Learners of heritage languages (HLs) comprise a heterogeneous population, including those who may speak a Chinese heritage language (CHL). He [1] (p.1) defined a Chinese heritage language learner (CHLL) as an individual ‘who was raised in a home where Chinese was spoken, who spoke or at least understand the language and was to some degree bilingual in Chinese and in English’. With particular reference to Australia, Mu [2] (p. 27) defined CHLLs as ‘those who have Chinese ancestry; who are educated primarily in English, and therefore may or may not speak or understand a Chinese language; and may be bilingual in a Chinese language and English’. Thus, CHLLs comprise a diverse group of people in terms of language use patterns and country of origin.

Because of their diverse backgrounds, the ways in which heritage speakers view themselves in relation to their languages and heritage communities vary greatly, with some readily adopting a dual linguistic and cultural identity and others feeling more reluctant to do so [3]. However, the heterogeneity in CHLLs’ identities and the associated social, cultural and historical ramifications have received little attention from scholars [4]. Many of the studies on CHLLs have been conducted in the sociocultural context of North America, and a demand thus exists for studies in other diasporic contexts, such as Australia [2]. Although the identity of Australian CHLLs has been investigated in the home-country context ^{[2][5][6][7][8][9][10]}[2,5,6,7,8,9,10], little evidence has been found in the study abroad (SA) context where the dominant language is Chinese.

Previous SA studies have highlighted the heterogeneity of SA sojourners’ developmental trajectories. For example, Gu, Schweisfurth and Day [11] problematised the essentialist view of international students as a homogeneous group, especially regarding their linguistic backgrounds and possession of linguistic capital. Moreover, Jessup-Anger and Aragones [12] examined students’ self-identification in a short-term SA program and classified the participants into four types: loner, mediator, messenger and learner. Each type of student benefited from a unique set of strategies to maximise the SA experience. Similarly, Dimmock and Leong’s [13] study identified three types of SA students’ decision-making styles for career planning. Since heritage learners also comprise a heterogeneous group, it is necessary to investigate their diverse developmental trajectories when studying in the country of their ethnic heritage.

Attention to the heterogeneity of CHLLs in SA-in-China programs is relevant to culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) [14], which can be a significant contributor to the sustainable development of the Chinese heritage language and of multicultural regions, such as Australia. Paris [14] argues that traditional approaches to multicultural education (e.g., deficit approaches and resource/asset pedagogies) often prioritise assimilation to dominant cultural norms. Moreover, the widely accepted term ‘culturally relevant pedagogy’ [15] does not explicitly support the goal of sustaining cultural diversity. Therefore, Paris and Alim advocate for a shift towards CSP that seeks to ‘perpetuate and foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of schooling for positive social transformation’ [16] (p. 1). The authors [17] further argue that to sustain heritage and community practices, it is essential to comprehend how young people express their racial and ethnic identities, language use, literacy and cultural traditions in both conventional and evolving ways and to avoid the assumption of unidirectional correspondences between race, ethnicity, language and cultural ways of being. Research on CHLLs’ experiences of diverse patterns of identity development through participation in an SA program in China will inform educators of the ways of enhancing language and culture curricula towards the goals of CSP.

2. CHLLs’ Identity

Identity has always been at the core of HL education. In the field of CHL education, language inheritance is frequently considered a demographic factor, which predicts language learning. For example, Oh and Fuligni [18] reported a significantly positive relationship between ethnic identity subscales and the HL proficiency of Chinese descendants. Comanaru and Noels [19] found that the sense of relatedness to Chinese family and community was the most consistent predictor of a self-determined orientation to CHL learning. Xiao and Wong’s [20] study indicated that heritage identity could partly explain writing anxiety. Other research has focused on the multifaceted and dynamic nature of CHLLs’ identity and how it is constructed through interactions and language use. Many such studies are concerned with how individuals are formed as subjects, how they adopt their subject position and how they experience social variations across time and space. Wong and Xiao [21] found that CHLLs’ identities were flexibly formed and possessed and produced and practised variably through CHL learning. Likewise, Chao [22] reported that, while CHLLs’ priority was to seek an identity in the English-speaking community when younger, during their adulthood, their ethnic identity became the impetus towards learning their native tongue. In these studies, Chinese identity was constantly renegotiated. In Australia, Mu ^[2][5][6][7][2,5,6,7] used Bourdieu’s sociological framework, which consists of three core concepts—habitus (dispositions), capital (social resources) and field (current state of play of a particular social arena)—to interpret the identity of CHLLs. Identity is understood as a habitus that underpins durable cognitive structures. Mu’s studies found that students’ engagement with their CHL was closely correlated with their habitus of Chineseness and their various cultural, social and symbolic capitals. The aforementioned studies were carried out in home-country contexts. The following will turn to the literature on HL learners’ identities in the SA context.

3. HL Learners’ Identity in the SA Context

Previous research has shown that not all HL learners can be successfully integrated into the local society when going to the place of their ethnic origin, which may lead to identity negotiation. For instance, while the descendants of immigrants reported in Petrucci’s [23] study had a successful experience of integration, Riegelhaupt and Carrasco [24] suggested that a return to the ancestral country did not guarantee a warm welcome in host family settings. In the Chinese context, Jing-Schmidt et al. [25] compared the narratives of four CHLLs participating in an SA program. While two participants affirmed the motives and goals for their study and derived positive identities from their accomplishments, the other two encountered racial bias as the locals treated them differently from their Euro-American peers. Liu [26] investigated foreign-born Chinese students’ experiences of studying in Chinese higher institutions and found that they usually suffer cultural conflicts and passive emotional barriers in China because they may be treated as outsiders by the local people. The international students of Chinese origin in Hu and Dai’s [27] study reflected various senses of identity in different stages of intercultural learning in China: when they started the learning journey, they were considered ‘international students’, but in the process of experiencing the new context, they realised that they were seen as ‘domestic’ rather than international because of their ‘Chinese’ appearance, which positioned them between different groups. To survive in the new context, these students strategically developed an identity as intercultural in-betweeners. These studies highlight the complex and ambivalent status of CHLLs’ experiences while studying abroad in China.

4. The Framework of HL Identity Development

Researchers draw on Benson et al.’s [28] three-dimensional L2 identity development to examine identities, which are evoked and developed in the SA context. This framework focuses on the facets of identity that are projected by the use of an L2, which distinguishes it from other identity models that pay less attention to linguistically related domains. Another advantage is that the framework identifies areas of identity development related to language learning in the SA environment and is therefore drawn from the empirical findings of a wide range of SA research. The framework has been applied in several empirical studies ^[29][30][29,30] and is acknowledged in Kinginger’s [31] review-based article on SA. Benson et al. [28] proposed a continuum of possible outcomes from studying abroad, ranging from L2 proficiency to personal competence, with a large part of the continuum occupied by a complex area, which is best described as L2 identity. In their model, L2 identity concerned ‘any aspect of a person’s identity that is connected to their knowledge or use of a second language’ [28] (p. 174), which corresponds to Block’s [32] concept of linguistic identity as involving several dimensions, such as expertise in language use, affiliation with users of the language and language inheritance. L2 identity development in the SA context denotes

the ways in which different facets of identity are integrated and aligned, in accordance with the need to use L2 to project identities that are in harmony with other relevant facets of the participants’ personal and social identities in the (SA) environment.

[28] (p. 179)

Benson et al. [28] identified three potential areas of development in L2 identity in SA programs:

• Identity-related L2 development: Language competence, which leads to the successful expression of desired insider identities. In this dimension, learners are able to describe what they have been able to do with the L2 (e.g., problem solving and making friends), which links their L2 proficiency to their self-identification as a successful sojourner;
• L2-mediated personal development: Achievements with respect to character changes or self-exploration with the L2 as the medium. Examples of pertinent personal growth include maturity, tolerance, open mindedness, independence and cultural awareness.

Researchers adapted this model to place explicit emphasis on HL identity development. Informed by the model, our working definition of HL identity development was ‘any aspect of a person’s identity that is connected to their knowledge or use of their HL’. It differs from L2 identity development in that the learner’s heritage background is relevant in the process of identity formation, enactment and negotiation. The potential areas for HL identity development through SA programs include the following three dimensions:

• Language development related to heritage identity: Language competence, which leads to the expression of a desired heritage identity. For example, expanding on previously limited knowledge about Chinese gained from family and taking the advantage of the HL to solve problems when studying abroad.
• Linguistic self-concept development: Self-evaluation on learning/using the L2—that is, how learners perceive their ability as language learners and their progress. A sense of becoming a user rather than a learner of the language was a key finding of Benson et al.’s research;
• HL self-concept development: Self-evaluation on learning/using the HL, that is, how learners perceive their abilities as HL learners/users and their progress.
• HL-mediated personal development: Achievements involving character changes or self-exploration with the HL as the medium, such as being inspired by the values expressed by Chinese idioms or developing an understanding of the heritage culture through the use of the HL in communication.