Explore the vast range of titles available.

Bilingual children are a more heterogenous group than their monolingual counterparts with respect to the sources of variation in their language learning environments, as well as the wide individual variation in their language abilities. Such heterogeneity in both individual difference factors and language abilities argues for the importance of an individual differences approach in research on bilingual development. The main objective of this article is to provide a review and synthesis of research on the sources of individual differences in the second language (L2) and heritage language (HL) development of child bilinguals. Several child-internal and child-external individual difference factors are discussed with respect to their influence on children’s dual language abilities. In addition, the emergent research on individual differences in bilingual children with developmental language disorder is reviewed. Both the theoretical and applied relevance of individual difference approaches to bilingual development are discussed.

Although the terms “bicultural” and “bilingual” are often seen together in the same text, there is very little work that attempts to encompass them into one reality, bicultural bilinguals. This paper takes up a number of themes that pertain to bicultural bilinguals, most notably how they are described in the literature, how they become both bilingual and bicultural, and how their languages and cultures wax and wane over time. Other aspects discussed are their linguistic and cultural behaviour as bicultural bilinguals, how they identify themselves both linguistically and culturally, as well as their personality as bicultural bilinguals. An effort is made whenever possible to bridge the gap between the two components that make up bicultural bilinguals – the linguistic and the cultural – and to show how the questions that interest linguists when studying bilinguals can be taken up and adapted by researchers examining cultural issues, and vice versa.

The policy of strict separation of languages for academic instruction dominates dual language bilingual education programming. This article explores the dynamic bilingual practices of two experienced bilingual teachers in a two-way dual language public school in Texas and contributes to current research problematizing language separation. Data included interviews, field notes, and classroom interaction video in a pre-kindergarten and a first grade classroom. The instructional practices of the two teachers suggested powerful strategies to promote bilingual identities. Drawing on identity theory, particularly the notions of positioning and investment, the authors attempt to contribute to recent research offering teachers potential translanguaging instructional strategies. These strategies include: (a) modeling dynamic bilingual language practices, (b) positioning students as bilingual (even before they are), and (c) celebrating and drawing attention to language crossing. In combining these strategies, teachers move toward using students' bilingual language practices as a resource for academic instruction. (Verlag, adapt.).

Taking an ethnographic study of the purpose and value of bilingual education in Mozambique as a starting point, this book calls for critical adaptations when theories of bilingual education, based on practices in the North, are applied to the countries of the global South.

Questions regarding whether a first or a second/foreign language should be used as a medium of instruction (MOI) in schools, and if yes, for whom, and when, have been enthusiastically debated in recent years in Hong Kong and many Southeast Asian societies

Standards-based reforms in many Anglophone nations have been informed by monoglossic language ideologies that marginalize the dynamic bilingualism of emergent bilinguals. Recent developments in applied linguistics that advocate for heteroglossic language ideologies offer an alternative for standards-based reform. This article argues that standards-based reform initiatives will not be able to address the needs of emergent bilingual students unless they create ideological spaces that move away from monoglossic language ideologies toward heteroglossic language ideologies and implementational spaces that provide concrete tools for enacting this vision in the classroom. With a particular focus on the Common Core State Standards in the U.S. context, the article develops a vision for standards-based reform that begins to affirm and build on the dynamic bilingualism of emergent bilingual students. Specifically, the article explores two classrooms and the New York State Bilingual Common Core Initiative as starting points for theorizing how to develop ideological and implementational spaces that infuse heteroglossic language ideologies into standards-based reform initiatives while also emphasizing the role of monoglossic approaches to assessments in ultimately undermining the attempts that are currently being made.

This article considers the relevance of language policy and planning (LPP) for language education in the United States in relation to the country's longstanding and continuing multilingualism. In reflecting on the U.S. context, one striking feature is the absence of a guiding overarching explicit national educational language policy. Language policies and practices may either promote or restrict the teaching of languages. Thus, whether having such a policy would be desirable for promoting the learning of languages depends on a number of factors such as the features of the policy and the extent to which it was adequately resourced, understood, valued, and implemented effectively, just to mention a few. Explicit language planning and policy making in the United States—when it does occur—tends to be done at the state, local, or institutional levels, or within rather limited domains of federal priorities, such as those related to defense or national security. Beyond formal policies, implicit language practices sometimes have more influence on language behavior. Even when policies are intended to promote languages, they may not always be well conceived, received, resourced, or implemented. Given some of these issues, it is useful to consider the role of agency in language planning and policy (LPP). Even when guided by national or state top-down policy agendas, policies can be interpreted and reinterpreted, by policy intermediaries, agents, administrators, or arbiters (Johnson, 2013). Moreover, within the context of school language policies, at the level of implementation, teachers, parents, and the students themselves help to determine the effectiveness of policies in practice (Menken & Garcia, 2010). Beyond the schools, parents and stakeholders in the community can play significant roles in creating practices that have the force of policy from the bottom up. Given these considerations, this article weighs the role of policy and the legacy of past policies and their consequences; assesses some of the strengths and weaknesses of current policies and practices, both in schools and families and communities; and considers prospects for a more promising future that involves embracing the fundamental multilingualism of U.S. society, communities, and families. In so doing, the article reflects on alternatives to U.S. language education policy that would transcend national conceptions of languages so as to leverage speakers' actual linguistic competence.

In two picture-naming experiments we examined whether bilinguals co-activate the non-target language during word production in the target language. The pictures were presented out-of-context (Experiment 1) or in visually presented sentence contexts (Experiment 2). In both experiments different participant groups performed the task in Dutch, their native language (L1), or in English, their second language (L2). The pictures’ names were Dutch–English cognates or non-cognates, the cognate effect serving as the marker of activation of the non-target language. In Experiment 2 we also examined the effect of sentence constraint. In both experiments a cognate effect occurred, but it was modulated by language and sentence constraint: The effect was larger in L2 than in L1, larger with low-constraint sentences than with high-constraint sentences, and disappeared in the high-constraint L1 condition. These results extend earlier bilingual word-recognition and out-of-context production studies, suggesting that also during word production in context, co-activation of the non-target language occurs.

Translanguaging is a new term in bilingual education; it supports a heteroglossic language ideology, which views bilingualism as valuable in its own right. Some translanguaging scholars have questioned the existence of discrete languages, further concluding that multilingualism does not exist. I argue that the political use of language names can and should be distinguished from the social and structural idealizations used to study linguistic diversity, favoring what I call an integrated multilingual model of individual bilingualism, contrasted with the unitary model and dual competence model. I further distinguish grammars from linguistic repertoires, arguing that bilinguals, like monolinguals, have a single linguistic repertoire but a richly diverse mental grammar. I call the viewpoint developed here a multilingual perspective on translanguaging.

Bilingual classrooms most often have strict language arrangements about when and who should speak what language to whom. This practice responds to diglossic arrangements and models of bilingualism developed in the 20th century. However, in the 21st century, heteroglossic bilingual conceptualizations are needed in which the complex discursive practices of multilingual students, their translanguagings, are used in sense-making and in tending to the singularities in the pluralities that make up multilingual classrooms today. Examining the case of a network of U.S. secondary schools for newcomer immigrants, the International High Schools, this article looks at how students' plurilingual abilities are built through seven principles that support dynamic plurilingual practices in instruction-heterogeneity, collaboration, learner-centeredness, language and content integration, language use from students up, experiential learning, and local autonomy and responsibility. As a result, students become not only more knowledgeable and academically successful but also more confident users of academic English, better at translanguaging, and more plurilingual-proficient. The article presents translanguaging in education as the constant adaptation of linguistic resources in the service of meaning-making and in tending to the singularities in the pluralities that make up multilingual classrooms today. (Verlag).