Americans.
Even though language was largely linked with cultural identity, there were also instances
where participants separated the two or voiced their struggles with separating the two. Allison
reflected on her struggle with language and culture:
For me it's very important to be Armenian, and to maintain cultures and customs, and
sometimes I wonder, how much of the language- does language have to fit into that? I
don't know. Do you know what I'm saying? Can you still be Armenian and not be a
hundred percent fluent in Armenian? Can you still be Armenian and not know how to
speak and write in Armenian? For me, that's such ... I don't know if I've come to terms ...
I don't know if I have an answer for that. I don't know.
Allison thought through her confusion aloud, asking questions, cutting off her sentences with
competing thoughts, and repeating “I don’t know.” Allison was certain that she wanted to
maintain her cultural identity, but she was grappling with the role of language in that identity. In
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 202

another part of her interview, Allison said she believed language was very important for cultural
maintenance. This confusion and questioning was shared by other participants as well.
Cultural identity is made of many components and is different for each individual.
Participants in this study identified with the Armenian culture and displayed it in their own lives
and the decisions they made for their children. Some of the ways cultural identity was
represented in this study was through art and attire, traditions and celebrations, travel, language
and extracurricular programs, and the generational transmission of Armenian as HL. As Peirce
(1995) theorized, the exchange value of these pieces were different. Language was used
synonymously with identity for most participants and held a high exchange value. Through the
lens of expectancy-value theory, this would mean language had high attainment value for
participants (Eccles, 2006; Schunk et al., 2014; Wigfield et al., 2009). In other words, most
participants felt it had a larger role than the other cultural components in fostering the Armenian
cultural identity in their children. However, language also presented a divergence in the
overarching Armenian cultural identity. Participants identified with a specific language standard
and variety based on their unique ancestral histories and that shaped the goals and decisions they
made for their children’s development of Armenian as a HL. Parents’ own cultural identity was
a primary motivator for them to cultivate an Armenian identity for their children, in which a
significant component was to teach them the Armenian language.
Responsibility
Another motivator in this study was the sense of responsibility participants felt to support
their cultural identity and foster it within their children. Without a single central authority from
the end of the fourteenth century until 1991, the endeavor of Armenian culture and language
maintenance depended on the smaller diasporic factions, religious authorities, and even
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 203

individual families (Hovannisian, 2004). This sense of responsibility was evident throughout
interviews, as parents explained how they made decisions for their children. It is interesting to
understand where and how this sense of responsibility was instilled across participants. A likely
explanation is language socialization and indexicality, covered in Chapter 2, used to create a
cultural sense of duty which includes the HL.
One of the most compelling explanations of this sense of responsibility was shared by
Allison. Allison used an example from her professional field to explain why she thought it was
important for her children to learn the Armenian language. Allison likened Armenian language
learning to the concept of herd immunity. She explained:
Have you ever heard of this concept of herd immunity? Where you vaccinate a lot of
kids, but if a few kids go unvaccinated, the herd, the big group, provides protection to the
few people that are not vaccinated, because if the herd can keep out the virus, and the
virus can't get through all of them, then the few people in the middle who are not
vaccinated, they're getting protection, right?
After establishing what this term meant medically, she connected it to maintaining a HL.
So, when people describe to me this idea of, you don't need to know a language, to read
or write, you can still be Armenian, I kind of liken it to this idea of herd immunity. Yes,
you can use that argument with me if most of the people are continuing to learn to read
and to write. But if we all want to subscribe to this idea of, well we're all protected by the
herd. Well, if everyone in that herd decides to not vaccinate, we're all going to die of
whatever the ailment is. The influenza virus. You know, smallpox. What is it now?
Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR). Yeah, so, you, that one person, are being protected
against the MMR viruses, because everyone else around you is vaccinated. But if we all
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 204

want to subscribe to this thing of, well I'll just depend on this person to provide me with
the herd immunity... if one person subscribes to that mentality, then the herd is gone. And
the herd is gone, we're all susceptible.
Allison explained that with the concept of herd immunity, when one person chooses not to be
vaccinated they are still able to evade illnesses that the majority of the population is vaccinated
against. However, if the majority of the population is not vaccinated against the illness, then
they become susceptible. Allison used current events that were relevant at the time of the study,
when there was an MMR virus outbreak because enough of the population had elected to not
vaccinate their children against the virus. Allison connected this to HL acquisition and
maintenance because she felt that each individual learning the language protected the herd, the
Armenian culture, from dissipating. She continued her explanation:
So, for me, I want them to learn Armenian because it allows you to communicate. It
allows you to create a connection. But really, I want to maintain that herd immunity. I
want them to do their part.
Allison referenced some of the other reasons she felt that bilingualism was important, things she
had explained earlier in her interview. Then, she used the phrase “but really” to indicate that this
concept of herd immunity was more important to her than the other reasons she had cited. She
specifically used the phrase “I want them to do their part” using the word “their” to imply
ownership on behalf of her children as members of the Armenian culture, as responsible agents
of that culture. Allison continued:
And I disagree with the fact that you don't need to know Armenian and you can still be
Armenian. I disagree with that. I agree that a few people can choose to not know
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 205

Armenian and still be Armenian, because there's all these other people who are doing it,
but if we all want to have that mentality, I just don't think that that's going to be feasible.
As shared earlier, in other parts of her interview Allison had questioned whether language was a
mandatory component of cultural identity. Here, she explicitly communicated that she felt that
the Armenian language was a mandatory part of being Armenian and maintaining the culture
depended on the choices of members in the entire community. Allison felt responsible for doing
her part in something that required others to do the same. She felt strongly that cultural
maintenance could not work with one person, and she used this sense of responsibility to shape
the goals and practices she employed with her children in regards to Armenian language
development. Allison wanted to do her part and, to her, that extended to teaching her children
“to do their part” too.
Rebecca shared a similar point of view with much fewer words. When asked why she
thought it was important to teach her children the Armenian language, Rebecca replied: “Well, I
think it's important because it maintains the culture. I mean, if you don't kind of continue to teach
in Armenian, then you will lose the language and the culture along with it.” Rebecca also felt
that maintaining the Armenian culture was the same as maintaining the language. This approach
also overlapped with the viewpoints presented earlier in the “Multifaceted Cultural Identity”
subsection, where language and culture were often used synonymously because participants felt
that they were one and the same.
Jack and Anna took a broader approach to this sense of responsibility. In his interview,
Jack discussed his affinity for supporting Armenian people, and how it had changed overtime as
he had gotten older.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 206

I mean, I've never been to Armenia but I am Armenian. When I was younger I didn't
really feel and think the way I do now. I feel that I owe my community, I need to help
them as much as I could because after all we are Armenians.
Jack asserted his identity in this statement, saying that even though he had not visited the country
of Armenia, he identified as an Armenian. He then explained that when he was younger he did
not feel a sense of responsibility towards his community the same way he does now. Now, he
felt responsible to the point that he “owed” his community and he wanted to help as much as he
could. His justification for wanting to help was linked with his identifying with the larger group,
because “we are Armenians.” Jack also explained:
Yeah. To me, I would go more towards, if I see a t-shirt that there's Armenian writing on
and whatnot, I will buy it, for two reasons. One is because I'm supporting the Armenians,
because I know that some of that money is going to Armenia or whatnot. I have seen
some կարմիր, կապույտ, նարնջագույն (red, blue, orange) t-shirts that they had at one
time, that they were being sold everywhere, and I kind of liked them and they were only
coming from Armenia. Whoever I knew that was going to Armenia I ordered shirts from
them, even though they were all coming back different sizes and different shapes.
Jack felt that it was important to support the country of Armenia and Armenian people in
general. He explained that he ordered many of these shirts that were in the colors of the
Armenian flag, and it did not matter if they were made well because his primary purpose was to
support Armenians. Throughout his interview, Jack used examples such as this one to explain
his support for other things, such as Armenian schools and businesses. Jack felt an overall
responsibility to support all things Armenian and used that framework to make decisions for his
children, including decisions regarding the Armenian language.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 207

Jack wanted his children to learn to speak, read, and write Armenian. Anna wanted her
children to learn to speak Armenian, but reading and writing was not as important to her. Even
with different language goals, Anna shared Jack’s broader view of the responsibility she felt
towards her cultural identity as an Armenian. In the social media post that Anna shared with me
through text message, she highlighted the responsibility she felt towards cultural components
other than language. “I will admit, growing up, being Armenian was not too important for me, I
was proud of my heritage and all, but that was about it.” Later in the same post, she wrote:
“As I grew older, the need to keep the culture alive in me became stronger and stronger.
Things profoundly changed once I had my kids. I feel a sense of social responsibility to
my forefathers and to all the poor souls who perished in the hands of the Ottoman
Empire, to grow these children in an Armenian home.”
Anna shared that her view on maintaining the Armenian culture had shifted as she had grown
older, just like Jack. When Anna explained the shift she felt towards cultural responsibility, she
called it a “need.” She repeated “stronger and stronger” to indicate that the responsibility
continued to grow. She used the word “profoundly” to communicate just how powerful the shift
had been. Last, she outright said she felt responsible to her ancestors to foster the Armenian
identity in her children. To conclude the post, Anna wrote: “I will do my part in raising the next
generation of Armenians to the best of my abilities, to become the prideful and responsible
Armenians of tomorrow, ensuring that our culture continues to thrive.” Similar to Allison, Anna
committed to fulfill her responsibility, which meant equipping her children to fulfill their
responsibility, in order to maintain the Armenian culture, even though she did not feel language
was mandatory in doing so.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 208

When asked if she felt that helping her children learn Armenian was the most important
thing Bella replied: “I absolutely agree with that. Who else is supposed to teach your kids
Armenian?” Bella strongly agreed with that statement, which she made clear from her use of the
word “absolutely.” Then, Bella asked a rhetorical question, implying that parents who identify
as Armenians are the only option for teaching their children Armenian. Her use of the word
“supposed” showed that she felt that it was something Armenian parents should do and that the
responsibility should not be placed on someone else. Through other data collection it was very
clear that Bella felt this responsibility and practiced it in goals and decisions regarding her
children and their HL development.
Overall, all participants in this study felt a sense of responsibility to foster the Armenian
cultural identity within their children, which oftentimes was closely connected to generational
transmission of the Armenian language. The nuances of this identity and its connection to
language were covered in the earlier subsection on the “Multifaceted Cultural Identity.”
Regardless of parents’ language goals, fostering HL for their children was embedded in
accomplishing the larger goals of developing cultural identity and fulfilling responsibility to their
heritage. This distinction is important to acknowledge because language development becomes
easier to forego when there are other obstacles, since it is not in fact the overarching goal of
identity development. Combining the several challenges to HL development, as covered
throughout this chapter, with the possible implications of this specific finding for Armenian as a
HL, can make a difference for generational transmission of Armenian as a HL.
Pride
Participants’ desire to teach their children Armenian as a HL was impacted by many
other factors. Self-efficacy motivation theory deems physiological and emotional states as one
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 209

source that can positively or negatively impact achieving goals (Pajares, 2006). Feeling
successful in their children’s HL development could spark participants to feel the positive
emotion of pride. Failure in that same task could foster the opposite, the negative emotion of
shame. All parents in this study felt great pride in teaching their children the Armenian language
and when their children showcased their Armenian language knowledge. As with the previous
section on the responsibility participants felt towards teaching their children their HL, the
pride/shame they associated with their children’s HL development was impacted by their own
language socialization experiences.
All participants were asked to tell about a time they felt like they were successful in
developing their children's language the way they wanted. Six out of seven participants
answered that question using an example about Armenian language use, even though the
question did not specify a language. The one participant who did not only mention the Armenian
language in her response, Allison, asked for clarification about which language the question was
about. When I left the choice open to her, she discussed that she was not yet satisfied with her
children’s development in either language. However, Allison did showcase pride for the
Armenian language during observations.
When asked to tell about a time she felt like she was successful in developing her
children's language the way she wanted, Anna replied: “Just throughout the day I think if they're
talking in Armenian and especially if they're doing it without me telling them or someone telling
them, I feel like that's a success.” Anna’s response indicated that she was pleased with any use
of Armenian throughout her children’s regular activities. She specified that it made her feel
especially successful if her children spoke Armenian without her telling them, which also
implied that her children did not typically speak Armenian out of their own agency. In that way,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 210

it was probably less exciting for Anna when her children spoke English because they did it more
often and without prompting. It is also important to remember that Anna’s Armenian language
goals for her children were with the lowest proficiency of all the participants, yet it was still a
great source of pride.
Maya’s response to the same question was “I think now, like when they come home and
they're reading and writing it and they understand me and they speak it, I think that's successful.”
Maya’s response was also about the general use of Armenian in their home. Maya used “now”
when mentioning the reading and writing because her two sons had started reading and writing in
Armenian because of their age and the schools they were enrolled in. She was happy when her
children understood her and spoke the Armenian language, she felt successful.
Rebecca and Bella felt successful in their children’s overall Armenian language
development. It should be noted that Rebecca’s and Bella’s children spoke the most Armenian
of all the kids in this study. However, they were also the only two homes where the children
were four years old and younger, meaning that English dominance had not necessarily been
pervasive yet. In their responses, both mothers were proud of their children’s Armenian
language proficiency.
Rebecca shared:
Right now, even with [my younger son], I'm teaching him Armenian words, the words
that I know, and he's learning. He's actually repeating and imitating words. Today, he
said ուպա for գուլպա (sock). So that was cool. That's kind of a story of success. And I
think with [my older son], just throughout... I'm proud of his Armenian, because
everybody comments on how well he speaks. Linguistically, I think he's a little bit more
advanced than other kids his age. But he's done really well learning Armenian.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 211

Rebecca was happy with any Armenian acquisition, citing an example from her younger son
almost saying “sock” in Armenian. For her older son, she was pleased with his overall
acquisition of the Armenian language. Again, focusing on the Armenian language and not
mentioning English, even though the question did not specify a language.
Bella responded to the same question:
What's really been positive feedback is when the kids started school and when the
teachers realized that they were on point as far as their fluency went. I thought that was
really- I kind of gave myself a pat on the back for all of the hard work that we've put in
for years. Also when people whom I’m not around all of the time, when they speak to my
kids and realize that they're fluent and they realize that they don't have to speak English
to them, like they can use big words and the kids won't look at them, just stare at them,
they'll know exactly what they're talking about. That's really been, I've loved that.
Bella used her experiences with her children’s Armenian language development to tell about a
time when she felt successful. She discussed their overall Armenian language development and
the “positive feedback” she had received. She used two examples to demonstrate this feedback.
One, when her two older sons started school and the teachers noticed they were proficient in
Armenian. Two, when others spoke to her children and realized they knew “big words” in
Armenian. Bella also referenced feeling successful when she said that she gave herself “a pat on
the back for all of the hard work” that they had put in “for years.” Her use of words like “all”
“hard work” and “for years” showed that she felt she had exerted a lot of effort, and therefore she
felt proud that she had accomplished something that she had wanted. The effort it took to
develop the Armenian language likely made it feel like something to be proud of whereas the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 212

English language did not take as much effort and so probably did not feel like as much of an
accomplishment.
There were also examples throughout observations where participants showcased pride
over their children’s use of the Armenian language. During an observation at Julia’s house, her
youngest daughter spoke in Armenian and Julia exclaimed “դու որ [հայերեն] խոսում ես, ես
ոնց եմ ուրախանում” (I get so happy when you speak Armenian). Julia was not only
expressing her pride over her daughter’s use of Armenian, but her comment also gave her
daughter positive reinforcement for speaking Armenian, encouraging her to repeat the behavior.
During another observation at Julia’s house, her youngest daughter had memorized an
Armenian children’s story “Ուլիկը” (The Baby Goat). Julia stopped during the observation to
tell me how her youngest daughter had overheard her reading the story many times and had
memorized it from the exposure. Julia ended by asking me “Լավ ա կարդում, չէ?” (She’s
reading well, right?). Later, when asked about her youngest daughter’s language abilities, Julia
explained that her youngest daughter could speak and identify some letters in Armenian, but not
that she could read. Therefore, her daughter’s memorization of the poem was giving the
impression that she was reading but she was instead using memorization. Nonetheless, her
daughter’s use of the Armenian language in this example brought Julia great pride.
At Jack’s house, the same example came up on two different occasions. During an
observation, Jack’s wife expressed to me that their eldest daughter used the phrase “շնորհակալ
եմ” to other people sometimes, then she followed with “It makes me so proud.” “Շնորհակալ
եմ” means “thank you,” and is a formal way of saying thank you in Armenian. A similar
example in the English language would be the difference between “Thanks” and “I am thankful.”
Many Armenians colloquially even use the French “merci” to say thank you. But, Jack’s eldest
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 213

daughter would sometimes use the formal register to thank people and both parents were very
proud of this. The second time this example came up was during my interview with Jack, he
said, “I'm shocked the way [my eldest] speaks Armenian. It amazes me sometimes. The words
she uses.” When I asked for clarification, Jack’s wife cut in “Words that we don't even use.”
Then, Jack provided the same example “շնորհակալ եմ” (Thank you). His wife continued, “Or
մաքուր հայերէնը: Ադ բառերուն որ մենք կը գործածենք—you know like խաս կ’ըսենք
մենք կամ lettuce կամ չենք գիտ—ինքը գիտե” (Or the pure Armenian. The words that we
use— you know like we say the Arabic or English words for lettuce or we don’t know the
word—she knows it.). As Jack and his wife tried to come up with more examples, their middle
daughter suggested “Չնորհաւոր է,” (Congratulations) in the formal register. It was clear that
both parents were proud of their eldest daughter’s use of Armenian, but the examples they used
were interesting because they included simple phrases in the formal register. Their daughter’s
use of Armenian in the formal register indicated success to them and made them proud.
There was an instance at Allison’s house when the whole family was in the kitchen:
Allison, her husband, and their three children. Allison asked her children to recite Armenian
poems for me. After some convincing, her youngest daughter said a poem about “Ձմեռ Պապի”
(Santa Claus) in Armenian. After a lot of goofing around and attempts to entice her children
with chocolate, Allison’s middle child finally said a long Armenian poem he had learned for a
school presentation. Then, their eldest followed with a poem in Armenian that sounded like
random words, and said she made it up with her friends at school. While her children said the
poems, Allison told them to say it “հստակ և ձիգ” (clear and strong). In this example, Allison
wanted her children to exhibit their Armenian language knowledge. Her desire to show it off
indicated that it was something she felt was worthy of displaying.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 214

There were also explicit admissions of pride. When asked “Overall, how does the topic
of your children learning the Armenian language make you feel?,” Maya answered, “It makes me
feel good and proud that they're actually learning it,” very clearly communicating that she was
proud of her children’s Armenian language development.
All participants indicated that their children’s Armenian language development could be
a source of great pride. Regardless of their specific language goals, they felt proud when their
children simply used Armenian. Failure at something that brings pride can be shameful. While
it was not in the scope of this study, it is important to keep in mind that parents’ pride could have
also meant evasion of shame, where their children’s showcasing Armenian language knowledge
meant they did not have to feel the shame associated with lack of Armenian language knowledge
as an Armenian-American. The finding can be linked with the “Effort” subsection in the
“Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” section to say that parents related differently to
the effort they exerted for each language. Armenian took deliberate and continued effort
whereas English did not; therefore, Armenian had a stronger connection with parental pride than
English.
Conclusion
This section covered a diverse range of viewpoints shared by participants about the
motivators that guided the language decisions they made for their children. The motivators did
not all culminate in support of one language. Some supported the development of English,
others Armenian. Some even supported the development of other languages, beyond English
and Armenian. All participants valued multilingualism, not specific to a language, because it
increased cultural capital and was advantageous in different environments. They believed that
English was a prerequisite for their children’s success, above Armenian. Some parents shared
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 215

that safety and familiarity were a goal above or alongside HL when making decisions. All
parents exhibited that they identified with the Armenian cultural identity through various facets
of the culture. Many of them linked identity and language so tightly that there was no distinction
when they talked about them. An important nuance of participants’ cultural identity that affected
decisions regarding their children’s HL development was language standard and variety, which
were integral to participant’s unique cultural identities. Next, all participants were inspired by a
sense of responsibility they felt towards their Armenian culture. Last, each parent found great
pride in their children’s HL development regardless of their varying language goals.
Understanding the pieces that motivated participants when making language decisions for their
children is critical for successfully addressing HL acquisition and maintenance for Armenian-
Americans.
Outsourcing
The participants in this study outsourced Armenian language acquisition to sources that
may or may not have been satisfactory for their goals. As covered in the previous “Motivators”
section, one impetus for Armenian language acquisition was Armenian identity, though language
was not always a compulsory component. Also, covered throughout this section and the next,
“Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction,” most parents did not feel fully equipped to
teach their child(ren) Armenian. Issues with self-efficacy in one’s own HL skills was also
supported by Karapetian’s (2014, 2018a) work on Armenian-American college students. With
these factors combined, parents in this study reached out to various sources to accomplish their
goals of Armenian identity and language development.
All participants outsourced the learning of Armenian as a HL to language programs and
caregivers, mostly grandparents. Also, immersion into Armenian environments through
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 216

extracurricular activities was initially sought to outsource language learning, but instead, parents
found it developed heritage and identity and not language. Last, use of Armenian toys, books,
and technology was limited and minimal but, when used, was another way to outsource
Armenian language learning. Outsourcing was employed by all participants to some degree, but
varied between participants and across sources. Outsourcing did not mean parents completely
disregarded themselves as HL supports, though it allowed them to displace a portion of the
responsibilities, for some more than others. These differences will be evident through the
presented data. Parents’ own efforts to foster Armenian as a HL will be discussed in a later
subsection titled “Armenian Language Development is Constant Effort” in the larger
“Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” section.
Language Programs
In this study, when asked what supported their child(ren)’s learning of the Armenian
language or where their child(ren) were exposed to Armenian, parents consistently cited their
child(ren)’s language program as a primary source. Generally, HL speakers are likely to have
incomplete acquisition of their HL (Montrul, 2010). That is even more the case with the 1.5 and
1.75 generation in particular because they have received most of their formal education and
developed their identity in the U.S. (Rumbaut, 2004). Further, Karapetian’s (2014, 2018a) work
focused on the same generation of Armenian HL learners and demonstrated that this population
of Armenian speakers, the parents in my study, felt inadequate in their Armenian language
abilities. They felt shame in their language abilities and had a lack of opportunity to practice it
(Karapetian, 2014, 2018a). Therefore, the 1.5 and 1.75 generation Armenian-American
participants in this study outsourcing Armenian language learning corresponded with the existing
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 217

literature on generational status and HL speakers’ lack of confidence to transmit their HL to their
children (Karapetian, 2014, 2017, 2018a; Montrul 2010; Rumbaut, 2004).
In interviews, when asked what supported their child(ren)’s learning of Armenian, all
parents credited the language program that their child(ren) were enrolled in. In an interview,
Allison entirely delegated Armenian language learning to the language program, expressing,
“My goal was, have the kids be in Armenian school, and let that be taken care of, and then I'm
going to focus on these other things.” By saying “let that be taken care of,” Allison was
delegating full responsibility of Armenian HL learning to her children’s school so that she could
“focus on these other things.” This quote also showed that Allison felt responsible for many
“other things,” thus explaining the need to outsource Armenian language acquisition.
Regardless of other goals, language programs were considered central to Armenian HL
acquisition among all participants. Another quote from Allison really emphasized the reliance
she felt on her children’s Armenian school to support the Armenian language:
Let's just put it this way: if we removed Armenian school from their lives, they would
have very little interaction with the Armenian language, in terms of learning reading,
learning writing, learning songs, learning about culture, unless I then made an active
effort to introduce that through a different way.
Allison credited the Armenian school for the majority of Armenian language exposure her
children received, and included culture. She displaced the HL and culture from the family and
home, where it is rooted. This was also an indication of generational status and identity shift.
With this quote, Allison acknowledged the “active effort” she needed to support Armenian as a
HL, if not for the Armenian school to which she outsourced this important task. This again,
implied that it was not something naturally occurring within the home. It also referenced the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 218

finding covered in the “Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” section under the
“Armenian Development is Constant Effort” subsection, where Armenian learning was deemed
as something that took deliberate and constant effort. Last, Allison continued the theme of
outsourcing Armenian acquisition by saying she would have to find a “different way,” indicating
that she would need to outsource elsewhere if outsourcing to the language program did not exist.
When parents referenced other supports, they still credited the language program as
having the primary role in their children’s HL development. When asked what supported her
children’s learning of Armenian, another participant, Maya, answered with “the Armenian
school,” then continued on to admit that she deemed the school more reliable as an Armenian
language source than herself: “What they get from school and me. I definitely don't make the
best effort.” She started off by attributing the Armenian language support her children receive to
their schools and herself. Then, she amended the statement by explaining that she does “not
make the best effort,” implying that she saw the school as a stronger support than herself. This
data showed that she instinctively thought of herself as a support for her children’s development
of Armenian as a HL, but the interview question was cause for reflection and she realized that
she did not support her children’s HL acquisition as well as she initially thought. Furthermore,
by discounting herself but not the school, her statement assumed that the school was making the
“best effort.” This demonstrated the confidence she had in the language program to support HL
acquisition and possibly the lack of confidence or motivation in herself.
In the “Motivators” section, under the “Safety and Familiarity” subsection, some parents
addressed their preference for Armenian schools because they felt comfortable with their
children in that environment. Even so, six out of seven participants cited the Armenian language
as a goal when picking their child(ren)’s school or language program. In a post-interview
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 219

conversation, Rebecca pointed out to me that not only had Armenian been a consideration for her
son’s preschool, but also the standard of Armenian the school primarily supported. Rebecca and
her husband were in the process of considering future schooling options for their older son and
both language and standard were a part of their consideration. The remaining participant, Anna,
had not picked a private Armenian school with language or safety and familiarity as the primary
goal. Previously, Anna and her family had lived in an area where she did not want to enroll her
child(ren) in the local district schools. She had enrolled her daughter in an Armenian private
school as a temporary solution so as to avoid the neighborhood public school. In other words,
her choice in language program was by default rather than an intentional choice for language.
Anna and her family had recently moved to a better district, so her daughter was going to attend
public school the following year. While her primary goal for enrollment was not language, she
still cited the school as the primary source that supported her child learning Armenian. When
asked what supported her children’s learning of Armenian, she answered: “Well, my daughter
goes to Armenian school, so that definitely helps her out a lot. My son, not so much. What we do
at home is we try to speak Armenian. But we'll mix in English in there.” This is similar to the
previous comment from Maya. Anna credited her daughter’s Armenian private school, indicated
that her son did not have adequate HL supports because he did not attend a HL program, and
discounted the HL support she provided at home. Later, she indicated that, once both of her
children attend a public school the next year, "I'll probably look …to get somebody… so [my
son] learns letters, reading, writing. Maybe not as much as [my daughter]. Once or twice a week
to have a tutor or something come by to do that.” Here, she indicated future plans to outsource
the learning of Armenian for her son to “a tutor or something.” As such, Armenian language
learning was not her initial motive to enroll her child in a language program, but the task was
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 220

still outsourced to the school. Moreover, Anna had future plans to outsource Armenian learning
to a tutor for her son who would not attend an Armenian private school.
Parents’ outsourcing of Armenian language development was apparent in observations
too. When doing Armenian language homework, participants would use it as opportunities to
teach language. During an observation, Anna’s daughter was reading a short story for her
Armenian class. As she read “պատի ճեղքում” (the wall’s crack) from the book, Anna added,
“պատի ճեղքում գիտես ի՞նչ ա? The crack…” (do you know what the “wall’s crack” means?
The crack…) Then, Anna turned to her son who was at the table with them and taught him the
word as well. In this example, Anna used the Armenian language homework as an opportunity
to expand on the story and teach her children an Armenian word. As her daughter finished
reading the story, Anna asked, “իմացար էս story-ի բանը [moral] ի՞նչ ա?” (did you figure out
the moral of this story?) and her daughter answered, “It was a lazy ճպուռ [dragonfly].” Again,
Anna turned to her son: “մրջյուն իմանում ես ինչ ա?” (do you know what “ant” is?) and her
daughter clarified, “ant.” Then, Anna went on to explain the moral of the story: “So ձմեռը
գալիս ա [when winter is coming], he has everything he needs.” For this one homework
assignment, Anna used the story as an opportunity to teach vocabulary, “crack” and “ant,” and
discuss the moral. Without the homework assigned by the Armenian school her daughter
attended, this opportunity would likely not have existed. Therefore, this was another way that
participants outsourced the learning of Armenian to language programs. The homework
assigned by the Armenian language program provided opportunities to foster Armenian
language, and the effort the parent had to expend was minimized.
In some cases, parents acknowledged their own desire to learn through their child’s
school. Allison shared: “And I would actually go as far to say, when I want to write, I can't write
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 221

that well. I would want to write better. So, I want to use them [her kids] as a way for me to learn
even more.” Allison expressed an interest in writing Armenian better and said she wanted to do
so through her children’s learning of Armenian. Given that their Armenian writing exposure was
solely through school, Allison’s admission even outsourced her own learning in adulthood to
Armenian language programs.
Although a majority of the participants’ children were enrolled in private Armenian
schools, it is worth noting that when parents expressed their decision-making and struggles with
language programs, participants covered all possible language programs as considerations. Julia
explained her decision-making by walking through her consideration of four types of language
programs. She discussed a negative experience with a Saturday language program and said “So
շաբաթօրյա դպրոցը հանել էի բանից,” (I had eliminated Saturday school as an option).
Having ruled out Saturday school as an option, she then considered private schools: “Մյուսը
մտածում- the private դպրոցները շատ թանկ են, we can’t afford it,” (Next I was thinking- the
private schools are too expensive, we can’t afford it). She explained another choice was an
Armenian private school, but it presented financial challenges. She finally decided on an after
school language program: “So anyways, էտ էլ մի կողմ գնաց, ու I settled on [Armenian
Afterschool]” (So anyways, that got pushed aside too and I settled on an [Armenian Afterschool]
program). But, before her eldest child began the afterschool program, Julia was informed about
the Armenian dual-language immersion program available in her children’s school district and
decided to go with that option: “Հետո մեկը ինձ ասեց էտ ծրագրի մասին…the dual-
immersion, որ ասեց ըտենց ծրագիր կա- Anyway, գնացի բան, հետևից ու thankfully it
worked out.” (Then, someone told me about this program…the dual-immersion, when they said
there’s such a program- Anyway, I went after it and thankfully it worked out.) It was a priority
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 222

for Julia to enroll her kids in an Armenian language program and she considered many types of
programs before coming to a final decision. This exchange showed just how methodical parents
were when making important outsourcing decisions. They did not take the choice lightly.
Participants in this study presented their decision-making in different ways, another example
being Anna above, who considered the quality of school districts. Nonetheless, participants
considered many types of programs to outsource Armenian language development to, including
past and future schooling decisions. All types of language programs were mentioned across
participants, including Armenian preschools and private schools, after school and weekend
classes, dual-language immersion programs, private tutors, and no program at all.
The outsourcing of Armenian language development was also a possible explanation for
the selection bias, outlined in Chapter 3. Six of the families in this study had their child(ren)
enrolled in private Armenian preschools or day schools, and the seventh in an Armenian dual-
language immersion program. It was possible that parents who had their child(ren) enrolled in a
language program where their child(ren) was/were immersed in an Armenian environment full
time felt most comfortable participating in this study and opening up about a sensitive issue.
This study demonstrated that Armenian-American parents relied largely on Armenian
language programs for their child(ren) to learn Armenian as a HL but it is not the only source
they relied on. Participants consistently cited grandparents as HL supports. In addition to
grandparents, some participants had caregivers that were HL supports for their kids.
Grandparents and Caregivers
Participants in this study relied on grandparents and other caregivers for Armenian
acquisition, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Sociocultural theory and language
socialization provide frameworks that highlight the role of competent actors in a community.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 223

Sociocultural theory positions learning in context, where individuals are interacting with one
another and learning as that interaction evolves. In an exchange, more knowledgeable others
(MKOs) create a zone of proximal development (ZPD) with novices to foster learning
(Vygotsky, 1978). Grandparents and caregivers are examples of MKOs with HL skills and their
interactions with children create ZPDs where the Armenian language can be learned. Language
socialization is a similar framework where language learning is viewed as synonymous with
socialization, as novice members interact with other members and gain competence. Language
socialization focuses specifically on language. Grandparents’ and caregivers’ interactions with
children create reciprocal interaction where language is learned and also uniquely contributes to
socialization (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986).
There are implications for children’s socialization in Armenian depending on the primary source
of interaction. In addition to these two theories, the literature on language input supports that
any regular source of language input for children impacts language development, particularly
during early childhood (Hoff, 2014). Grandparents and caregivers provide language input in
Armenian and impact language learning. The more members of a language community children
are exposed to, the more types of exposure they get and the more opportunities they have to
practice. This increased exposure helps foster HL learning (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015).
The generational status of grandparents in this study was significant and is explored more
deeply in the “Generational Status” subsection of the next section. The participants in this study
were selected as 1.5 or 1.75 generation, which meant that their parents were first-generation
Armenian-Americans. That presupposed that the grandparents in this study were proficient in
the Armenian language (Rumbaut, 2004). If the caregivers watching children were also first-
generation Armenian-Americans, the same assumption could be extended to them. Interaction
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 224

with first-generation grandparents and caregivers was therefore advantageous for children’s HL
development. Last, one study found specific support for the role of grandparents in language
development. Morris and Jones (2008) found that children in hybrid Welsh families, where one
parent spoke Welsh and the other did not, improved language skills by spending time with their
Welsh-speaking grandparents. Even though the grandparents in this study previously lived in
other host countries as part of the Armenian diaspora, those populations were better able to
maintain Armenian as their dominant language. While there is no formal study on this, some
speculations may include religious differences from the host population, the lack of widespread
technology at that time, and assimilation pressures in the U.S.
In either the observations, interviews, or both, all participants confirmed that
grandparents had a primary role in providing Armenian language input. Some participants
explicitly acknowledged grandparents’ role in their child(ren)’s Armenian language acquisition.
Others parents simply went along with the status quo, unknowingly or conveniently gaining from
the influence of first-generation Armenian-American grandparents. Bella characterized both
experiences in addressing the difference between her father-in-law and her father based on their
time of arrival to the U.S.:
When [my eldest child] was an infant and a newborn, my father-in-law would speak with
him in English. It kind of took some gentle reminders, like… ‘You got to say that in
Armenian.’ With my dad, it was mostly a non-issue because his go-to language is still
Armenian, so I didn't really have to specify anything, it was just obvious that he was
gonna speak, he was gonna start the sentence with Armenian.
In this scenario, both paternal and maternal grandparents had access to the Armenian language
but it was harder for the paternal grandfather because he had immigrated at a younger age and
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 225

many years earlier. Therefore, the participant and her spouse were intentional with the paternal
grandparents to “say that in Armenian” and did not need to make an effort with the maternal
grandparents. By saying that the maternal grandfather’s “go-to language is still Armenian,”
Bella was communicating the importance of generational status and its relationship to the
comfort with the use of one’s HL.
In Maya’s interview, she told a story about her mother, the maternal grandmother,
interacting with her children the day before. Maya’s older son said something in English to
Maya and the grandmother jumped in to remind him to speak Armenian: “I was there yesterday
and [my son] responded in English and she's like, մամադ կարծեմ հայերեն կհասկնա: She's
always pushing it.” (I think your mom understands Armenian). In this segment, regardless of
what Maya wanted, her mother was “pushing” Armenian speaking with her children. This
already outsourced the role to the grandmother. Then, I followed up with asking Maya how she
felt about her mother’s interjection and Maya responded: “I like it because she's doing what I
should be doing, which I don't as much cause I- that's hypocritical. I'm speaking to them [in
English] too.” Maya herself acknowledged outsourcing the task by saying her mother does
“what [she] should be doing.” Her use of the word “should” gave insight into the feelings of
guilt Maya felt for not doing what her mother was attempting. She continued to explain that she
does not do it, “I don’t as much.” Last, she ended by referencing the struggle she felt, where she
did not speak Armenian with her children and so felt “hypocritical” if she reminded them to
speak Armenian. Not only did this data demonstrate outsourcing to grandparents, it also showed
some of the reasons that parents may have turned to sources other than themselves.
At Rebecca’s home during an observation, those present were Rebecca, her four year old
son, her ten month old son, and the paternal grandmother. My observation notes focused on the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 226

participant, Rebecca, who was primarily interacting with her older son. During this time, the
paternal grandmother who predominantly spoke in the Armenian language, was with the younger
son. The paternal grandmother played with the younger son and fed him, all the while speaking
to him in Armenian. At one point, the older son was looking at a Lego magazine and showed me
a car, saying: “my favorite car is this.” Then, he immediately turned to his grandmother and said
“էս մեքենան իմ սիրածն ա,” repeating an identical message in the HL. It’s important to note
that Rebecca’s older son was Armenian dominant and had spoken to me many times in
Armenian before, but overall had been shifting towards English language use recently. In this
exchange, the older son knew to code-switch based on his audience, as is common for bilingual
children (Bailey & Orellana, 2015). The grandmother’s interactions at Rebecca’s house were an
example of unintentional language outsourcing. Rebecca needed help with childcare and had the
paternal grandmother over for two of our three observations. As a byproduct of the
grandmother’s presence, her children were exposed to the Armenian language through an
additional actor. As can be seen in the exchange where Rebecca’s older son spoke to me in
English and his grandmother in Armenian, the grandmother’s presence had an effect on the
child’s Armenian language use.
While all families acknowledged grandparents’ role in Armenian language acquisition,
only two of the families used grandparents as a primary source of care for their child(ren). Four
of the families mentioned caregivers for their child(ren) that were not grandparents. Two of
those four used babysitters as a primary form of childcare. Three of the four babysitters were
selected because they were Armenian. The three parents with Armenian caregivers hired them
with varying goals which included trust, dialect, and language exposure. This data provided
valuable insight because parents defaulted to Armenian caregivers when grandparents were not
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 227

an option. As addressed in the “Motivators” section in the “Safety and Familiarity” subsection,
some participants were more likely to select Armenian environments based on safety and
comfort. Nonetheless, when this impacted childcare, especially daily, it had implications for HL
development.
A clear example that demonstrated caregivers’ role in language development was
Allison’s family where the youngest child, of three children, was still Armenian dominant at the
age of four. The child was enrolled in an Armenian preschool and had not started formal K-12
education yet, but it was surprising to me that she was still Armenian dominant, considering her
older siblings’ English language input. Then, throughout the observations, it became clear that
the youngest child spent the most time with the babysitter, who was Armenian language
dominant, and so the child had maintained Armenian dominance. During one observation,
Allison baked a cake with her three children and the babysitter. Afterwards, she sat to do
homework with her eldest child, her son went out to play basketball, and the babysitter took the
youngest child to shower. The babysitter was dominant in the Armenian language and, while I
was not close enough to capture the words used, the conversation overheard throughout the
shower-time was in Armenian. Later during the observation, as Allison continued to help her
eldest child with homework, the babysitter did a coloring activity with the youngest daughter and
they conversed in Armenian throughout. Here, again, whether or not the language exposure was
intentional, time with an Armenian caregiver supported acquisition of Armenian as a HL.
Allison’s babysitter was not hired with language as an intentional goal, which was addressed in
the section on parents’ “Motivators” in the “Safety and Familiarity” subsection, yet she
unintentionally provided support for it. There were also opportunities where the language
support was intentional because the babysitter was Armenian which allowed for that option. For
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 228

example, during another observation, Allison explicitly asked the babysitter for Armenian
language help. Allison was again busy helping her older daughter with homework and so she
asked the babysitter to review her son’s Armenian homework with him. This example also
alluded to the findings about parents focus on homework and juggling many things at once, both
covered in the “Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” section, in the “Prioritization of
English” and “Armenian Development is Constant Effort” subsections.
Another example of reliance on babysitters came up during Jack’s interview. When
expressing his discontent with his youngest son’s lack of Armenian proficiency, he said:
My son is a completely different story. I don't know what happened to my son. I mean
we- the babysitter we had didn't speak a word of English for the first two years that she
literally watched him, raised him. She was with him ten hours a day and she doesn't even
know what bye or hi means in English. She's full blown Հայաստանցի (Armenian from
Armenia). And I don’t know what happened. All of the sudden he just, you saw, he
doesn’t speak Armenian. It's kind of, I don't know, doesn't make sense. And he knows
every word, he knows more words than I do in English.
It was easy to sense Jack’s bewilderment at his son’s lack of desire to engage with the Armenian
language. In this example, he attributed his shock to the babysitter their son spent a lot of time
with. He did not question other supports but brought up the babysitter’s presence. It made sense
to be confused if the babysitter didn’t “even know what bye or hi means in English” and was
with their son “ten hours a day" for “two years.” However, Jack’s son’s English language
development stemmed from somewhere; there had to have been English language supports. This
demonstrated that, while the Armenian was outsourced to the babysitter, there were other sources
his son was exposed to that supported English language development that Jack was unaware of.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 229

Later in the interview, I asked for clarification on how their babysitter was hired, Jack
said that language was not a consideration but rather comfort and security, a topic already
covered in the “Motivators” section under the “Safety and Familiarity” subsection. But, his wife
was in the same room and she interjected “I really wanted them to learn my dialect, I have to be
honest.” Jack spoke Western Armenian while his wife was from a hybrid family, speaking both
the Western and Eastern dialects. She spoke the variety of Eastern Armenian spoken in the
current Republic of Armenia. The family spoke the Western dialect at home and their children
learned the Western standard at school. She still wanted her children to learn their maternal
grandmother’s dialect of Armenian and sought to do this through a babysitter. While Jack’s wife
was not the participant of focus, she was influencing language decisions for their children with
Jack. She admitted to hiring the babysitter to outsource Armenian language learning, and
specifically for the dialect. Within the same household, one parent had an explicit language goal
for the babysitter and the other did not. Nonetheless, both goals had HL implications for their
children.
Whether Armenian caregivers are hired intentionally for language or only because of
comfort and security, there are implications for children’s language development. This is one
method that can be used intentionally to help Armenian language development. Conversely, a
non-Armenian speaking caregiver may provide support for development of other languages.
Hiring caregivers for language exposure is a practice that is employed by some parents.
However, it may be overlooked for HL speakers because the language is embedded in identity
and their upbringing did not require explicit effort to acquire the language (He, 2010; C. Suárez-
Orozco et al., 2008; Polinksy & Kagan, 2007).
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 230

Last, it is important to note that reliance on Armenian-speaking caregivers is an
accessible option for this population because of the Armenian-American population in Greater
Los Angeles and its generational status (Karapetian, 2014, 2017). This finding would look very
different had this study taken place away from such a vibrant Armenian community. The
Armenian population in Greater Los Angeles also provided access to Armenian extracurricular
activities which is the next theme in this finding.
To aptly summarize this section, I use a quote from Allison. When asked about
environments where only Armenian was used, she answered: “If we're talking to our babysitters,
primarily in Armenian, because they don't understand English. Grandparents, Armenian. That's
it.” In line with this section, the people Allison’s family spoke only Armenian with were
grandparents and babysitters, “that’s it.” Outsourcing to these actors, whether intentional or
unintentional, was a reality for most of the families in this study.
Extracurricular Activities
All participants had their child(ren) enrolled in at least one extracurricular activity that
exposed their child(ren) to an Armenian environment, but not necessarily to the Armenian
language. Some of the extracurricular activities had a cultural mission, others were simply
businesses owned and/or attended by Armenians. The extracurriculars that participants had their
child(ren) enrolled in included activities such as dance, karate, scouting, theater, summer camp,
church, and swim.
Beginning in the 1970s and up until now, Armenian immigrants from the Middle East
and Soviet Union have settled on the West Coast of the U.S. and largely in Greater Los Angeles
(Karapetian, 2017; Samkian, 2007). As is typical of immigrant communities, after arrival, the
immigrant community established cultural organizations and businesses and many immigrant
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 231

children attended these programs (Karapetian, 2014; Samkian, 2007). Considering the
generational status of the participants in this study, all participants and all but one spouse
attended at least one cultural organization when they were growing up and through college. The
one spouse who did not attend Armenian organizations growing up was the only non-Armenian
parent in the study. The organizations included language programs, college clubs, athletics,
scouting, and music lessons. During participants’ youth, the generational status of the people
attending and in charge of the extracurricular activities was representative of the larger
community. Therefore, it can be assumed that for 1.5 and 1.75 generation Armenian-Americans
growing up in Greater Los Angeles, the Armenian language was prevalent in youth organizations
because it was likely run and attended by first-generation Armenian-Americans who were
Armenian dominant or strong in their Armenian language skills, possibly with limited English
language proficiency as well (Karapetian, 2014, 2017; Rumbaut, 2004).
Armenian youth organizations and businesses at that time were able to support Armenian
language acquisition by providing exposure and interaction because the people running and
attending them belonged to generations with closer proximity to the time of arrival to the U.S.
(Karapetian, 2014, 2017, 2018a, 2018b; Rumbaut, 2004). While there is still an influx of first-
generation Armenians to Greater Los Angeles, there are also political and cultural subgroups that
maintain divisions in the community and strongholds in certain organizations (Samkian, 2007).
If the population of the organization is not impacted by the influx of first generation Armenian
dominant speakers, then the average generational status of the organization shifts farther and
farther from the time of arrival. Moving farther away from the time of arrival indicates
likelihood of language attrition over generations (Rumbaut, 2004). The participants in this study
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 232

were in the middle of this generational shift and did not necessarily realize its implications for
their child(ren)’s Armenian language development.
All participants had their child(ren) enrolled in at least one Armenian activity, in addition
to the language programs they were enrolled in. When asked, parents would almost instinctively
cite the organizations as something that supported Armenian language development for their
child(ren). Then, later in the interviews, they would inadvertently admit that it did not actually
support the Armenian language or meet their expectations for HL acquisition and/or
maintenance.
Jack listed environments where his children were exposed to Armenian, including karate.
Then, I asked: “And is that done intentionally? Have you guys picked those organizations on
purpose because they're Armenian? He confirmed, “yes.” Then I followed up, asking whether
the karate instruction was conducted in Armenian or English, and Jack replied:
It's done in English however the owner of the school is Armenian. There are a lot of
fundraising moments that are helping Armenia. They do wear an Armenian patch
because the owner of the school is very involved with Armenians. The classes,
unfortunately, are done in English. But… all the senseis are Armenians. I would say
thirty-five to forty percent of the students are Armenians maybe.
Jack’s response demonstrated the limitation of Armenian extracurricular activities for his
children’s HL development. While the organization clearly cared about Armenia and its culture,
it was not a place to learn and maintain the language. Jack’s use of “unfortunately” showed his
desire to have had this activity be yet another place to support his children’s HL, but it fell short.
Organizations are not static because they are run by people, they too shift generational status,
which then has implications for the HL supports they can provide for the community. Jack
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 233

initially listed the karate as an Armenian language support. When I asked for clarification about
the HL component, Jack clarified that he was referring to other types of supports like
“fundraising” for Armenia, wearing “an Armenian patch” for identity, and being in an Armenian
environment with “students” and “senseis” that are Armenian. These are things Jack valued
alongside language and the karate studio was one way he supported that with his children. This
overarching goal of identity was covered in the “Motivators” section under “Multifaceted
Cultural Identity.” Children’s involvement with these organizations had implications for
language development. Not only did they provide English language exposure for children,
parents also assumed they had the HL supports taken care of until they were called on to reflect
more deeply, like in these interviews. If similar Armenian-American parents do not get the
chance for the same reflection, then they will continue thinking they are supporting HL
development while their children are not actually getting the HL support.
Another exchange representing this theme took place in an interview with Allison. When
I asked: “In what ways are your children currently exposed to the Armenian language?” Allison
answered with school as the primary exposure and then added “My daughter does Scouts,
Armenian Scouts.” Even though school was still the primary source she credited, she included
“Armenian Scouts.” In a later question, I asked: “Tell me about activities or contexts where only
English is used?” And Allison answered:
When she goes to Scouts, I feel like it's mostly- communication is done in English. And
it's because the people running their groups are sixteen, seventeen-year-old girls, who are
communicating in English with them. So, I don't think there is a preference for the kids to
communicate in Armenian, so it doesn't happen.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 234

Allison’s response was similar to Jack’s. At first, she cited her daughter’s scouting activities as
an opportunity for Armenian language exposure. Upon more reflection, she actually cited it as
an environment where “only English is used.” The extracurricular, in this case Armenian
scouting, was a guise for Armenian HL support.
Another parent, Anna, mentioned the Armenian theater group her daughter previously
attended. When I followed up asking whether she felt it impacted her daughter’s Armenian
language skills, Anna replied: “No. I think she just learned more [Armenian] songs.” This quote
showed Anna’s attitude towards what her daughter learned of the HL from the program,
especially when she started it with “no” and used “just” to imply that it was of little significance.
Although her claim is that her daughter did learn more songs, she is right in thinking that
learning “more songs” does not indicate a high level of HL development; recitation does not
imply comprehension (Calvert and Billingsley, 1998; Fox & Alexander, 2017).
There was one exception where the participant, Bella, had three children under the age of
four and had intentionally avoided programs where her children would be exposed to the English
language. With determined effort, Bella had made sure that the programs she had wanted to
enroll her oldest son in were Armenian speaking. Bella discussed the possibility of enrolling her
son in karate: “My oldest might start karate soon, and his teacher will be Armenian-speaking.” I
asked whether she specifically sought an Armenian-speaking karate teacher and she replied,
“Absolutely, yep.” The conversation continued: “This summer, my oldest did take swim lessons.
That was one thing that was really important for me, is for the teachers to speak to him in
Armenian. That happened, so he had swim lessons in Armenian.” Bella made it a point to find
instructors that spoke Armenian because it was “very important” to her. However, she also
expressed some challenges:
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 235

Yeah, it's easy to find. [But] It's difficult for the instructors themselves to remember to
speak Armenian. To know that this is something that I'm actually asking them to do, to
go out of their norm and speak Armenian… It was actually very sweet, because the
teacher himself, you could tell he was at times struggling to find the words in Armenian.
Even living in close proximity to many Armenians and with determined effort to find an
Armenian-speaking instructor, there were challenges outside of Bella’s control. Simply
outsourcing the HL learning did not mean the source was satisfactory. After all, many of the
Armenians living in the U.S. were themselves English dominant at the time of this study, and it
took going “out of their norm” to speak in Armenian. These challenges can get in the way of HL
goals and, combined with the many other responsibilities parents have, make HL acquisition a
difficult feat. These goals and challenges are covered extensively in the other two sections of
this chapter, "Motivators” and the upcoming section on “Discrepancies in Opportunities for
Interaction.”
The section about parents’ “Motivators” addressed other tangential goals, such as
identity, and safety and familiarity that then had potential to influence HL development.
Children’s involvement in Armenian extracurriculars, despite lacking language supports, further
demonstrated this. Language acquisition was not being supported in these organizations yet
parents were still motivated to enroll their child(ren) in Armenian extracurricular activities. In
one interview, Julia drew a clear distinction between her goals of language acquisition and
heritage:
The dual immersion, I should say, is very limited to basically language exposure. They
do sometimes read on about some of the cultural aspects. Maybe they'll talk about
Սասունցի Դավիթ (David of Sassoun) or something like that, but very- it's not in depth.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 236

It's just something they'll read and they'll talk about it… But, it’s not something that I feel
is deep enough. They're not really getting the cultural part of it as much as I would like…
So it's a very different kind of exposure, which just means that I have to supplement it
with something else. So what I've been thinking, which I will be doing soon, is taking
them to the scout program, AYF [Armenian Youth Federation], because they do the
opposite. They have more of the culture, so like the songs and the history and stuff like
that, just the ոգի [spirit], that part of it. The [Armenian] dance is what we've been
supplementing that with.
Julia was not satisfied with her children’s language program to accomplish all her goals because
it was “very limited to basically language exposure” and she wanted like them to get “more of
the culture.” Therefore, Julia felt the need to “supplement” the language program with activities
like scouting or dance in order to do so. Here, Julia separated the goals and outsourced each to a
different program. For language acquisition, she sought out the language program, as was
covered earlier in this section. For the cultural “spirit,” she sought out extracurricular
organizations, which was guided by a motivator covered in the “Motivators” section under
“Multifaceted Cultural Identity.” Julia did not outright say language was not supported in the
extracurricular organizations, but she used the word “opposite” to starkly separate what each
accomplished. She also discussed her plans to supplement the language program with something
that fostered culture. It was clear that, for Julia, neither the language program nor the
extracurriculars sufficed for both goals.
Participants outsourced to Armenian extracurricular activities to foster Armenian identity,
heritage, and community, but not language. The goal may have originally included HL but it got
dropped along the way as it became clear that it was hard to find one program that could
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 237

accomplish all of their heritage goals in one. In addition to having children enrolled in these
extracurriculars, most participants expressed future interest or plans to enroll children in other
programs. The goals for these programs varied and were not always explicitly expressed. The
last subsection in the section focuses on the second research question for this study, addressing
the use of toys, books, and technology in outsourcing the acquisition of Armenian as a HL.
Toys, Books, and Technology
The second research question in this study initially asked how parents used toys, book,
and technology to support Armenian as a HL with their child(ren). The data in this study
suggested that the majority of the resources used in participants’ homes were not specific to a
language, about 29% were specific to English, and the remaining were split between dual-
language Armenian-English and just Armenian resources. This is explored further in the
“Access” section of the “Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” section. Though
minimal, when Armenian language resources were used, they were used specifically with
language in mind. This was a form of outsourcing because participants had to go out of their
way to get and use the Armenian resources, as opposed to readily available English ones. Here, I
present the data briefly because of its relevance to the original research question and its potential
implications for HL learning.
In early childhood, the primary source of language exposure and interaction is oral
because children cannot read and write yet. This exposure often takes place between adult
MKOs and children in the form of play. Toys, books, and technology have great potential to
impact the language used in play and, consequently, language development (Vygotsky, 1978;
Weisberg et al., 2013). One of the characteristics that makes play advantageous for learning is
the motivation inherent on behalf of the child (Dickinson et al., 2012). Despite the potential to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 238

foster language development in early childhood, participants in this study did not outsource
learning Armenian as a HL to toys, books, and technology often. Four of the seven participants
used Armenian toys and books with their child(ren), yet minimally. When Armenian toys and
books were used, they were intentionally sought out with the purpose of supporting language
development. While this outsourcing still had potential to be advantageous for HL development,
it also had potential to do the opposite. If HL resources become obligatory for children, their
motivation can diminish and play can turn into work, losing one of its unique advantages for
learning.
In an interview, Rebecca shared: “I also have Armenian books, and books where it'll say
the letter if you press on it, things like that. I try to have educational materials at home, I always
have, in both languages. We'll do that in Armenian.” Rebecca was referring to intentional
resources she used to support HL learning with her children, “educational materials.” She
specifically sought these resources to support HL development, thus outsourcing her goal.
Rebecca’s use of materials to support the HL were advantageous and in line with the research
that supports play and language in early childhood. While Rebecca was able to support HL
through her use of resources, she was in the minority of participants.
Another example of outsourcing to toys came from an observation at Rebecca’s home.
Rebecca’s older son was playing with a toy that had, what he described as, a “shark wheel,” and
he kept using a code-switched phrase, “shark անիվ.” Rebecca began conversing with her son
and said “երբ որ փոքր իր, բիբիկ իր, մահատ գիրք ունիր…” (“When you were little, a baby,
you had a book…”) She continued on to say that they should go check the book for how to say
“shark” in Armenian. Rebecca was doing work in the kitchen at that point and they did not end
up checking the book, but her intention was to use the book as a resource to learn and use an
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 239

Armenian word, in this case, “shark.” The book helped outsource Armenian development by
providing vocabulary support that was relevant, but not readily available in Rebecca’s
vocabulary repertoire.
Although scarce, in the instances that participants outsourced to Armenian resources in
this study, their purpose was specifically to support HL. This section was addressed because a
large focus of this study was the role of play in early childhood language development.
However, few parent participants used books, toys, and technology in that way, likely due to the
lack of sufficient resources for this purpose. The absence of Armenian resources in early
childhood has implications for children’s HL acquisition. Deliberate facilitation of play with
specific materials to foster learning is more typical of a preschool setting versus in the home with
parents. However, if HL acquisition is a goal, this is one way parents can foster Armenian as a
HL. This would require parent training and access to appropriate and relevant HL resources, the
challenges of which will be covered in the “Access” subsection of the next section. Armenian
language programs and educators could also benefit from improvements in this area.
Conclusion
The data collected in this study demonstrated that parents outsourced Armenian language
learning, in large part because of their own inability or lack of self-efficacy to do it themselves.
The primary sources that parents relied on were language programs and caregivers, including
grandparents and babysitters. Outsourcing to Armenian extracurricular activities accomplished a
broader goal of developing Armenian heritage and identity but not language, even if it had been
initiated with HL development in mind. Toys, books, and technology were used minimally but,
when used, with the intention of HL development.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 240

Outsourcing shifted the fate of HL acquisition and maintenance to the quality of each
specific source. Despite participants’ prevalent use of such sources, confirmation that these
sources were adequate for HL development remained an area to be explored. Further,
outsourcing minimized or negated parents’ role in HL development. Outsourcing has potential
to be advantageous or detrimental and therefore, its implications, covered in Chapter 5, are of
great significance.
Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction
Through my experiences as a member of the Armenian-American community, Armenian-
American parents express the desire for their children to develop Armenian as a HL, and often
exert a lot of effort to do so. However, they struggle to navigate challenges along the way to
successful HL development. Regardless of the goal, there need to be realistic means to attain
that goal. This section illuminates the many discrepancies in opportunities for interaction
between the English and Armenian languages that participants’ families faced. Exposure to
one’s HL is typically limited yet it has great potential for HL development (Montrul, 2010; Tse,
2001; Gollan et al., 2015).
In this study, data collection uncovered a long list of discrepancies in how children
interacted with the English language and their HL, Armenian. To start with, participants were
very aware that there were discrepancies between their children’s English and Armenian
language development. Participants felt that their children’s English language development took
little to no effort on their part and was inevitable. Conversely, they felt that their children’s
Armenian language development took tremendous and constant effort. Though they had this
awareness, they did not realize all the specifics of why their children’s HL development was
such a struggle. They were motivated to foster the HL and felt they were on the path to do so,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 241

but were finding that it was harder than they had expected and even discouraging. The larger
portion of this section digs into the data that can help understand why HL development was such
a challenge for participants’ children in order to find ways to better address HL development for
this population, as will be thoroughly addressed in Chapter 5. The difference in effort was
starkly noticeable in observations as well. Participants’ experiences with their children’s
language development were strained by issues of access, where there were disparities between
Armenian and English language resources in obtaining resources, quantity, quality of resources,
and quality of interaction. Generational status of parents, grandchildren, and children’s peers
was another factor that limited opportunities for practice in the HL. As generational status for
each group shifted further away from the family’s time of arrival to the U.S., they became more
likely to use English in conjunction with Armenian or primarily English. Additionally, there was
prioritization of the English language as time spent on homework and supplemental English
language workbooks increased in frequency. Last, interaction with the younger child(ren) in
participants’ families was impacted by older siblings. Each of these factors–access, generational
status, prioritization of English, and birth order–provided support for parents’ views on the
differences between the two languages. Participants’ goal of generational transmission of their
HL to their children was constantly challenged by both implicit and explicit discrepancies in
opportunities for interaction between the English and Armenian languages.
Effort
Participants expressed that there were discrepancies in the amount of effort they had to
exert for English versus Armenian language development. All participants felt the English
language was omnipresent in their lives and their children’s development was inevitable, thus
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 242

requiring little or no effort from them. In contrast, they felt that their children’s Armenian
language development needed constant effort and was an overall struggle.
English language development is inevitable. All participants addressed the ease in
their children acquiring the English language. This view was explicitly and implicitly expressed
throughout data collection. There was one question in the interviews that really illuminated this
view. I asked participants whether they agreed that helping their children learn English was the
most important thing to do in the U.S. This question was asked for both languages. Most
participants took issue with the use of “most important,” indicating that there were many
important things alongside each other, but their answers to the question about the English
language also gave away much more. Maya replied:
I think learning English is inevitable, inevitable in the United States. So I think, yeah, it's
more important to learn the other, like whatever our language. They're gonna learn
[English]. It's on TV, it's on their tablets, it's everywhere at school.
Maya described the learning of English as “inevitable” and repeated the word for emphasis. She
added “in the United States,” indicating the role of the context in her children’s English language
development. For that reason, Maya felt it was more important to learn the home language or the
HL, which she indicated with the use of “our language.” She continued to explain that English
was omnipresent, through media and at school. Maya also confidently followed this explanation
with “It's taken no effort for my kids to learn English.” Unlike with the Armenian language,
Maya did not feel as though she had done anything out of the ordinary to support her children’s
English language development.
Bella had a similar response to the question: “English is learned so readily nowadays that
you can apply very little effort and your children will learn English, so there's no need for you to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 243

go out of your way to teach your kids English, in my opinion.” She acknowledged the
omnipresence of English by saying that it was “learned so readily” and she felt that there was
“no need” to exert determined effort for her children to learn the English language.
Julia explained the availability and ease of learning the English language through the
lens of access. After stating “I don't think they have any problems learning English,” Julia
explained that “I feel like you have unlimited amount of resources to learn English.” She was
aware that learning English was easy, and it was because of the resources available to support it.
Then Julia said, “But as far as Armenian is concerned, like it doesn't have that same kind of
trajectory,” the same trajectory being unlimited resources and ease of learning. Before I could
even ask the same question about the Armenian language, Julia was addressing the discrepancies
she felt between the opportunities for interaction in each language.
Rebecca also compared the two:
For [my parents] they didn't really know English, so it wasn't as embedded in their life. I
feel like it was probably easier for them to have just Armenian be it. But for us, it's harder
because English has such a strong influence in our lives.
Rebecca compared her parents’ experience raising children to her own with regard to language.
English had a much smaller influence in her parents’ life, and therefore Rebecca felt they had an
easier time maintaining the Armenian language in their childrearing years. Rebecca felt that in
her parenting at the time of the study, it was “harder” because of the strong role of English in her
context. This discrepancy pertaining to generational status will be further analyzed in the
upcoming subsection titled “Generational Status.”
Allison was the only participant who did not explicitly state how easy it was to develop
the English language. Even so, she communicated the omnipresence of the English language in
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 244

her children’s lives and the lack of Armenian. When asked what supported her children’s
learning of the English language, she replied:
But subconsciously, I have- For me, the study of language can happen sort of in a more
structured setting, and then it can happen kind of like on the streets, when you're least
expecting it. And so, they have the structured English learning with me, and then sort of
the non-structured interaction that happens at school, playing with friends, interacting.
Allison explained language learning through social interaction by using the words
“subconsciously,” “on the streets, when you’re least expecting it,” and “non-structured
interaction.” She supported her children’s English language development as well as their
environment. At another time, when asked about what supported her children’s development of
the Armenian language, part of Allison’s response was:
If we removed Armenian school from their lives, they would have very little interaction
with the Armenian language, in terms of learning reading, learning writing, learning
songs, learning about culture, unless I then made an active effort to introduce that through
a different way.
Allison exerted a lot of determined effort to develop her children’s English language skills, but
she was simultaneously aware of the other language supports her children had such as “non-
structured interaction that happens at school, playing with friends, interacting.” With Armenian
language development, the school was in charge of that, and without the school it would only
happen if she “made an active effort,” unlike the unstructured supports available for English
development. The effort needed for Armenian language development will be covered in the next
subsection.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 245

Jack represented the discrepancies between the effort required for each language by
saying that Armenian language development needed more support than English: “Yes, more of
the Armenian because as I said, we're in America, English is always, regardless of what they're
going to learn. It's the Armenian that we have to put our foot down and say it needs to be done.”
Jack felt that Armenian needed more support because English was always going to be around.
Moreover, he felt he needed to firmly express that his children should learn and use the
Armenian language. His use of “it needs to be done” represented just how strongly he felt he
needed to be on the matter in contrast to the English language.
Just like the previous subsection on “Multilingualism as Cultural Capital” in the
“Motivators” section, it should be noted that this finding is culturally specific to Armenian-
Americans and this study’s sample. English language development is a true challenge for many
minority groups in the U.S. (Bailey and Osipova, 2016). The shared sentiment that English
language development was inevitable for their children was shaped by factors specific to the
participants in this study, such as parents’ own levels of English and HL proficiency, positive
language ideology towards multilingualism, socioeconomic status, and so on.
All participants in this study were clear that the English language was omnipresent in
their lives and their children’s development took little to no effort on their behalf. However, they
felt the exact opposite about their children’s Armenian language development.
Armenian language development is constant effort. The previous subsection showed
that participants viewed English language development as inevitable but not Armenian.
Therefore, they felt it important to focus their efforts on Armenian language development with
their children. The “Outsourcing” section showed that participants deliberately employed
language and extracurricular programs, grandparents and babysitters, and sometimes language
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 246

resources in order to foster HL development for their children. Although to external sources,
outsourcing was still effort exerted by parents for HL development. In addition to outsourcing,
parents exerted effort themselves. This subsection looks specifically at the effort exerted directly
by parents and the language support they provided. Parents made efforts to improve their own
HL skills and to speak Armenian despite their English dominance. They made constant efforts to
foster their children’s HL development and remind them to speak it in the home. They struggled
with the amount of time they had to exert for HL development among other goals and
responsibilities. Lastly, they expressed stressful experiences in fostering the HL with their
children.
Part of the issue with HL learners transmitting their HL to the next generation is that they
have incomplete acquisition themselves (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Montrul, 2010). I conducted
five hours of observations per family, and coded all the speech in those observations by
language: only Armenian, only English, and code-switched Armenian and English utterances
using Armenian and English. Five out of seven participants spoke only Armenian for the largest
portion of their utterances during observations, which was either 45% or more of the time.
Conversely, in five of the participants’ families, though not the same five, children spoke only
English for the largest portion of their utterances, which was either 48% or more of their
utterances. The other two families where the children spoke only Armenian for the largest
portion of their utterances had children ages four and under, meaning that they were less likely to
have shifted to English dominance yet. Even though the majority of participants spoke
Armenian more than they spoke English or code-switched, it took effort on behalf of the parents.
Throughout the “Outsourcing” section, many of the examples showed participants saying that
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 247

they tried to speak Armenian, indicating that it took effort, it was not automatic. In other parts of
the interviews, parents talked directly about this effort.
Participants discussed the ways they had to exert effort to improve their own Armenian
language skills in order to better support their children’s HL development, something they did
not have to do for the English language. Anna talked about how generational transmission of the
Armenian language became more important to her when she became pregnant with her first
child, so important that she tried to sign up for an Armenian language class at the local
community college:
I mean growing up I wasn't that thing about, “oh when I have kids I want them to speak
Armenian,” or anything. But I think as I grew older, it became more important for me.
Then, I remember right before I got pregnant, me and my cousin, we were gonna take a
class at [a community college] to learn. Then we went for the class, of course they didn't
let us sign up ahead of time, we had to wait for everybody else to sign up. We went to the
classroom to get added and there was literally like, I don't know, 60 people in the class.
And all of them were people that already knew. You could tell, they just came from
Armenia or Iran or something. They all knew. They're just taking it for credits. So I didn't
get the class because all of them were already there.
Anna’s tone was frustrated with the class registration process. She was certain that the class was
full of people who just wanted to fill their course load and already knew the Armenian language
well. During pregnancy, Anna wanted to take a whole course to improve her HL skills, clearly
she did not have to do the same for English. Anna further explained:
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 248

Once I knew I was going to have a baby I was like, okay I know I want to make sure I
know so that I can teach them. But then that never happened but we still- I mean we do
homework together so I'm kind of learning with them.
Even though Anna did not have a chance to take the class, she was using her children’s
homework to improve her own Armenian. Anna had exerted effort to foster her children’s HL
development by improving her own HL skills, before she had her children and still at the time of
the interview. Supporting the English language for her children clearly did not take the same
amount of effort as Armenian. Parents were aware of the gaps in their Armenian language skills
and tried to improve them to support their children’s HL development. For English however,
there was no mention of anything similar.
When Bella had been pregnant with her first child, she and her husband had started to
actively make changes in their own language use. I asked Bella whether her children’s use of
language affected her own. Bella answered:
You know what? With my oldest, because he's like our guinea pig in the family, with
him, we actually, my husband and I, had to start learning all these new Armenian words
that we previously did not use in our vocabulary. Then we slowly started to realize like,
"What is actually Armenian and what is not?" Because of our history as Armenians, we
have a lot of other languages mixed in, or intermixed in our everyday language. To filter
those out. Actually, [our eldest] learning Armenian improved our Armenian
exponentially. Because I didn't want to tell him, "This is a computer," let's say. I knew
the word for computer in Armenian. Other words I had to look them up. We actually have
two dictionaries by our front door. Anytime we need to find a word, we don't want to
default to the English, so we want to teach them the new word. As a result, the middle kid
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 249

learns it, we learn it. Then we use it frequently throughout the day, and that's like our new
word for that item. In the past, up until age thirty-three, I would call a trashcan զիբիլ,
which is Turkish. It shocked me to learn that it was Turkish, but from now on it's been
աղբաման. It's աղբաման in our home. That's one example.
Not only did Bella and her husband switch from conversing in English to Armenian once they
had their first child, they also started to change the way they spoke Armenian. They learned
words they did not previously know and even changed words they had used for decades. Even at
the time of this study, their oldest son was already four and they had another two children, and
the dictionary was still in front of the door. In fact, before Bella told me about those dictionaries
in her interview, I saw her refer to it during an observation. Of all the participants, Bella’s
family was the family who most seamlessly used the Armenian language and incorporated words
that were not commonly used, such as “աշտարակ, հանրակառք, թրաձուկ” (tower,
transportation, and swordfish), all examples from observations. Nonetheless, it took active effort
from both parents to do so and continue to do so. It was not the same for the English language.
In addition to the effort participants had to expend to improve their own Armenian
language skills, they also felt like they had to exert constant effort for their children to speak the
Armenian language. This next example by Rebecca combined both of those sentiments. When
asked what language her children spoke with her, Rebecca mostly talked about her older son
because her younger son was only ten months old and was not speaking much yet. Rebecca
explained that her older son, who was four years old, had started to shift to speaking more
English than Armenian: “Armenian. Well, my older one has started to say a lot in English. I kind
of have to always remind him, ‘հայերեն խոսա, հայերեն խոսա’” (speak Armenian, speak
Armenian). First, Rebecca instinctively answered Armenian, then she adjusted that response to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 250

explain the recent shift she had observed. That shift had then caused her to constantly remind
him to speak Armenian, as can be understood from her use of the word “always” and her
repetition of “’հայերեն խոսա’” (speak Armenian). I asked Rebecca to explain what that felt
like. She answered:
I remember being a kid and my parents doing that. They always wanted to make sure that
we maintained that when we were at home. I'm like, "Oh my God, I'm being my mom
right now." You know, it's the same thing, but that's how you maintain the culture. But
yeah, it's hard because when he's home and he's with us, I want him to just speak
Armenian and I want us to try to do that as well. But then again, it's kind of like that
whole battle because I don't do that either. I speak in English with my husband, and even
sometimes with him, it's kind of this back and forth. But he's started to, like I said, this
past month he speaks in English a lot. Not just his play, but even with us. I've noticed in
the last couple of weeks, I'm constantly telling him, like reminding him “հայերեն խոսա,
հայերեն խոսա” (“speak Armenian, speak Armenian”).
Rebecca explained the similarities she noticed between her upbringing and her parenting, and the
connection between parent persistence and HL maintenance. She explained that her parents used
to remind her to speak Armenain at home and she realized she was doing the “same thing” for
her son now that he had started to speak English at home. She justified it by saying “that’s how
you maintain the culture.” Then, Rebecca shifted to explaining her struggles with getting her son
to speak Armenian, by saying that it was “hard” and indicating that they, she and her husband,
had to “try to do that as well.” Not only did Rebecca and her husband have to apply effort to get
their son to speak Armenian, but also themselves. It was clear that Rebecca struggled to speak
Armenian herself because she plainly said it, “I don't do that either. I speak in English with my
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 251

husband, and even sometimes with him, it's kind of this back and forth.” Rebecca felt caught in
the middle of her own dilemma as she insisted that her son do something that she struggled to do,
speak Armenian at home all of the time. Last, Rebecca talked about the changes she had
observed in her house in the last month, as her son had started to shift towards speaking English
more and she had to “constantly” remind him to speak Armenian. It took repeated effort for
Rebecca to get her son to switch from speaking in English to Armenian, and for Rebecca to do
the same herself because of her own, already established, English dominance. The discrepancy
between the effort needed to develop the English and Armenian languages was apparent for
participants and their children, where the default was already English or shifting to English and
the constant reminders were to speak Armenian.
Like Rebecca, all participants either reminded their children to switch from English to
Armenian during observations or they spoke about it in their interviews. Julia talked about it as a
regular part of her family’s day and her parenting:
When you were there the other day, I was kind of fighting the urge to tell them to speak
Armenian because I didn't want it to be forced. ‘Cause it's kind of strange. I’m like, I
would've normally... at some point, but I didn't want it to come off like I'm saying it
because... so it was a little awkward but normally, I mean, I would. If they’re, զգում եմ
որ շատ շատ են անգլերեն խոսում, (I feel that they’re speaking too too much English) I
would be like մի բառ դու հայերեն չես խոսացել (I have not heard you say one
Armenian word). "Can you continue this conversation with me in Armenian?," for
example? Or, "Tell me this thing in Armenian. Tell me what happened today but
“հայերենով ասա” (say it in Armenian). So I try to have those kinds of moments and
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 252

that's what I'm doing now because, I don't know, that’s- my approach has changed, yeah,
definitely.
Julia discussed how she felt during an observation while I was there. She had struggled about
whether or not she should tell her children to speak Armenian when they were speaking in
English. In her interview, she explained that she would do that “normally.” In fact, it was what
she was “doing now,” it was part of her strategy to foster her children’s HL development,
regularly reminding them to speak it. A shift in her practice, though, demonstrated the effort she
expended to ensure regular use of Armenian in the home.
There were also examples of this taking place during observations. Anna was doing math
homework with her children one day after school. In the middle of them working on the
problem, Anna corrected her children “հայերեն” (Armenian language). Both kids switched,
“չորս” (four). One sentence later, Anna code-switched and soon the discussion was back to
English. In another example at Julia’s house, her youngest child was presenting a toy to me in
English. I was not engaging but she was continuing in the English language. Julia told her
daughter, “կյանք, կարող ես հայերենով ասես, Նաթալին հասկանում ա” (my dear, you can
say it in Armenian, Nathalie understands it). Julia’s daughter continued her explanation in
English. Examples like this happened throughout data collection, but no one reminded their
child to speak English. In fact, they interjected the English to switch to Armenian. Participants
were aware of the prevalence of English and struggled to encourage use of the Armenian
language regularly.
This need for more effort to foster the Armenian language conflicted with the busy lives
of participants. Three participants talked explicitly about effort and HL as it was related to time.
Even though the rest of the participants did not talk about it specifically, they either expressed or
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 253

showed that they led very busy lives. Allison talked about all of the other pressures in her
children’s lives and their HL development:
It's very difficult to, at least in my opinion, to master both [Armenian and English] and be
able to do all of the other things that's sort of required of them in everyday culture now.
Which is after school activities and- So, it's a daily struggle. There's only twenty-four
hours in a day.
Allison called it “difficult” and a “daily struggle” to get her children to prioritize learning the
Armenian language, amidst the many things she felt pressured to help them accomplish. Allison
referred to those other goals as requirements, implying that she felt it necessary to do all of them
with limited time. With many requirements and limited time, it seems the natural next step is to
prioritize and be selective. Where HL development makes it on that priority list, especially when
it requires a lot of time and effort, has great implications for generational transmission of the
Armenian language. Allison represented this possibility in another part of the interview: “It's a
huge time commitment on the part of the parents to get that done. I can definitely see how some
parents are, would just kind of let it go.” Allison was overwhelmed by the time she had to put in
to help her children with their Armenian schoolwork among her other goals, so much so that she
understood why some would give up on it altogether. A last example from Allison that
illustrated this point well was when she explicitly mentioned effort. “So, I would love for
[Armenian] to get prioritized, I just don't know how to get it to get prioritized more effortlessly.”
Allison really wanted to find an easier way to prioritize Armenian. Despite her goals for HL
development, Allison was clear that there were discrepancies between the effort it took to
develop the English and Armenian languages with her children. HL development took a lot of
effort and therefore a lot of time.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 254

All of the deliberate effort and the challenges in the way of the effort combined to make
fostering Armenian as a HL a negative experience for participants. Not all participants called it a
stressful experience but they all communicated feelings such as stress, fear, and anxiety
associated with their children’s HL development. Julia had started out with a stricter approach to
Armenian development with her children, but it had caused other problems for her:
I was more forceful in the beginning because I felt the urgency and the problem was a
little bit more at the surface at the time. And I was like trying to find a solution. I’m like
what should I do, what should I do? I was like trying this and trying that. I was a little bit
more neurotic when it came to the language.
Already, in deciding how to approach HL development for her first-born child, Julia was
frantically after the best approach, calling her relationship with it “neurotic.” Julia continued:
Then, just over time, because I saw that it wasn't really working. As much as I was
neurotic, as much as I was talking to [my oldest] constantly and saying, “հայերեն
խոսա, հայերեն խոսա, հայերեն խոսա,” գնում էր ինքը դպրոց, անգլերենով հետ էր
գալիս ու ոնց որ (“speak Armenian, speak Armenian, speak Armenian,” she would go to
school and come home speaking English, so) I was like, I'm constantly in confrontation
with her, and I didn't want to be so I was trying to find a different solution.
She approached the situation by repeatedly reminding her daughter to speak Armenian, as she
repeated three times for emphasis. When her daughter would go to school, it would develop her
English language skills and present a challenge at home with Julia. Julia saw that her strict
approach was not working and instead causing regular “confrontation” with her daughter. Julia
changed her approach:
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 255

So I relaxed a lot about how I approached that. So I wanted to let them know, "It's okay,
see, I speak English too but I speak Armenian and we can speak both languages, and
you-" and I try to encourage them throughout the day.
Julia relaxed her approach with the same goal of developing her children’s HL. Even though her
approach became calmer, this example ended with her saying that she tried “to encourage them
throughout the day,” showing that HL development still required regular effort from her more
than once in a day and was a challenging process.
Bella was the most successful participant in developing her children’s HL, but she also
was the one who exerted the most active effort at the time of this study. For example, up until
the time of the study, Bella’s two older children would watch English language cartoons on low
volume or muted so they would not get the language exposure through the media. Another
example was that Bella had purposely avoided extracurricular activities that were only available
in English. When I asked Bella how the topic of her children learning the Armenian language
made her feel, she felt no need to sugarcoat it; she knew exactly how it made her feel:
Anxious if I'm honest. Very anxious. Because by nature I'm somewhat of a perfectionist,
whether it's realistic or not, I try to be. And so the possibility of them not speaking
Armenian well in their future makes me anxious. How sad that anxiety is driving my- I
mean it's not only anxiety of course, it's my desire for them to learn the language that I
grew up with and the language of their homeland. But anxiety is also driving that too…
I'm afraid that they won't, I'm afraid that in their future when they're a little bit older
they'll only speak English.
Her children learning the Armenian language, even when she had been relatively successful thus
far, made her feel, not just “anxious” but, “very anxious.” Bella was anxious and afraid that her
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 256

children would become English dominant and not speak their HL when they were older. She
even briefly reflected that it was “sad” that her goal of generational transmission of her HL for
her children was driven by her anxiety.
When asked how she wanted her children to use the English language in their lives, Maya
connected the finding of Armenian taking constant effort to the finding presented in the previous
section on the ease of learning the English language in two sentences: “I'm not worried at all
about my kids and the English language. If anything, I'm worried about the Armenian with
them.” Maya used “at all” to emphasize just how little she was worried about her children’s
English language development. The question about English was unimportant to Maya because it
was so easy, therefore she dismissed the question and jumped to address her worries about the
Armenian language. When discussing her children’s Armenian language development, Maya
was “worried” when discussing their English language development, she was worry-free.
Of all the data collected in this study, this next quote ran through my mind from the
beginning of writing Chapter 4 to the end. When I asked Allison “Overall, how does the topic of
your children learning the Armenian language make you feel?” her answer embodied the
paradox that all participants were a part of in their efforts to foster Armenian as a HL with their
children. Allison answered:
Happy. Again, I feel like it's important. And, I feel like it's a responsibility I have to the
larger community to make sure it happens. It's a struggle. It's a struggle. It really is. It's
such a struggle. I mean, it's a struggle to get anything done I think with kids.
She started with one word “happy,” and justified her goal of generational transmission by
reviewing that she thought it was “important” and felt responsible. Then, Julia used four
different variations of “it’s a struggle” to finish that thought. She did not want it to be a struggle,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 257

but that struggle was her pervasive reality and it was very stressful for her. As much as parents
desired to support acquisition and maintenance of the Armenian language for their children, they
expressed great struggle in doing so.
To close this section, I use a quote from Rebecca about the perpetual struggle that
participants had accepted as part of generational transmission of Armenian as a HL: “I think, for
the rest of our lives, there's always going to be an effort to speak Armenian at home, even when
the kids are older.” Rebecca felt that it was never going to be effortless to learn Armenian as a
HL. Combining the findings from the other sections, despite parents’ “Motivators,” there were
endless challenges, “Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction,” with Armenian HL
development. Participants knew from first-hand experience that Armenian language
development took constant time and effort, whereas English did not. They struggled with their
own HL skills, constant reminders for their children to speak Armenian, and limited time. The
combination of these factors made HL development, at least in part, a negative experience for
participants. This was far from their experiences with their children’s English language
development. The rest of this section will address the challenges participants faced that created
discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the English and Armenian languages, and
consequently made HL development feel like an endless uphill battle.
Access
The participants in this study had limited access to Armenian language resources and
easy access to English language resources. Discrepancies in accessibility of resources between
the two languages were shaped by how participants obtained resources, the amount of resources
they had, the quality of resources themselves, and the quality of interaction with the resources.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 258

As covered in Chapter 2, in the “Play and Language” subsection of the “Language
Through Social Interaction” section, the use of resources in early childhood play can be
advantageous for language development (Weisberg et al., 2013). Toys, books, and technology
are important because they influence interaction with MKOs and foster domain-specific
vocabulary (Weisberg et al., 2013). The limited published research on play and language,
supported that books had the most advantageous results for language development, both by
quantity and quality of speech produced by the MKO, followed by traditional toys.
Technological toys fostered the least language exposure both by quantity and quality because
they discouraged interaction with a MKO and allowed for passive interaction on behalf of the
child (Sosa, 2016). Acknowledging the potential of toys for language development means that
rich and relevant resources can positively impact HL acquisition and maintenance. For this
reason, this study was designed to look at the role of resources in early childhood interactions.
In looking for the use of Armenian language resources in data collection, I found that there were
accessibility issues in obtaining resources, the quantity and quality of resources, and the ways
that participants interacted with the resources. The shortcomings were then exacerbated when
compared to English language resources. These discrepancies were an impediment to HL
development because children’s English language development was better supported while
Armenian was increasingly limited.
Obtaining resources. All families deemed it easier and almost effortless to obtain
English language resources, in comparison to Armenian language resources, even though they
differed in how they obtained Armenian resources for their children. Some families purposely
sought Armenian resources while others did not. Some families thought it was easy to obtain
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 259

Armenian resources while others did not. Regardless, starting at just getting resources, it was
easier to get English resources than Armenian ones.
When asked about their experiences finding toys, books, and technology in English,
participants immediately replied by indicating how easy it was to obtain English materials.
When asked, Bella replied: “Very easy, very readily available. It's up to you to choose which
ones you want at that point, because there's so many: variety, quality-wise.” Bella’s use of the
word “very” twice showed just how accessible she deemed English language resources. She
emphasized that there are “so many” that the consumer is free to be selective in what they
purchase.
When asked the same question, Jack responded:
They're everywhere. If I needed an English video game let's say, I could go to any store
and I could find it, versus if I'm looking for something in Armenian, I would never find
it. I would probably have to go online.
Jack’s response also highlighted that English resources are “everywhere,” he can “go to
any store” and he was confident that he would find it. When he switched to the Armenian, he
used the word “versus” indicating that it is an opposite experience from the English. He ended
by saying that he would “probably have to go online,” his use of “probably” showing that he did
not know where he would have to look and was speculating.
In yet another example, Rebecca responded “I mean, that's a lot easier, it's everywhere.
Anywhere you go, and it's definitely a lot easier than finding Armenian books.” Rebecca was
one of the participants who thought it was easy to find Armenian resources, but this response of
hers showed how much easier she thought it was to buy English resources, “it’s everywhere,
anywhere you go.” Responses from all participants about obtaining English resources were
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 260

similar to these. When it came to obtaining Armenian resources, the responses were not with the
same ease.
When asked about their experiences obtaining Armenian materials, participants cited
various sources, including community stores, school book-fairs, and the internet. Some thought
it was easy to obtain Armenian materials, especially because of where they lived. This was
because the sample selection for this study was delimited to Greater Los Angeles because of
their unique access to an Armenian community. It was home to the third largest group of
Armenians globally and the most Armenians in the U.S. at the time of this study (Karapetian,
2014; Samkian, 2007). This meant that Armenian resources and institutions would have been the
most accessible there than anywhere else in the U.S. Other participants did not think it was easy
to obtain resources and/or had never looked for them.
Bella, who was the participant that most effectively maintained Armenian in her
household at the time of this study, answered: “It's been tougher, more difficult [than English]. I
think living in Los Angeles has benefited me in that sense where I can't imagine living in another
state or another country, where there aren't many Armenians.” Bella began by comparing her
experiences finding Armenian and English resources, indicating that Armenian resources are
harder to obtain. She then credited that ease to “living in Los Angeles” with a robust Armenian
community.
Even though Rebecca thought it was easier to obtain English resources, as shown in the
earlier data example, she also felt it was easy to find Armenian resources. When asked about her
experiences finding Armenian resources, she replied:
I mean, luckily in this day and age, you can basically find anything you want. I've
ordered a few books online, and then there are a couple of Armenian bookstores that I've
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 261

gone to. Well, not a couple, just one that I've gone to…. What's cool about them, is they
have Western and Eastern Armenian books, so you can kind of choose what you want.
Here, it was clear that Rebecca felt that it was easy to “find anything” she wanted in Armenian.
However, she only used one store to get the resources. She also filtered for standard at that one
location, further narrowing the books that were available to her. While Rebecca found it easy to
obtain Armenian books, her response about English resources, mentioned earlier in this section,
showed that she thought English resources were still much easier than Armenian resources to
get. Further, she said she could find English resources anywhere she went, whereas for the
Armenian resources she went to one store.
Only three of the seven participants actively sought Armenian books. The other
participants did not actively look for Armenian supplies but had a few at home. When asked
how she obtained Armenian resources, Allison replied,
I haven't looked, and I don't know where I would look. And if I were to find something, is
it in Western Armenian, Eastern Armenian? If it's in Eastern Armenian, is it in the
հայաստանցի բառ [Armenian from Armenia variety]? Is it in the պարսկահայ
[Iranian-Armenian variety]? Because I don't really want the whole հայաստանցի
[Armenian from Armenia variety]... I know their dialect is different, and I don't want to
introduce yet another dialect into our-... So, yeah, I almost feel like I don’t know where I
would- is it Eastern Armenian, Western Armenian? That's another reason we don't watch
the TV, is it's in more of the հայաստանցի [Armenian from Armenia] dialect, and it's
mostly about Armenia, which doesn't necessarily, I find, relate to my daily life. So, yeah,
I don't even know where I would go, if the material is good, if it's not good. I sort of leave
that up to the Armenian school.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 262

Allison had not tried to find Armenian resources on her own and was confused about where to
get them and how to select them, both for standard and quality. In her response, she walked
through the perplexities in her decision-making process, ultimately settling on leaving it “up to
the Armenian school,” which is yet another example of outsourcing to the school, covered in the
“Outsourcing” section in the “Language Programs” subsection. She also extended her reasoning
to Armenian television programs, explaining that her family did not watch them because of
dialect and relevance. Allison’s acknowledgment of relevancy is alluding to the upcoming
section on “Quality of Resources.” Ultimately, Allison was not sure where to look for and how
to select Armenian resources, and so she did not look for them at all.
Maya’s response also highlighted the points brought up by other participants.
Unless I drive out to like [Armenian Bookstore], it's strictly what's sold at school. I don't
think I see Armenian stuff. When we have Armenian cultural week [at the school] and
they sell all the toys and stuff and books, [my kids] usually pick out stuff they want.
Like, Rebecca, Maya had one store that she could think of to get Armenian resources, although
she did not go. Other than that store, similar to Allison, she depended on what the school sold
during “Armenian cultural week,” again, outsourced to the school, and limited to one week
during the year.
The last discrepancy in obtaining Armenian and English resources was the issue of cost,
addressed by Julia:
The only big obstacle I still see is… they're still very expensive. When you can get an
English book for two dollars, three dollars, and just buy a whole bunch- For the
Armenian books, one book is like 12 dollars. So you're still limited because of that kind
of resources [money]. There's nothing really that's any cheaper, you really can’t find
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 263

[it]… In terms of purchasing, even toys, really expensive. Just simple alphabet block
letter are like forty, fifty dollars.
Julia clearly outlined a difference of cost between Armenian and English language resources.
She explained that you can buy many English books for the cost of one Armenian book, and
extended this same dilemma to purchasing language toys. This extends to another problem, the
level of demand for Armenian resources and how that affects production costs, thus impeding
HL resource production.
Accessibility of obtaining language resources was inconsistent between English and
Armenian resources, which then impacted quantity, quality, and interaction, and therefore overall
HL development. Participants’ sentiments mirrored the views represented in the “Effort”
subsection earlier in this section. This discrepancy meant that parents needed to exert
determined effort to obtain Armenian language resources and consistently, as children’s
language skills advanced. Since the English resources were much easier to obtain, the
probability of interacting with English language resources was significantly higher, which aptly
transitions to the next section about the quantity of resources.
Quantity of resources. In all participants’ homes, the quantity of English toys, books,
and technology far surpassed Armenian ones. Just like their responses about the ease of
obtaining English resources, participants confirmed that they had many English resources both in
interviews and observations. Having more resources meant more opportunities to interact with
the English language and less so with the Armenian HL in early childhood.
Before I compare the interaction over language resources, it is important to address that
in the overall resources used by participants, most were not specific to a language. I coded for
the incidences that children were interacting with toys rather than counting the toys themselves.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 264

About 63% of the occurrences when resources were used during observations used toys that did
not employ a specific language. Choice of language while engaging with the toy was dependent
on the child(ren) and MKOs interacting with it. The remaining 37% were language-specific
toys.
About 29% of those occurrences were with an English-specific resource. This consisted
of books, technological toys, media such as cartoons, and English language workbooks. 2.5%
were specific to the Armenian language. This was made up of two different books, one at Julia’s
house and one at Rebecca’s house. Since I coded for occurrences, the low percentage indicates
that the Armenian books were used minimally even when they were used. Last, 6% of the
occurrences with resources were with a bilingual resource that used both Armenian and English.
This was also split between two books, one at Julia’s house and one at Rebecca’s. The
overwhelming majority of the occurrences with the bilingual resources, fifteen out of seventeen,
were with the bilingual book at Julia’s house.
Examples of common non-language specific resources that were used during
observations were modeling clay, building blocks, coloring supplies, figurines, and vehicles.
Children also used whiteboards and chalkboards to draw, practice math, and write in English.
When used for writing English, it was still considered use of a non-language specific resource
because the language choice was not inherent to the resource. The language used was contingent
upon participants and their children. Examples of outdoor resources were playing basketball,
and riding bikes and scooters. There were endless examples of these resources. Everything I
mentioned here was used at more than one participant’s home. Since the language was not
specific to the resource itself, it was important to look at what languages were actually used in
interactions with the toys. This was addressed earlier in the “Armenian Language Development
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 265

is Constant Effort” subsection and will be further addressed in the upcoming section on “Quality
of Interaction.” In general, parents made a strong effort to use the Armenian language with their
children and most were able to do so. However, the language resources had ability to influence
language use (Weisberg et al., 2013).
Anna explained that she used to use more Armenian resources with her children when
they were younger. I asked her what kinds of resources they used at the time of the study, she
answered: “I think now it's more whatever they have, the English ones. They play with toys, but
it's more Legos and things like that.” Looking at the percentages presented, Anna’s response
was accurate across participants. It was mostly resources that were not specific to any language
and when there was a language, it was mostly English. Considering that Armenian language
resources were mostly geared towards younger children, language exposure through English
resources was only likely to increase as children got older, and especially when their schoolwork
got more challenging.
Now, I shift to comparing how participants represented the discrepancies in the quantity
of English and Armenian language resources in their interviews. I juxtapose two responses from
Maya regarding English and Armenian language resources in her home. When asked to describe
toys or books she used to support English with her children, Maya replied:
Oh my gosh. We have over a hundred books inside. We have a lot of books. We have a
lot of game boards. You saw Uno is popular in our house. My son likes chess and
backgammon. I guess that's not really a language. All of our games are English. English
based games. We have no Armenian games.
Maya’s response emphatically expressed the number of English books and games they had,
starting with “oh my gosh” and expressing that they had “over one hundred books” and “a lot of
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 266

board games” that are all “English based.” In addition to the books, it was interesting to note her
mentions of the card game Uno, chess, and backgammon. The only one of those games that may
have had a language ascribed to it was Uno, because some of the cards had English directions
written on them. Nonetheless, most of the cards in the game used numbers and colors. Chess
and backgammon were certainly not limited to a specific language. Maya’s initial instinct to
refer to those games indicated that she played the games using the English language. In a way,
this was evidence of English dominance more than it was obtaining resources. It alluded to the
upcoming section on “Quality of Interaction.” In this case, games that did not have languages
ascribed to them were played in English, so much so that they were instinctively referred to as
English language resources. Then, Maya herself got confused at why she listed those games and
followed with, “I guess that's not really a language.” Not only did Maya say that they had a lot
of English resources, but they had “no Armenian games.” Maya owned and used many English
language resources with her children. She owned very few Armenian resources and had to try to
remember if she even had any. On second thought, Maya shared “we have an Armenian puzzle.”
I then asked if they had any Armenian books. Maya replied, “We might have like two, maybe
three out of the hundred books that we have.” Maya did not mention the Armenian resources on
her own and had difficulty remembering when I asked about them specifically. This indicated to
me that they did not use the Armenian books even if they had them. For assurance, I asked: “Do
you use Armenian books?” Her response, “No.” Not only were there very few, they were lost
amidst the rest of the books and in Maya’s mind.
Each participant’s response for the English and Armenian resources they used with their
children followed this pattern, where English resources were prevalent and Armenian not as
much. When asked about English resources, Rebecca answered, “I mean, he has a lot of toys
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 267

that you know, speak. Those are all in English… And then we have a lot of books, English books
we read to him.” With both the toys and books, Rebecca highlighted that they had “a lot.”
When asked about the Armenian, she said:
We used to have a toy that spoke in Armenian, but it was destroyed, it was like this little
boy. But mostly it's books… and then we have…those books that have the little push
buttons, and it'll speak or sing in Armenian.
They only had one Armenian electronic toy and that was destroyed, as opposed to the many
English-speaking electronic toys they still had. Rebecca had Armenian books yet, this time, she
did not emphasize “a lot.” Here, I pay attention to the discrepancies between Rebecca’s two
responses for resources in each language. This same data example is analyzed further in the
upcoming section on “Quality of Interaction.”
Bella was the most efficacious participant in fostering her children’s use of Armenian in
the home at the time of the study, and even took measures to limit their interaction with English.
She admitted to using English resources for Armenian language support.
Recently, so because there aren't that many Armenian board books, they have a lot of
really good English board books. Now, we've recently started to use them as English
board books, whereas previous[ly], if they were English, we would translate them.
She started the statement by indicating that Armenian options were limited, and English options
were not. Not only were the English options prevalent but they were also “really good.” While
they had just started to support English acquisition with the books, previously they were
translating them and using them for Armenian acquisition. However, even when used for
Armenian acquisition, the actual Armenian resources were limited in quantity.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 268

Another way that English resources were prevalent was through the mention of popular
characters who represented toys, books, and technology in the English language. The prevalence
of these characters ranged from characters on clothing, placemats, magazines, stuffed animals,
and so on. Rebecca’s son had “Paw Patrol” socks, a popular English language cartoon, that he
expressed his love for during an observation. He said to his mom: “էս գուլպաները ուզում եմ
միշտ մնա ոտիս” (I want these socks to always stay on my feet). He was speaking in Armenian
but about socks with a character tied to an English resource. Any time he wanted to interact with
the original source of the “Paw Patrol” characters that he loved so dearly, he would be watching
an English language cartoon. Another example was references to the “Elf on the Shelf,” a
popular Christmas-time book in the English language that was accompanied by a stuffed animal
and activity throughout the twenty-five days leading up to Christmas. Children at three
participants’ homes talked about the book and toy and showed it to me. Even though a pair of
socks, a placemat, and a t-shirt, are things that are not specific to a language alone, when they are
connected to English speaking characters, they encourage interaction with the original resources.
Characters linked to English speaking resources were pervasive in all participants’ homes,
whereas there was nothing similar linked to popular Armenian characters, creating discrepancies
with children’s connections to resources in either language.
Participants mostly used resources that were not specific to a language along with their
language of choice. When it came down to language-specific resources, there were
overwhelmingly more English language resources in participants’ homes. Maya, Allison, and
Jack had a negligible number of Armenian resources and did not use them. Rebecca and Bella
had mostly English resources yet translated them to Armenian to use with their children. Anna
had used Armenian resources when her children were younger that she had gotten from Armenia
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 269

and had saved from her own childhood. Julia had created her own Armenian resources for her
children after she had noticed that they were lacking. While, there was diversity across
participants’ approaches to Armenian resources, it was still clear that they were lacking in
quantity within the homes while English resources were prevalent. Less resources in one
language and more in the other naturally created discrepancies in opportunities for interaction,
especially considering the literature on how play has great potential to foster language
development (Sosa, 2016; Weisberg et al., 2013).
Quality of resources. So far, I have presented data showing that Armenian resources
were hard to obtain and few in number, especially in comparison to English resources. This
section turns to the quality of the resources themselves.
The data examples above have shown that the English language resources were easier to
obtain and abundant. With abundance comes variety and competition, allowing for the resources
to improve and for more people to find what they are looking for. As such, quantity is related to
quality. During observations, high quality English resources were observed in use. At Anna’s
house, her younger son would work on pages in a workbook as his older sister did her
homework. During one observation, he was working on circling the beginning sound of the
word that matched the picture. For example, it would be a picture of a drum and he would have
to choose between “dr” or “gr” as the beginning sound. For this particular activity, Anna’s son,
who was five years old, was working on blending “dr,” with words like “drum,” “drop,” and
“drill,” which was an advanced skill for his grade level, given that he was in transitional
kindergarten.” This was an academic workbook, reinforcing a specific literacy skill being used
in the English language. I did not see any Armenian sources similar to this during observations,
even when children used their Armenian language schoolbooks. Teaching children how to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 270

distinguish between the different parts of a word, as well as building awareness of different letter
sounds and blends, is a good literacy practice based in research (Fox & Alexander, 2017).
Anna’s son’s workbook was developing his English language skills using research-based
approaches, whereas similar Armenian supports were absent throughout data collection.
During an observation at Maya’s house, her younger daughter asked Maya to read books
to her. Soon, her middle son joined. They kept bringing new books after one finished and many
of them were interactive. One book was about building pizza and the reader had to identify the
yellow pizza topping, “pineapples.” They read another book that was interactive. As Maya read:
“Who says woof woof?” Her three-year-old daughter answered “a dog,” and this continued with
more animals. The book had an age-appropriate animal theme, was repetitive to reinforce
learning animal sounds, and was interactive. Maya’s three-year-old daughter could not read but
the book effectively made it so that she was not just passively listening to the book. As Chapter
2 thoroughly reviewed, increased language input and the role of resources to encourage quality
input are advantageous for language development (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Dickinson et al.,
2012; Kelly & Bailey, 2013; Sosa, 2016). The English resources families used embedded easy
language learning and interaction. Even if the parents were not English dominant, the book
helped with the teaching, making English language development even easier than it already was.
Again, similar resources did not exist in the Armenian language, at least during data collection
for this study. Therefore, even if a parent used one of the few Armenian resources they had, the
lacking quality of the resource would call for more work on behalf of the parent, work that the
parent may not be able to do or have the time to do.
The previous two examples showed resources that enforced easy skills and for a younger
audience. In another observation, Maya used a set of more advanced interactive books with her
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 271

middle son. They read a book with a bug theme and another about the airport. Each page had
writing and then asked a question. Maya’s son would then have to put a flashlight behind the
page to search for the answer. This would spark discussion between Maya and her son that
would extend beyond the book. In one conversation, Maya finished reading the page: “Where
are the passengers’ life jackets?” Her son used the flashlight to find the life jackets and asked,
“Why do I need a life jacket?” and Maya went on to explain. In my observations at one home,
there were interactive books at different levels and to reinforce themes including cooking, farm
animals, bugs, and the airport, all to support English language development. The quality of
English language resources was also in the variety available to different ages, abilities, and
interests.
Another example of English language resources that were good quality came up during
Allison’s interviews. Allison described some of the books she had used with her children
recently.
The Henry Ford book was a “Step into Reading” book. I don't know, it's a level three or a
level four. And then the Twin Towers book, [my oldest daughter] got from the Scholastic
book order thing at school. So she's like, "Oh look, there's this whole thing on the Twin
Towers.” [I asked] “Do you want to order it?" She's like, "Sure, Mommy." So, we
ordered the entire "I Survived" series. It's about the Twin Towers, a tsunami. What else
was there? It’s like, a lot of-, Pearl Harbor Bombing. So, they're obviously historical
accounts. Because I just like reading memoirs and biographies, and so I might be
pushing them in that direction, now that I'm realizing it. I don't know. But, yeah, from all
different sources. Oh, and we do Time for Kids. I signed up for Time for Kids, which has
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 272

been fun, too. Just more current events. But again, that's a little historical, because it's
all... I don't go towards fiction a lot. I don't know why.
She described the Henry Ford book as part of a series where she was able to know the level of
reading so she could choose appropriate resources for her kids depending on their ages. This is
especially helpful for parents because most cannot assess the reading level of a book on their
own, unless they are in a related field. Publishers that provide the reading level on books enable
parents to find books that are not too easy nor too challenging for their children, find their ZPD,
and monitor reading development. Then, Allison discussed the “I Survived” series that they
ordered which covered a variety of historical events. Informational texts are advantageous for
English language development because they provide variety in types of texts and perspectives in
order for students to engage more deeply with the language and content (Fox & Alexander,
2017), so the fact that Allison had the options to purchase both fiction and nonfiction texts
demonstrated choice in English language resources. Last, she discussed a children’s newspaper
source that they used to read about current events. Allison explained that she liked memoirs and
biographies and did not “go towards fiction a lot.” The prevalence of diverse English resources
gave her the flexibility to find many sources that covered topics interesting to her, which she
then used for learning in interactions with her children. Allison also described a particular
experience with one of the books:
So, today we were reading about the Twin Towers in the car. It was a book, "I Survived
September 11, 2001." It was about the Twin Towers. I already told them about the Twin
Towers in the past. We'd watched videos. So then, we talked about sort of the strife
between the Muslims and the Christians, the Arabic world and the United States.
"Mommy, are all Muslims bad people?" "No, they're not bad people." So, we do that a
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 273

lot. It's like, learning to read a book, and then learning the vocabulary, the grammar, and
then just the general topic.
Allison had used books and online media to teach about the specific topic, both in English.
Then, the conversation had extended into a more abstract one about religion and discrimination,
all initiated by the book. Without a plethora of choice, Allison would have been limited in the
ways she used these resources with her children. Her abilities combined with the quality and
variety of the resources allowed for her to facilitate rich interactions with her children which
consequently fostered language development. She could not do the same with Armenian
resources even if she wanted to, because the same variety of resources did not exist.
Unlike the prevalence of English resources described and used by participants in this
study, there was a marked lack of similar resources in Armenian. Participants communicated
this dearth of resources, which also had markers that indicated lacking quality. When asked
about Armenian resources, Anna replied:
My mom brought a lot of stuff when she would go visit, she would bring a lot of things
from Armenia. Those were direct[ly] what they use in Armenia. I kept a few of the books
that I had. I think when we just came, I had books from school, and I kept them.
Anna’s mother had to bring resources from Armenia because she happened to travel there
frequently. In comparison, no one had to travel to another country to obtain English resources.
Moreover, resources created for children in Armenia may be in Armenian, but they are removed
from U.S. culture and not as relevant to Armenian-American children as they are to Armenian
children living in Armenia. As Allison shared in a previous example about Armenian television
programs, it “doesn't necessarily, I find, relate to my daily life.” The same would be true for
children’s books from another country, even if it was from Armenia. Books are sources of
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 274

socialization, where readers interact with the MKOs that wrote the book and learn how to be in a
specific context (Heath, 1982). Living in Armenia as an Armenian is not the same as living in
the U.S. as an Armenian. Especially since the Armenian identity has developed pluricentrically,
where any two Armenians may have centuries of different history between them. Not only is
there great possibility for different histories, but now there is also the influence of another, U.S.,
identity. Just because the sources were in Armenian did not mean that they were relatable and
appropriate for the context. Further, Anna had books from her own childhood in Armenia that
she had kept to use with her children. They were schoolbooks, from Armenia, from decades ago;
all factors that would make the books less relevant to Armenian-American children today. The
more students can relate to the reading materials, the more likely they are to form a positive
connection with reading in the language and develop intrinsic motivation to read on their own
(Fox & Alexander, 2017). Further, successful pedagogy is culturally relevant to its unique
population (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Surely, these factors affected the quality of the Armenian
resources, and so it was easy to see how English resources could be much more appealing
because of their relevancy, for both parents and children.
Bella explicitly addressed the lacking quality of Armenian resources:
Still, once you find the very basic ones [Armenian books], then it's like tough to find
different ones or better quality ones. The quality is a little bit sometimes lacking, it's a
little bit cheaper made, that sense. It'd be nicer if there was more stuff out there for them.
Bella had actively searched for Armenian resources and felt their quality was lacking. Beyond
the “basic” books, she had not been able to find books with better quality for her children. And,
as mentioned in an example earlier, she had resorted to translating English resources to
Armenian instead.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 275

One participant, Julia, is particularly worth mentioning when discussing the quality of
Armenian resources. After she had children and used Armenian resources, she began to realize
their lacking quality:
Բայց հետո որ արդեն սկսեցինք օգտագործել շատ բաներ, գրքեր, բան, զգացի որ չի
հերիքում: Ասենք միանգամից կամ մենակ տառերն ա, հետո տառերից հետո
միանգամից գնում էր սենց բարդ նախադասություններով, բաներով, հեքյաթներ ու
բաներ ու արանքում չկար մի բան որ ասենք թեթև, որ արագ սենց երեխու հետ
կարդաս քնելուց առաջ, սենց ինչ որ թեթև մի բան:
(But then when we started using many things, books, things, I felt that it wasn’t enough.
Let’s say, at once- either it’s just the letters, then after the letters it would go straight to
these sophisticated sentences, things, tales and things. And, there was nothing light in
between, that you could quickly read to your child before bedtime, some type of light
material.)
Julia explained that the books she used with her children where not developmentally appropriate,
and they were either too basic or too complex. There was nothing “in between.” She had a hard
time finding “light” materials that they could read casually before bedtime. Julia continued to
discuss this issue in her interview. When her eldest daughter attended kindergarten at an
Armenian school, Julia again noticed the lacking quality in the resources.
Ասենք, they just don’t have the resources. Վերցնում են օրինակ մի քանի գիրք, ամեն
գրքից մի մաս photocopy են անում կպցնում են իրար որովհետև ասենք ստեղի
երեխերքը ուրիշ ոնց որ level-ի վրա են: Ասենք առաջի դասարանը Հայաստանում
ստեղի առաջի դասարանը չի: Ու չի լինում օգտագործել բան: Սենց բաներ որ
նկատեցի, հետո տառերը շատ փոքր են, like they’re struggling to read:
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 276

(For example, they just don’t have the resources. They [the Armenian teachers] take a
few books, they photocopy sections from each book and stick it together, because the
kids here are on another level. Like first grade in Armenia is not first grade here. So
they’re not able to use anything. When I noticed things like this- and then the letters are
very small, like they're struggling to read.)
Here, she pointed out other issues with quality. The Armenian teachers were the ones with the
responsibility to create resources. The school materials were visibly patched together. Further,
the resources from Armenia being used to create new ones did not match students’ level here.
And last, the font size presented a developmental challenge. In short, the Armenian resources
Julia encountered were rampant with shortcomings. Ultimately, Julia dealt with the lacking
quality by creating her own Armenian materials and offering them to Armenian schools.
Issues with quality also came up during observations. Many of the stories that children
were reading for their Armenian homework were stories from my own childhood, 25 years
earlier. Many were from specific authors that have been widely used for Armenian children’s
stories over generations. There is value in every genre of writing and in old writing. With that
said, there is also value in other genres and newer, more relevant, writing. The Armenian
sources used in participants’ homes were few, and even the few were predominantly stories
carried from generations ago and topics that were irrelevant to 21
st
century Armenian-American
children.
One example of a story is Anna’s daughter reading “Ճպուռն ու Մրջյունը” (The
Dragonfly and the Ant) for Armenian language homework. This is a fable my grandfather would
recite to me when I was very young. A quick Google search showed that this fable was initially
written in 1707 in Russian. On one hand, it is incredible that this story has been successfully
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 277

passed on for three centuries. On the other hand, there have surely been other viable options
produced since then. Another story Anna’s daughter was reading for homework was “Գրիչ”
(Pen), a poem written in 1907. I had not heard of this story but Anna turned to her son and said
“Գիտես [քույրդ] որ երկու տարեկան էր էսի ասում էր” (Did you know your sister used to
recite this at the age of two?). That indicated to me that this story was probably written long ago
and passed orally through generations, and I was able to confirm that when I searched for it
online.
In Julia’s home, the Armenian book being read was a new book that had been purchased
earlier that day from an Armenian bookstore. The book had the story “Ուլիկը,” (The Baby
Goat) written in both Armenian and English letters. This is another popular Armenian children’s
story, that I remember from my own childhood. It was written by Hovhannes Tumanyan, who
passed away in 1923 and is about a wolf trying to trick a baby goat. To showcase how this story
may not be relevant for 21
st
century Armenian-American children, consider its last line spoken
by the baby goat’s mother: “Մյուս անգամ էլ որ [գայլը] գա, բաց չանես, ասա՝ գնա՛, թե չէ իմ
մայրը քեզ կսպանի իր սուր պոզերով։” (The next time the wolf comes, tell him to go away or
else your mother will kill him with her sharp horns.) Something written for children in the U.S.
today would use a euphemism or metaphor to make the story less violent and developmentally
appropriate. Again, there is great value in the generational survival of this story, but it is one of
the main sources being used at all in the already lacking Armenian resources, thus impacting HL
exposure.
During my observations, children in two participants’ homes had homework assignments
about “Վարդանանց Պատերազմ” (St. Vartan’s Battle). St. Vartan was a military leader who
led Armenians in the Battle of Avarayr in 451 C.E. against Persia (Garsoian, 2004). St. Vartan is
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 278

a symbolic figure for Armenians and the Battle of Avarayr is revered because it was fought to
defend Armenians’ Christian faith. His story continues to be taught, and it is not surprising that
it came up in two different homes during my observations, for a first and third grader’s
Armenian language homework. Cyclical use of this story throughout grade levels suggested a
formulaic approach to Armenian curriculum design and reinforced its prominence as an
important story, leaving out time for other topics. To further illustrate this point, I briefly
include my own personal experience with this story. I learned about St. Vartan’s Battle in my
own Armenian schooling growing up. It was of personal importance to me because my father’s
name is Vartan and we have a big family celebration each year to celebrate, a custom practiced
by some Armenians. This past year, during the celebration at my house, I learned that St. Vartan
did not win the battle, and in fact, died. At the dinner table surrounded by my younger Armenian
family members, my brother-in-law was the one who knew the accurate history. I know now
that he is celebrated for being a martyr, but I had gone all those years believing that he had won
because of how prominent of a cultural figure St. Vartan was, and my schooling had not
effectively communicated otherwise. Another interaction with Armenian language homework
about St. Vartan’s Battle is presented in the next section on “Quality of Interaction.”
Issues of quality were also present in the music used by participants. In technology and
media, the most common source of Armenian language exposure cited was music, and mostly
children’s music when children were younger. Six of seven participants said they listened to
Armenian music with their child(ren). Among the six, three families still listened to Armenian
music and three emphasized that they used to listen more when the kids were younger. The
focus on children’s music and when children were younger also confirmed Karapetian’s (2014)
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 279

finding that Armenian language use was compartmentalized by age. When describing her
family’s choice of music, Julia said:
We still listen to a lot of Armenian music. We have CDs in the car. Now we have Joelle
because we burnt through all of Talin. I had Vaco. I had a few other ones that I had
downloaded. We've been listening to a lot of Armenian music in the car. They love
Joelle, so now we're listening to that.
Julia’s family was still listening to Armenian music, but “Joelle,” “Talin,” and “Vaco” were all
children’s singers. Her three children ranged from ages five to nine and Julia had still managed
to keep the music they listened to primarily Armenian, although limited to three singers and one
genre. Further, Vaco is an audiovisual source that I listened to in preschool, from about 1993-
1995, marking yet another old source that is still used as a language support because resources
are so limited. Technology has made leaps since 1993 and the media children are exposed to
nowadays is undeniably of higher quality.
Of the three families that still listened to Armenian music, there was indication that the
sources were geared for children as well. Bella talked about Armenian pop singers that they
listen to: “[Armenian] Songs, like pop songs sung by younger kids.” While the pop songs may
be current, they were “sung by younger kids,” which at least made them age-appropriate even
though it maintained the compartmentalization by age. Maya’s family listened to Armenian
music they got from her children’s preschool. “We actually listen to Armenian music, because
of [their preschool]. [Their preschool] has so much music in their program, that they know all
those songs.” In the future, participants may have adjusted their Armenian music choices with
their children’s age, though at the time of this study, all Armenian music being used was geared
towards children. I am inclined to believe that the availability of Armenian children’s music was
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 280

because the language is compartmentalized by age (Karapetian, 2014) and resources for younger
children are therefore more common. However, it should be noted that these music resources,
especially if they were current, were at least age-appropriate which was a strength that other
Armenian resources lacked.
Almost all of the Armenian resources observed in this study lacked in quality because
they were not relevant to 21
st
century Armenian-American children. This included use of
Armenian books, language homework, and music. The same Armenian sources and topics were
being used over and over, and in a way, compartmentalizing the culture and language, assigning
it to the past. This is not to say that there was no value in the resources being used, but their
outdated nature was indicative of a stagnant state, which was certainly not the case for the
quality of English resources used in participants’ homes. This made the Armenian resources less
relevant and appealing, thus more challenging to use. Since they were already harder to obtain
and fewer in number in participants’ home, the lacking quality made them even weaker as
language supports. The discrepancies in the quality of resources affected the potential of the
interactions to foster language development. Therefore, this next section specifically explores
the quality of participants’ interactions with the resources.
Quality of interaction. Thus far, I have approached accessibility through the lenses of
obtaining resources, quantity, and quality of the resources. In this section, I address the
differences in the quality of interactions with the resources in either language and how they
exacerbated the discrepancies in the opportunities for interaction between the languages.
Rebecca discussed how she used English and Armenian books with her four year old son. After
explaining that they had a lot of English books to use, she said: “We read to him, we label... I try
to teach him the letters and numbers, and all of that.” Rebecca listed specific skills she tried to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 281

teach her son, including labeling, letters, and numbers. When explaining how she used
Armenian books with her son, she said:
My Armenian reading is not that great, so my mom does most of the Armenian books.
My son loves it, he really likes just listening to that. She does a lot of that, and then we
have like I said, those books that have the little push buttons, and it'll speak or sing in
Armenian.
First, by saying that her “Armenian reading is not that great,” Rebecca showcased lack of
confidence in her HL skills, which is in line with Karapetian’s (2014) findings, where Armenian-
American HL speakers felt shame in their HL skills and therefore defaulted to not using them.
The second half of that sentence “so my mom does most of the Armenian books,” is in line with
the “Outsourcing” finding in this study. Here, she outsourced interaction with the Armenian
books to the maternal grandmother. Next, she discussed how her son liked “listening” to the
Armenian books, which is more passive than labeling and learning the English letters and
numbers, which was more characteristic of what parents did and described doing with English
resources. Last, she mentioned the books where her son can push buttons and the books speak or
sing. As previously reviewed, electronic toys are the least effective in fostering language
because they allow for passivity on behalf of the MKO, the parent (Sosa, 2016). Not only are the
interactions she represented active in English and passive in Armenian, the MKO is also
different for each language, inevitably influencing the interactions and thus the language
development.
As covered in “Outsourcing,” under “Language Programs,” the Armenian homework
assigned by the language program provided opportunities to interact with Armenian resources.
There were instances where I was able to observe the interactions parents had with homework. I
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 282

had participants from preschool through third grade that were in Armenian language programs
and, in many cases, their assigned Armenian homework was to read a text aloud. This resulted
in little to no language interaction beyond reading the resource verbatim. In one example, I
watched as Allison actively helped her eldest daughter do her math homework in English. She
worked with her daughter, conversing back and forth and not directly interacting with her other
two children. Once they finished, Allison’s husband came home from work, and the whole
family prepared for dinner. The younger two children started wrestling and giggling in the
kitchen. All the while, Allison’s eldest daughter got her Armenian reading homework, read it
aloud amidst the noise and commotion, and then put it away. Allison had spent the first 40
minutes of my observation working on math using the English language, with little disruption;
the Armenian reading took under five minutes with no interaction with a MKO and amidst
distractions.
Another example of the differences in quality of interaction with language resources took
place at Maya’s home. Maya was quizzing her older son, who was in first grade, on his English
spelling words. The words were “be, read, feet, tree, keep, eat, mean, see, these, street” and so
on. Almost immediately, one can tell that the skill being reinforced was spelling words with the
long e sound, using “ee,” “ea” and the “silent e” at the end of a word, and that the words
themselves are not connected in meaning. Right after that, she began quizzing him on his
Armenian spelling words: “քաջ, Հայաստան, զորավար, Վարդան” (brave, Armenia, general,
Vartan) and so on. These words were clearly thematic vocabulary related to the story they were
reading about St. Vartan, yet the purpose of the activity was to practice spelling, not vocabulary
development. It is possible to argue that the Armenian spelling words were reinforcing the “ա”
letter/sound. But “ա” is the first letter of the Armenian alphabet and this observation took place
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 283

on January 30, five months through the ten-month school year. In the unlikely case that the
lesson was in an attempt to reinforce the letter sound, it was too basic of a letter sound at that
point, whereas the three variations of the “long e” sound in English were a more advanced and
appropriate skill. Also, the English spelling words were monosyllabic which was also
developmentally appropriate because that way the student could focus on the sounds being
reinforced versus many different sounds in one word. In contrast with the Armenian language
spelling words, the English language spelling words controlled the cognitive load so the child
was not overloaded and could learn more effectively from the task (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006). They also did a better job of isolating the skill in focus, which increased the child’s
understanding of the different constructs that come together to form the language, which is a
good practice for fostering literacy (Fox & Alexander, 2017). That was not the case with the
Armenian spelling words. This example extends from toys, books, and technology into
Armenian curriculum. As explained in the “Outsourcing” section, families relied on language
programs for their children’s HL development and the programs provided opportunities for
families to interact with the Armenian language and resources at home. Observing the details of
these interactions is important in understanding how Armenian as a HL is supported and that, in
comparison, English supports are stronger, therefore fostering rich opportunities for interaction
with English while opportunities for interaction with Armenian were limited.
Even in an interaction where the Armenian language homework was fostering language
learning, the skill was basic. Allison’s third grader was reading her Armenian homework aloud,
the skill being fluency. She asked: “ի՞նչ ա խիղճ մամա:” (What is “conscience” mom?).
Allison answered: “Խիղճ? Sympathy, have a heart, խկղճ էլնում ա heart.” (Conscience?
Sympathy, have a heart, conscience means heart.) This is an example of the homework fostering
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 284

interaction and language learning; however, Allison’s third grade daughter’s homework was to
read the story over and over again until she sounded fluent. Their interactions using the English
language were much deeper and extended beyond the resource, a theme that will be expanded on
in the “Prioritization of English” section.
Maya’s kindergartner had a similar assignment in English where he had to read “Ed and
Ned,” a story designed to reinforce the “short e” sound. This reading was done quickly and
passively but it was developmentally appropriate, designed to reinforce a skill, and one of many
other opportunities to practice the English language through homework. The Armenian language
programs, with the exception of dual-language immersion, teach Armenian as an extra subject.
Therefore, it was not surprising to find that the Armenian language competed for priority with all
the other subjects. This means that is it even more important for the Armenian language
homework to be designed effectively to get the most productivity out of each opportunity. This
will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Another resource that participants interacted with was Armenian music. Even though
interacting with music and videos is largely passive, it can still provide opportunities for children
to engage with language. Anna’s family, for example, listened primarily to English language
music. The other six families said they had interacted with Armenian music in some capacity
that was worth mentioning. Three of these six families emphasized that they listened to
Armenian children’s music when their children were younger. Interestingly enough, all three of
these families named the same specific children’s singer, “Talin.” The following comment from
Allison is representative of the three participants: “Early on, it was entirely Armenian music,
through Talin… But now, the music we listen to is in English.” This showed a shift from “early
on” to “now,” where the music used to be in the Armenian language and now it was in English.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 285

Further, when she mentioned the Armenian music, she attributed it to a single source, one
children’s singer. The discrepancy in opportunities for interaction with music was limited by
age, where participants stopped listening to Armenian language music after a certain age and
increased interaction with English language music.
Yet another way that participants interacted with the Armenian language was with poems
and nursery rhymes. Participants spoke about their children’s memorization of poems, either
from when they were younger or at the time of data collection. On more than one occasion,
children were asked to recite Armenian poems, usually for me. In the “Motivators” section on
“Pride,” I addressed the pride associated with displaying the Armenian language this way.
Armenian language homework was frequently to read something verbatim for fluency or to
memorize a poem. Rebecca and Bella, the only participants with children ages four and under,
recited Armenian nursery rhymes with their children during observations. The same was not true
for the English language. This is the only type of exposure observed where the opportunities for
interaction with Armenian surpassed those in English. Children recited more Armenian
language poetry and nursery rhymes during my observations than they did English. However,
recitation is a basic language skill because it does not demand high cognitive engagement.
Recitation is one type of language tool to build on, but it should not be mistaken for language
fluency and comprehension (Calvert and Billingsley, 1998; Fox & Alexander, 2017).
As this section has highlighted, issues with access to English versus Armenian resources
created discrepancies in the opportunities for interaction with each language. Participants had an
easier time getting English language resources than Armenian ones. They all had more English
language resources in the home. The English language resources were better quality. Last, their
interaction with the English language resources was richer and more age-appropriate for
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 286

fostering language. Each subsection presented here about access to language resources
unquestionably affected the other, culminating in more and richer opportunities to interact with
the English language, and simultaneously fewer and weaker opportunities to interact with the HL
of Armenian.
Generational Status
The participants in this study were purposely selected to be 1.5 or 1.75 generation
Armenians. This means that they spent most of their childhood and/or adolescence in the U.S.
and received the majority of their formal education here. It is this generation of parents that
typically struggles with generational transmission of their HL to their children, regardless of their
goals (Montrul, 2010; Rumbaut, 2004). By the 2.5 generation, the children of the 1.5 and 1.75
generation, languages fade away in the U.S. (Rumbaut, 2004). The further a generation is from
the time of arrival to the U.S., the more likely the HL is to suffer from attrition (Montrul, 2010;
Rumbaut, 2004). Not only does this generational status affect the language skills of the
participants in this study, it also affects the extended family and larger community.
The generational status of parents and grandparents in this study meant that they were
more likely to either be English dominant, use English, or understand English (Montrul, 2010;
Rumbaut, 2004), which all had potential to get in the way of generational transmission of
Armenian as a HL (Tse, 2001). Moreover, participants’ children were more likely to become
English dominant at a younger age because of the generational status of their peers in preschool
and at extracurricular activities. The generational status of each member created discrepancies in
opportunities for interaction between the two languages, an obstacle that previous generations
did not have to face for HL development. Some participants were aware of this and others were
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 287

still figuring it out. Regardless, all participants’ opportunities for interaction with each language
were affected by their generational status.
Parents. The participants picked for this study were intentionally picked from the 1.5
and 1.75 generations because those generations were more likely to have difficulty speaking their
HL in adulthood. They spent most of their childhood and formal schooling in the U.S. and they
went through identity development while in the U.S. (Montrul, 2010; Rumbaut, 2004). The
spouses of participants in this study had also all grown up in the U.S. Of the six ethnically
Armenian spouses, three were 1.5 generation and three were second generation, indicating that
all were children of immigrants. One of those spouses was half-Armenian and half-Persian. The
spouse who was not ethnically Armenian was third generation or beyond, removed enough from
immigration that his wife was unsure about his generational status. All participants and spouses
in this study had at least some college education, meaning they were exposed to advanced
academic English into adulthood. With these factors combined, all parents in this study were
likely English dominant. This generation was not only likely to be English dominant but also
weaker in their HL skills than first generation immigrants because their exposure to the HL was
limited (Montrul, 2010).
When asked what languages they spoke, all participants said that they mixed Armenian
and English. Allison’s response put it most plainly, “Back and forth, Armenian, English,”
explaining that she and her husband regularly combined the two languages in their interactions.
When asked the same question, Anna shared, “What we do at home is we try to speak Armenian.
But we'll mix in English in there.” Even when trying to speak Armenian, she and her husband
would end up mixing in English. They had to “try” to speak Armenian, but not English. Maya
answered similarly. When she felt rushed or frustrated, Maya would switch to English, “I just go
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 288

to English. It's easier for me,” stating that she defaulted to English because it was her stronger
language. Bella separated her response by explaining that before kids, she and her husband had
communicated primarily in English, and they had actively changed that once they had kids: “I
have to break this down into pre-kids and post-kids. Pre-kids, likely ninety percent English. Post-
kids, ninety percent Armenian.” Her response confirmed that she and her spouse were English
dominant into adulthood and made an effort to shift from that after having children. Many of the
data examples used in the “Outsourcing” section also showed parents’ awareness of their English
dominance, which was one reason parents felt they had to rely on external sources to foster
Armenian.
Karapetian’s (2014) study, which focused on a similar population but in an earlier time in
their lives, found that her participants’ limited HL skills were cause for them to shy away from
using their HL at all. The participants in this study were aware of their lacking confidence in
Armenian and that it affected their children’s language exposure. Bella was the parent who most
successfully spoke only Armenian at home and even she felt like her HL proficiency was
lacking. When she had become pregnant with her first child, she and her husband had switched
from English to Armenian when speaking to one another. Bella had also tried to switch to
speaking Armenian in other settings, such as with her cousins during family gatherings. During
her interview, she talked about her efforts to speak Armenian:
I consciously try to speak Armenian only just so I can try to have- It's because growing
up here, growing up speaking English- speaking Armenian in the home but speaking
English elsewhere, it's difficult for me to express myself in Armenian at times and, I'm
sure, likely for you too. There's a vocabulary that's missing when you don't have that
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 289

very, very strong background. So I kind of try to speak more so, then the words kind of
just come through frequency.
Bella explained her struggles with expressing herself in Armenian, and said she was lacking
vocabulary in Armenian, even though she grew up “speaking Armenian in the home.” She
emphasized needing “very, very strong” language skills in order to feel comfortable using
Armenian, strong or very strong still did not feel like enough. As a result, she tried to improve
her Armenian proficiency through regular practice, more so than any other participant, and still
struggled.
When asked about the ways her children were exposed to English, one of the things
Rebecca listed was speaking to her husband: “My husband and I speak to each other a lot more, I
think, in English than we do Armenian, although we speak to [the children] in Armenian. So
[they] get exposed [to English] that way.” Rebecca confirmed that she and her husband were
more comfortable speaking to each other in English, and realized that it was language exposure
for her children. Preference for English between spouses, because of their generational status,
created a discrepancy in opportunities for exposure to Armenian.
Some participants were also aware that there was a discrepancy between generations.
Rebecca expressed this generational difference in her interview. She said:
Yeah, so, I mean, I'm trying to make the same types of decisions that were made for me
for my children. I think it’s ... I don't know, somehow it feels harder now. Because you
know, my parents were immigrants. For them they didn't really know English, so it wasn't
as embedded in their life. I feel like it’s probably easier for them to have just Armenian
be it. But for us, it's harder because English has such a strong influence in our lives.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 290

In this example, based on her experiences, Rebecca perfectly represented the literature on
generational status and language. Rebecca’s parents were first generation immigrants who were
Armenian dominant. English was not embedded in their life because they arrived to the U.S. as
adults, from host countries where they had been able to maintain their HL. Their youngest child
was already nine years old. English had a strong influence in Rebecca’s life because she had
grown up in the U.S. education system and gone through most of her primary developmental
years in the U.S. By the time she had children, her interaction with the English language was
many years beyond her parents’ when they were raising kids in the U.S. Therefore, the English
language was a bigger challenge for generational transmission of the Armenian language for
Rebecca’s parents than for her, explored further in the upcoming subsection on “Grandparents.”
Differences in parents’ and grandparents’ age of arrival to the U.S., generational status, indicated
yet another discrepancy in the supports each were able to provide in English and the HL for their
children.
Anna also discussed this generational difference when asked about the importance of
teaching her children English:
I think it's important for them to know [English] but I think they learn it so fast that you
don't really have to pay too much attention to it, especially since we [Anna and her
husband] speak English too. If it was like, where my parents when they first moved and
they didn't know any English, for them it was a little bit different. But now I think our
generation, like it’s not a big deal.
In this example, Anna was discussing the importance of teaching her children English. She felt it
was important but did not need much deliberate effort, citing two supports that were dependent
on generational status. First, she referenced that she and her husband speak English as one
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 291

reason they do not need to “pay too much attention” to teaching their children English. Then she
compared it to the experiences of her own parents and upbringing. She explained that her
parents did not know English when they moved to the U.S.. Therefore, Anna’s interactions at
home could not be in English with her parents. Anna pointed out that she, and the parents in her
same generation, were not in the same situation as their own parents, because they could provide
English supports for their children. The ability to provide English supports is a great thing, but it
has potential to create discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the languages.
Children of 1.5 and 1.75 generation Armenian-Americans are not forced to speak Armenian to
their parents who are English dominant, they have an option. When you mix in other factors like
parents’ lack of HL proficiency, language shift to English in HL speakers upon entering formal
schooling, parents advanced proficiency in academic English, and limited time, the result is
increased opportunity to use the dominant language, English, and less opportunity to use the HL.
Maya acknowledged this shift in her household, as her children grew older and became
more English proficient. She said:
I think I tend to do more English now. When they were younger, I would do more
Armenian. But, because they are responding to me in English, sometimes I'm just
frustrated and I have three [children]. I just respond in English and get on with it. I think
they make me speak more English. English is just easier for me too.
Maya was aware that her choice of language had shifted from Armenian more towards English.
She outright said that her children made her speak more English. She alluded to the issue of time
and being busy by saying she could get frustrated because she had three children and so she used
the easier language for all of them, English. In addition, Maya ended by confirming her own
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 292

English dominance, saying English was easier for her overall and so easier to shift to with her
children.
Parents’ generational status posed challenges for transmission of their HL to their
children. All participants and spouses were 1.5 generation or later, indicating likelihood of
English dominance because of formal schooling and age of arrival to the U.S. Through my data
collection, I found that all participants mixed English and Armenian at home, had a preference
for English with their spouse, found it easier to speak English, and felt their HL skills were
limited. These obstacles created discrepancies in their children’s opportunities for interaction
with the English and Armenian languages. As their children grew older and shifted towards
English dominance, Armenian HL supports in the home were at risk of becoming even more
scarce in comparison to English ones. This same predicament was not true for participants’ own
upbringing because their parents were first generation immigrants and were likely Armenian
dominant. However, participants’ parents were also not the same HL supports for their
grandchildren as they used to be for their own children.
Grandparents. All but one set of grandparents in this study were first generation
Armenian-American immigrants, the one exception being the parents of the spouse who was not
ethnically Armenian. When participants’ and spouses’ parents first immigrated to the U.S., they
were likely unfamiliar with English and U.S. cultural norms. All of the participants and the six
Armenian spouses in this study were born or migrated to the U.S. before the age of 12.
Therefore, by the time their parents became grandparents, they had raised their children in U.S.
and been members of the community for a long time, inevitably acculturating to some degree.
The language support they provided in Armenian for their own children, the participants in this
study, was less likely to be the case for what they provided for their grandchildren. This was not
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 293

necessarily because they were bound to speak English but just because they understood it better
after having time to acculturate and their grandchildren would undoubtedly become aware of
this. Since their parents were first generation immigrants, participants likely grew up with
grandparents that could not speak nor understand English, either because they were also first
generation or because they did not immigrate to the U.S. Now, because of generational status,
participants’ children were more likely to grow up in a family where all generations understood
and spoke English, making it easier to default to English as the language of choice. This in turn
provided fewer natural opportunities for the HL to be practiced, thus posing challenges for HL
development overall. This subsection focuses on grandparents’ time of arrival to the U.S. and its
potential to impact generational transmission of Armenian as a HL.
In her interview, Julia juxtaposed the maternal and paternal grandparents’ language
abilities based on different times of arrival to the U.S. When asked what supported her
children’s use of Armenian, Julia answered: “Just grandparents being around them and the fact
that they don't understand English. My parents do but my husband's parents are older and they
don't speak English. So ստիպված իրանց [հետ] հայերեն պետք ա խոսան.” (so they’re forced
to speak Armenian with them). While Julia had cited her mother, the maternal grandmother, as a
language support for her children in other parts of the interview, in this response she drew a
distinction. She used “but” to show there was a difference between the language used with each
set of grandparents. Then, she concluded by saying that her children are forced to speak
Armenian with the paternal grandparents because they do not speak English at all. This showed
that Julia did not feel her children were forced to speak Armenian to their maternal grandparents
because they had at least some English ability.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 294

Maya shared that her children were aware of their interlocuter’s language abilities and
used that to determine what language they spoke: “[My kids] know if you don't speak English
very well, they speak Armenian to you... So other family members, like you know, older people,
they speak Armenian to.” Here, Maya pointed out that her children used what they knew about
the other person to determine what language to use. When they knew English was not an option,
they used Armenian. This gave them no choice but to speak and practice the Armenian
language, a circumstance that was more common for their parents growing up, resulting in more
opportunities for practice. Maya also specified that this was with “older” family members,
which made them more likely to be first generation immigrants. Later, Maya also explained how
her mother told Maya’s children “հայերեն խոս, ես անգլերեն չեմ հասկնալ” (Speak Armenian,
I don’t understand English). Then, Maya continued, “which is- and they're like, ‘that's not true,’
you know?” In an attempt to motivate her grandchildren to speak Armenian, Maya’s mother
would tell them that she did not understand English, but then, as Maya explained, her children
knew “that’s not true.” The grandchildren were aware of their grandmother’s English language
skills and this impeded their opportunities to practice speaking their HL with her, because they
preferred English. In this specific case, the grandmother exerted determined effort to get her
grandchildren to speak Armenian to her instead of English. This may not always be the case,
making opportunities to practice the HL even rarer.
During an observation at Allison’s house, the grandfather came over briefly to buy
chocolates for the kids’ school fundraiser. He greeted the children in Armenian and was
speaking in Armenian at first. Then, he started counting out the money and code-switched
between Spanish and English: “Uno, dos, tres, cuatro, cinco, seis, seven, eight, nine! Muchos
gracias amigo. You’re making lots of money.” (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9! Thank you friend. You’re
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 295

making lots of money.). In this example, the grandfather switched between three languages in
one conversation with his grandchildren, showing the various types of language exposure he was
able to provide for his grandchildren. However, when looking specifically at the development of
Armenian as a HL, adding another two languages affected the Armenian-only input they would
have received if they were an earlier generation. This was important because as the children
became English dominant, they may not feel “forced” to speak Armenian to their grandfather,
like the examples from Julia and Maya above. Without awareness and active effort, those
opportunities to practice one’s HL imperceptibly dissipate.
Allison distinguished the generational difference between her grandparents and her
children’s grandparents by referencing her children’s paternal great-grandmother. When asked
about contexts where her family only used Armenian, Allison replied “With his family members
it's mostly Armenian. [My husband] has a great-grandmother who's 98, it's only Armenian with
her. Mostly Armenian with family members.” It was “mostly Armenian” with family members
but “only Armenian” with the great-grandmother, drawing a difference between generations.
The great-grandmother was a possible source of HL exposure for Allison’s children but a source
that would not be around as long as other family members in their lives. Allison’s use of
“mostly Armenian” for other family members showed that her children’s grandparents did not
use only Armenian with them like previous generations.
Grandparents’ generational status limited opportunities for interaction in the HL. One of
the many benefits of multilingualism is that children develop better audience awareness,
knowing what language to use depending on who they are addressing (Bailey & Orellana, 2015).
Even though audience awareness is a great skill to learn, for participants’ children, it impeded
opportunities to practice their HL. As generational status shifted further from time of arrival to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 296

the U.S. and children became English dominant, simply knowing that they could default to
English limited their opportunities for interaction in their HL. As shown through the examples in
this section, grandparents in this study had English language skills and it affected how
grandchildren interacted with them. This has even larger implications when combined with the
finding from the “Outsourcing” section, that participants depended on grandparents as HL
supports. As grandparents’ generational status shifted, their language support changed to
incorporate more English, limiting opportunities for HL interaction, and posing a challenge for
generational transmission of the Armenian language.
Peers. While MKOs such as parents and grandparents greatly influence children’s
language development, children also develop language from their peers (Phinney et al., 2001).
Therefore, children’s peers’ generational status has implications for their language development.
In the “Outsourcing” section, one finding was that extracurricular activities were not providing
HL support because of a shift in generational status. While the same institutions had been HL
supports for participants when they were growing up, they were not serving the same role for
their children. In this section, I will add examples about peer influence in the school setting.
Just like their peers in extracurricular activities, outlined in “Outsourcing” in the “Extracurricular
Activities” subsection, children’s school peers were more likely to provide English language
support than peers in previous generations. In the “Outsourcing” section, I also wrote about
parents’ outsourcing of language development to language programs. It is important to
distinguish that, in language programs, both the curriculum and the social environment can
influence language development. I addressed some issues with the curriculum that came up in
this study through the “Access” subsection earlier. This subsection focuses on the social
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 297

component of school and how peers’ majority generational status influenced children’s
opportunities for interaction in the English and Armenian languages.
All participants admitted that school supported their children’s English language
development. In his interview, Jack said “All three of my kids did not speak a word of English
until they started going to Armenian schools. As bad as it sounds, that's how it is.” Jack used a
hyperbole, “they did not speak a word of English,” to demonstrate the shift he observed in his
children when they started school. He finished with “as bad as it sounds,” indicating that there
was something negative about what he said, in this case, his children learning English when
going to an Armenian school. Jack later explained,
And it has a lot to do, not only with the school I think, with other students there are there
in the class also. Because if they're speaking English in class, obviously our kids are
going to respond in English and start speaking English.
Here, Jack separated the influence of peers’ English dominance from the school, by attributing
his children’s learning of English to the other students in the class.
In another example, Allison was disappointed with this reality when her daughter started
preschool at an Armenian school. She noticed that her daughter was becoming more reserved
and was concerned:
So, I'd gone to pick her up in class one day, and I noticed [the students] were speaking
English. All of them. And this is at [an Armenian preschool]. And when I noticed this
change in [my daughter], I started putting two and two together. I'm like, I think she's
having a hard time understanding the English, or even communicating in English in class.
This example showed Allison’s surprise at the English spoken at her child’s Armenian preschool.
She emphasized “all of them” indicating that it was the whole class who spoke English, there
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 298

was no child speaking Armenian. She showed her surprise by highlighting that “and this is at an
[Armenian preschool],” implying that this is not something she expected. Then, Allison
explained that her daughter was struggling socially in school because they had previously only
supported Armenian at home. While one can say that Allison and her husband had done a good
job supporting their daughter’s HL development up until that point, it had then unintentionally
created a different challenge for them. The generational status of the majority of the community
had a larger effect on the language environment created at school and, consequently, HL
development. Continuing Allison’s struggles with the language environment at her daughter’s
school, Allison addressed the changes she had observed in her daughter with the teacher and the
teacher replied: “Մի մտածեք, մինչև հոկտեմբեր ամիսը կտեսնեք [աղջիկդ] միայն անգլերեն
է խոսելու տան մեջ." (Don’t worry, by October you’ll see, your daughter is only going to speak
English at home.) The teacher’s reply indicated that in a few months, not only would Allison’s
daughter acquire the English language, she would also shift to English dominance because she
would be speaking only English at home. The teacher had probably observed this shift in
children enough times that she felt comfortable reassuring Allison that it would take course.
This is an institution where Armenian language acquisition was outsourced, yet it had the
opposite effect, strengthening English language development instead. What’s worse, the
teacher’s comment, beginning with “don’t worry” demonstrated the assumption being made on
the part of the teacher that the parent was worried about English language acquisition, not
Armenian language maintenance.
Bella had conducted her own investigation about her son’s peers at a different Armenian
private school.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 299

My son, at the beginning of the school year…, in his class of ten, he had only one friend
that he would speak Armenian to. Because I've specifically asked him this question, he
said he only spoke Armenian to his [one] friend…, and the rest of his classmates he
speaks English to because he knows they don't know Armenian.
Bella had been curious about what language her son was speaking at school and had learned that
only one peer spoke Armenian. Her son even told her himself that he knew the rest of his friends
did not know Armenian; he knew his audience, as discussed earlier in the “Grandparents”
subsection under “Generational Status.” The overall generational status of his peers impacted
the language supports available for him at school, increasing his opportunities to interact with the
English language and limiting those with his HL.
In another part of the interview, I asked Bella what got in the way of her children learning
the Armenian language. She described her son’s classmates as their “biggest hurdle” for HL
development:
What gets in the way? Honestly, it's playmates. Children their age not speaking
Armenian. That's our biggest hurdle. I knew that, and I knew that because I have nieces,
eleven and five. I knew putting them outside of the home in park environments or play
dates, or Mommy and Me classes, I knew that if it wasn't strictly Armenian only, even if
the kids were Armenian, I knew that they would be speaking in English. Then their
parents would be speaking English to them. I actively avoided classes like that, like a lot
of people take their kids to Little Gym and YMCA toddler classes, stuff like that. Their
classmates not knowing Armenian was a big surprise to me. He started his first year of
pre-school last year, and he couldn't communicate with anybody. For the first few
months, he felt really uncomfortable until he started learning English in order to
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 300

communicate with his classmates. Which I thought was, I still do, it was very, very sad
that that had to happen because I guess it's an easier language, I don't know. It would be
nicer if my kids' classmates spoke better Armenian. That way it would be easy for all of
them to communicate.
Bella was preemptive about the environments she exposed her children to because she had
observed Armenian-Americans’ English language dominance in her own environment and
family. Even after going through great lengths to actively avoid circumstances where her
children would be exposed to more English than Armenian, her children’s peers posed a
challenge for her children’s HL development. As a result, her son even felt uncomfortable being
Armenian dominant while starting school at an Armenian school with Armenian peers. This
example also represents the “Effort” subsection at the beginning of this section, where Armenian
HL development was constant effort, and still was challenged.
There are examples from every participant that showcase this shift in speaking English
when children started school, and six of the seven families started their child(ren) in an
Armenian preschool. Previous generations have taken for granted the HL supports that were
embedded in their everyday because of their time of arrival to the U.S. Those supports included
opportunities to practice one’s HL with parents, grandparents, and peers. First generation
parents were less acculturated simply because they had not been in the U.S. for too long and had
limited English language proficiency, causing their children to speak to them in Armenian and
even serve as language brokers (Orellana & Guan, 2015). First generation grandparents were
even less likely than parents to learn English and therefore continued to provide opportunities to
practice one’s HL throughout children’s lifetime and into adulthood. Last, the majority of peers
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 301

were more likely raised in families where Armenian was the only language option at home, and
so going to an Armenian school meant that most of your friends spoke Armenian.
Later after immigration, at the point in time of this study for participants, those same
supports were no longer embedded, and generational status became an overarching challenge to
HL development. Parents in this later generation were English dominant themselves and, instead
of needing language brokering, had the capability to provide rich English supports for their
children. Grandparents had raised children and acculturated in the U.S., therefore could
understand what was being said when addressed in English, and were capable of carrying
conversations. Peers were raised in families and environments where English supports
outweighed HL supports and were more likely to develop English dominance at a younger age,
entering school and talking to their peers in English. With a shift in the generational status of
peers, even Armenian institutions become a place where opportunities for interaction in English
and the HL were impacted unequally. That becomes an even more important issue to address
when families are outsourcing generational transmission of their HL to these institutions.
The generational status of MKOs—parents, grandparents, and peers—created
discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the English and Armenian languages by
negatively impacting HL supports that were embedded for the previous generation. Participants
were either unaware of the discrepancies between the opportunities for interaction, realized after
their children’s language development was impacted, or were going to realize later.
Prioritization of English
For all participants, the English language was viewed as critical to children’s success, as
covered in the “English as a Prerequisite for Success” subsection of the “Motivators” section.
Additionally, the “Access” theme above about English and Armenian resources demonstrated the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 302

prevalence of English resources in the “Quantity of Resources” subsection, and how they were
used with children in the “Quality of Interaction” subsection. The presence of many English
resources in each home and the quality of interaction already alluded to focus on fostering
English language skills in participants’ homes. In interviews, participants stated the importance
of English in their children’s lives. Then, in addition to the use of English language resources
mentioned in the “Access” section, participants spent a great deal of time and focus supporting
English development through homework and supplemental workbooks. This exacerbated the
discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the English and Armenian languages. In
one of the interviews, the questions were cause for Julia to reflect more deeply and realize her
own prioritization of English. Julia’s children were enrolled in a dual-language immersion
program where all subjects were split between the Armenian and English languages by a 50/50
ratio. Julia explained:
I mean, in terms of their literacy, I feel like even I catch myself, even though the program
is dual immersion, 50/50, when it comes down to doing homework and things like that, it
usually is not 50/50. Um, because I don't know, and I guess I do it subconsciously, but I
do have them read more in English than I do because their time is limited. Like they can't
read several books in one day for example, or in that given moment. So if there's a chance
for them to read, I push them more towards the reading English.
I followed by asking why she pushed them towards English and Julia answered: “I don't even
know. I really don't. It feels like, maybe that's more relevant at the moment for their reading
skills and everything should be honed in better.” This comment showed Julia’s process in
uncovering something that she was not aware of before. She was honest about her realization
during the interview, explaining that she encouraged her children’s English language
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 303

development more. She even admitted that she did it “subconsciously,” showing that it was a
behavior that she had not been aware of. When I asked for further explanation, she answered
that she did not know why she did so, continuing to show that she was unaware and confused
about why she was prioritizing English development over Armenian HL development.
Julia’s reflections here were representative of what I observed with all participants. They had
differing goals and approaches, but the importance of English for their children’s success was a
given, often unintentionally seeping into their familial interactions.
In another interview, Allison shared a similar sentiment while trying to understand why
her children were not motivated to do their Armenian schoolwork:
And, I feel like I almost did it myself when I was in Armenian school. I don't feel like
they're taking the initiative to do it. And, I'm wondering if a lot of it are sort of non-verbal
cues, or even verbal cues that they get from my husband and myself. Where it'll be like,
well what should we do first? Do your English, do your math, do your science, and then
we'll keep Armenian for last. Those things I think subconsciously take ... You know, you
prioritize everything.
Allison was aware that she and her husband were prioritizing the English language and felt as
though her children were affected by their approach. In this example, she admitted to
prioritizing English, which then she felt might explain her children’s lack of motivation to learn
the Armenian language through their schoolwork.
Six out of seven participants demonstrated prioritization of English in practice. The one
participant who did not, still used supplemental education workbooks with her children that she
translated to Armenian, indicating value for academic success. Her oldest child was also still in
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 304

preschool, and not at an age where English proficiency was necessary for his schooling, so things
may have inevitably changed as her children grew.
Out of the seven participants’ families, five had at least one child in kindergarten or
older. For those five families, homework was part of every observation I conducted, a total of
fifteen visits. Armenian homework was a part of some of those visits as well, but took up
significantly less time than the English language homework overall. The English language
homework did not just mean English language arts, it also included other subjects such as math,
social studies, and science. These subjects were learned in English and with English books,
inherently supporting English language development. Julia’s children were enrolled in a dual-
language immersion program, where students learned all subjects in both Armenian and English.
However, during my time with her family, I did not observe any homework being done in
Armenian.
English language homework, even with no MKO interaction, indicated interaction with
English language materials. A common independent homework activity that I observed was
children reading for fluency or for their daily reading log. Another was math problems,
including word problems in English. These homework assignments inherently incorporated
interaction with the English language.
Additionally, there were opportunities for children to interact in English with MKOs
beyond the specific source, including discussion about reading texts or deciphering a math
problem. In one example, Anna’s daughter was reading a story in her anthology book about
jellyfish: She read aloud: “If you were a jellyfish, you would not know what a friend or enemy
was…” She then paused reading to explain what that meant to Anna in English, because
jellyfish sting anything they touch. Her daughter continued reading and asking questions about
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 305

her reading: “Mom, but how can you… go in the ocean and see hundreds of jellyfish, won’t you
get stinged?,” referencing a picture in the book where a diver was near jellyfish. The English
language homework initiated conversations and interaction that supported English language
development.
In another example, Allison worked on one math word problem with her third grade
daughter for thirty minutes. The word problem was about a hybrid car and the entire discussion
about the math problem was in English. Allison drew a hybrid car and provided rich
explanation, using words such as “electricity,” “battery,” “fuel,” “engine,” “efficient,” and
“pollution.” The conversation was extensive and complex, as Allison and her daughter reasoned
back and forth so she could understand the problem. At one point Allison brought a gallon of
milk to the table to show her daughter what a gallon was. When that did not work, she tried
using money as an example to help her daughter make sense of the problem. This entire
interaction was initiated by the math homework, and was cause for rich interaction in the English
language.
Supplemental workbooks that supported academic subjects in the English language were
also present in participants’ homes. Six of the seven families exhibited some use of English
language workbooks: two families used workbooks during observations, another two had
workbooks around the house that I saw during observations, and the last two spoke about
purchasing them in their interviews. No participant was asked explicitly about workbooks;
therefore, the seventh participant may have used them as well, but it did not come up during data
collection. Examples of workbooks were books that supported reading, writing, and math skills
such as blending letter sounds, tracing letters, and recognizing shapes. Just like toys, books,
technology, and homework, the workbooks had potential to foster English language
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 306

development. Whether or not these same resources existed in Armenian, I did not come across
them during data collection for this study.
The use of supplemental workbooks provided opportunities for interaction in the English
language. At Anna’s house, I observed her younger son working in a workbook as she guided
him. In a particular instance, she kept reminding him to write the letter “r” starting from the top.
To remind him, Anna asked, “what was the rule?” and her son answered, “think.” Anna then
clarified that she was referring to another rule, to begin writing letters from the top, not the
bottom. As she demonstrated, she said: “Բայց հետո ցածից չենք գրում, վերևից: Դու սենց
տակից ես անում: You gotta drag down.” (But we don’t write from the bottom, from the top.
You’re doing it from the bottom. You gotta drag down). As her son continued to complete the
workbook page, Anna kept correcting how he wrote the letter “r,” “նայի (look), you did it
again.” The workbook initiated conversation about learning to write the letter “r” correctly. In
this example, Anna’s language input was code-switched with both Armenian and English, but
the workbook served as an English language support and the actual skill being supported was
English language development. Her use of both languages served as opportunities for interaction
with both languages, but English language development was clearly the focus. The use of
workbooks demonstrated that parents prioritized English language development over Armenian,
whether or not this was the intention. The overarching goal of success and how it was linked to
English, encouraged the use of English language workbooks. The time and effort focused on
English language workbooks again outweighed the Armenian language supports.
Participants overwhelmingly used English resources more often and complexly than
Armenian ones. This prioritization is related to findings provided in the “Motivators” section in
the “English as a Prerequisite for Success” subsection and the “Access” section above, using
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 307

resources. This section focused on the prioritization of the English language through homework
and workbooks. Participants did not foster HL skills in this same way, therefore creating
discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the languages. Even when enrolled in an
Armenian language program, as all participants’ children were, homework was primarily an
opportunity to interact with the English language. When doing homework on their own, children
typically interacted with a book that was in the English language. When parents helped children
with homework, it created opportunities to extend the English language support beyond the text.
Even when exhibiting determined effort to speak in Armenian during homework, parents
struggled, likely because they lacked the vocabulary and confidence to support those same
concepts using the Armenian language (Karapetian, 2014). They themselves had gone through
the majority of their education in the U.S. and had likely never discussed those topics in
Armenian. In the U.S., education is compulsory, and it is undoubtedly going to help develop the
English language. Yet, in addition to homework assigned by the schools, parents in this study
voluntarily utilized workbooks to further support academic subjects in the English language.
Viewing proficiency in English as a prerequisite for success unintentionally widened the
discrepancies in children’s opportunities to practice their HL through the use of homework and
workbooks. Surely it is important to learn the English language in the U.S. However, if HL
development is a goal, it will take great care not to let its importance confound or take away
from opportunities to practice the HL.
Birth Order
Birth order affects bilingual language development. Younger children get less direct
interaction overall, which means they also get less exposure in their HL. They are also exposed
to English earlier by their older siblings (Shin, 2002). In all participants’ homes, the youngest
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 308

child had less opportunities for interaction with the HL because of birth order. This was
expressed in three different ways: in three homes, the youngest child was stated distinctly as
having challenges with speaking Armenian in comparison to the older siblings; in five of the
homes, the youngest children had less direct interaction time with their parents during
observations; and in the two homes where the youngest child was already five, their activities
were determined by what their older siblings were doing.
When younger siblings are born, assuming that all children in the family have typical
development, it is inevitable that their older siblings will develop language and begin formal
schooling before them. This means that they will make friends, interact with books and media,
and have homework before them. When the first child is growing up, they are the only child
within the nuclear family and another sibling’s needs do not compete with their own. Once
siblings are introduced, parents must find ways to balance all of their children’s needs.
Interactions that impact language development include common daily interactions as well as
purposeful efforts to support language.
Three participants spoke about their younger children’s lack of skills in the HL. Anna
compared her daughter’s and son’s language skills: “My son, not so much. He's more just
English. It seems like every other word he'll try. It's harder for him.” It was harder for her son to
speak Armenian than it was for her daughter, who was older.
In Jack’s family, his son, the youngest of three, did not speak Armenian. As outlined in
“Outsourcing,” in the “Grandparents and Caregivers” subsection, Jack was bewildered at his
son’s lack of spoken Armenian because he had been raised by a babysitter that spoke only
Armenian until he was two. I pointed out in that section that Jack was not aware of the other
factors that contributed to his son’s English proficiency and limited his opportunities to practice
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 309

the Armenian language. His son had two older sisters who were in first and third grade and, as
observed, had already shifted to English dominance. Further, the resources his siblings used at
home and their homework focused primarily on English, as outlined in the “Access” and
“Prioritization of English” subsections. Jack’s youngest son’s birth order exacerbated the
discrepancies between his opportunities to interact with each language, increasing the English
and limiting the Armenian.
Maya reflected on the opportunities her youngest daughter had to interact with English
and Armenian versus her two older sons. In her first interview, Maya reflected on the decreased
use of Armenian.
I feel like with [my first-born], a hundred percent I spoke Armenian. But now with [my
youngest], it's not a hundred percent Armenian. It's not a good thing, but like I said, by
the third kid, you're kind of worn out. You're tired. And English just comes easier for me.
Maya compared her language from her first-born to her third-born. She admitted to shifting from
entirely Armenian to less. English was “easier” for her, and so she needed to exert determined
effort to stick to Armenian. Sticking to Armenian was easier with her first and even her second-
born, but she was too “tired” to do it now that she had three children, which then meant increased
English exposure. This theme of being tired and needing to revert to what was easier came up
many times in my interviews with parents. In her second interview, Maya addressed another
reason for her youngest daughter’s increased exposure to English:
[My daughter] hears her brothers speaking English so she speaks English. It's easier for
her versus with [my first-born], nobody was speaking English. It was only me, Armenian.
Even [my second-born], they're fifteen months apart, so it was me speaking Armenian to
both of them.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 310

Here, Maya addressed the issue of increased exposure to English through siblings. For her first
two children, Maya was able to control the language environment and only spoke in Armenian.
For her youngest, the two older siblings now spoke English in the home which then added an
obstacle for Maya to maintain HL exposure at the same level as she had for her sons. Being busy
and tired from having three kids, and older siblings’ use of English, created discrepancies in the
opportunities Maya’s youngest daughter had for interaction in each language.
In observations with four of the families, the younger sibling got less direct attention
from parents, which limited their language interaction. The older siblings needed more complex
language supports from parents that came in the form of interactive play and homework help.
That took away from the youngest child’s direct language supports, in either language. It also
meant that the language the younger child was exposed to was shaped by the older child(ren)’s
needs. While growing up, the older sibling was reported as having a different experience with
direct language support because they were the primary focus. An issue with the data here was
that throughout observations, I focused primarily on participants’ interactions with their children.
Since participants focused more on older children, there was not substantial data to represent the
younger sibling, other than what was going on while they were present. To represent younger
siblings’ presence, my observation notes had repeating sentences on how the younger sibling was
in the corner or in the other room, and then I focused on the details of the interactions between
participants and older siblings. Ironically, the limited data represents the missed opportunities
for HL exposure for younger siblings. If parents did not have to split their time between
children, younger siblings would have probably gotten more language exposure overall.
Combined with other data and literature, such as the compartmentalization of the Armenian
language by age (Karapetian, 2014) and participants’ own admissions, that language exposure
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 311

would have probably included more of the HL when compared to the exposure younger siblings
got by overhearing parents’ interactions with older siblings.
Maya’s children were ages three, five, and six. During observations, her three year old
daughter would be in the room while Maya did homework with the older two. During the first
observation at Maya’s house, her youngest daughter spent most of the time gazing out of the
window. All the while, her older siblings did homework with their mom, homework that was
primarily for English subjects. Another example was Bella’s youngest son. Bella’s children
were five months, three, and four. During my observations at Bella’s house, her youngest son
was in his rocker or play pen for most of the time. His older brothers, had snacks, played with
toys, worked in workbooks, and watched television. Meanwhile, both parents were preoccupied
with work around the house, working from home, and interacting with the two older sons. They
had other important things that needed their attention. However, this meant that their five-
month-old got less direct language input. Both Maya and Bella stayed at home during the day
with their youngest child as their older two children went to school. Surely the youngest child
got more attention during that time, although I did not observe the participants during those
times. Though, it was unavoidable to see that a large part of their youngest children’s language
exposure was absorbing what the older siblings were doing.
Allison described this exposure as “osmosis” for her youngest child. Allison’s children
were ages four, six, and seven. She explained the differences in how she used English language
books with each of her children. At length, she described what she did with her older two
children, and that she has not done any of that with her youngest child. Which is why she
perceived the input her youngest daughter did get as merely through “osmosis.” She began by
explaining her efforts with her oldest:
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 312

So, for [my oldest daughter] growing up, I taught her the ABC's from a very young age.
She knew the ABC's, she could sound out the words, but then her speech was an issue.
So, even though she knew her alphabet, she knew how to sound out words, she could
read full sentences, it didn't translate into good speech. And I would do that just based on
my own material. I would create the flash cards. I would write down the words. I had
whiteboards. I didn't really depend on books as much to do that for [her].
Allison detailed the ways she supported English language development with her first child. She
created all of the materials herself, clearly putting a lot of time into it, prioritizing English. Then
with her son, the middle child, she did different types of activities:
With [my middle son], when he was much younger, I'd had the Bob books from the time
[my eldest] was a kid. She didn't really like the Bob books, so we did a lot of Bob books
with [my son], and then we did that “Step into Reading” Level One, Level Two, Level
Three. And now he just sort of wanted to transition into chapter books, and he got this
book on- what was it called? Tom Sawyer. It was Tom Sawyer, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,
sort of abridged into a smaller reading section.
With her middle son, she used specific resources, and a lot of them, again spending a lot of time.
Then, she explained:
One thing that I've always done with all of the kids, except for [my youngest], because
we still don't do much reading or introduction to English at all, is reading out loud. That's
one thing I do with ... because I can then gauge a lot in terms of how they're sounding out
their words, and then vocabulary, and then even taking things they've read, introducing it
back into their sort of everyday life later on, as a way of reminding them or reinforcing
something. Or we'll use it as a platform to discuss another topic in general…
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 313

Allison clarified that she did not do these activities with her youngest child even though she saw
it as her regular practice. Not only did she encourage reading aloud with her two older children
but then she reinforced what they had read and learned in later interactions. Although this
example was about English books, it showcased the different language supports parents were
able to provide for their older children, yet did not necessarily do the same with the youngest.
Finally, Allison explained how her youngest child’s language development was supported:
With [my youngest daughter], I don't do any reading. So, whatever she hears us read in
the car, and she gets a lot through osmosis. We were reading about Henry Ford a few
months ago, and then we were at my mother-in-law's house, and my mother-in-law said,
"Oh, Henry-ն հիվանդ ա?" (Oh, is Henry sick?) Which is a dog, my sister-in-law’s dog.
[My youngest daughter was] like "Օ [տատի] որ մե Henry-ն? Henry Ford-ը? (Oh,
Grandma, which Henry? Henry Ford?) So, she does it. I don't do any, any whatsoever,
with her. We might do occasional letters. She doesn't even know her entire English
alphabet.
Allison had continued supporting her older children’s English language skills and her younger
daughter had been exposed to it as a result. Since she had two older siblings, Allison’s youngest
daughter was exposed to a lot of complex English language at a younger age than her siblings
probably were. When her older siblings were her same age, there was more deliberate time spent
on their language development and there was probably more HL exposure simply because there
was more attention on them, and homework was not significant yet. Now when her siblings
were older, their education superseded the direct language interaction she could have gotten from
her mother.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 314

In yet another example, Maya was reading a book with her middle son and youngest
daughter. In the book, the characters were looking for a yellow pizza topping and Maya asked,
“[Youngest daughter], what’s she gonna-.” Before Maya could finish her question, her middle
son interrupted, “pineapples.” Then, Maya’s youngest daughter repeated, “pineapples.” In this
case, the youngest child did not have an opportunity to come up with the response on her own.
Sibling dynamics such as this are to be expected and they impact language development,
especially for the youngest child. So while normal, this finding is especially important given the
already established lack of opportunities for interaction with the Armenian language for all
children regardless of birth order. In other words, this normal birth order dynamic is
exacerbating an already challenging situation.
Aside from less direct language interaction, there was higher potential for older
children’s language interactions to be in English based on their academic needs. Older siblings
spent much of their time on homework, were more likely to be English dominant, and interacting
with resources that were in English. The two participants whose youngest children were five
years old included their youngest child in homework time when the older siblings were working
on homework. At Anna’s house, her younger son worked in a supplemental English workbook
or did math problems on a whiteboard when his sister was doing homework. Anna offered an
option to her son: “ուզում ես կարող ես դու քո workbook-ը անես” (if you want you can work
on your workbook). Her son shook his head no. When Anna asked “ինչու?” (why?), he
answered, “I’m gonna do math on the board,” to which Anna replied “math on the board? Okay
բեր արա” (bring it and do it). His activity was shaped by his older sister’s need to do
homework. In an observation at Julia’s house, Julia wrote the letters “A, B, C” on a chalkboard
for her daughter to practice, while her older two children did their homework. Again, influenced
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 315

by her older sibling’s need to do homework. If the children in the two examples here had a
different place in their siblings’ birth order, their activities at that age would not have been
contingent on their siblings need to do their homework, which would affect the language used.
Siblings’ homework made it more likely that their younger siblings also strengthened their
English language skills during that time when otherwise they would have probably done
something else.
The youngest children had more opportunities to interact with the English language and
less with their HL because of their birth order. Three of the families expressed specific
challenges with their youngest children’s HL skills that suggested discrepancies in opportunities
to interact with the languages between siblings. These differences were exhibited through
overall time for attention and the language needs of the older siblings. In five of the homes, the
youngest children got less interaction overall, which meant that they were getting less direct
language interaction than their older siblings and absorbing more language from parents’
interactions with the siblings. What they was absorbing was more likely to be English based on
the older siblings’ own English dominance and their academic needs. Older siblings were more
likely to speak English, providing language exposure for their younger sibling(s) that they did
not have when they were younger. Parents were more likely to provide English language
supports for older siblings. Therefore, there were discrepancies in opportunities for interaction
between the English and Armenian languages based on birth order, which then impacted
language development.
Conclusion
This study found that there were discrepancies in opportunities for interaction with the
English and Armenian languages in participants’ homes. These discrepancies increased
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 316

interaction with the English language and decreased interaction with the HL, Armenian.
Participants were explicitly aware of these discrepancies because it impacted the effort they had
to exert for development in each language. English development was embedded and easy, while
Armenian development was challenging and discouraging. Parents’ views were supported by
observable discrepancies as they related to access, generational status, prioritization of English,
and birth order. There were discrepancies in access to resources in the ways participants
obtained resources, the quantity of resources they had, the quality of the resources they had, and
the quality of their interactions with the resources. Generational status was another reason that
participants’ children had different opportunities to interact with each language. This was
impacted by each generation: parents, grandparents, and peers. Third, English was prioritized in
participants’ homes because it was linked, in parents’ minds, with children’s success. This was
voiced by participants and observed through the time spent on English language homework and
the use of supplemental educational workbooks. Last, the youngest child in each home had
different opportunities to interact with the English and Armenian languages. They received less
direct language interaction from the parent, were exposed to more English through their parents
and siblings, and their interactions were shaped by older siblings’ needs which focused on
academic success in English. Overall, effort, access, generational status, prioritizing the English
language, and birth order created discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the
English and Armenian languages which negatively impacted HL development.
Conclusion
This chapter attempted to decipher the overlapping complexities that surrounded 1.5 and
1.75 generation Armenian-American parent’s efforts to foster HL development for their children.
In the “Motivators” section, parents’ expressed the various things that guided their behavior, not
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 317

all of which had HL development as the end goal. In the “Outsourcing” section, parents
exhibited a tendency to utilize external sources to accomplish HL development for their children,
some of which were not satisfactory for that goal. Last, the “Discrepancies in Opportunities for
Interaction” section presented the many challenges that parents faced that made English language
development easier and Armenian language development challenging. That section was half of
this entire chapter which is a good representation of how the odds are stacked in generational
transmission of Armenian as a HL for this generation of Armenian-Americans. The next and
final chapter will discuss the implications and recommendations based on these findings.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 318

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
HLs are maintained because of the connection one feels to that language through their
family and ancestors (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Montrul, 2010; Polinksy & Kagan, 2007; Valdés,
2001). My own connection to my HL of Armenian was so strong that I devoted my doctoral
dissertation to it. Growing up, I was pushed to speak, read, and write the Armenian language by
my parents, especially my mother. In fact, my parents still remind me to speak in the Armenian
language when I default to English. I was also involved in Armenian institutions in a thriving
diaspora community in Glendale, California. In my own experiences, I felt how difficult it was
to maintain Armenian as a HL and how institutions struggled to adequately support community
members. Along the way, I had the fortune of meeting some unconventional Armenian role
models who motivated me to think creatively about my heritage. This dissertation was born out
of my own upbringing and motivation to maintain my heritage. It was nurtured because I saw
that many community members did not have the necessary tools to maintain their heritage even
when they wanted to. It had the opportunity to flourish because of institutional agents who
encouraged me to embrace my heritage in ways that I found meaningful. By adding original
research to Armenian as a HL and daring to think creatively, I hope to facilitate Armenian-
Americans’ access to their heritage through their language.
This study was born out of a need I identified in my surrounding community. I sought to
bring together Armenian-Americans’ desire for generational transmission of Armenian as a HL
with relevant research that was missing from the HL contexts. This study provided data in a
field with limited research, focusing on a generation that had not been studied prior. This study
provided an in-depth description of a specific population at a certain time and place. The
ultimate objective of this exploration was to inform recommendations to facilitate the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 319

generational transmission of Armenian as a HL for Armenian-Americans, before the loss of
valuable human capital, 1.5 and 1.75 generation parents. The timeliness of this study warrants
particular mention, as the current population is grappling with generational transmission of
Armenian as a HL daily, within their homes, institutions, and so on.
This chapter will begin with a summary of the findings presented in Chapter 4. Next, it
will discuss implications of the findings, recommendations for practice, and areas for further
research. In addition to the discussion in this chapter, the literature and data provided in this
study can be used to draw other implications, recommendations, and areas for further research to
positively impact generational transmission of HLs in the U.S., and specifically Armenian as a
HL.
Summary of Findings
The findings in Chapter 4 covered three main areas: “Motivators,” “Outsourcing,” and
“Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction.” The “Motivators” section reviewed the
different values and goals that guided parents’ behavior. The “Multilingualism as Cultural
Capital” subsection presented data showing that all parents valued multilingualism because it
increased cultural capital for their children in the form of dynamic character, competitiveness,
and advantages in difficult environments. This goal was not specific to the Armenian language
but multilingualism in general. The next subsection, “English as a Prerequisite for Success”
presented evidence that parents closely linked their children’s success with the English language,
and therefore their children’s English language development was imperative. This motivator
helped reveal why parents tended to prioritize their children’s English development even though,
as discussed in other sections, they believed they did not need to exert effort for English
development. Next, in the “Safety and Familiarity” subsection, I reviewed data showing that
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 320

some parents’ decisions for language programs and extracurricular activities were guided by the
comfort they felt with having their children around other Armenians. While some of these
decisions superficially seemed to be guided by the goal of HL development, safety and
familiarity were just as or more important. The “Multifaceted Cultural Identity” subsection
presented data that showcased participants’ cultural identity, including home décor, celebrations
and religious ceremonies, travel to Armenia, language programs, and extracurricular activities.
Language was tightly intertwined with cultural identity, distinguishable for some participants and
not for others. Given the intracultural differences within the Armenian community, I found that
standard and variety were also important factors shaping parents’ language decisions.
Participants considered standard and variety in the HL decisions they made for their children and
wanted their children to learn their own. This was still true for the two families where parents
spoke different dialects, where choices had been made for children to have exposure to both. In
the “Responsibility” subsection, all participants expressed the sense of responsibility they felt to
foster their cultural identity and language with their children, though to varying degrees. In the
last subsection of the “Motivators” section, “Pride,” data presented showed parents’ feelings of
pride associated with their children using the Armenian language. The “Motivators” section
examined the different factors that guided the decisions participants made for their children’s HL
development. Some of the motivators were geared directly towards HL development, others
were tangential and may or may not have included HL development, and yet others posed
challenges to HL development. Overall, they helped frame the next two sections of findings and
understand participants’ decisions and behaviors.
The second section in Chapter 4 was “Outsourcing.” Participants wanted their children to
learn Armenian as their HL and one approach used by all participants was enlisting external
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 321

sources. The first subsection addressed participants’ use of “Language Programs” for HL
development, even when initial enrollment in the program had not been for the HL. All
participants in this study had their school-age children enrolled in an Armenian language
program at the time of this study and it was the primary source credited for their children’s HL
development. Parents also enlisted the help of “Grandparents and Caregivers” in their children’s
HL development, even when they were not the primary form of childcare they used. All families
cited grandparents as HL supports for their children and four families cited babysitters even
though they were not hired with HL development in mind. The third subsection discussed
outsourcing to “Extracurricular Activities.” At first, parents cited a wide range of Armenian
extracurricular activities as Armenian language supports for their children. Then, when probed
deeper, it turned out that most of the cited activities were not actually providing Armenian
language supports but rather Armenian cultural identity supports primarily through the English
language. This was in line with their goals to foster their children’s Armenian cultural identity
but not necessarily their HL goals. Last in this section was the use of Armenian “Toys, Book,
and Technology.” Armenian language resources were used minimally but, when used,
specifically for HL development. The “Outsourcing” finding was notable because the HL,
something that is deeply rooted within the family, was delegated outside of the home, at least in
part, by all participants.
The third and final finding “Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” was the
largest theme in Chapter 4. This section addressed the vast discrepancies in opportunities
children had to interact with the English and Armenian languages, which had great potential to
impact their HL acquisition and maintenance. To begin the section, the “Effort” subsection
juxtaposed parents’ awareness of these discrepancies through the effort each language took on
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 322

their behalf. In “English Language Development is Inevitable,” all parents felt that their
children’s English language development took little to no effort on their part and was inevitable
in a society where English is the dominant language. The English language was easier for them
and omnipresent, embedded everywhere in their context, therefore inevitable. In contrast, in
“Armenian Language Development is Constant Effort,” all participants felt that their children's
Armenian language development took a lot of effort on their part. Parents had to expend effort
to improve their own HL skills to support their children, combat their own English dominance,
constantly work to mitigate their children's preference for the English language, and all with
limited time while juggling their busy schedules. These factors, when combined, made HL
development a stressful and negative experience for most participants, at least at times.
The next subsections provided evidence for parents’ assessment of these discrepancies in
effort. In the “Access” subsection, there were discrepancies in “Obtaining Resources,”
“Quantity of Resources,” “Quality of Resources, and the “Quality of Interaction” with the
resources between the English and Armenian languages. Parents could get English language
resources from anywhere while they were either unsure or had one place to obtain Armenian
resources. Parents had very few to no Armenian resources in their homes while they had a
plethora of English resources. The Armenian resources they did have were lacking in quality
overall, because there was less variety by topic and developmental level. The English language
resources they used were better rooted in research-based practices to foster language
development. Last, the quality of interactions between resources in either language was also
different, where parents had richer interactions with the English language resources and English
language homework.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 323

The subsection on “Generational Status” presented data supporting the challenges
“Parents” faced specific to their generational status and time of arrival to the U.S. Participants in
this study belonged to the 1.5 and 1.75 generations, which meant that they had immigrated to the
U.S. before the age of 12 (Rumbaut, 2004), thus going through most of their formal education
and identity development in the U.S. In line with the research on generational status, participants
in this study had a harder time supporting the Armenian language with their children than they
did the English language, creating discrepancies in opportunities for interaction between the two
languages. The generational status and time of arrival of the “Grandparents” in this study also
impacted their grandchildren's HL acquisition, different than it had impacted their own
children's, the participants of this study. Grandparents at the time of this study had been living in
the U.S. for at least a few decades and had raised children and worked in the U.S. As
grandparents, they likely had increased proficiency in the English language, more so than when
they had been raising their own children. As such, participants communicated that their own
children were aware of their grandparents’ English language knowledge, and that made them
more likely to use the English language when speaking to them. Unless there was active effort
on behalf of grandparents or parents to stick to the Armenian language, grandparents were able
to understand their grandchildren's use of English thus limiting valuable HL exposure. In
contrast, participants’ grandparents while they were growing up likely arrived in late adulthood
and with less schooling and did not allow for the same language shift overtime. Last, the
generational status of children's “Peers” created discrepancies in opportunities for interaction
between the English and Armenian languages because the majority of their peers were no longer
born to first-generation Armenian language dominant immigrants. Therefore, once beginning
school, regardless of whether it was an Armenian language program, participants’ children had
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 324

increased opportunities to interact with the English language and less so with Armenian,
impacting their HL development.
The next subsection, titled “Prioritization of English,” showed that parents gave greater
importance to the English language and the ways they supported it with their children, even
though they also expressed that they really did not need to exert effort for English language
development. The last subsection addressed the discrepancies created by children's “Birth
Order.” The younger children in participants’ families were more likely to have English
language exposure, more so than their older siblings had at their age, through their older siblings’
English language use and schoolwork, and less direct attention from their parents overall. The
“Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction” finding presented the various ways that
participants’ children had increased exposure to the English language, and that simultaneously
took away from their exposure to the Armenian language. While it is definitely possible to foster
balanced bilingual development in children, lack of understanding and awareness of these
discrepancies unknowingly created challenges which made generational transmission of
Armenian as a HL very difficult for participants.
The findings of this study–“Motivators,” “Outsourcing,” and “Discrepancies in
Opportunities for Interaction,”–unraveled the complexities surrounding generational
transmission of Armenian as a HL for Armenian-American immigrants who grew up in the U.S.
Doing so provided a strong footing for action and further research in a field with limited research
and on an understudied population. A figure representing these findings can be found in
Appendix G. The next section will cover the “Implications” of these findings.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 325

Implications
The purpose of this study was to find the means to an existing goal, generational
transmission of Armenian as a HL for Armenian-American parents who grew up in the U.S. In
my community, I saw a need for such a study, given that many Armenian-Americans wanted
their children to learn the Armenian language but had trouble facilitating that learning. My study
design purposely included 1.5 and 1.75 generation parents as the unit of analysis because the
literature shows that their children’s generation is where language loss typically occurs
(Rumbaut et al., 2006). My research questions specifically examined parents’ role in mitigating
that loss by interviewing them about their experiences, perceptions, and motivations in relation
to fostering HL acquisition and maintenance, and observing how they supported HL learning for
their children. The implications of the findings in this study were in line with the trajectory of
immigrant languages in the U.S. Without serious attention and concerted effort for the
generational transmission of Armenian as a HL for Armenian-Americans the language is at risk
for dissipating by the 2.5 and 3rd generations.
The findings of this study illuminated the complexities and realities faced by Armenian-
American parents who wanted their children to learn their HL. Parents in this study were in fact
motivated to teach their children the Armenian language. They felt great pride when their
children showcased Armenian language use, and felt a sense of responsibility to foster the
Armenian language and culture within their children. Armenian HL development was also
tightly linked with the cultural identity they wanted to foster in their children, the language often
used synonymously with the culture. Even though the parents in this study were motivated to
teach their kids the Armenian language, a criterion for selection, they still struggled to do so.
First, they had other goals they wanted to accomplish. Parents wanted to cultivate an Armenian
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 326

cultural identity for their children, but it was not exclusive to language development. Parents
stated these other cultural goals as well as took part in activities that cultivated cultural
development, but not necessarily language. They enrolled their children in extracurricular
activities, traveled to Armenia, and participated in cultural celebrations regardless of language
used. Some participants even explicitly stated looking for this cultural component in addition to
or over language development. In addition to heritage related goals, parents had other goals they
wanted to accomplish for their children such as English language proficiency. Despite the
awareness that English would come easily to their children in an English dominant society,
priority was often placed on their children’s mastery of the English language. Taken together,
the motivators shared by parents indicated that they wanted their children to learn their HL, but
also had to balance it with the many other goals they wanted to accomplish for their children.
The other findings in this study showed that, despite motivation, Armenian language
development was challenging for families. The “Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction”
section provided ample evidence for the obstacles parents faced. In the “Effort” subsection,
parents discussed their struggles in fostering the Armenian language, contrasted with the ease of
developing the English language. They addressed their own difficulties with HL proficiency and
their children’s HL development. There were issues with access in all domains that made it
easier to focus on English language resources and thus the English language. There was also
evidence for the subconscious “Prioritization of English,” likely because parents linked the
English language with success. “Generational Status” proved to be a challenge for all ages as
they moved further away from time of arrival. This included parents, grandparents, and
children’s peers. In line with the literature, the further the families moved from time of arrival to
the U.S., the more these discrepancies would exacerbate (Rumbaut et al., 2006). Birth order was
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 327

yet another challenge, where younger children had less exposure to the HL and more to English.
Parents were motivated towards HL development but faced many challenges. This led them to
outsource the HL exposure.
Despite competing goals and challenges, parents in this study still tried to find a way to
foster HL development for their children by outsourcing. Parents outsourced the learning of HL
to language programs, grandparents and caregivers, extracurricular activities, and sometimes
toys, books, and technology. Each of these sources has potential advantages and disadvantages.
First, there was no prior research specifically on Armenian language programs’ curricula,
resources, and teacher training. However, there was anecdotal evidence and speculation by some
academics that the programs were not teaching HL successfully (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016).
Even if successful, the language programs taught the formal standards of Western and Eastern
Armenian (Karapetian, 2014). In the case of Eastern Armenian, not only is the formal variety
different from vernacular for all groups, but there are also divisions in the orthography. In the
case of Western Armenian, the formal variety is like the written variety (Karapetian, 2014),
which may make one assume it would be more successfully taught. However, Chahinian and
Bakalian (2016) conducted research specifically on this as a problem in Armenian diaspora
language development. Even though diaspora schools in the U.S. have overwhelmingly taught
Western Armenian, the language has declined to the point of endangerment, as classified by
UNESCO’s atlas of endangered languages (Chahinian and Bakalian, 2016). Therefore, there are
some data to show that Western Armenian curricula have not been successful in recent decades.
The Eastern Armenian curricula is taught at the same institutions, and is complicated with the
aforementioned issues of variety and orthography. In the “Access” section of the findings, I
addressed some of the issues with curricula and resources that came up during this study.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 328

Though language programs were not the focus of this study, they were central to the ways
participants’ interacted with the Armenian language, as they indicated in interviews and I noted
in observations. Aside from the issues with curricula and resources, all parents communicated
that their children had shifted to English dominance when they started school, with six of seven
families starting their children at Armenian language schools. Six participants in this study had
their children enrolled at an Armenian day school and one in the dual-language immersion
program. But, with the exception of individual teacher differences, it can be assumed that all
Armenian language programs in Greater Los Angeles have access to the same quality of
curricula and resources. This includes extracurricular language programs and tutors. The two
exceptions for curricula are the dual language immersion programs started by the Glendale and
Los Angeles Unified School Districts, which teach the standard curriculum in both the Armenian
and English languages. Dual-language immersion is a research-based approach to language
development, and therefore has the sturdiest foundation of the existing Armenian language
programs in Greater Los Angeles to produce successful outcomes. However, it is still not
without its limitations. The dual-language immersion program is limited to specific schools
within two districts, and only teaches the Eastern standard and Reformed Orthography.
Furthermore, it is not exempt from challenges related to resources and teacher training, given
that Armenian language resources are limited overall. Last, it does not fully capture what
participants stated they wanted for their children, which was cultural identity development in
addition to the language. The one participant whose kids were enrolled in an Armenian dual-
language immersion program voiced this very sentiment during her interviews. She felt she had
to supplement the language program with something that fostered the cultural “spirit.” Armenian
institutions have increasingly failed to successfully teach the Armenian language, given the
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 329

many challenges. Subsequently, they have unnaturally separated the Armenian language and
culture so that the culture exists devoid of language and can be fostered in another language,
such as English. Diaspora institutions have given up on their role in language transmission and
instead refocused on fostering an immense Armenian spirit and watering down the culture,
making them even less reliable for HL development. In Armenian history, there are successful
models of outsourcing, such as the Melkonian boarding school in Cyprus and the post-Armenian
Genocide Armenian population in Turkey whose children learned Armenian despite their own
lack of proficiency. The act of outsourcing alone is not the shortcoming but rather the sources
themselves. In this study, parents outsourced their children’s HL development to language
programs but, without changes, none of these choices are a promising trajectory for HL
maintenance nor do they satisfy all of parents’ goals.
Next, parents outsourced HL development to grandparents and caregivers. This was a
worthwhile option in terms of developing spoken HL proficiency, because HL speakers benefit
from exposure to a variety of speakers (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015). However, it can be shortsighted.
Grandparents and caregivers are an excellent resource for HL development but not necessarily as
the whole support. Both sets of actors are contingent on too many variables. First, not all
grandparents in Armenian-American families will be proficient in HL development and in all
capacities. Using grandparents for HL development presupposes that they are first generation
immigrants, Armenian dominant in speaking, and literate in the language. Even when available,
they are not accessible by all. Second, put simply, grandparents will not always be around.
Eventually, the next generation will take on the role of being grandparents. That means that each
new generation of grandparents will need to maintain their language skills into late adulthood,
developing and maintaining it up until that point, if outsourcing to grandparents is to work as a
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 330

viable option. This would maintain HL proficiency across generations. In that scenario,
grandparents would not be the only available family members for HL development. But, that also
means all generations would have had successful HL development, which is why other changes
are critical. Grandparents are a great supplement, but not the entire answer for the population’s
HL maintenance over generations.
Caregivers who are proficient in the HL are also contingent on the flow of immigration.
Parents are subject to caregivers specific to the diaspora centers worldwide that happen to have
Armenian immigrants come to Greater Los Angeles at the time they have children at learning
age. For example, the hired Armenian babysitters in this study were Armenians from Armenia
probably because of generational status and financial security related to time of arrival
(Karapetian, 2014). After the immigration waves of the 20th century, many of the previously
thriving diaspora communities have slowed down (Chahinian & Bakalian, 2016). Then, with
Armenia’s Velvet Revolution of 2018, there is renewed patriotism and hopes that the conditions
in the country will improve, possibly leading to less outflow. Immigration is also contingent on
U.S. national policy and cost of living. Like grandparents, caregivers are valuable as a
supplement but not reliable as a long-term solution to HL maintenance for the population.
Despite their shortcomings, grandparents and caregivers provide real-life interaction for
language development and often in relevant language varieties, as opposed to the formal standard
supported by Armenian language programs. Therefore, their contributions as supplemental are
very valuable though they are not reliable enough for the generational language maintenance of a
whole population. The Armenian-American diaspora community itself needs to be able to
produce members proficient in the Armenian language and then use additional actors as
supplemental support.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 331

Extracurricular activities were another way that parents outsourced HL development but,
upon further reflection, confirmed that they were not actually providing Armenian language
support. This finding is a good way to observe the possible trajectory of HL development as
Armenian-American generations in Greater Los Angeles shift further away from the time of
arrival. In Chapter 4, I explained that Armenian diaspora institutions were not static and had
shifted generational status along with their communities. They had become weaker HL supports
as various factors had changed, because they too were susceptible to them. The same was true
for the students and children attending language programs and for grandparents and caregivers,
as covered in the “Generational Status” subsection. These sources can be advantageous as
supplemental support but should not be the only support, because they alone are not reliable for
generational maintenance of Armenian as a HL. Last, toys, books, and technology were another
advantageous form of HL support, but were seldom used and, as thoroughly covered, the
resources themselves needed a lot of improvement.
Another issue with outsourcing is illuminated by the distinction between HL acquisition
versus maintenance. Parents outsourced to language programs, grandparents and caregivers,
extracurricular activities, and toys, books, and technology. Extracurricular activities were
already not doing much to expose and foster Armenian as a HL. In an ideal scenario, where the
programs were able to provide HL exposure, it would have to be something that was sustained
into adolescence and, even better, adulthood. Of the other three sources that were able to
provide some form of HL exposure at the time of this study, language programs were used by all
participants. Language programs had the potential to foster HL maintenance depending on
financial accessibility, the quality of the program, how long children stayed in the program, and
its relevancy to their lives. As already covered, there is little to no information on the quality of
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 332

existing language programs, with the exception of the dual-language immersion program model.
Even so, a few years of a language program are, on their own, likely insufficient for language
maintenance because language attrition will occur. Last, language programs had issues with
relevancy of curricula, teacher training, resources, language standard, and orthography.
Enrolling one’s child in an Armenian language program may feel like HL acquisition is
underway but that development can be illusive based on many other factors and therefore not
lead to maintenance. One such factor, and the reason this study focused on the parent and the
home, is that language acquisition starts in early childhood in the home before the child goes to
school (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Language programs can only support
development, they cannot be the sole mechanisms of acquisition simply because other supports
are lacking. Overall, the ways that HL development was approached by participants in this study
was geared towards acquisition but not maintenance. For the generational transmission of the
Armenian language as a HL for Armenian-Americans, there needs to be a more comprehensive
approach for maintenance rather than temporary fixes. With all this said, appropriate solutions to
this are not the individual’s responsibility. Parents are doing the best they can with what they
have and should continue doing so despite countless obstacles. The established and operating
institutions should use the existing, though minimal, research to allocate resources to addressing
these issues, covered further in the next section on “Recommendations.” In discussing the
differences between acquisition and maintenance, it is important to address some of the findings
from the “Motivators” theme. The various subsections in that finding uncovered that parents felt
the English language was a prerequisite for their children’s success, wanted to foster the
Armenian identity within their children, and associated a sense of responsibility and pride with
their children’s Armenian HL development. English was, almost instinctively, deemed a
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 333

functional language because of its connection to the U.S. context and globalization. The
Armenian language, however, was not as functional and was sought for heritage purposes. This
makes it possible that acquisition of the language serves heritage purposes, as a symbol of
Armenian identity or as evasion from shame for not fulfilling one’s cultural responsibility.
Making acquisition just enough to check language off the list of identifying as Armenian, but
maintenance not worth the effort, or too difficult a task.
The theoretical frameworks used to frame this study, sociocultural theory and language
socialization, also provided insight for the implications of this study. Parents in this study were
English dominant and more comfortable speaking the English language. This limited the HL
exposure their children received and even the HL exposure they would be able to provide for
their grandchildren. Aside from their own HL skills, their preference to use the English language
with others, and prioritize it through their kids’ homework, supplemental workbooks, and
language resources jeopardized their goal. They were also surrounded by other Armenian-
Americans who were English dominant, making it easier to converse in English and thus expose
children to that language input. Referring back to both the frameworks of sociocultural learning
theory and language socialization, language is learned as a way of participating in social context.
Young children are growing up and trying to learn the ways of the world around them. They are
trying to gain membership into the contexts around them (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011; Vygotsky,
1978). When 2.5 generation children look around, the adults in their life are more likely to speak
English to one another and Armenian to young children and elderly. When those adults speak to
children, they may speak in Armenian but, since it is to children, the conversations are bounded
within certain topics and contexts. Not only does this limit vocabulary exposure in the HL but
also models that to be an adult is to speak English. Eventually, children outgrow their childhood
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 334

context and want to gain membership into other, more adult, contexts. Whether they know it or
not, Armenian-American parents and actors are modeling, socializing their children to learn that
an adult with membership in that community speaks English to most people. This has great
implications for children’s motivation. Naturally, they will want to develop and learn the
language being spoken in those adult contexts, curtailing their exposure to the Armenian
language, boxing it away in childhood. Coupled with other issues, such as their favorite
characters being from English language media, and them not enjoying their Armenian language
class because of things like curricula and relevancy, motivation to learn the HL is left with little
or nothing to attach to. The language socialization framework also provides insight into parents’
sense of responsibility, pride, and shame associated with their HL skills and teaching their
children Armenian as a HL. There was motivation to develop their children’s Armenian HL
despite competing goals and great challenges. This positive socialization can be capitalized to
motivate HL learners to learn and transmit the HL to the next generation.
Outsourcing showed that parents were motivated to do something, but the available
options were under-researched and had many limitations at first glance. It was deemed to be
easier and more effective to displace the HL from the home than take on the task of HL
development personally, especially given their lack of self-efficacy in their HL skills. After all,
parents had learned their own Armenian with many of these same supports. The role of earlier
generational status in participants’ own upbringing may have created to an illusion that the same
sources could still foster HL development as effectively. Earlier generations took their access to
the HL through first-generation U.S. immigrants for granted. Since it was embedded more
seamlessly in their upbringing, they assumed they could do the same for their own children.
Some may wonder why first-generation U.S. immigrants were arriving from different host
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 335

countries yet still dominant in the Armenian language. Though not systematically studied, there
is other literature that can help illuminate some of the differences. Those Armenians were
previously living in places with stark religious and political differences–Iran, Lebanon, and the
Soviet Union– (Karapetian, 2014) that potentially encouraged them to maintain separation
through language. They also grew up in a time when the globalization of English and the
prevalence of technology in the English language were not as pervasive (Bailey & Osipova,
2016; Jarvis & Krashen, 2014). Given their previous successes in maintaining Armenian as a
HL in host countries, it is understandable that those generations may have been blindsided by
Armenian language attrition in their children. Therefore, a nuanced understanding, as made
possible through research, presents an accurate depiction from which effective action can spring
more securely. Despite Armenian-Americans’ best efforts thus far, it is my hope that this
research as a well as other similar work stimulates a sense of urgency in the community for
change before access to the HL becomes even more limited.
Parents wanted their children to learn the Armenian language but there were many
obstacles, some of which they were aware and others of which they were not. As a result, they
outsourced their children’s HL development to sources that they perceived to be getting the job
done. Although the purpose of this study was not to evaluate other sources of HL language
acquisition and maintenance, there was some evidence to suggest that the sources were not
sufficient and should be doing things differently. Overall, the ways that HL development were
addressed were better for fostering acquisition but not maintenance. The sociocultural and
language socialization frameworks indicated that Armenian-Americans may have been
unknowingly socializing their children to become participants in an English-speaking context,
unavoidably curtailing their HL development. Last, faulty attributions of previous generations’
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 336

successes in HL development perpetuated use of unreliable or incomplete strategies. All of this
fostered behaviors that are, at best, aimed at HL acquisition instead of maintenance and not
sufficient for generational transmission over time. Thus far, these implications sound
discouraging, pulling the rug out from Armenian-Americans who are doing the best they can.
This section on implications argued that the state of generational transmission of Armenian as a
HL for 1.5 and 1.75 generation Armenian-Americans is at risk of attrition. The following section
will outline recommendations informed by these implications, and aim to move a large part of
that responsibility off of individual families and parents.
Recommendations
This section will address the various levels that can impact generational transmission of
Armenian as a HL, including a possible central authority, institutions, and the individual. It will
also provide recommendations for resource development and community attitudes.
Given the relatively small population of Armenians worldwide and the large number of
Armenians living outside of Armenia, language attrition poses a greater risk of losing access to
Armenian historical artifacts and culture. Generational transmission of Armenian as a HL in
diasporic communities is not a problem for one individual or individual families, but rather a
larger cultural issue. The Armenian diaspora has survived for millennia by assigning authority to
nongovernmental institutions such as the Armenian Church to maintain heritage (Hovannisian,
2004). In the 21st century, the church may no longer be a necessary link for many families. In
addition, the past 28 years have reintroduced a central government for Armenians worldwide
through the establishment of the current independent Armenian Republic. However, the country
is still at its early stages and has had its own struggles (Dekmejian, 2004; Karapetian, 2014;
Mirak, 2004). It has needed the diaspora to survive instead of the other way around. This is
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 337

changing now, as Armenia’s Velvet Revolution of 2018 showed tremendous positive and
progressive growth in the Republic. Conversations by country representatives, such as the prime
minister, are showing that the Republic wants to reclaim diaspora members as part of the
national identity and is pushing for repatriation. This has great potential to impact generational
transmission of Armenian as a HL in the diaspora and should progress regardless of repatriation.
It is faulty to assume that many Armenian families in the diaspora have intentions of repatriating.
Even if they did, the Republic of Armenia is likely not ready to receive such large numbers of
repatriates with adequate resources. Even so, diaspora members are priceless resources for
Armenians worldwide. Just as the diaspora has worked tirelessly for centuries to maintain the
Armenian culture in countless regions worldwide, the current state of the Armenian language, at
least for Armenian-Americans, would greatly benefit from action by a central authority that
values and enacts research-based approaches combining relevant fields such as education,
linguistics, and Armenian studies. The Republic of Armenia is a potential authority and resource
that is positioned to take on such a task.
Regardless of how realistic it is to have a central authority that adequately addresses the
issue of Armenian language loss in the modern day Armenian-American population, institutions
and families in the diaspora could be doing differently to address Armenian HL development.
Given my education in related fields, personal involvement in community organizations, my own
journey navigating Armenian HL development, and finally this study, I believe there is plenty
that needs to be done differently before adding even more to those efforts.
Language programs are institutions that the community looks to for help in maintaining
the Armenian culture and language. These programs should take an inclusive and progressive
approach to curricula, resources, and teacher training. While their specific product is something
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 338

that a niche group of Armenian-Americans do seek, their potential to reach the larger community
should be given prominence. These programs should address their Armenian curricula with
research-based approaches, as they already aim to do for the English language curricula. If
designed effectively, Armenian-Americans will be able to gain the most for HL development
with the limited time and competing goals in their lives. Curricula and resources should also be
more relevant. Institutions should access diverse texts and varieties of the language. After all, a
large motivator for the development of Armenian as a HL is social rather than academic, where
many speak vernacular in social settings. The human capital that is fluent in vernacular should
be viewed as an asset. Early stages of Armenian language education should transition from the
home, encouraging students to develop their vernacular before transitioning to the formal variety.
Literature and history should be current as well as old, including topics that are bicultural and
relevant to students’ lives in the U.S. (Fox & Alexander, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 1995), not just
those that suit Armenian patriotism. I had the opportunity to take Armenian language courses at
the University of California, Los Angeles during my undergraduate education. It was only there
that I encountered Armenian literature about paganism, homosexuality, that was unpatriotic,
erotic, and so on. Those texts do not exist in Armenian classrooms and inhibit the culture and,
consequently, its members. Armenian Genocide recognition, a compulsory religious component,
and undying patriotism are cyclically touted throughout the curricula. Not only does curricula
need to be informed by research but the narrow approach of the culture needs to change to
accommodate, embrace, and appeal to more members. Teacher training in this regard is also
crucial. Armenian language programs are often representative of more strict conventional
approaches to the classroom because the only available teachers are first generation immigrants
without training in pedagogy or with some experience from another, often a Middle Eastern,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 339

context. These teachers can receive training on how to teach their specific population.
Furthermore, if schools embrace diverse language varieties and worldviews, there is potential to
bring in teachers who may not be as proficient in the language but more effective as teachers and
relevant for the given context. Then, those teachers can continue to develop their language skills
as they teach and develop advanced proficiency over time.
The last level of recommendations is for the individual. Parents struggle to find ways to
support their children's learning of Armenian as a HL amidst the many challenges and
complexities that surround development. For maintenance, parents can work on their own
Armenian language development. They can become clear on their motivations for maintaining
the language and informed about the benefits of bilingualism and HL development in general in
order to make the process easier. This can be done through educational seminars and resource
development specific to their needs. Parents can push themselves to practice interacting with
others using the Armenian language while they still have access to first generation Armenian-
American immigrants. Shame in lack of HL skills is easier to mitigate when speaking at home
with family members. Using those contexts, if available, to become more confident in one’s own
Armenian can be helpful in gaining confidence and comfort in speaking the HL. Adults can
facilitate their own learning by using MKOs in their environment and taking advantage of their
ZPD. For example, the participant Bella and her husband used an Armenian dictionary
prominently placed in their home when they wanted to use a word they did not know in English.
Another example is Rebecca who used her son’s Armenian book with animal names to learn the
ones she did not automatically know. I also practice this in my own life when speaking with my
parents. I push myself to speak in Armenian with my first generation Iranian-Armenian parents
and ask about words I do not know in context, such as “sunrise” and “arrow,” instead of
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 340

defaulting to the English. As many of the participants in this study admitted, they had hoped to
improve their own Armenian language skills with their children’s language programs. Instead of
only outsourcing their children’s learning and to sources that teach the formal variety, they can
impact it by strengthening their own language skills by using accessible resources such as family
members and embracing vernacular. This will also provide a great model for their children to
observe. Even if parents are not able to improve their Armenian language skills, learning about
the value of exposing their children to diverse varieties of the HL (Melo-Pfeifer, 2015) may
encourage them to embrace and use the Armenian they do know. Individuals can also encourage
those with limited skills instead of shaming them or telling them to switch to English instead,
covered further in the upcoming “Community Attitudes” subsection. A central authority and
institutions can help this process by making language inputs better suited for the population they
serve. Parents should continue deliberate use of available language programs, grandparents and
caregivers, extracurricular activities, and toys, books, and technology as HL supports for their
children. While I have spent extensive time outlining the problems with these sources, they are
better than nothing. Also, if coupled with effective support from a central authority or
institutions, they have great potential as HL supports. It is still important for parents to have a
realistic view of the challenges they face so that they do not falsely believe their child(ren) have
stronger HL supports than they do. A realistic assessment will make the process less daunting
and more likely to maintain motivation. Last, parents of typically developing children should be
aware of the importance of language input in early childhood and the omnipresence of the
English language, ideally motivating them to do their best to focus on providing natural HL input
for their children. Even in the case that their children struggle with the English language, there
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 341

are numerous ways to address the issue. Exposure and additional support for the HL simply does
not have the same reality and therefore parents’ role is even more critical.
Resources
Thus far I have covered the role of actors at different levels. This subsection focuses on
resource creation that can be taken on by any one of the levels. There need to be accessible and
quality resources that are designed around users’ goals and abilities. In other words, the way that
HL development is fostered should account for motivation and the ZPD. Resources should take
what Armenian-Americans want and build on what they already know, with attention to
developmental level. If students come in speaking limited Armenian and in vernacular, then that
should be the springboard from which the HL is developed and resources should be designed as
such. If students come in code-switching, it is okay to create code-switched texts that more
closely match their language level and identity until more advanced skills are developed. Some
members of the community may fear language loss and have issues related to language prestige,
therefore resistant to bypass the formal variety of the language, even if temporarily. The
alternative is making HL development so challenging, to the point where people lose motivation
and give up. Armenian language resources for educational and personal use should be created by
academics in related fields, including experts in education. If no authority takes on this task,
parents can create new resources or modify existing resources themselves. They can cross out
“ինքնաշարժ” (formal variety of “car”) and write in “մեքենա” (vernacular variety of “car”), or
cross out “ռնգեղջյուր” (rhinoceros) and write in “rhino,” in an existing resource. I have yet to
encounter real-life Armenian conversations where some of these words are used, yet the
resources available to families maintain them. While some families may already use the words
available in resources, or elect to use those words, it is okay for parents to change them and make
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 342

the resources more suitable for their family. The specific recommendations for different levels
of actors and language resources are many and different. If provided with the appropriate
resources, there is potential to foster a thriving community of HL speakers. Then, those who
want to develop the language beyond heritage purposes can continue to learn and hone their HL
skills. But, expecting the whole population to keep learning and performing at advanced levels
is ignoring the reality and doing more damage than good. One big obstacle for resource
development is production costs and demand. Hopefully, relevant research can make resource
development sounder and more promising and thus entice donors. There is also potential to
address this by impacting community attitudes, as covered in the next section.
Community Attitudes
Changes in community attitudes have great potential to inspire and embrace change at all
levels, therefore positively impacting generational transmission of Armenian as a HL. Media is
also a great tool to impact change in community attitudes. Previous contexts may have been able
overcome challenges to generational transmission of Armenian as a HL but the current context
calls for something more secure and therefore rooted in research. Instead of feeling embarrassed,
Armenian-American individuals and institutions should try to speak plainly about the challenges
they face in relation to fostering HL development so that something can be done before too much
human capital is lost. All levels should empower Armenians to be proud of their variety of
Armenian language and any level of acquisition. Any variety, even if once deemed to have
lower prestige, is valuable. It provides diverse language exposure to speakers, carries with it a
unique part of cultural history and showing strength in survival over generations. Armenian
language varieties should be a part of the Armenian language curricula and resources. In
addition to appreciating diversity in the language should be acceptance of diverse worldviews.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 343

The alternative, as it is shaping out, is HL attrition because of lack of relevancy. Expectations
should be realistic and accepting of non-formal variants of the language and nonconforming
views. Changes to increase diversity in community-wide attitudes could be a stimulus for
change in any of the aforementioned areas in this chapter, with potential to impact generational
transmission of Armenian as HL.
It is important to acknowledge that generational transmission of Armenian as a HL needs
something different than the current approaches. It would not hurt to try any of these
recommendations or come up with others because the current state of things does not provide a
promising trajectory.
Future Research
This study’s aim was to provide data from which further studies on this or related
populations can spring. Overall, this study discovered many areas where research was limited.
HL in general is a young field and has ample room for further research. Specific to this study,
further research on Armenian as a HL is necessary to understand the many dynamics of the
population. In HL research, HL learners as parents are not represented in the literature. Given
that there is a lot of research on first generation immigrants and the strength of language support
they are able to provide for their children, understanding why language loss is common after that
generation is a necessary next step for generational transmission of languages in the U.S.
Another suggestion for further research is Armenian language programs and their curricula and
teacher training. As repeatedly mentioned in this study, parents relied on these programs yet
they were under-researched and showed signs that they were not adequate supports. Yet another
area for further research is research using the language socialization framework in order to study
affect socialization that can positively guide HL decision-making in adulthood. Last, an area for
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 344

further research is resource development for HL and a diglossia. With the Armenian language,
and particularly Eastern Armenian, the formal standard taught in schools and printed materials is
different from spoken varieties, which poses challenges for families trying to maintain a
language solely for heritage purposes. Research on the unique needs of the population will help
create resources that are better suited for the population and more effective for HL development.
There are countless opportunities for research throughout this study. Providing original data
about a topic with limited research will hopefully inspire some of those gaps in the research to be
filled.
Conclusion
The findings of this study were tangled in one giant knot. As I began writing Chapter 4,
any one example of data had several overlapping pieces that needed explanation. The process of
writing Chapter 4 for me was what an Armenian-American parent with the goal of generational
transmission of their HL goes through in countless interactions each day, except I had some
advantages. While looking at the data, I had extensive knowledge of the literature which helped
me understand the several dynamics at play at one time. Also, I may have had the role of an
observer and even a strategist, but I was not a parent on the grounds each day. I admire each and
every participant for their strength and courage in undertaking a task that was simultaneously
beautiful and daunting. In addition to deciphering the maze of generational transmission for
their own families, they opened themselves up to research to help the larger community with the
same goals and challenges. Careful attention to the intricate details of this population is critical
in helping this pivotal generation, 1.5 and 1.75 Armenian-Americans, in the generational
transmission of Armenian as HL. To develop and maintain the Armenian language in diasporic
communities is no easy feat, as demonstrated in this dissertation, but its importance is critical.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 345

Parents need to be buoyed and the community mobilized in order to prevent the loss of an
ancient, beautiful language.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 346

References
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attribution theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Bailey, A. L. & Orellana, M.F. (2015). Adolescent Development and Everyday Language
Practices: Implications for the Academic Literacy of Multilingual Learners. In D. Molle,
E. Sato, T. Boals, & C. D. Hedgspeth (Eds.). Multilingual learners and academic
literacies: Sociocultural contexts of literacy development in adolescents. New York:
Routledge.
Bailey, A. L., & Osipova, A. V. (2016). Children's multilingual development and education:
Fostering linguistic resources in home and school contexts. Cambridge University Press.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (Vol. 79). Multilingual
matters.
Bateson, G., & Daniels, P. (2012). Diversity in technologies. Computer-assisted language
learning: Diversity in research and practice, 127-146.
Birman, D., & Addae, D. (2015). Acculturation. In Transitions: The Development of Children of
Immigrants (pp. 122-141). New York and London, NY: New York University Press.
Blum‐Kulka, S. (2008). Language socialization and family dinnertime discourse. Encyclopedia
of language and education, 2661-2673.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and practice.
Bournoutian, G. (2004). Eastern Armenian from the seventeenth century to the Russian
annexation. In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.), Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times
(Vol. 2) (81-107). New York: Saint Martin's Press.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 347

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Calvert, S. L., & Billingsley, R. L. (1998). Young children's recitation and comprehension of
information presented by songs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(1),
97-108.
Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The Results of the National Heritage Language Survey: 0
Implications for Teaching, Curriculum Design, and Professional Development. Foreign
Language Annals,44(1), 40-64. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01118.x
Chahinian, T., & Bakalian, A. (2016). Language in Armenian American communities: Western
Armenian and efforts for preservation. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 2016(237), 37-57.
Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and
language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 64-80.
Clark, H. H. (1996) Communities, commonalities, and communication. In Rethinking linguistic
relativity. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds). University of Cambridge Press.
Cambridge, UK. (pp. 324-355).
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language
competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language
Journal, 585-592.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 348

Dekmejian, R. H. (2004). The Armenian Diaspora. In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.), Armenian People
from Ancient to Modern Times (Vol. 2) (413-443). New York: Saint Martin's Press.
Dickinson, D. K. & Porche, M. V. (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool
classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities.
Child Development, 82(3).
Dickinson, D. K., Griffith, J. A., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2012). How reading
books fosters language development around the world. Child development
research, 2012.
Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J. Y., Wu, S., Su, J. H., Burgess-Brigham, R., ... & Snow, C.
(2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis from four
perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5-60.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and
issues. Language teaching, 40(4), 309-319.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Fairclough, M. (2016). Incorporating additional varieties to the linguistic repertoires of heritage
language learners: A multidialectal model. Innovative strategies for heritage language
teaching: A practical guide for the classroom, 143-165.
Fox, E. & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Learning to Read. In Handbook of Research on Learning and
Instruction (2nd ed., pp. 8-32). New York: Routledge.
García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. Social
justice through multilingual education, 140-158.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 349

Garsoian, N. (2004). The Marzpanate (428-652). In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.), Armenian People
from Ancient to Modern Times (Vol. 1) (95-115). New York: Saint Martin's Press.
Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (2007). Bilingual first language acquisition. Blackwell handbook of
language development, 324-342.
Gervain, J. (2015). Plasticity in early language acquisition: the effects of prenatal and early
childhood experience. Current opinion in neurobiology, 35, 13-20.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goldin-Meadow, Levine, Hedges, Huttenlocher, Raudenbush, Small (2014). New Evidence
About Language and Cognitive Development Based on a Longitudinal Study:
Hypotheses for Intervention. American Psychologist, 69(6), 588-599.
Gollan, T. H., Starr, J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2015). More than use it or lose it: The number-of-
speakers effect on heritage language proficiency. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22(1),
147-155.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014).
Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their
effectiveness. Computer assisted language learning, 27(1), 70-105.
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness
studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165-198.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one
person. Brain and language, 36(1), 3-15.
Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and
hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 350

He A.W. (2008) Heritage Language Learning and Socialization. In Hornberger N.H. (eds)
Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Boston, MA
He, A. W. (2010). The heart of heritage: Sociocultural dimensions of heritage language
learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 66-82.
He, A. W. (2011). 25 Heritage Language Socialization. The handbook of language socialization,
587.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school.
Language in Society, 11, 49-76.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2008). Why play= learning. Encyclopedia on early
childhood development, 1-7. Overview of importance of play
Hoff, E. (2014). Language Development (Fifth ed.). Belmont, CA: Cenage Learning.
Hovannisian, R. G. (2004). Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times (Vol. 2). New York:
Saint Martin's Press.
Jarvis, H., & Krashen, S. (2014). Is CALL obsolete? Language acquisition and language learning
revisited in a digital age. Tesl-Ej, 17(4), n4.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygtoskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191-206.
Joseph, T., & Evans, L. M. (2018). Preparing preservice teachers for bilingual and bicultural
classrooms in an era of political change. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(1), 52-68.
Karapetian, S. (2014). " How Do I Teach My Kids My Broken Armenian?": A Study of Eastern
Armenian Heritage Language Speakers in Los Angeles. University of California, Los
Angeles.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 351

Karapetian, S. (2017). Opportunities and Challenges of Institutionalizing a Pluricentric Diasporic
Language. The Routledge Handbook of Heritage Language Education: From Innovation
to Program Building, 145.
Karapetian, S. (2018a). The changing role of language in the construction of Armenian identity
among the (American) diaspora. In Touraj, D. and Berberian, H. (Ed.), Reflections of
Armenian Identity in History and Historiography (181-188). Irvine: UCI Jordan Center
for Persian Studies.
Karapetian, S. (2018b). Defective Armenian: the destructive impact of heritage language anxiety.
In Kresin, S., & Baukus, S. (eds), Connecting Across Languages and Cultures: A
Heritage Language Festschrift in Honor of Olga Kagan (83-101). Bloomington: Slavica
Publishers.
Kelly, K. R., & Bailey, A. L. (2013). Dual development of conversational and narrative
discourse: mother and child interactions during narrative co-construction. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 59(4), 426-460.
Kouymjian, D. (2004). Armenia from the Fall of the Cilician Kingdom (1375) to the Forced
Emigration Under Shah Abbas (1604). In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.), Armenian People
from Ancient to Modern Times (Vol. 2) (1-50). New York: Saint Martin's Press.
Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F. M., & Liu, H. M. (2003). Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects
of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 100(15), 9096-9101.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Ch. 1 (pp.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 352

29-43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Laycock, J. (2012). Armenian Homelands and Homecomings, 1945–9: The Repatriation of
Diaspora Armenians to the Soviet Union. Cultural and Social History, 9(1), 103-123.
Leary, M. R., & Cox, C. B. (2008). Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and
contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655-670.
Maccoby, E. E. (1994). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical
overview.
Massey, S. L. (2013). From the reading rug to the play center: Enhancing vocabulary and
comprehensive language skills by connecting storybook reading and guided play. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 41(2), 125-131.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McDonough, C., Song, L., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lannon, R. (2011). An image is
worth a thousand words: Why nouns tend to dominate verbs in early word
learning. Developmental science, 14(2), 181-189.
Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2015). The role of the family in heritage language use and learning: Impact on
heritage language policies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 18(1), 26-44.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mirak, R. (2004). The Armenians in America. In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.), Armenian People
from Ancient to Modern Times (Vol. 2) (389-411). New York: Saint Martin's Press.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 353

Montrul, S. (2010). Current Issues in Heritage Language Acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics,30, 3-23. doi:10.1017/s0267190510000103
Moore, E. (2014). “You are children but you can always say...”: hypothetical direct reported
speech and child–parent relationships in a Heritage Language classroom. Text &
Talk, 34(5), 591-621.
Moore, E. (2020). Affective stance and socialization to Orthodox Christian Values in a Russian
heritage language classroom. In Burdelski, M., & Howard, K. (Eds.), Language
Socialization in Classrooms: Culture, Interaction, and Language Development (pp.1-15).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, D., & Jones, K. (2008). Language socialization in the home and minority language
revitalization in Europe. Encyclopedia of language and education, 2699-2715.
Nicoladis, E., & Montanari, S. (Eds.). (2016). Bilingualism Across the Lifespan: Factors
Moderating Language Proficiency. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative
human development.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization. Culture theory:
Essays on mind, self, and emotion, 276-320.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. The handbook of
language socialization, 71(1).
Orellana, M. F., & Guan, S. A. (2015). Child Language Brokering. In Transitions: The
Development of Children of Immigrants (pp. 184-200). New York and London, NY: New
York University Press.
Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning:
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 354

Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational psychologist, 35(4), 227-241.
Paez M. P. & Hunter C. J., (2015). Bilingualism and Language Learning. In Transitions: The
Development of Children of Immigrants (pp. 165-183). New York and London, NY: New
York University Press.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/self-efficacy-theory/
Park, S. M., & Sarkar, M. (2007). Parents’ attitudes toward heritage language maintenance for
their children and their efforts to help their children maintain the heritage language: A
case study of Korean-Canadian immigrants. Language, culture and curriculum, 20(3),
223-235.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL quarterly, 29(1),
9-31.
Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language, parents, and
peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant families. Journal of youth and
Adolescence, 30(2), 135-153.
Polinsky, M & Kagan O. (2007). Heritage languages: In the ‘wild and in the classroom.
Language and Linguistics Compass. 1(5), 368–395.
Pomerantz, E. M., Cheung, C. S. S., & Qin, L. (2012). Relatedness between children and parents:
Implications for motivation. The Oxford handbook of human motivation, 579-349.
Rumbaut, R. G. (2004). Ages, life stages, and generational cohorts: decomposing the immigrant
first and second generations in the United States 1. International migration review, 38(3),
1160-1205.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 355

Rumbaut, R. G., Massey, D. S., & Bean, F. D. (2006). Linguistic life expectancies: Immigrant
language retention in Southern California. Population and Development Review, 32(3),
447-460.
Russell, J. (2004). The formation of the Armenian nation (19-36). In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.),
Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times (Vol. 1) (95-115). New York: Saint
Martin's Press.
Samkian, A. (2007). Constructing identities, perceiving lives: Armenian high school students'
perceptions of identity and education (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles).
Sharifzadeh, A. (2015). On “parskahayeren,” or the language of Iranian Armenians.
https://borderlessblogger.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/on-parskahayeren-or-the-language-
of-iranian-armenians/
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual review of
anthropology, 15(1), 163-191.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Schunk, D.H., Meece, J.L., & Pintrich, P.R. (2014). Expectancy-Value Theory. In Motivation in
education: theory, research, and applications (4
th
ed., pp. 46-79), Harlow, Essex:
Pearson.
Schwartz, S., Cano, M. A., & Zamboanga, B. (2015). Identity Development. In Transitions: The
Development of Children of Immigrants (pp. 142-164). New York and London, NY: New
York University Press.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 356

Shin, S. J. (2002). Birth order and the language experience of bilingual children. Tesol
Quarterly, 36(1), 103-113.
Shin, S. J. (2010). “What About Me? I'm Not Like Chinese But I'm Not Like American”:
Heritage-Language Learning and Identity of Mixed-Heritage Adults. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 9(3), 203-219.
Sosa, A. V. (2016). Association of the type of toy used during play with the quantity and quality
of parent-infant communication. JAMA pediatrics, 170(2), 132-137.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth &
Society, 43(3), 1066-1109.
Suárez-Orozco, C. (2004). Formulating identity in a globalized world. In Globalization: Culture
& Education in the New Millennium. Suárez-Orozco, M., & Qin, D. B. (Eds.). (Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press), pp. 173-202.
Suá rez-Orozco, C., Abo-Zena, M. M., & Marks, A. K. (Eds.). (2015). Transitions: The
development of children of immigrants. New York and London: New York University
Press.
Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. (2008). The Challenge of Learning
English— Chapter 4. Less than Optimal Schools from Learning a New Land.
Suny, R. G. (2004). Soviet Armenia. In R. G. Hovannisian (Ed.), Armenian People from Ancient
to Modern Times (Vol. 2) (347-387). New York: Saint Martin's Press.
Szecsi, T., & Szilagyi, J. (2012). Immigrant Hungarian families' perceptions of new media
technologies in the transmission of heritage language and culture. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 25(3), 265-281.
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 357

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge University Press.
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and
learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The modern language
journal, 93, 802-821.
Tsao, Y. L. (2008). Using guided play to enhance children's conversation, creativity and
competence in literacy. Education, 128(3), 515-521.
Tse, L. (2001). Resisting and Reversing Language Shift: Heritage-Language Resilience among
U.S. Native Biliterates. Harvard Educational Review,71(4), 676-709.
doi:10.17763/haer.71.4.ku752mj536413336
Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J.K. Peyton, D.A.
Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a
national resource (pp. 37-80). McHenry, Il: Center for Applied Linguistics.
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. G. (2015). Key theories and frameworks in second language
acquisition. In Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 61-86). New
York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Vigil, D. C., Hodges, J., & Klee, T. (2005). Quantity and quality of parental language input to
late-talking toddlers during play. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(2), 107-122.
Villa, D. J. (2002). Integrating technology into minority language preservation and teaching
efforts: An inside job.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.
Souberman, Eds.).
Weisberg, D. S., Zosh, J. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Talking it up: Play,
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 358

language development, and the role of adult support. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 39.
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Simon and Schuster.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. & Klauda, S.L. (2009). Expectancy-Value Theory. In K. R. Wenzel & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 77-104). New York, NY US:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Wooldridge, M. B., & Shapka, J. (2012). Playing with technology: Mother–toddler interaction
scores lower during play with electronic toys. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 33(5), 211-218.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 359

Appendix A
Initial Version of the Conceptual Framework

Experiences,
Perceptions,
& Motivations
Resources
HL Acquisition
HL Maintenance
Other
Actors
Social
Interaction
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 360

Appendix B
Screener

Hello! I would love to learn more about you, and see if you would be interested in
participating in my study!
To begin with, I have provided some information about my study.

What is this study about?
This study is about language in Armenian-Americans. Specifically, the aim is to
understand more about Armenian-American parents and the decisions they make about language
for their child(ren).

What does commitment to this study entail?
• Participation in this study will take place between October 15, 2018 and January 15,
2019.
• Participation in this study is confidential.
• This study consists of about 5 hours of observations with you and your child(ren), and 2
interviews ranging from 30-90 minutes each.

Contact Information
Researcher: Nathalie Karimian
Institution: Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Email: nkarimia@usc.edu
Telephone: 818-445-0503

1. I describe my ethnicity as __________.
a) Armenian
b) An ethnicity other than Armenian

2. Pick the statement that is true for you.
a) I was born outside of the United States of America.
b) I was born inside the United States of America.

If you selected b for either #1 or #2, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read about
my study, but given the study’s focus, you do not fit the criteria for participation. You may stop
completing this questionnaire.

3. I was ___________ when I immigrated to the United States of America.
a) between the ages of 0-5
b) between the ages of 6-12
c) between the ages of 13-17
d) 18 or older

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 361

If you selected c or d for #3, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read about my
study, but given the study’s focus, you do not fit the criteria for participation. You may stop
completing this questionnaire.

4. I immigrated to the United States of America from _______________.
a) Soviet Union/Russia
b) Armenia
c) Iran
d) Lebanon
e) Other (please specify): __________

5. What is your marital status?
a) Single, never married
b) Married or domestic partnership
c) Widowed
d) Divorced
e) Separated

If you selected a, c, d, or e, please skip to #10.

6. My spouse/partner describes his/her ethnicity as __________.
a) Armenian
b) An ethnicity other than Armenian

7. Pick the statement that is true for your spouse.
a) My spouse was born outside of the United States of America.
b) My spouse was born inside the United States of America.

8. My spouse immigrated to the United States of America from _____________.
a) Soviet Union/Russia
b) Armenia
c) Iran
d) Lebanon
e) Other (please specify):

9. My spouse was ___________ when s/he immigrated to the United States of America.
a) between the ages of 0-5
b) between the ages of 6-12
c) between the ages of 13-17
d) 18 or older

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 362

10. I have ________ child(ren).
a) 0
b) 1
c) 2
d) 3
e) 4
f) Other (please specify):____________

If you selected a, skip for #10, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read about my
study, but given the study’s focus, you do not fit the criteria for participation. You may stop
completing this questionnaire.

11. Please specify the gender and age for each member of your immediate family including
yourself, your spouse (if applicable), and each child.
a) Self: gender ____________ age: _______________
b) Spouse (if applicable): gender ____________ age: _______________
c) Child 1: gender ____________ age: _______________
d) Child 2: gender ____________ age: _______________
e) Child 3: gender ____________ age: _______________
f) Child 4: gender ____________ age: _______________

12. I am interested in my child(ren) learning the Armenian language.
a) True
b) False

If you selected b for #12, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read about my study,
but given the study’s focus, you do not fit the criteria for participation. You may stop
completing this questionnaire.

13. Which of the following statements aligns most closely with your goals for your children
and the Armenian language?
a) I would like for my child(ren) to be fluent in speaking, reading and writing
Armenian.
b) I would like for my child(ren) to be fluent in speaking Armenian but I do not
think it is as important for them to read or write the language.
c) I would like for my child(ren) only to learn whatever Armenian language they
naturally pick up.

14. What Armenian language program(s) are/were your children enrolled in? (Select all that
apply)
a) Armenian private school
b) Armenian after school program
c) Armenian tutor
d) Armenian dual-immersion program at a public school
e) My children have never been enrolled in an Armenian language program.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 363

15. What languages do you speak in your home? (Select all that apply)
a) Armenian
b) English
c) Farsi
d) Russian
e) Arabic
f) Other (please specify):

16. I currently live in ______________.
a) Glendale, CA
b) La Crescenta, CA
c) La Canada, CA
d) Burbank, CA
e) Hollywood, CA
f) Pasadena, CA
g) Tujunga, CA
h) Sunland, CA
i) Other (please specify):

As a reminder, participation in this study entails about 5 hours of observations with you
and your child(ren) together, and 2 interviews with you alone that will be between 30-90 minutes
each. The interviews and observations will take place between October 15 and January 15.
17. Pick the statement that is true for you.
a) I am interested and able to participate in this study.
b) I am not interested and/or unable to participate in this study.

If you selected a for #17, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read about my study.
You may stop completing this questionnaire.

18. Thank you for indicating your interest to participate in this study! Please provide your
contact information should you be selected as a participant.
a) First Name:
b) Last Name:
c) Email:
d) Phone:

Thank you for your time and contribution to this study!

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 364

Appendix C
Sample Selection

Sample selection for this study was done in a successive steps, in order to pick a
purposeful maximum variation sample based on the different areas of relevant literature and the
study design. The literature was thoroughly covered in the body of this dissertation.
The recruitment screener for this study filtered participants based on two of the three
selection criteria. Participants had to indicate at least some level of interest in their children’s
learning of the Armenian language and belong to the 1.5 or 1.75 generation. Information was
collected for the remaining criterion, children’s age, which accounted for language
developmental level. As I disseminated the screener, I realized I was lacking participants that
spoke Western Armenian and had children under the age of five. Therefore, I used targeted
recruiting, asking a preschool that predominantly served Western Armenian speakers to
disseminate my screener, to fulfill needs for both age and Armenian language variety.
Once I closed the screener, I first eliminated the families who did not fulfill the remaining
criterion, having at least one child under the age of five, and participants that I would not be able
to access simply because of geography (both shown in yellow).

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 365

After this step, I had the eliminated data set to work with. To mitigate potential bias and
as an extra consideration during selection, I identified the potential participants I knew from the
community and the one male participant (added as columns on the left and shown in yellow).

Next, I looked at the areas I wanted to consider for maximum variation and identified if
any of them were already limited, in order to prioritize them. As can be seen in in the screenshot
below, “Spouse Ethnicity,” “Goals,” and “Language Programs” were limited in choice (shown in
yellow). Among those participants, I considered additional characteristics (shown in blue).

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 366

The participants in Rows 5 and 7 had children aged five but not younger, however their
contribution to maximum variation in “Goals” and “Language Programs” superseded that. The
same was true for Row 14; even though I knew the participant, the fact that he was the only male
was more critical for variation in the sample. Looking at “Spouse Ethnicity” between Rows 4
and 16, I chose the person in Row 16 over Row 4 based on the distinction that I knew the person
in Row 4. I eliminated Row 4 and selected the remaining six. Row 9 and 12 declined to
participate in the study, eliminating all choices for families with children enrolled in after school
Armenian language programs (shown in gray). The remaining four accepted (shown in green).
At this point, I stopped considering “Spouse Ethnicity” and “Goals” because there was no more
variation in the remaining people (shown in gray).

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 367

I looked at the other characteristics of the selected four to know what to consider next. I
already had two participant-spouse couples that both spoke Eastern Armenian in the variety from
the current Republic of Armenia, therefore I looked to eliminate any others (shown below in
yellow). Row 3 was automatically eliminated based on participant-spouse language variety. I
then contacted Rows 6 and 8 to clarify their husband’s language variety, which ended up being
Western Armenian for both spouses. I needed a hybrid Armenian language variety couple as
part of my sample so, to pick between the two, I considered their children’s language
developmental levels by age (shown below in blue). I picked the potential participant with three
children all under the age of 5.

I had now selected five participants and eliminated five.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 368

Again, I looked at participant-spouse Armenian language variety. The sample did not yet
have a Western-Western speaking participant-spouse couple, so I selected Row 13.

Row 13 declined. I clarified with the participant from Row 10 and her husband’s family
was previously from Iran. The remaining people were all spouse-participant couples who spoke
Eastern Armenian in the variety from Iran. Therefore, as extra considerations, I looked at the
ages of their children, three of which had children all under the age of 5 (shown below in
yellow). This was important because in the already selected participants there was only one such
family. Of the three possibilities, Rows 2, 11, and 15, I eliminated the one with children in
private school and the one I knew, thus selecting Row 11.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 369

I still needed to add a couple who both spoke Eastern Armenian from Iran, which was all
that remained anyway. I looked at a final category I had not considered all along, children’s
gender (shown in yellow). For the already selected participants, there were six female and nine
male children. I selected the participant with two daughters to increase the proportion of female
children.

I had seven selected participants (shown below in green).

I had seven willing participants (shown in green) and three had declined (shown in gray).
I had eliminated another four through the selection process, though they remained options if I
needed to add to the sample.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 370

While the specifics of the final sample changed slightly after I had a chance to interview
participants and clarify the information, shown below is the information I had as I selected the
final sample. In the screenshot, I have shown the variation I was able to have in each category,
all of which were overlapping considerations given the relevant literature, study design, and
people who indicated interest through the recruitment screener.

The final and accurate table detailing the sample can be found in the body of this
dissertation, as Table 1.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 371

Appendix D
Interview 1
I want to thank you for taking the time to participate in my study and in this interview
today. I am very grateful for you willingness to participate in my study.
Before we get started, I wanted to remind you about my interests and study. Very
generally, I am interested in language in Armenian-Americans. In this study, I want to
understand more about Armenian-American parents perspectives and the decisions they make
about language for their child(ren).
I am conducting both interviews and observations to inform my study. I want to stress
that I only aim to understand. I am not looking for any specific answers or actions nor am I
evaluating anything. I want to understand what language looks like in the real world for
Armenian-American parents. As someone who has to actively assess these choices for their
child(ren) in America today, you have valuable insight. I would love to hear your honest
responses and learn about your perspectives, to the extent that you are comfortable sharing.
I want to assure you again that this study is confidential. The data won’t be shared with
anyone outside the research team. This includes anybody in your family and any mutual
acquaintances we may have. In my final report, I will replace all names with pseudonyms and
do my best to de-identify all data that I collect. I will transfer all of my notes and possible
recordings to a password-protected computer after the interviews and observations and destroy
the audio recording itself. At the completion of this study, I will be happy to share my report
with you if you would like.
At this time, do you have any questions about the information I went over or what we are
going to do today?
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 372

At the end of today’s interview, I will give you another opportunity to ask questions or
add anything you may want.
For the purpose of capturing what you say most accurately, would it be okay with you if I
record our interview today? The recording will only be for me and be transferred to a password-
protected computer immediately after the interview, as I stated earlier. Do I have your
permission to record this interview?
Thank you, let’s get started.
I will start by asking some questions about your personal experiences.
1. If someone asked you how you identify ethnically, what would you say?
2. Tell me about your migration journey to the United States.
a. Probe: At what age did you immigrate to the United States?
b. Clarify country(ies) of origin.
c. Clarify participant’s birth order in his/her family of origin.
3. Tell me about your educational background?
a. Probe: What schools have you attended? (probe for Armenian private, public,
Armenian extracurricular etc)
b. Probe: What is your highest level of education?
c. If applicable: What is your profession?
4. What Armenian organizations have you been involved with, if any?
a. Probe: How did you decide to get involved?
b. Probe: What has your experience been with this/these organizations? Probe for
specific experiences.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 373

Now I would like to shift to asking you questions about language and your child(ren).
5. What are the languages spoken by members of your family on a typical day?
a. Probe: different languages for different members, if applicable)
6. Tell me about the different language(s) that your family may mix into one conversation,
if at all?
7. What other languages are your child(ren) exposed to, if any?
a. Probe: How?
8. In what ways are your child(ren) currently exposed to Armenian, if at all?
a. Probe: Tell me about activities or contexts in which only Armenian is used.
b. Probe for differences for the different children, if applicable.
9. In what ways are your child(ren) currently exposed to English, if at all?
a. Probe: Tell me about activities or contexts in which only English is used.
b. Probe for differences for the different children, if applicable.
10. What supports your child(ren)’s learning of English, if anything?
11. What gets in the way of your child(ren)’s learning of English, if anything?
12. What supports your child(ren)’s learning of Armenian, if anything?
13. What gets in the way of your child(ren)’s learning of Armenian, if anything?
14. What language do you speak with your child(ren)?
15. What language do your child(ren) speak with you?
16. When you play with you child(ren), what language(s) do you use?
17. How do you feel your child(ren)’s use of language has influenced your own use of
language with him/her, if at all?

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 374

18. Describe toys or books you use to support English with your child(ren), if any.
a. Probe: Do you use anything else?
19. Describe toys or books you use to support Armenian with your child(ren), if any.
a. Probe: Do you use anything else?
20. How does your child(ren) typically use technology, if at all?
21. How do you feel this affects his/her language use, if at all?
22. What language(s) is the music your child(ren) typically listen to, if at all?
23. What language(s) are the television programs or movies your child(ren) typically watch,
if at all?
24. Describe your experiences in finding books, toys, and technology in English.
a. Probe: Tell me about a specific time you set out to find a book or toy or
technology to help with English language development.
25. Describe your experiences in finding books, toys, and technology in Armenian.
a. Probe: Tell me about a specific time you set out to find a book or toy or
technology to help with Armenian language development.
26. How do you think the availability of material affects your child(ren)’s use of each
language, if at all?
27. Suppose such materials were equally and readily available in both languages, how might
that affect your child(ren)’s use of each language, if at all?
28. Tell me about a time you have created materials to support your child(ren)’s learning of
language, if at all?
a. Probe: Tell me more about that. What was the material? What was the purpose of
creating it?
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 375

Now, I would like to ask you some questions about your child(ren)’s schooling and other
activities.
29. Tell me about your child(ren)’s school.
a. Probe: Language programs
b. Probe: How do you feel this has influenced their use of English?
c. Probe: How do you feel this has influenced their use of Armenian?
30. Some people say it’s important for Armenian children to attend an Armenian language
program. What are your thoughts on this?
31. Tell me about the Armenian organizations your child(ren) are involved with, if at all.
32. Describe your experiences with involvement in this/these organizations so far.
a. Probe for specific positive experiences.
b. Probe for specific negative experiences.
c. Probe: How do you feel this has influenced their use of English?
d. Probe: How do you feel this has influenced their use of Armenian?
33. Ideally, how do you want your child(ren) to use the English language in their lives?
34. Ideally, how do you want your child(ren) to use the Armenian language in their lives?
35. How would you describe your child(ren)’s fluency in English?
a. Probe: Provide a specific example that demonstrates this level of fluency.
b. Probe: Which of the following can your child(ren) do in English: speak, read,
write?

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 376

36. How would you describe your child(ren)’s fluency in Armenian?
a. Probe: Provide a specific example that demonstrates this level of fluency.
b. Probe: Which of the following can your child(ren) do in Armenian: speak, read,
write?
Next, I will ask some questions about your own language use and views.
37. Briefly list the languages you have learned or spoken in your life, in order.
a. Probe: Which of the following can you do in English: speak, read, write?
b. Probe: Which of the following can you do in Armenian: speak, read, write?
c. Probe: What dialect of Armenian do you speak?
d. Follow up: How did this come to be? How did you learn each of the two
languages?
38. How have your language abilities affected decisions you made for your child(ren), if at
all?
a. Probe: Not being able to support if in language programs
39. How else might have your experiences with language shaped decisions you made for
your child(ren)?
a. Probe for different decisions depending on birth order, whether there is a sibling
or not.
Closing Question
That concludes my questions for you today. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Closing
Thank you for taking the time to do this interview. I truly appreciate it. If I have any
follow up questions, is it okay to contact you? Thank you!
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 377

Appendix E
Interview 2
Thank you for taking the time to do a second interview. I want to remind you that my
aim is learn from your experiences, to the extent that you are comfortable sharing. I am not
looking for any specific answers nor am I evaluating your responses.
I want to also remind you that this study is confidential. Data won’t be shared with
anyone outside the research team, names will be replaced with pseudonyms, data will be de-
identified to the best of my ability, and all data will be transferred to a password-protected
computer after today’s interview.
At this time, do you have any questions about the information I went over or what we are
going to do today?
At the end of today’s interview, I will give you another opportunity to ask questions or
add anything you may want.
For the purpose of capturing what you say most accurately, do I have your permission to
record this interview?
Thank you, let’s get started.
(If applicable) I would like to start by asking you some questions about your spouse.
1. If someone asked your spouse how s/he identifies ethnically, what would s/he say?
2. Tell me about your spouse’s migration journey to the United States.
a. Probe: At what age did your spouse immigrate to the United States?
b. Clarify country(ies) of origin.
c. Clarify spouse’s birth order in his/her family of origin.

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 378

3. What languages does your spouse speak?
a. Clarify level of proficiency in each language.
b. Probe: What dialect of Armenian does your spouse speak?
4. Tell me about your spouse’s educational background.
a. Probe: What schools has your spouse attended? (probe for Armenian private,
public, Armenian extracurricular etc)
b. Probe: What is your spouse’s highest level of education?
c. If applicable: What is your spouse’s profession?
5. What Armenian organizations has your spouse been involved with, if any?
a. Probe: How did s/he decide to get involved?
b. Probe: What has his/her experience been with this/these organizations? Probe for
specific experiences.
6. Which of the following can your spouse do in English: speak, read, write?
7. Which of the following can your spouse do in Armenian: speak, read, write?
8. What language do you and your husband mostly use to communicate with each other?
9. Describe a time when you and your spouse had to make a decision about whether you
wanted your kids to be more fluent in English or Armenian.
a. Probe: What factors did you consider?
b. Probe: Who else was involved in that decision? (spouse, other actors, research)
c. Probe: How are your decisions different depending on your child(ren), if at all?
(ask if they have multiple children)
10. Overall, how do you and your spouse agree on decisions regarding language with your
child(ren)?
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 379

11. How has your family’s use of language changed over the course of your child(ren)’s
lives, if at all?
a. Probe: transitions to school
b. Probe: transitions to having siblings
The next set of questions will be about your child’s use of language with you and other people,
and in different environments.
12. In your own social networks (family, friends, work), what language(s) do you typically
speak?
13. Outside the immediate family, who do your child(ren) regularly spend time with?
a. What languages are typically used in those contexts?
i. Siblings?
ii. Other family members?
iii. Friends?
iv. School?
14. How do you depend on other caregivers to support language with your child(ren), if at
all?
a. Tell me about a recent conversation where you spoke to a caregiver about their
role in supporting language with your child(ren).

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 380

I’d like to close with a few questions about your thoughts on the use of Armenian as an
Armenian-American.
15. Some say it’s critical to know more than one language, what are your thoughts?
a. Probe: What are the factors that shaped this view?
i. People?
ii. Experiences?
iii. Probe: How do you think this view has shaped decisions you made for
your child(ren) regarding language?
16. In the United States, some people would say that helping their child(ren) learn English is
the most important thing. What would you say?
a. Probe: Why?
17. Some people would say that helping their child(ren) learn Armenian is the most
important thing. What would you say?
a. Probe: Why?
18. How have your values on both languages shaped what you have done with your
child(ren)?
19. Some would say that it is important to speak “pure” Armenian. What does that mean to
you?
a. Probe: What do you think about that?
20. Some would say that they speak the “correct” dialect or variety of Armenian. What does
that mean to you?
a. Probe: What do you think about that?
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 381

21. Tell me about a time when you felt like you were successful in developing your
child(ren)’s language the way you wanted.
22. Tell me about a time when you felt like you were not successful in developing your
child(ren)’s language the way you wanted.
23. Overall, how does the topic of your child(ren) learning the Armenian language make you
feel?

Closing Question
That concludes my questions for you today. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Closing
Thank you for taking the time to do this interview. I truly appreciate it. If I have any
follow up questions, is it okay to contact you?

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 382

Appendix F
Codebook
Observation Codes
O: Challenge: attention
O: Challenge: time
O: Character
O: CListening
O: CReading: Armenian
O: CReading: English
O: CTalk
O: CTalk: Armenian
O: CTalk: Armenian: counting
O: CTalk: Armenian: recitation
O: CTalk: Armenian: singing
O: CTalk: CS
O: CTalk: English
O: CTalk: English: counting
O: CTalk: English: recitation
O: CTalk: English: singing
O: CTalk: Farsi
O: CWriting: Armenian
O: CWriting: English
O: Hospitality
O: Logistics
O: Logistics: Time
O: OA
O: OA_aunt
O: OA_aunt&uncle
O: OA_babysitter
O: OA_friend
O: OA_grandma_maternal
O: OA_grandma_paternal
O: OA_grandpa
O: OA_spouse
O: OAInteraction+
O: OAInteraction+: play: resources-
O: OAInteraction+: play: resources+: books
O: OAInteraction+: play: resources+: tech
O: OAInteraction+: play: resources+: toys
O: OAInteraction+: workbook
O: OAReading: Armenian
O: OAReading: English
O: OATalk: Armenian
O: OATalk: Armenian: counting
O: OATalk: Armenian: singing
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 383

O: OATalk: CS
O: OATalk: English
O: OATalk: Farsi
O: OATalk: Spanish
O: PCInteraction-
O: PCInteraction-: food
O: PCInteraction-: homework
O: PCInteraction-: homework: Armenian
O: PCInteraction-: homework: ELA
O: PCInteraction-: homework: math
O: PCInteraction-: play: resources-
O: PCInteraction-: play: resources+: books
O: PCInteraction-: play: resources+: tech
O: PCInteraction-: play: resources+: toys
O: PCInteraction-: workbook
O: PCInteraction+
O: PCInteraction+: food
O: PCInteraction+: homework
O: PCInteraction+: homework: Armenian
O: PCInteraction+: homework: ELA
O: PCInteraction+: homework: math
O: PCInteraction+: play: resources-
O: PCInteraction+: play: resources+: books
O: PCInteraction+: play: resources+: tech
O: PCInteraction+: play: resources+: toys
O: PCInteraction+: workbook
O: PFacilitator
O: PhysSet
O: PMotivations
O: PReading: Armenian
O: PReading: English
O: PTalk
O: PTalk: Armenian
O: PTalk: Armenian: counting
O: PTalk: Armenian: recitation
O: PTalk: Armenian: singing
O: PTalk: CS
O: PTalk: English
O: PTalk: English: recitation
O: PTalk: English: singing
O: PTalk: Spanish
O: Researcher
O: Resources: langsp-
O: Resources: langsp+: Armenian
O: Resources: langsp+: Armenian: HW
O: Resources: langsp+: CS
O: Resources: langsp+: English
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 384

O: Resources: langsp+: English: HW
O: Resources: langsp+: English: WB
O: Resources: tech
O: Resources: tech: comp
O: Resources: tech: music
O: Resources: tech: phone
O: Resources: tech: tablet
O: Resources: tech: TV
O: Resources: tech: videogame
O: Youngest Child
O: YoungestChild: attention-
O: YoungestChild: attention+

Interview Codes
I: CEdu: Arm: private
I: CEdu: Eng: pre
I: COrg: Arm
I: COrg: Eng
I: LangExp: Arm
I: LangExp: Arm: Armenia
I: LangExp: Arm: books
I: LangExp: Arm: edu
I: LangExp: Arm: media
I: LangExp: Arm: play
I: LangExp: Arm: relatives
I: LangExp: CS
I: LangExp: CS: play
I: LangExp: Eng
I: LangExp: Eng: books
I: LangExp: Eng: edu
I: LangExp: Eng: media
I: LangExp: Eng: play
I: LangExp: Eng: siblings
I: LangExp: Eng: toys
I: LangExp: Russian: media
I: LangExp: Span
I: LangExp-: toys
I: PBirthOrder
I: PExperiences: Challenge-: Arm
I: PExperiences: Challenge-: Eng
I: PExperiences: Challenge+: Arm
I: PExperiences: Challenge+: Eng
I: PExperiences: Edu: Arm-
I: PExperiences: Edu: Arm+: extracurricular
I: PExperiences: Edu: Arm+: private
PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 385

I: PExperiences: Edu: BA
I: PExperiences: Edu: Doc
I: PExperiences: Edu: Eng: private
I: PExperiences: Edu: Eng: public
I: PExperiences: Edu: nonUS
I: PExperiences: Edu: nopostsec
I: PExperiences: Migration
I: PExperiences: Org: Arm
I: PExperiences: Org: Eng
I: PID: Armenian
I: PID: Armenian-American
I: PMotivations: Con: Arm
I: PMotivations: Con: Eng
I: PMotivations: Pro: Arm
I: PMotivations: Pro: Eng
I: PPerceptions: CAbility
I: PPerceptions: Challenge-: Arm
I: PPerceptions: Challenge-: Eng
I: PPerceptions: Challenge+: Arm
I: PPerceptions: Challenge+: Eng
I: PProfession
I: SBirthOrder
I: SExperiences: Edu: Arm-
I: SExperiences: Edu: Arm+: extracurricular
I: SExperiences: Edu: Arm+: private
I: SExperiences: Edu: BA
I: SExperiences: Edu: Doc
I: SExperiences: Edu: Eng: private
I: SExperiences: Edu: Eng: public
I: SExperiences: Edu: nonUS
I: SExperiences: Edu: nopostsec
I: SExperiences: Migration
I: SExperiences: Org: Arm
I: SExperiences: Org: Eng
I: SID: American
I: SID: Armenian
I: SID: Armenian-American
I: SProfession

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 386

Category Codes
A: Competing Forces: ArmAccess
A: Competing Forces: Dialect
A: Competing Forces: Edu
A: Competing Forces: Edu: HW
A: Competing Forces: EngDominance
A: Competing Forces: EngSuccess
A: Competing Forces: EngToys_Books_Tech_Media
A: Competing Forces: GenStatus
A: Competing Forces: Indiv
A: Competing Forces: Time_Attention
A: Competing Forces: Youngest
A: Goals: Acquisition
A: Goals: ArmEnvironment_Safety_Comfort
A: Goals: Heritage
A: Goals: Identity
A: Goals: Maintenance
A: Goals: Multilingualism
A: Goals: Pride
A: Goals: Responsibility
A: Outsourcing: Babysitter
A: Outsourcing: ExtraCurr
A: Outsourcing: HW
A: Outsourcing: LangProgram
A: Outsourcing: Relatives
A: Outsourcing: Toys_Books_Tech_Media
A: Outsourcing: Travel
A: Uphill Battle: Challenging_Effort
A: Uphill Battle: NegativeExp
A: Uphill Battle: Time

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 387

Appendix G
Findings Quotations Tables

Motivators
Multilingualism as
Cultural Capital
“Ամեն լեզու մեկ մարդ է:”
(“Each language is a person.”)

English as a Prerequisite
for Success

“Life runs in English”
Safety and Familiarity “Yes, because I wasn't gonna bring an օտար (other) to the house to
watch my kids and me not being here.”

Multifaceted Cultural
Identity
“Pick up on the traditions, know the language, but it doesn't have to
be where they're proficient in it. I think my goals are more about
them being good people. I mean, Armenian yes, they will be too.”

“You can't add coffee to the coffee. It's coffee already, right?”

“I want my kids to speak my dialect.”

Responsibility “But if we all want to subscribe to this thing of, well I'll just depend
on this person to provide me with the herd immunity... if one
person subscribes to that mentality, then the herd is gone. And the
herd is gone, we're all susceptible.”

Pride “It makes me feel good and proud that they're actually learning it,”

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 388

Outsourcing
Language Programs “Let's just put it this way: if we removed Armenian school from
their lives, they would have very little interaction with the
Armenian language… unless I then made an active effort to
introduce that through a different way.”

Grandparents and
Caregivers
“If we're talking to our babysitters, primarily in Armenian, because
they don't understand English. Grandparents, Armenian. That's it.”

Extracurricular
Activities

“It's done in English however the owner of the school is Armenian.
There are a lot of fundraising moments that are helping Armenia.
They do wear an Armenian patch because the owner of the school
is very involved with Armenians. The classes, unfortunately, are
done in English. But… all the senseis are Armenians. I would say
thirty-five to forty percent of the students are Armenians maybe.”
Toys, Books, and
Technology
“I also have Armenian books, and books where it'll say the letter if
you press on it, things like that. I try to have educational materials
at home, I always have, in both languages. We'll do that in
Armenian.”

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 389

Discrepancies in Opportunities for Interaction
Effort
English Language
Development is
Inevitable

“I'm not worried at all about my kids and the English language. If
anything, I'm worried about the Armenian with them.”

Armenian Language
Development is
Constant Effort

“I think, for the rest of our lives, there's always going to be an effort
to speak Armenian at home, even when the kids are older.”

Access
Obtaining Resources “I mean, that's a lot easier, it's everywhere. Anywhere you go, and it's
definitely a lot easier than finding Armenian books.”

Quantity of Resources “Oh my gosh. We have over a hundred books inside. We have a lot
of books. We have a lot of game boards. You saw Uno is popular in
our house. My son likes chess and backgammon. I guess that's not
really a language. All of our games are English. English based
games. We have no Armenian games.”

Quality of Resources “Բայց հետո որ արդեն սկսեցինք օգտագործել շատ բաներ,
գրքեր, բան, զգացի որ չի հերիքում: Ասենք միանգամից կամ
մենակ տառերն ա, հետո տառերից հետո միանգամից գնում էր
սենց բարդ նախադասություններով, բաներով, հեքյաթներ ու
բաներ ու արանքում չկար մի բան որ ասենք թեթև, որ արագ
սենց երեխու հետ կարդաս քնելուց առաջ, սենց ինչ որ թեթև մի
բան:”
(But then when we started using many things, books, things, I felt
that it wasn’t enough. Let’s say, at once- either it’s just the letters,
then after the letters it would go straight to these sophisticated
sentences, things, tales and things. And, there was nothing light in
between, that you could quickly read to your child before bedtime,
some type of light material.)

Quality of Interaction “My Armenian reading is not that great, so my mom does most of the
Armenian books. My son loves it, he really likes just listening to that.
She does a lot of that, and then we have like I said, those books that
have the little push buttons, and it'll speak or sing in Armenian.”

Generational Status
Parents “English is just easier for me too.”

Grandparents “[My kids] know if you don't speak English very well, they speak
Armenian to you.”

PARENTS’ ROLE IN HERITAGE LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT 390

Peers “Մի մտածեք, մինչև հոկտեմբեր ամիսը կտեսնեք [աղջիկդ]
միայն անգլերեն է խոսելու տան մեջ.”
(Don’t worry, by October you’ll see, your daughter is only going to
speak English at home.”

Prioritization of
English
“And, I'm wondering if a lot of it are sort of non-verbal cues, or even
verbal cues that they get from my husband and myself. Where it'll be
like, well what should we do first? Do your English, do your math,
do your science, and then we'll keep Armenian for last. Those things
I think subconsciously take ... You know, you prioritize everything.”

Birth Order “She gets a lot through osmosis”

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar