Reflections on the “Heritage” Label in Bilingualism Research

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions: We critically examine the use of the term “heritage” within bilingualism research. The primary aim is to evaluate the validity and usefulness of this term, addressing the conceptual and practical issues it currently presents. Design/Methodology/Approach: We employ a critical review methodology, synthesizing arguments from various perspectives on the label “heritage”. We explore the vagueness of the label, the tension that arises when gradient phenomena are expressed by binary or categorical classifications and the applicability of the term “heritage” to diverse sociolinguistic contexts. Data and Analysis: The research is based on a review of existing literature, including definitions, theoretical frameworks, and empirical studies related to heritage speakers, languages, and grammars. The analysis involves qualitatively comparing and contrasting different definitions and their implications for research outcomes. Findings/Conclusions: Key findings highlight the inconsistencies and ambiguities in defining heritage languages and heritage speakers, as well as the lack of a clear definition for the term “heritage grammar.” We conclude that the term “heritage” is conceptually problematic and may lead to misleading comparisons and interpretations, thereby holding the field back. Crucially, we move beyond critique by proposing a set of reporting standards for bilingualism/multilingualism studies, which should also contribute to greater interdisciplinary collaboration and understanding. Originality: Our contribution lies in offering a critical reassessment of the term heritage, highlighting its layered application to the individual (heritage speaker), the code (heritage language), and the system (heritage grammar). By foregrounding these distinctions, we emphasize the need for greater conceptual clarity and more precise terminology to enhance the accuracy and comparability of future research. By offering new reporting standards, we propose a new benchmark for the field. Significance/Implications: The examination of the term reiterates the need to move beyond binary categorizations, advocating instead for gradient approaches that more accurately reflect the complexity and diversity of bilingual experience. Limitations: The scope of the review is restricted to English-language sources. Extending the analysis to scholarship published in other languages would provide valuable additional perspectives. In addition, the proposed reporting standards represent a methodological framework that requires widespread community adoption to be fully effective.