The names and definitions we use to refer to languages are important. However as is often the case, there is no universally agreed upon way to refer to languages that are othered within a migrant or diasporic context. Among the many labels that have fallen in then out of fashion are immigrant language; minority language; ethnic language; ancestral language; community language; heritage language and mother tongue.
Although all natural languages are a heritage language of someone and some group, the term was initially used in the Canadian context to refer to First Nation (Indigenous) people. Subsequently, it started gaining currency mainly in the US to refer to indigenous, immigrant and colonial languages (Fishman 2001).
Language educators also use the term to refer to ‘home’ languages of students who are raised in a non-English speaking families because such a student differs from the traditional foreign language student in terms of functional proficiency (Valdés 2001).
However the term is not without its criticism:
…relative to the powerful, majority languages heritage languages point more to the past and less to the future, to traditions rather than to the contemporary…[they] become associated with ancient times, past traditions and primitive times. [This] term may fail may fail to give the impression of a modern, international language that is of value in a technological society. Baker and Jones (1998:509)
Although the term community language is usually favoured within the British context, the fact is that the Yorùbá, particularly of the 1.5 and 2nd Gen, tend to use English within the communities of which they are a part. For them, the salient feature of the Yorùbá language is its ability to act as a marker of cultural heritage and identity, individuals have a ‘personal connection’ with the language (Fishman 2001) which is why for the purposes of this analysis Yorùbá will also be referred to as a heritage language.