Multilingualism and

Multicompetence: A Conceptual View

RITA FRANCESCHINI
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
Language Study Unit
39100 Bozen-Bolzano
South Tyrol, Italy
Email: rita.franceschini@unibz.it

The overall aim of this article is to argue that the functioning of every language system is based
on a potential multilingual competence. The empirical basis for this is now broad enough to
gain a comprehensive view on the overall competence of a multilingual individual. Moreover,
increasing theoretical reflection has conferred an increasingly independent profile in the field
of multilingualism research. In the main part of this article, a definition of multilingualism is
proposed and related to the term “multicompetence.” The proposed definition of multilin-
gualism, emerging from sociolinguistically rooted studies, distinguishes not only the classical
social, institutional, and individual dimensions of observation but includes a new interaction
dimension as well. The term “multicompetence” is then discussed in its historical development
form on which psycholinguistics oriented studies. The European LINEE project tries to en-
large the concept of multicompetence with the aim of making it suitable for a sociolinguistic
embedding. This usage-based approach is presented and further claims for more conceptual
reflections in the field of multilingualism are made.

THE TERM “MULTILINGUALISM” HAS estab-
lished itself over the past two decades in linguis-
tics. It is widely used and describes the various
forms of social, institutional, and individual ways
that we go about using more than one language.
Included are not only varieties such as national
languages but also regional languages, minor-
ity languages, migrant languages, sign languages,
and, in the broadest sense, dialects. The area of
research is extensive and seems to be increasingly
expanding; it is now time to clarify the definition
of multilingualism and multicompetence.
This contribution has a conceptual vein; nev-
ertheless, it is grounded on direct empirical
research, worked out mainly in the European
research network LINEE (Languages in a Net-
work of European Excellence).1 The main aim
of the present article is to combine the con-
cept of multilingualism, which is more rooted in
The Modern Language Journal, 95, iii, (2011)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01202.x
0026-7902/11/344–355 $1.50/0

C 2011 The Modern Language Journal
sociolinguistics, with the term multicompetence,
which originally arose within a psycholinguistic
context.
Before the second section, a few premises on
the approach and an outline of the change in
perspective that has favored the emergence of re-
search into multilingualism should be provided.
In the second section, a definition of multilingual-
ism is proposed and discussed, as is the concept of
multicompetence. Then an extension of the con-
cept of multicompetence will be presented, which
has been developed within the research network
LINEE. It will be shown that this extended un-
derstanding of multicompetence allows a coher-
ent incorporation into the sociolinguistic frame-
work.
PREMISES
If, with hindsight, one tries to create a defi-
nition for the term multilingualism, one has to
inevitably examine its multiple status and the
meanings connected with it: On the one hand,
multilingualism describes an intrinsically social
Rita Franceschini
way of life and cultural practice, which comes into
being via the use of language in interaction and its
access through cognitive processing; on the other
hand, there is an actual sociopolitically driven
interest connected with the term, alongside huge
public attention to this topic over the last few
decades. The complete decoupling of these sides
is not possible, nor does it make sense. There are
therefore three premises, which are provided in
the following subsections.
Multilingualism Is Doubly Natural
If we think of a person as a social being, then
it is obvious that contact with other people and,
in particular, language contact is likely to hap-
pen. The naturalness and inevitability of language
contact—in the sense of its “unmarkedness”—
is demonstrated by the fact that it can only be
hindered with great effort. People contact is “so-
cially natural,” fundamental, and indispensable
for the development of language skills. Further-
more, there is overwhelming evidence that lan-
guage skills are biologically part of every individ-
ual and can be developed in many ways.
Therefore, multilingualism demonstrates a
doubly natural phenomenon: The social and cul-
tural shaping of multilingualism is in its own way
just as “natural” as the biological basis.
The Historic Foundation of Multilingualism
The European cultural area, perhaps not as
deeply as others, has been multilingual for cen-
turies, even though this has not been noticed and
has eluded scientific observation for a long time.2
Reasons for this issue could lie in a period roman-
ticizing the nation state, with origins in the 17th
and 18th centuries, during which the unity of the
people under one language was the prevailing way
of thinking (occasionally it still is) and which then
indirectly influenced the blossoming humanities.
Linguistic theories developed in the 19th and 20th
centuries arose from the prevailing tendency to-
ward language unity, and, therefore, in our opin-
ion, unnatural premises, such as homogeneity and
separateness. Multilingual practices were parallel
and ongoing in all these periods, as they were
necessary for cultural transfer and the develop-
ment of trade (Adams, 2003). These practices
were, from time to time, so obscured, suppressed,
and (via the prevailing monolingual mentality)
so blotted out that they escaped the notice of re-
searchers at the time. From this view, research
into multilingualism could not (and still occasion-
ally cannot) legitimately be undertaken, as it ap-
345
peared to be nearly nonexistent or a disturbing
factor. Of course, multilingualism existed in spite
of it all. Nowadays, it can be clearly said that re-
search has often idealized away the existence of
multilingualism, along with all multilingual prac-
tices. With another look, we literally “dis-cover”
multilingualism under other premises as if it were
new, yet it is rooted in history (see Franceschini,
in press).
The Current Social Interest in Multilingualism Is
Part of a Change in Perspective
Multilingualism as a positive phenomenon has
entered the public eye more and more over the
last few decades and has received targeted promo-
tion. To give an example, the European Union has
set itself the goal of promoting two languages in
addition to the first language using various mea-
sures.3 European citizens should be able to be-
come trilingual in the future. Despite all resolu-
tions, the implementation of this philosophy is
hampered by a somehow “diglossic” view in Eu-
rope using and learning English as a preferred
second language.
The diffusion of the term multilingualism is con-
nected with an ongoing change in perspective in
society. This has been largely brought on by the
following:
1. An increased sensibility toward diversity
and thus a departure from assumptions of homo-
geneity;
2. The evidence of the variety of language phe-
nomena based on increased waves of migration
over the past 50 years.
In research, the term multilingualism is nowa-
days of the utmost importance in forming a com-
prehensive bracketing of interests, which over the
past few decades have been driven forward with
various methodologies (Li Wei & Moyer, 2008).
Multilingualism is not a completely new research
topic. The term sometimes stands for an extended
view of the earlier research into bilingualism and
second language acquistion (SLA; De Angelis,
2007). This extended view is part of a long tra-
dition of research into bilingualism and today
concerns various disciplines in linguistics, such
as sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics, research
into language acquisition (L1, L2, Ln) and lan-
guage contact especially, as well as translation
studies, and it has repercussions for foreign lan-
guage teaching (for an overview, see Auer & Li
Wei, 2007).
346
A DEFINITION OF MULTILINGUALISM WITH
A FOURTH DIMENSION
If an expression has to be defined that has come
to fruition in science, as well as in daily use, then
the various connotations connected with it are
either to be decoupled or have to flow into the
definition. Due to the premises presented here,
the latter way is taken and an attempt to integrate
the social relevance of multilingualism in its defi-
nition is made.
Taking these premises into account, it appears
necessary to combine scientific requirements, his-
toric appropriateness, and a social view to de-
velop the term multilingualism further. Due to
the aforementioned considerations, a dynamic,
usage-based, and culturally rooted definition of
multilingualism is proposed (see also Frances-
chini, 2009, pp. 33–34). The novelty of this ap-
proach can be seen in the introduction of a par-
ticular dimension, which pays more attention to
multilingual behavior in groups and will be la-
beled “discursive multilingualism.”
Definition of Multilingualism
Multilingualism conveys the ability of societies,
institutions, groups, and individuals to have regu-
lar use of more than one language in their every-
day lives over space and time. Language is impar-
tially understood as a variety that a group admits
to using as a habitual communication code (re-
gional languages and dialects are also included,
such as sign languages).
In observing multilingual practices, it is possi-
ble to distinguish societal, institutional, discursive,
and individual multilingualism.
Multilingualism is based on the fundamental
human ability to be able to communicate in sev-
eral languages and it describes a phenomenon
embedded in cultural developments. Therefore,
it is marked by high cultural sensitivity.
“Language” is understood here as a variety that
a group adopts as a habitual way for communica-
tion. A group (an institution or society) can also
habitually use several varieties. Dialects (as area
varieties) are included here as important identi-
fying codes. Like other varieties, they are part of
the multilingual repertoire.
In the formulation of the definition of multi-
lingualism, the identification of the habitual va-
riety used is deliberately given an “emic” com-
ponent (a language group is taken seriously in
its “right to self-determination” with respect to
its code[s]) and thereby includes identity as-
pects and attitudes as well. Language attitudes are
The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
collectively historically shaped and can also be po-
litically co-determined (one thinks of, e.g., the
south Slavic region with its new or retro defini-
tions of varieties and languages). Attitudes are
known as powerful variables that co-determine the
development of multilingual language use (e.g.,
negative attitudes can hamper language acqui-
sition, power relations can influence individual
opinions, and so on). Therefore, attitudes also
have to be seen as central (Jenkins, 2008). With
such an emic point of view on language varieties,
language experts put their ready-made scholas-
tic knowledge to one side up to a certain point
(but they do not give it up!) to allow for the fact
that things that can be seen as being similar from
a structural or typological point of view can, in
a communication culture, be perceived as being
completely different.
Discussion of Aspects of the Definition
In the discussion about bilingualism, normally
three levels—not four, as proposed here—have
been distinguished: social, institutional, and in-
dividual (see, e.g., Lüdi, 1996a, 1996b). The first
level was born out of a macro view of multilingual-
ism: Societies such as the Swiss or the Belgian are
defined as bilingual or multilingual because of the
existence of consistent historical language groups.
At an institutional level, almost implicitly, the
practices of institutions as bodies (as expressed in
official documents of companies, for instance) or
taking place in institutions (e.g., doctor–patient
communication in hospitals) are placed together.
At an individual level, people’s language compe-
tences and abilities are in the foreground.
In the proposed definition, we are following
this basic structure. It is succinct, even almost can-
onized. Nevertheless, it is not quite satisfactory
on closer examination: There is an admittedly
unavoidable overlap of qualitatively differing per-
spectives. Do the three distinctions point to the
origin of the data in and from institutions? Is
a view along the lines of a difference according
to macro/meso/micro levels intended? In addi-
tion, methodological approaches have an unequal
weight. Therefore, statistical, macrosociological
methods are obviously being applied more often
when observing societal multilingualism against
microanalyses, used mainly on the discursive di-
mension proposed here.4
Despite these concerns, the division appears
to make sense if the accompanying overlaps
are monitored. However, it is more appropri-
ate to speak of dimensions of multilingualism
rather than of levels, which softens the illusory
Rita Franceschini
separation effect and allows combinations. In this
sense, the four proposed dimensions are con-
ceived of as positions when observing multilin-
gual practices, like footing-points (the wording is
inspired by Erving Goffman’s terms).
The Fourth Dimension
In the proposed definition, an additional
fourth dimension concerning the investigation
of both oral and written discourse is now made
explicit. With discursive mutilingualism, the
characteristics of bilingual and multilingual
interactions in groups or dyads are in the
foreground. This dimension can neither be
placed in the dimension of “institution,” where
it sometimes was placed, nor in the dimension
of individual multilingualism. In contrast with
the latter dimension, these analyses do not entail
the competences or abilities of an individual but
examine multilingual practice along with the
construction of sense in dialogue. One thinks of
the numerous globally documented studies on
codeswitching, of conversations between native
speakers and nonnative speakers, of the use of
lingue franche, ethnolects, and the like. They are
not easy to force into one of the three dimen-
sions. One has to consider that in this dimension,
the data come from mostly informal contexts.
Even though these contexts can be macrosocially
embedded, in the end the phenomenon cannot
be adequately described in any of the other
dimensions.
The discursive dimension today displays an
independent, now established point of view (in
written and oral forms), which justifies an inde-
pendent dimension of observation in addition
to the other three. It puts interaction at the
center and follows the common development of
sense and form. The results and the degree of
development of this approach suggest the need
to make allowances for their qualitatively differ-
ent view via an explicit nomination in the def-
inition, as is proposed in the aforementioned
definition.
COMPETENCE AND MULTICOMPETENCE
In addition to the overarching term “multilin-
gualism,” a main conceptual problem concerns
the term “competence.” The central question that
many have asked is: Which competence term suits
multilingual speakers and how should their lan-
guage use be modeled?5
The term “competence” had, and still has,
a central position in generativism, designating,
347
in mentalist terms, interiorized linguistic knowl-
edge. Competence in Chomskian terms is thus
concerned with the formal system of an ideal
speaker-hearer.
The term was also developed in parallel
with sociolinguistics, for which the individual is
conceived as a performing person involved in
concrete, situationally embedded actions. From
this view, it is in social interaction that compe-
tence in a language or in several languages can be
best captured. Competence, in generativist terms,
would then be only a restricted part of it.
In the sociolinguistic paradigm of studies we
follow here, the usage of variable forms to en-
act different functions is seen as a pervasive and
nonerasable characteristic of language. The term
“communicative competence” (Hymes, 1972),
then, was developed to cover concrete usage in
different situations, showing that the knowledge
of grammatical rules alone does not make a per-
son a competent (or native) speaker in the real
world.
Communicative competence can easily com-
prehend different and typologically distant vari-
eties. In this way, the term is open to include mul-
tilingual competencies. These can be seen as an
enlargement of the range of varieties a person can
activate from his or her repertoire, and a reper-
toire, then, can be conceived of as the sum of ex-
periences a person has (Hall, Cheng, & Carlson,
2006).
In the wide field of SLA (developed in both
previously mentioned paradigms), the necessity
to explain the acquisition of several languages
(in parallel or subsequently) and the growth of
language abilites (in formal and/or informal set-
tings) was central for many studies concerned with
bilingual and multilingual competencies. In this
respect, the concept of “interlanguages” was help-
ful to see how the systems of learners develop into
more and more complex states by integrating on-
going new experiences (a leading influence was
Larry Selinker).
Interlanguages received an autonomous status,
essentially because of the consistent regularities
found in these varieties. In this paradigm of stud-
ies, language learners or acquirers are not just
seen as failing to achieve the target language.
They give this impression only when compared
with idealized native speakers (as was the case
in early studies in this field). Thus, the insights
into the complex language structures of interlan-
guages eliminated an outdated view of language
constructions. The way was opened for the obser-
vation of practices of different second-language
(L2 or Ln) users.
348
Under these premises, the question about
which competence term suits multilingual speak-
ers and their social practice best arises in re-
newed terms. Competence has now to capture
the flexible usage of several varieties, also be-
tween those that are considered different lan-
guages. This brings to mind the great work of the
last decades on codeswitching, codemixing, and
related phenomena (see Auer, 1999b; Muysken,
2000; Myers Scotton, 1993). It became more and
more evident that bi- and multilingual speakers
share characteristics that distinguish them from
monolinguals, for example, codeswitching and
translation. Also, transfer studies, at the begin-
ning, mostly concerned with transfer from the
first language (L1) to the L2, began to discover
reverse influences from the third language (L3)
to the L2 and the L1 (Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner,
2001a, 2001b; Cook, 2003b).
Today, it is evident that a highly debated term
like “competence” or “communicative compe-
tence” has to cover multilingual usage and has
to cope with the underlying dimensions as well
as the cognitive ones (Franceschini, Zappatore, &
Nitsch, 2003; Grosjean, Li, Münte, & Rodriguez-
Fornells, 2003) that this implies.
One of the most promising concepts in this re-
spect was multicompetence, brought out in the
early 1990s and introduced first by Vivian Cook. A
closer look at the development of the term, which
will be examined in the next subsection, cannot
avoid following the positions of its inventor more
closely. This should not disregard the work in SLA
and language contact studies, which formed the
fruitful ground from which the term “multicom-
petence” grew.
On the Term Multicompetence: Five Development
Steps
It is interesting to observe how the term “multi-
competence” was developed in psycholinguistic-
and cognitive-directed branches of SLA in
parallel to the emergence of a clearer idea of mul-
tilingualism in sociolinguistics. The term “multi-
competence” was first made public in the early
1990s (Cook, 1992) in the formulation: “the com-
pound state of a mind with two grammars” (Cook,
1991, p. 112). According to Cook, in the begin-
ning, the term was used more out of convenience
(Cook, 2003a). The concept of “interlanguage”
had been established since the 1970s to describe
the language competence of learners in their L2,
but there was still no term to capture the compe-
tence of both—L1 together with L2. “Multicom-
petence” then described a type of “supersystem.”
The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
The introduction of the term “multicompe-
tence” began to bring up numerous questions:
How can speakers fluently change from one lan-
guage into another, like in codeswitching? How
can they shut out one language while they are
using another? How do they manage the two dif-
ferent phonological and pragmatic systems? On
a cognitive level, does one access a common rep-
resentation with the L1 when using the L2, or
various separate ones, or are these all blended to-
gether? How can contrasting parameters be con-
tained in one and the same person, or in their
competence?
Cook was subsequently one of the very con-
vinced defenders increasingly committed to a
departure from a view of the L2 system of the
learner, which regards the learner of the L2 as in-
variably imperfect and never achieving perfection
in the target language. As the L2 learner is mostly
(consciously or subconsciously) compared with
a native speaker,6 he or she will inevitably always
come away from this comparison as constantly
falling short of perfection, as an eternal learner,
akin to Sisyphus. The competence of an L2 user
should not be measured with that of a native
speaker but should compare L2 competence with
L2 competence.
Hereby Cook (1997) criticized a prevailing
methodological tradition in L2 research and, in
doing so, explicitly highlighted the approach of
Wolfgang Klein and Clive Perdue’s research group
as being more than adequate.7 This European
Science Foundation project was concerned with
developmental steps gone through by individual
learners (Klein & Perdue, 1992). Generalizable
operation principles that the various learner vari-
eties have in common were worked out. Interlan-
guages are treated as systems in their own right,
even if they are not languages of a community.
Overall, in the development of the term multi-
competence, one can roughly identify five different
stages, while a sixth is in the making:
1. In the first phase, as expressed earlier, “mul-
ticompetence” appears as an argument against
Universal Grammar–oriented research into SLA,
which ignores the problem of two coexisting
grammars in one and the same mind (Cook,
1991).
This first definition, “the compound state of
a mind with two grammars,” caused misunder-
standings due to the Chomskyan term “grammar,”
however.8 To make it clear that it is not syntax
in its narrowest sense that is meant, the defini-
tion was reformulated to the present-day one:
“knowledge of two languages in one mind” (Cook,
2005a, p. 2).
Rita Franceschini
A noteworthy substitution of the term “knowl-
edge” with “coexistence” is found in the following
definition: “Multicompetence refers to the coex-
istence of more than one language in the same
mind” (Cook, 2005b, p. 1).9 It is also notable that
from a formulation that refers to two languages,
here “more than one” is used.
The criticism with respect to the use of the na-
tive speaker as the only norm against which L2
competence should be measured appeared in the
early 1980s and was reinforced later. A plea is
made for “multicompetence in its own right,” as
in the formulation of Cook (2005a, p. 3).
To avoid unwelcome connotations, there is in-
creasing talk of “language users” instead of “lan-
guage learners,”10 and so with time, the reference
to the native speaker as the locus of the language
has become nearly irrelevant (Cook, 2005a, p. 3).
2. After this definition stage, there is, as a fur-
ther development of the work, a broadening of
perspective in which the transfer process is seen
as a mutual influence between the L1 and L2 in
both directions, as reverse transfer (Cook, 2003a).
In a similar vein to Grosjean and Py (1991), Vi-
vian Cook also emphasizes that “the L1 in the
mind of an L2 user was by no means the same
as the L1 in the mind of a monolingual native
speaker” (Cook, 2005a, p. 4). Differences arise to
the advantage of L2 users, such as the develop-
ment of reading skills in their L1, written compo-
sition of essays in the L1, general diversified men-
tal skills, analogical thinking (reasoning) and cre-
ativity, and so on (see the pioneers in this respect:
Cook, 2005a, p. 4; Lambert, Tucker, & d’Anglejan,
1973).
3. In the 1990s, further interest in the cognitive
dimensions of bilingual competences arose. The
question was posed as to how language, thinking,
and cultural influences were interconnected un-
der the conditions of bilingualism and multilin-
gualism. As perception is affected when learning
another language, thought processes also seem to
be affected during the acquisition of other lan-
guages. It is assumed that a changed perception
in interaction with the newly acquired language
is set up—learning languages changes thinking.
Cook attached particular potential for develop-
ment to this area of bilingual cognition research,
which is based on work from the 1990s (see, e.g.,
Cook, 2005a).
4. In the course of these studies on multicom-
petence, it has become clear that the concept of
the L2 user stands at the core as “any person who
uses another language than his or her first lan-
guage (L1), that is to say, the one learnt first as
349
a child” (Cook, 2002, p. 1). The concept was, as
briefly described earlier, initially created more for
programmatic reasons so that one could confront
the view that L2 learners were perpetual lifelong
learners and instead give them equal status, just
like that of a native speaker.
According to the definition, by the consistent
use of the term “L2 user,” every other language
that the learner has not acquired as an L1 can
be meant. A further internal differentiation (or
differences between an L2 and an L3 and a fourth
language acquired later) is not dealt with in the
framework of Cook’s work.
5. The thought process of expanding multi-
competence as a term to describe a basic ability
of every person (i.e., as the “potential state of any
human mind”; Cook, 2003a, s.d.), can be seen as
the last development.
What is of interest to us in this whole discussion
about multicompetence is the fact that the com-
petence term has significantly been broadened
and increasingly incorporates the practical side
of language usage.
Today, when using the term “multicompe-
tence,” there is no need for the particular demar-
cation dispute of generativism, as in the first phase
described here. Research into the broad area of
language acquisition and its accompanying prac-
tices has established itself in its own right, with
more self-assurance. It is clear that multilingual
use requires thorough analysis and will be more
complex than we have been able to grasp through
current theories.
All in all, appearing to emerge from the last
stage is the fact that the connection with soci-
olinguistic concepts is possible and, therefore, the
concept of multicompetence is becoming compat-
ible with the aforementioned definition of multi-
lingualism.
Criticism of the Term “Multicompetence”
In the last subsection we followed the develop-
ment of the term on the line of Cook’s writings.
However, the ongoing discussion was richer than
that (see, e.g., Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2003; Edwards
& Dewaele, 2007; Genesee, 2002; Hufeisen &
Lindemann, 1998; Kecskes, 1998), and the con-
cept and its use received consistent criticism.
The main criticisms are of two kinds. The first
pertains to the lack of social embeddedness. One
has to bear in mind that multicompetence was
originally born out of a psycholinguistic and more
generativist perspective, with some enlargements
350
in the course of its development, as was discussed
previously. Still, the traces of a mentalist view are
there, in accordance with the overall interest in
formal aspects of the language system, even if,
for example, bilingual acquisition is the object of
analysis.
Following naturally from the previously re-
ported discussion, this lack of social embedded-
ness can be overcome in enlarging the range of
the concept. This enlargement presupposes a so-
ciolinguistic approach (e.g., a position that is an-
chored in language use and is not restricted to a
mentalist interest).
The second criticism is more fundamental and
is convincingly exposed in Hall et al. (2006).
The position can be subsumed under the head-
ing of “radical usage-based position.” It consid-
ers multilingualism as a case of the underly-
ing characteristics of the variability of language
(Franceschini, 2003). In the terms of Hall et al.
(2006), the language knowledge of multilingual-
ism turns out to be “the inherent nature of all
language knowledge” because all language knowl-
edge is “socially contingent and dynamic” (p.
229). Therefore, multilingualism is only a spe-
cial case of variable use, languages being sep-
arated ideologically, but not psycholinguistically
(Hall et al., 2006). The authors put forward
three main critiques to multicompetence-driven
research: to assume that the L1 and the L2
knowledge are distinct and discrete systems; to
assume that there are qualitative differences be-
tween monocompetence and multicompetence;
and to assume homogeneous knowledge across
speakers and contexts (although speakers and
contexts vary across age, gender, social class, re-
gion, communicative habitus, etc.). Behind these
assumptions, the monolingual speaker neverthe-
less reappears and is used, even involuntarily, as
a valuable yardstick. Elaborating on this point,
Hall et al. (2006, p. 224) argued that it is dif-
ficult to draw a clear distinction between multi-
competence and monocompetence. A monolin-
gual can be as dynamic and variable in his or
her use of a language and can be in this theo-
retical sense also multicompetent in his or her
own language, as a multilingual is. The two are
just exploiting the inherent characteristic of lan-
guage (variability) on the wider or smaller scale of
languages they can use. Additionally, dynamism
is not a characteristic inherent only in multi-
lingualism—not only multilingual use is flexible
and variable.
The differences between multilinguals and
monolinguals are, in Hall et al.’s (2006) terms,
“not on number of languages, but on amount
The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
and diversity of experience and use” (p. 229).
To refer to highly skilled individuals, the authors
suggest the term “multicontextual communicative
expert” (p. 233). These individuals are highly ex-
perienced in a variety of communicative domains
and have experiences in reacting in multiple com-
municative contexts.
As we can see, the authors take a strong usage-
based view on language knowledge, with its
activity-sensitive nature. The basic language struc-
ture is based in concrete, historical contexts of
language use (Hall et al., 2006, pp. 226–227). The
differences among speakers are then to be seen
not in the different number of languages they may
use but on the “amount and diversity of experi-
ences and use” (Hall et al., 2006, p. 229). Multi-
lingual speakers have more varied communicative
experiences.
In a similar vein, the LINEE project, working
on highly multilingual contexts, aims to gain a
sociolinguistic foundation of the concept of mul-
ticompetence, which will be discussed in the fol-
lowing subsection. The aim here is not to discuss
the concrete results of the project, but to present
the conceptual steps made.
The Broadening of the Definition of Multicompetence
in the LINEE Project
In the European LINEE project, the term “mul-
ticompetence” was taken up and adapted to a
sociolinguistic point of view, mainly in the spe-
cific thematic area “Multilingualism and Educa-
tion.” This area aims to gain a comprehensive
view of multilingualism, such as is displayed in
modern situations within and outside the world
of formal education (see Cenoz & Gorter, 2005;
Mitchell & Myles, 2004). The conceptual work
aimed “to clarify the shift from bi- to multilin-
gualism by analyzing the historical and acquisi-
tional dimensions, with a focus on multicompe-
tence as a key concept for linguistic diversity in a
knowledge-based society” (Mitchell, 2008, Project
Annex 6.2.6).
The use of the term “multicompetence” in this
context is due to the need to take into account
the results we have already seen, which point to
the potential profit that speakers growing up with
several languages can gain.
In LINEE, the ambition is to create a frame-
work for multicompetence, which captures multi-
lingualism as a culturally, historically, and dynam-
ically determined means of communication. This
trend is happening against the backdrop of the
various European language situations, which are
being studied in the project. Multicompetence
Rita Franceschini
should help to explain the intertwining of indi-
vidual competencies and everyday use. In the end,
we can say that the LINEE research group extends
the original views of multicompetence to sociolin-
guistics and education and achieves the following
working definition (Franceschini, 2008; Mitchell,
2008):
Multicompetence, i.e., the knowledge of more than
one language in the mind, is part of the individual
capacity of a person and develops in interaction with
his or her social or educational environment. Mul-
ticompetent individuals make use of their linguistic
knowledge when interacting within a range of linguis-
tic settings, including both multilingual and mono-
lingual situations. Multicompetence, or multilingual
competence, is thus at the same time a tool and a
state and relates to the complex, flexible, integra-
tive, and adaptable behavior which multilingual in-
dividuals display. A multicompetent person is there-
fore an individual with knowledge of an extended
and integrated linguistic repertoire who is able to use
the appropriate linguistic variety for the appropriate
occasion.
Multicompetence in this sense arises from
the individual level and from the interactional
practice, as can be seen in the above defini-
tion. This strand of thought takes advantage—
broadly speaking—of the interactionist and
neo-Vygotskian works (see Dausendschön-Gay,
2003; Dausendschön-Gay & Krafft, 1994; for an
overview, Martinez & Pekarek Doehler, 2000).
All in all, in LINEE, the dynamic view pre-
vails. With reference to Dewaele and Pavlenko
(2003), multicompetence is perceived not as an
end state, but rather as a dynamic, evolving
system. In addition, in LINEE the concept of
multicompetence is strongly embedded in the so-
ciolinguistic context, including beliefs and prac-
tices, and therefore captures various other aspects
(socio-situational, educational, pedagogical) of
multicompetence beyond a strictly speaking SLA-
rootedness. The working definition goes back to
a usage-based view of language knowledge such
as that of the recent functional–typological ap-
proaches of Bybee and Hopper (2001) in a sim-
ilar way as already discussed in the preceding
subsection.
The definition of multicompetence elaborated
during the work on real data in the LINEE project,
which cannot be exposed in detail here (but see
www.linee.info/), shows that the term “multicom-
petence” is compatible with the definition of mul-
tilingualism that was discussed here at the start.
We can see “multilingualism” as a type of umbrella
term. The definition of multilingualism provides
the superior framework determining the most im-
351
portant cornerstones, whereas the original term,
“multicompetence,” specifies the group and in-
dividual dimensions of multilingualism and joins
this up with the competence term.
Thereby, the definition of multicompetence in
the LINEE project takes on a bridging function.
It makes the following connections:
1. The connection between the multicompe-
tence of an individual with the social embedding
in which these competences are experienced;
2. The connection between the different multi-
lingual language skills in the variable competence
of a speaker;
3. The connection between this communica-
tive competence and the usages concrete com-
munication encounters.
In this way, we reach a richer view of the spe-
cific competences put in action in multilingual
encounters.
NOT A CONCLUSION BUT AN OUTLOOK:
THE CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGES OF
MULTILINGUALISM
In this article, only two concepts have been scru-
tinized in some detail: multilingualism and mul-
ticompetence. As can be followed by the broad-
ened definition in the terms used in LINEE, being
a multicompetent speaker does not simply mean
counting several languages or using languages flu-
ently, nor having a general communicative com-
petence. Multicompetence means having devel-
oped a cultural sensitivity toward various different
language situations.
Multilingualism and multicompetence are cen-
tral to the ongoing research activities in different
disciplines, which are becoming more and more
sensitive to multilingual phenomena. This situa-
tion is of great interest and is fruitful not only
for empirical research, which is already vast, but
also for the stimulus it offers for finding specific
research methods and ways of thinking. Skeptical
minds may consider multilingualism as an epiphe-
nomenon. Nevertheless, it introduces a healthy
discussion to linguistics, not just sociolinguistics
(Franceschini, 2005). It helps to deconstruct as-
sumptions like homogeneity and highlights the
naturalness of contact situations. Thus, the con-
sideration of multilingualism has an important
side effect—it prepares the terrain for an inclu-
sion of variability as a fundamental characteristic
of language, continuing to deepen the way started
in the sociolinguistic field. Language varies across
languages as it varies in the language, where it was
first studied. The same holds true for dynamism.
352
It is as if multilingualism has a lens effect for many
researchers, being a magnifying glass uncovering
the linguistic dynamism across languages. In fact,
each language development and use is dynamic,
but multilingualism shows it in a way one cannot
easily elude.
Alongside the discussion of the two terms—
multilingualism and multicompetence—it can be
observed that a part of psycholinguistics has be-
come more socially interested and a part of soci-
olinguistics goes for the more cognitive side. In
fact, a cognitive sociolinguistics is on the way up
(Geeraerts, Kristiansen, & Peirsman, 2010) and
offers important insights. An inclusion of differ-
ent views is necessary because multilingualism is a
phenomenon that combines experiences of dif-
ferent people in specific societies. It concerns
the development of knowledge and is observable
in social interaction and discourse. Multilingual-
ism is therefore complex in its foundation (social
and cognitive) and in its practice. A separation
into clear-cut disciplines in analyzing multilingual
phenomena seems obsolete, particularly when it
comes to power relationships, which goes along
with the different status of a language in a specific
society (Simpson & Mayr, 2010; Wodak, 2009).
Multilingualism is a cross-cutting topic that has
enormous potential for transforming the future
of linguistics.
For these reasons, multilingualism inspires us
(apparently much more than other topics) to
leave behind long-established assumptions, such
as forced homogeneity, fixed structures, indepen-
dence from cultural embedding, and so on. It pre-
pares the way to search for frames in which time-
related, process-based, analytical tools and com-
plexity are taken into account as central points
(Franceschini, 2003). Over the last few years,
the idea of placing the language system on the
foundations of a potential multilingual compe-
tence has become more tangible, as shown, for
instance, by Lourdes Ortega’s powerful presenta-
tion at the American Association of Applied Lin-
guistics meeting in March 2010 (see also Ortega,
2009). We need initiatives that will also open up
across disciplines. At present, the most suitable
initiatives appear to be ones that address the com-
plexity and dynamics of the systems, and in this
regard, more than promising proposals are still
on the way (e.g., de Bot, 2008; de Bot, Lowie, &
Verspoor, 2007; Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Larsen-
Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Mühlhäusler 2003;
Ortega, 2009; Wildgen, 1999). These reflections
and models are of great importance. Without any
effort, a methodological and theoretical level of
the term “multilingualism” could become empty
The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
of content or vague and runs the risk of becom-
ing merely a passing fashion—a shell of a word
encompassing everything under which everyone
understands something different.
The majority of modern linguistics is born out
of the spirit of monolingualism and has, as a
reduction of complexity, brought about many
assumptions. Confronted with multilingualism,
the values seem to be turning around. The ba-
sic competence of a speaker is open toward mul-
tilingualism if he or she can experience it over
the course of his or her life. Assuming the natu-
rally occurring potential within multilingualism,
one cannot help analyzing some of the basic as-
sumptions of linguistics, both whether language
ability is primarily seen as being a cognitive com-
petence or as a social practice. Multilingualism, in
our definition, includes both, and therefore also
multicompetence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many members of the LINEE network have taken
part in the fruitful discussion on the term “multicom-
petence” in various meetings and written exchanges:
Rosita Schjerve-Rindler, Eva Vetter, Ros Mitchell,
Jennifer Jenkins, Elena Ioannidou, Silvia Dal Negro,
Gessica De Angelis, Gerda Videsott, Don Peckham,
Anna Fenyvesi, Katalin Petneki, Werner Wiater, Paul
Videsott, Cristina de Grandi, Eszter Szabó-Gilinger, and
many more. Thanks go to them all. The responsibility
for the positions taken up here together with all fallacies
is nonetheless not to be attributed to them.
NOTES
1 LINEE was founded as a Network of Excellence within
the VI Framework programme (2006–2010) of the Eu-
ropean Union, project number: CIT4–2006-28388. The
Language Study Unit of the University of Bolzano is one
of the nine partners, in addition to the Universities of
Bern, Southampton, Prague, Szeged, Munich, Vienna,
and Zagreb. For more details, see www.linee.info/.
2 The broad reception of Adams’s works on multilin-
gualism in antiquity is an indication of an increasing in-
terest in research about the historic dimensions of mul-
tilingualism (see Adams, 2003; Adams, Janse, & Swain,
2005; Franceschini, in press).
3 See the document “Commission of the European
Communities” (2007) written by the “High Level Group
on Multilingualism.” Franceschini (2009) presented re-
search perspectives in the area of multilingualism, in
which the recommendations put forward to the Euro-
pean Commission are gone into in more depth.
4 On combinatorics just an allusive reference: Data
from individual language production can also be eval-
uated statistically and ethnographic approaches can be
taken on a social level (which would otherwise employ
Rita Franceschini
microanaylsis) (see Deppermann, 1999/2001; Lamnek,
2010).
5 This is not the place to discuss these models individ-
ually, as this contribution is deliberately limited to the
definition of multilingualism and multicompetence. It
would be worthwhile to conduct a comparative discus-
sion of the extension of de Bot’s (1992) extension of
Levelt’s “Speaking Model” and the dynamic systems ap-
proach in de Bot (2008) and de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor
(2007), together with Grosjean’s (2001) proposals on
Bilingual Language Modes. Furthermore, it would be
interesting to compare Green (1998), Lüdi (2004), and
Herdina and Jessner (2002), as well as to take into ac-
count the views of Thomason and Kaufman (1988), De-
Graff (1999), Wildgen (1999), and Tomasello (2000)
and to consider the prominently led discussion on the
practice of codeswitching and codemixing (see, e.g.,
Auer, 1999a, 1999b; Milroy & Muysken, 1995; Muysken,
2000; Myers Scotton, 1993). A special dynamic approach
is convincingly argued in Larsen-Freeman and Cameron
(2008).
6 A native speaker is defined by Cook as “a monolin-
gual person who still speaks the language they learnt in
childhood” (Cook, 2001, p. 12).
7 The reference is to the long-term “Heidelberg re-
search project on pidgin German” (see HPD, 1975) and
the “Second language acquisition by adult immigrants”
project (see, e.g., Klein & Perdue, 1992, on the latter).
8 As already indicated, Universal Grammar has to ex-
plain how a single “language faculty” can contain more
than one standard for one parameter.
9 This is mainly about Cook (2005a and 2005b); the
first is published on Vivian Cook’s homepage. In his text-
book Second Language Learning and Language Teaching
(Cook, 2001), the second definition can be found again,
which remains the most widely cited: “the knowledge of
more than one language in the same mind” (p. 12).
10 Both terms maintain their authority. The first is cre-
ated out of the necessity for a definition. The concise
definitions are, according to Cook (2001, p. 12): “an L2
user uses the second language for real-life purposes; an
L2 learner is acquiring a second language rather then
using it.” The L2 is stated with reference to the UN-
ESCO definition as “a language acquired by a person in
addition to his mother tongue” (Cook, 2001, p. 12).
REFERENCES
Adams, J. N. (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adams, J. N., Janse, M., & Swain, S. (Eds.). (2005). Bilin-
gualism in ancient society: Language contact and the
written text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Auer, P. (1999a). From codeswitching via language mix-
ing to fused lects. International Journal of Bilingual-
ism, 3/4, 309–332.
Auer, P. (Ed.). (1999b). Code-switching in conversa-
tion. Language, interaction and identity. London:
Routledge.
353
Auer, P., & Li, Wei. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of multi-
lingualism and multilingual communication. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). DATE: Frequency
and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2005). Trilingual educa-
tion in Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001a).
Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisi-
tion: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, Eng-
land: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001b).
Looking beyond second language acquisition: Studies
in tri- and multilingualism. Tübingen, Germany:
Stauffenburg Verlag.
Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Fi-
nal report, High Level Group on multilingualism.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities. Retrieved September
6, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/
policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf
Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty of the stimulus argument
and multi-competence. Second Language Research,
7 , 103–117.
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Lan-
guage Learning , 42, 557–591.
Cook, V. J. (1997). Monolingual bias in second language
acquisition research. Revista Canaria de Estudios
Ingleses, 34, 35–50.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Second language learning and language
teaching . London: Arnold.
Cook, V. J. (2002). Portraits of the L2 user . Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. J. (2003a). The changing L1 in the L2 User’s
Mind. In V.J. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second lan-
guage on the first (pp. 1–18). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. J. (Ed.). (2003b). Effects of the second language on
the first. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. J. (s.d.). Background to the L2 User
Perspective. Retrieved September 6, 2011, from
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/
Multicompetence/MCopener.htm 4 pp
Cook, V. J. (2005a). Multi-competence: Black Hole or
Wormhole? (Draft of write-up of SLRF paper,
2005). Retrieved September 6, 2011, from
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings
/Papers/SLRF.htm
Cook, V. J. (2005b). Multi-competence: Black Hole or
Wormhole? Retrieved from www.tc.colmbia.
edu/academic/tesol/SLRF2005/vivianCook.pdf
Dausendschön-Gay, U. (2003). Producing and learning
to produce utterances in social interaction. Eurosla
Yearbook, 3, 207–228.
Dausendschön-Gay, U., & Krafft, U. (1994). Analyse
conversationnelle et recherche sur l’acquisition
[Conversational analysis and research on acqui-
sition]. In B. Py (Ed.), L’acquisition d’une langue
seconde. Quelques développements théoriques récents
[Acquisition of a second language: Some recent
354
theoretical developments]. Bulletin suisse de linguis-
tique appliqué, 59 , 127–158.
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acqui-
sition. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Lev-
elt’s “Speaking Model” adapted. Applied Linguis-
tics, 1, 1–24.
de Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language de-
velopment as a dynamic process. Modern Language
Journal , 92, 166–178.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic
systems theory approach to second language ac-
quisition. Bilingualism, 10, 7–55.
DeGraff, M. (Ed.). (1999). Language creation and lan-
guage change: Creolization, diachrony, and develop-
ment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deppermann, A. (2001). Gespräche analysieren: Eine
Einführung in konversationsanalytische Methoden
[Analysing conversations: An introduction to meth-
ods in conversational analysis]. Opladen, Germany:
Leske und Budrich. (Original work published
1999)
Dewaele, J.M., & Pavlenko, A. (2003). Productivity and
lexical diversity in native and non-native speech: A
study of cross-cultural effects. In V.J. Cook (Ed.),
Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 120–
141). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Edwards, M., & Dewaele, J. M. (2007). Trilingual conver-
sations: A window into multicompetence. Interna-
tion Journal of Multilingualism, 11, 221–141.
Franceschini, R. (2003). Modellbildung über die
Mehrsprachigkeit hinaus: für eine Linguistik
der Potentialität (LP) [Model creation beyond
multilingualism: For a linguistics of potentiality
(LP)]. In L. Mondada & S. Pekarek Doehler
(Eds.), Plurilinguisme—Mehrsprachigkeit—Plurili-
ngualism. Enjeux identitaires, socio-culturels et
éducatifs, Festschrift für Georges Lüdi [Plurilingual-
ism: Topics on identity, sociocultural and educa-
tional settings: Writings in honor of Georges Lüdi]
(pp. 247–259). Tübingen, Germany: Francke
Verlag.
Franceschini, R. (2005). Weshalb brauchen Linguis-
ten mehrsprachige Sprecher? [Why do linguists
need multilingual speakers?] In G. Berruto (Ed.),
Plurlinguisme et politique européenne [Multilingual-
ism and European policy]. Revue française de lin-
guistique appliquée, IX /2, 105–124.
Franceschini, R. (2008). Research area report, Thematic
Area C: Multilingualism and education (D9). Re-
trieved September 6, 2011, from www.linee.info:
AreaReport_C_D9_080808.pdf
Franceschini, R. (2009). The genesis and development
of research in multilingualism: Perspectives for
future research. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen
(Eds.), The exploration of multilingualism: Develop-
ment of research on L3, multilingualism and multi-
ple language acquisition (pp. 27–61). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Franceschini, R. (in press). The history of multilingual-
ism. In C. Chapelle (Gen. Ed.), The encyclopedia of
The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)
applied linguistics, J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Vol. Ed.).
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Franceschini, R., Zappatore, D., & Nitsch, C. (2003).
Lexicon in the brain: What neurobiology has to
say about languages. In J. Cenoz, U. Jessner, &
B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp.
153–166). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.).
(2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics.
Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Genesee, F. (2002). Portrait of the bilingual child. In
V. J. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 167–
196). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilin-
gual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism, Lan-
guage and Cognition, 1, 67–81.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In
J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual
language processing (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Blackwell.
Grosjean, F., Li, P., Münte, T., & Rodriguez-Fornells, A.
(2003). Imaging bilinguals: When the neuro-
sciences meet the language sciences. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 6 , 159–165.
Grosjean, F., & Py, B. (1991). La restructuration d’une
première langue: l’intégration de variantes de con-
tact dans la compétence de migrants bilingues
[The restructuration of a first language: The in-
tegration of variants of contact in the competence
of bilingual migrants]. La linguistique, 27 , 35–60.
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconcep-
tualizing multicompetence as a theory of language
knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 , 220–240.
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic model of
multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic per-
spective. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
HPD. (1975). Heidelberger Forschungsprojekt ‘Pidgin-
Deutsch,’ Sprache und Kommunikation ausländis-
cher Arbeiter. Analysen, Berichte, Materialien [The
Heidelberger Research Project on ‘Pidgin
German,’ Language and communication of for-
eign workers. Analysis, reports, materials]. Kronberg
Ts.: Scriptor.
Hufeisen, B., & Lindemann, B. (Eds.). (1998).
Tertiärsprachen. Theorien, Modelle, Methoden [Third
language: Theories, models, methods]. Tübingen,
Germany: Stauffenburg.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In
J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics
(pp. 269–293). London: Penguin.
Jenkins, J. (2008). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and
identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, I. (1998). The state of L1 knowledge in foreign
language learners. Word, 49 , 321–340.
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. [in cooperation with M. Carroll,
J. Coenen, J. Deulofeu, T. Huebner, & A. Trévise].
(1992). Utterance Structures (Developing Grammars
Again). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lambert, W.E., Tucker, G. R., & d’Anglejan, A. (1973).
Cognitive and attitudinal consequences of bilin-
gual schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology
85, 141–159.
 Rita Franceschini
Lamnek, S. [in collaboration with C. Krell]. (2010).
Qualitative Sozialforschung [Qualitative social re-
search] (Vol. 2). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz, Psy-
chologie Verlags-Union.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex sys-
tems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Li, Wei, & Moyer, M. (Ed.). (2008). The Blackwell guide
to research methods in bilingualism and multilingual-
ism. New York: Wiley.
Lüdi, G. (1996a). 30. Mehrsprachigkeit [Multilingual-
ism]. In H. Goebl, P. N. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölck
(Eds.), Kontaktlinguistik, Contact Linguistics. Ein
internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung
(Vol. I, pp. 233–245). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lüdi, G. (1996b). 37. Migration und Mehrsprachigkeit.
In H. Goebl, P. N. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölck
(Eds.). Kontaktlinguistik, Contact Linguistics. Ein
internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung
(Vol. I, pp. 320–327). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lüdi, G. (2004). Pour une linguistique de la compétence
du locuteur plurilingue [A linguistic model of the
competence of the plurilingual speaker]. Revue
française de linguistique appliquée, 9 , 125–135.
Martinez, P., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2000).
La notion de contact de langues en didactique [The
notion of language contact in didactics]. Notions
en questions, 4. Fontenay-Saint Cloud, France: Edi-
tions ENS.
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (Eds.). (1995). One speaker,
two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on
355
code-switching . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mitchell, R. (2008). LINEE—Final Report WP8 (inter-
nal paper). In R. Franceschini (Ed.), Research area
report, Thematic Area C: Multilingualism and edu-
cation (D9). Retrieved September 6, 2011, from
www.linee.info: AreaReport_C_D9_080808.pdf
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning
theories. London: Hodder Arnold.
Mühlhäusler, P. (2003). A course in ecolinguistics.
London: Battlebridge.
Muysken, P. C. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-
mixing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammat-
ical structures in code-switching . Oxford, England:
Clarendon Press.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acqui-
sition. London: Hodder Education.
Simpson, P., & Mayr, A. (2010). Language and power .
London: Routledge.
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language con-
tact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Tomasello, M. (2000). The cultural origins of human cog-
nition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wildgen, W. (1999). De la grammaire au discours:
Une approche morphodynamique [On grammar in
discourse: A morphodynamic approach]. Bern,
Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Forthcoming in The Modern Language Journal, 95.4

Ernesto Macaro & Lynn Erler. “Decoding ability in French as a foreign language and language learning
motivation”
Jennifer Leeman, Lisa Rabin, & Esperanza Román-Mendoza. “Identity and social activism in heritage
language education”
Carolyn Pytlyk. “Shared orthography: Do shared written symbols influence the perception of L2 sounds?”
Naoko Taguchi. “Pragmatic development as a dynamic, complex process: General patterns and case
histories”
Keiko Samimy, Soonhyang Kim, Jeong-Ah Lee, & Masataka Kasai. “A participative inquiry in a TESOL
program: Development of three NNES graduate students’ legitimate peripheral participation to fuller
participation”
Xingsong Shi. “Negotiating power and access to second language resources: A study on short-term
Chinese MBA students in America”
David Kellogg & Seonmi Song. “Word meaning as a palimpsest: A defense of sociocultural theory”
Kyoko Masuda. “Acquiring interactional competence in a study-abroad context: Japanese language
learners’ use of the interactional participle ‘ne’”
Paul Lyddon. “The efficacy of corrective feedback and textual enhancement in promoting the acquisition
of grammatical redundancies”

View publication stats