Talk:Heritage language

right of education in the home language
The right to receive free education in one's home language is law in parts of Europe, especially the Nordic countries. Is that a fact? I highly doubt it. Which laws state this? --:Slomox:: &gt;&lt; 12:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 20:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Home language → Heritage language — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC) The article consistently uses "heritage language", not "home language", and "heritage language" is the usual term in the educational/linguistic literature that I have read. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 02:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment it's informally called "kitchen-x" (kitchen speak) also... (kitchen russian, kitchen spanish, etc...) 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, seems to be the term used in the literature on the subject.--Kotniski (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ling 55 AC Comments
Overall, the article looks really good. I'm not sure what "interlocutors" (used in the definitions section) means, though. Could you possible link this to a relevant page? I also noticed an area which still had heavy use of academic terms possibly not known to the wider public ("The results of these changes can be seen in divergence of the heritage language from monolingual norms in the areas of phonology, lexical knowledge, morphology, syntax, semantic and code-switching.") I would think either linking to relevant articles which explains these terms or re-wording this section would be a good idea. (Flyingcat21 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC))

I fixed "interlocutors" to easy words, and linked to the pages for each vocabularies. Thank you for your comment! (Naohashi (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC))

55AC
Possible suggestions:

Add a short one or two sentence definition at the beginning before the contents box.

I'm confused what a nonsocietal minority is. It might be too academic of a term. Possibly link or explain.

It might be smoother to cut out the "minority languages or" part of the second sentence because it feels a little confusing after the first.

Second paragraph looks great!

FrancesChapman (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ling 55AC Comments
This is a really fascinating article and I enjoyed reading it, especially because there is so much about heritage languages that ties in nicely with language acquisition (what goes on in the brain when we learn languages). As informative as both of the sections were, it seemed like the material could be organized a little better, especially in the 'Definitions' portion. It seems as though the only paragraphs that discuss alternate definitions of 'heritage language' are the second and the third. The fourth paragraph seems to be an extension on the third, but delves a lot more into the area of language acquisition. But don't take it out altogether, it's really interesting! What you should do instead is perhaps move it down into the 'Proficiency' section, because it seems to belong better there (since you are no longer writing about debatable definitions). At least in my opinion. It also might be handy to add an introduction paragraph in case anyone were looking for a brief and concise description of what a heritage language is.

--Bondjamesbondjamesbond (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

'controversy' section too short (55AC)
It's ridiculous to have a big header for a two-sentence section. This should either be expanded or merged with another section.Cam.wieland (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

More discussion of Tamil as a Heritage Language
I noticed the lack of parallelism in the Polinsky quote, and sure enough, they don't discuss Tamil in their original work, so it is a misquote. Work "Tamil" should be deleted to make the quote accurate.

That being said, I'd rather not erase Tamil from this article without discussion. Unfortunately it is far afield from my subject domain. So I wouldn't know where to look for a good source. JRDWood (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)