See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308754466

Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual education: Epistemological

changes towards the emergent bilingual

Article in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism · September 2016

DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2016.1238866

CITATIONS READS

73 1,014

1 author:

Blake Turnbull
Otani University
23 PUBLICATIONS 297 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Blake Turnbull on 23 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism

ISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual

education: epistemological changes towards the
emergent bilingual

Blake Turnbull

To cite this article: Blake Turnbull (2016): Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual
education: epistemological changes towards the emergent bilingual, International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2016.1238866

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1238866

Published online: 28 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20

Download by: [Blake Turnbull] Date: 29 September 2016, At: 05:49

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1238866

Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual education:

epistemological changes towards the emergent bilingual
Blake Turnbull
Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In many environments in which foreign languages (FL) are taught, the Received 3 August 2016
emergent bilingual status of FL learners is often overlooked. The Accepted 15 September 2016
dominant monolingual language pedagogies of conventional FL
KEYWORDS
classrooms do not fundamentally recognise the natural interaction of Bilingual; emergent bilingual;
the first language (L1) and second language (L2) in the learners’ minds. foreign language education;
Although the L1 and L2 are both often employed in the FL classroom, bilingual education; foreign
their use is kept separate with erroneous connotations that L1 use can language learner;
have negative impacts on FL learning. Consequently, very rarely is FL bilingualism
learning considered within the realms of bilingual education, nor has the
emergent bilingual status of FL learners been recognised as a result. This
paper attempts to redefine the parameters of emergent bilingualism to
include FL learners in their own right. Grounded in the frameworks of
multi-competence and translanguaging, this paper provides further
insights into the importance of acknowledging learners of an FL as the
emergent bilinguals that they are, and brings awareness about the need
for an epistemological change in this mindset surrounding FL education.

Introduction
In many environments in which foreign languages (FL) are taught, the emergent bilingual status of
second language (L2) learners is often overlooked. The term ‘bilingual’ can have the erroneous con-
notation of individuals brought up since childhood in environments speaking more than one
language to equally proficient degrees. Consequent connotations of ‘bilingual education’ suggest
a system in which well-established speakers of two or more languages engage in learning,
whereby both languages are of equal proficiency and are employed equally in the classroom.
However, this is certainly not the case. There are two views one can take towards speakers of
more than one language: the monolingual perspective or the bilingual perspective. The monolingual
perspective views L2 speakers from the point of the monolingual native speaker. It considers the
speaker’s L2 to have been added to their first language (L1), whereby their L2 proficiency is measured
against the native speaker. Such speakers are considered to be two monolinguals in one head, with
little to no interaction occurring between the two languages. In contrast, the bilingual perspective
views L2 users purely from the point of a speaker of two or more languages. All of the speaker’s
languages are considered to be an equal part of their total linguistic system, and it is accepted
that they may differ from the monolingual native speaker.
The dominant monolingual language pedagogies of conventional FL classrooms do not funda-
mentally recognise the integrated way in which the L1 and L2 operate together in a learner’s
mind. FL educational settings thus rarely recognise the bilingual status of their students which, argu-
ably, champions an archaic approach to speakers of more than one language. García (2009a)

CONTACT Blake Turnbull blaketurnbull@hotmail.com

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. TURNBULL

proposes the term emergent bilingual to breakdown traditional ideologies of language minority stu-
dents learning English in the US; reframing them as bilinguals so that the power of their home
language and culture can be harnessed and employed as a resource in their development as
English-speaking bilinguals. García’s usage of the term, however, is restricted, focussing almost exclu-
sively on non-native English speakers studying English at the schooling level in the US, largely ignor-
ing the potential for FL learners to rightfully fall under the same categorisation. This paper re-
conceptualises the definition of emergent bilinguals to include FL learners in their own right, and
brings awareness about the need for an epistemological change in the mindset concerning FL lear-
ners and FL education on the whole.

The bilingual speaker

In order to re-conceptualise FL learners as emergent bilinguals, we must first define what it means to
be bilingual. Although Baker (2011) suggests it is essentially impossible to define exactly who should
be considered bilingual, many researchers have offered their own definitions throughout the years.
The point at which the speaker of a second language becomes bilingual is arbitrary and the topic of
much debate. Although the notion of bilingualism entailing fluency in two languages is considered
by many to be a layperson’s interpretation of the term (Grosjean 1982), that has not stopped some
scholars from including this criterion in their definition. Bloomfield (1985), for example, describes
bilingualism as ‘a native-like control of two languages’ (56), where the bilingual attains such a
highly developed proficiency in the second language that it becomes indistinguishable from that
of a native speaker. However, some researchers have thrown doubt at this definition, suggesting
that few people who would be considered bilingual possess a native-like control of both languages
(see Hakuta 1986), leading others to offer definitions grounded in more realistic and attainable goals.
Haugen (1969), for example, defined bilingualism simply as when a speaker can produce complete
and meaningful utterances in their second language. His definition extends the complete width
along the bilingual continuum from a basic proficiency level to native-like control. Other definitions,
however, demand less in terms of the attained L2 proficiency. Macnamara (1969) defines the bilingual
as a person who can engage with their second language to even a minimal degree in at least one of
the four main language domains (i.e. speaking, listening, reading, or writing). This idea is similar to
Hockett’s (1958) notion of semi-bilingualism, or the partial knowledge of two languages. Macna-
mara’s definition leans towards the minimalist end of the bilingual scale as it requires little knowledge
or use of the L2 overall. Diebold (1961) follows in similar suit with the epitome of minimalist defi-
nitions of bilingualism, referring to the term ‘incipient bilingualism’. His idea of bilingualism refers
to the state in which a speaker has one highly developed language, and one in the early stages of
development, allowing those with only a minimal second language competence to fall under the
bilingual category. Although the incipient bilingual definition does include FL learners within its
demographic, it proposes an incredibly vast category of so-called bilinguals that blurs the barrier
between a competent speaker of two languages and holiday-maker with a phrase book. The fact
that tourists who know only a few greetings in a second language are considered within the
realms of incipient bilinguals, regardless of whether they continue to pursue any further develop-
ment in the language, is a categorisation far too inclusive for specific discussion about bilinguals.
Two particularly significant definitions of the bilingual speaker are those proposed by Mackey
(1987) and Grosjean (1989). Mackey broadly defines bilingualism as ‘the knowledge and use of
two or more languages’ (700). This definition is simplistic in its approach, offering interpretative
space regarding the required level of proficiency in each language, but emphasises the knowledge
of a language, not only its use. Grosjean defines a bilingual as ‘those people who use two or more
languages in their everyday lives’ (4). His definition places emphasis on the regular use of two or
more languages, rather than on the fluency achieved in them each. It should also be noted that bilin-
guals employ their languages for various purposes in various domains and situations in their individ-
ual lives (Grosjean 2013). Not all bilinguals are required to alternate between each language on a
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 3

regular basis to equally fluent degrees, and the reasons for which bilinguals will do so is dependent
on an array of personal and social reasons within the lives of the individual speaker. These two defi-
nitions in particular will be taken into consideration as we redefine the parameters of emergent bilin-
guals below.

Re-defining the emergent bilingual

Whilst definitions on bilinguals and bilingualism are broad, many of them fail to capture the quintes-
sence of the FL learner, who is a unique bilingual in their own right. FL learners are in a constant state
of developing their second language skills despite the fact that they exist in environments in which
the target language (TL) is the minority. A separate, more specific term is required to refer to FL lear-
ners and the unique bilingual status they uphold.
García (2009b) defines ‘emergent bilinguals’ as ‘language minority children who are in the process
of acquiring English in school’ (178). In the US, such students have traditionally been known as
English language learners (ELLs) or limited English proficient students. However, these terms
suggest that such students are mere ‘learners of English’ or are in someway ‘limited’ in their edu-
cation, attributing no recognition to students’ potential to become bilinguals (García and Kleifgen
2010). The term ‘emergent bilingual’ was proposed to overcome these issues. In viewing linguistic
minority students as emergent bilinguals, their home language and cultural practices are no
longer seen as detrimental, but rather as a potential resource to develop their English bilingual abil-
ities. The term emergent bilingual thus not only seeks an equality in the education of language min-
ority students learning English in US schools, but also considers the learning of English to be a journey
in which bilingualism is the intended outcome.
However, García’s (2009b) definition overlooks some key concepts regarding FL learners as emer-
gent bilinguals their own right. Firstly, her definition views emergent bilinguals as (predominantly
young) speakers of a minority language acquiring the majority language through transitional bilin-
gual education. It also places emphasis on children, largely ignoring the actuality of adult language
learners acquiring late bilingualism in similar environments, which is significant, as Ortega (2016)
suggests that the late learning of a L2 should be thought of as the development of late bilingualism.
But why should the term emergent bilingual be limited to ELLs in elementary or secondary school?
Why not to learners of other languages at any age and/or educational level?
I believe an extension of the term ‘emergent bilingual’ to include FL learners in their own right is
not only necessary, but an indisputable course of action. I would like to therefore define the emergent
bilingual as any person who is actively in the process of acquiring knowledge of a second language
and developing bilingual languaging skills for use in a given situation relevant to their individual
needs to learn the TL. This concept is similar to what Cook (2013) calls the ‘L2 user’, or ‘someone
who is actively using a language other than their first, whatever their level of proficiency’ (45).
Whilst elements of the definition are similar, Cook fails to include the ongoing learning process
within which FL learners are engaged. The refined definition presented in this paper does not
place emphasis on a particular proficiency or regular use of both languages, nor does it involve a
comparison with monolingual native speakers. Instead, it focuses on the ongoing process of
gaining language knowledge and developing L2 skills as a potential recourse for making and conveying
meaning in situations relevant to the individual speaker’s situation.

The FL learner as an emergent bilingual

The bilingual perspective of bilingualism, also known as the holistic view, argues that the bilingual
speaker is an integrated whole that is not the sum of two separable or incomplete monolinguals
(Grosjean 1989). The languages within a bilingual’s mind are treated as a part of their overall linguistic
system, which may differ from that of the monolingual native speaker. This notion provides evidence
in support of the status of FL learners as emergent bilinguals. FL learners are almost never equal in
4 B. TURNBULL

their language proficiencies; one being their native tongue, the other only partly acquired along the
bilingual continuum. However, both languages are equally important and relevant to the FL learner’s
life and their individual reasons for acquiring the TL.
In viewing FL learners as emergent bilinguals, two important questions are raised: (1) at what point
does a learner start and stop becoming ‘emergent’ and (2) what exactly is emerging within the
learner? The answers to both of these questions lie in the re-defined definition of the emergent bilin-
gual presented in this paper. It is difficult to define the point at which a learner starts and stops
becoming ‘emergent’ in concert terms, as it is largely dependent on the environmental and situa-
tional circumstances within which the learner is placed. However, one’s emergent bilingual status
as an FL learner begins at the inception of their FL education. The moment in which an FL learner
begins acquiring knowledge of a second language is the moment they become emergent bilinguals;
a status which they will hold for as long as they continue to acquire said knowledge of the TL for use
in situations relevant to their individual needs to learn the language.
The second question, ‘what exactly is emerging within the learner?’, is also found within the newly
presented definition: the development of bilingual languaging skills. In other words, language com-
petence and language usage. As FL learners begin to acquire knowledge of an L2, they subsequently
engage in language practices unlike that of a monolingual speaker; they begin working with their L1
and newly acquired L2 knowledge together. These languages, to whichever degree of proficiency
they have reached, are active in the minds of FL learners as they learn and make sense of their bilin-
gual world both inside the classroom and out. In other words, much like native-bilingual speakers, FL
emergent bilinguals have multi-competences (see Cook 1991), or the integral knowledge of more than
one language in the same mind. This concepts also lends itself to the notion of translanguaging (see
García and Li 2014) which argues in support of the wholesome connection between a bi/multilin-
gual’s languages in the speaker’s mind.
The definition of Vivian Cook’s notion of multi-competence has undergone a number of key
changes since its inception in 1991. At that time, Cook (1991) defined multi-competence as ‘the com-
pound state of a mind with two grammars’ (112). His most recent working definition redefines multi-
competence as ‘the overall system of a mind or a community that uses more than one language’
(Cook 2016, 3). In other words, multi-competence refers to the mental functions of bilingual speakers
in their own right, unrelated to the standards of monolingual native speakers. Under such auspices, FL
learners are considered to be multi-competent users of multiple languages as opposed to defective
second language learners, adding to their emergent bilingual status.
Because both languages are constantly active within the mind of a bilingual, regardless of
language proficiency, they are called upon at appropriate times corresponding to the speaker’s indi-
vidual needs. This notion is reflected in the concept of translanguaging, which views the languages in
a speaker’s linguistic repertoire as belonging to a single integrated system. Translanguaging is the
fluid language practices of bi/multilinguals who transcend between and beyond the systems in
their linguistic repertoire, drawing upon multiple semiotic resources appropriate to given contexts
to make meaning of both themselves and their surrounding environments (García and Li 2014). All
of the languages in a bilinguals repertoire are dynamically employed in a functionally integrated
system which bilingual speakers call upon to mediate comprehension and learning overall (Creese
and Blackledge 2015). There is no discrimination or competition between the languages and knowl-
edge of languages in a bilingual speaker’s mind. All languages are considered equal and belonging to
a single system.
In this sense, FL learners are not considered to be acquiring a new second language, but adding to
the integrated linguistic system of which their L1 is already a part. As emergent bilinguals, FL learners
enter a position in which they are able to develop linguistic abilities and competence in the weaker
language (Baker 2011) whilst simultaneously engaging in new languaging practices in interrelation-
ship with old ones to develop critical thinking skills and deeper comprehension of the L2 overall
(García and Li 2014). It is generally accepted that FL learners possess multi-competences which
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 5

allows for the natural occurrence of translanguaging practices as they work to develop the weaker TL,
which positions them firmly within the realms of emergent bilingualism.

Foreign language education as bilingual education

Foreign language education is the teaching and learning of a language in a classroom setting where
the TL is not spoken as an L1 in the wider community. In the majority of cases, FL learners and tea-
chers alike share a common native tongue, and it is thus not uncommon for the L1 to be used in the
FL classroom as a result, albeit in separation from the L2. Indeed, researchers in the field of FL edu-
cation (see e.g. Butzkamm 2011; Cook 2001; Levine 2014; Macaro 2014) have argued in favour of the
L1’s positive role in the learning of an FL to varying degrees, with support behind the argument
becoming ever-stronger in recent years. However, in spite of the fact that both learners’ L1 and L2
are employed to various degrees in the FL classroom, very rarely is FL learning considered within
the realms of bilingual education, and the emergent bilingual status of FL learners has failed to be
recognised as a result.
Abello-Contesse (2013) broadly defines bilingual education as ‘the regular use of two or more
languages for teaching and learning in instructional settings when bilingualism and biliteracy are
two of the explicit long-term goals’ (4). Given this definition, there is no reason as to why FL education
should not be considered bilingual education. Conventionally, FL education involves the use of two
languages in classroom (L1 and L2), whereby bilingualism, to whichever degree of proficiency along
the bilingual continuum, is the overall goal and driving motivation to learn the TL. However, as Baker
(2011) asserts, the term ‘bilingual education’ is a simplified label for an intricate phenomena which
cannot be easily defined in terms of traditional concepts. He categorises bilingual education into
three forms: monolingual forms, weak forms, and strong forms. The dominant programme type in
the monolingual form of bilingual education is mainstreaming (or submersion) bilingual education,
in which language minority students are thrown in the deep end and expected to learn in the
majority language without the help of their home language. This concept is often replicated in
second language classrooms throughout the world, whereby the creation of an immersion TL
environment is thought to develop and promote the acquisition of the second language.
In the weak form of bilingual education, the most prominent programme type is transitional bilin-
gual education. In transitional bilingual education, learners are temporarily taught in their home
language until they reach a level at which they can function in the majority language in mainstream
education. Transitional bilingual education can be either ‘early-exit’, in which the learners’ home
language is only employed for only the first two years of education regardless of their competence
in the TL, or ‘late-exit’, in which use of the home language is continued for an extended period of time
until learners have comfortably assimilated to the majority TL. This form of education may be repli-
cated in second/foreign language classrooms, whereby the students’ L1 is employed at the beginner
level and then gradually faded out as they develop proficiency in the TL.
There are three significant programme types under the strong form of bilingual education: Immer-
sion bilingual education, language maintenance (or heritage language) bilingual education, and dual
language (or two-way) bilingual education. In immersion bilingual education, the language majority
learners are taught exclusively in the TL. The additional language is employed as the medium of
instruction, where the overall goal is additive bilingualism alongside the home language. On the
other hand, language maintenance bilingual education occurs when language minority learners
use their home language as the medium of instruction to maintain their minority language in the
development of proficiency in the majority language. Dual language bilingual education occurs
when approximately equal numbers of language minority and majority students are present in the
same class, whereby both languages are used as the medium of instruction.
One of the main differences that has traditionally separated FL education from bilingual education
in the past has been that the former teaches content through both languages. However, recent years
have seen an increasing trend in content and language integrated learning in FL settings whereby
6 B. TURNBULL

general curriculum content is learnt through the second language (see Dalton-Puffer and Smit 2013;
Lin 2015). Thus, it would be fair to say that FL education could be re-conceptualised as education in
which two languages act as the medium of instruction for the purpose of fostering bilingualism. The
underlying issue here is that FL education has rarely been viewed as fostering bilingualism, but simply
as equipping learners with a separate additional language. However the goal of FL education is not to
produce a separate monolingual in the TL, but rather, to equip speakers with a second language that
works in cooperation with their L1. Learners should not be forced to undertake learning exclusively in
the L2 when they have a valuable L1 resource at their disposable. The view of FL learning as a mono-
lingual event, in which use of the native language is thought to be detrimental to acquisition of the
TL, must be reconsidered if we are to advance our knowledge and understanding of FL learning.
Indeed, some researchers (see Cummins 2007) have argued in favour of a reconceptualisation of
the rationales underlying L2/FL education as many of the instructional practices dominant in these
domains are largely unsupported by empirical evidence and show a lack of understanding regarding
how the bilingual mind functions. Recent years have seen increasing support for bilingual pedago-
gies in FL/L2 classrooms (see e.g. Butzkamm and Cadwell 2009; García and Li 2014; Levine 2011),
with evidence of bilingual classroom practices already in use seen throughout different parts of
the world (e.g. Barnard and McLellan 2014; Forman 2016; Hall and Cook 2013). Some researchers
(e.g. Canagarajah, 2013; Cook 2001; García and Li 2014; Levine 2011; Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain
2009) have suggested that the natural use of two or more languages should become an established
aim of L2/FL pedagogy, adding further evidence to the reframing of FL education as the fostering of
bilingualism.
However, what is prevalent in the literature is not necessarily reflected in the actualities of L2 class-
rooms throughout the world (Graham and Cook 2012), and this is certainly the case regarding bilin-
gualism in the FL classroom. It is unclear as to whether the emergent bilingual status of FL learners
has not yet made the leap from theory to practice because FL teachers and curriculum designers are
lacking the necessary knowledge, or because advocates for the monolingual perspective continue to
reign prevalent in FL educational environments. Regardless, the fact that FL learners are actively in
the process of using and acquiring knowledge of a second language and developing bilingual
languaging skills for use in situations relevant to their individual needs means that their status as
emergent bilinguals in their own right must be recognised. By not viewing them in this light, FL edu-
cators are turning a blind eye to the benefits of bilingual education and learning strategies that can
help in the development of FL learners’ L2 skills as competent emergent bilinguals.

Conclusion
The dominant monolingual language pedagogies of conventional FL classrooms do not fundamen-
tally recognise the way in which the L1 and L2 in a learner’s mind fuse and integrate naturally. Similar
ideologies are seen in the monolingual perspective of bilingualism, which argues against language
interaction in the bilingual’s mind. However, influential works such as Grosjean (1989) and Cook
(1991) shone light on the holistic perspective of bilingualism, viewing all of a speaker’s languages
as an equal part of their total linguistic system. Cook’s (1991) concept of multi-competence re-con-
ceptualises L2 learners as L2 users who differ from the monolingual native speaker due to the inter-
language in their bilingual mind. In similar fashion, translanguaging postulates that the languages in
a learner’s mind belong to a single integrated system that speakers draw upon to create and convey
meaning at appropriate times. Although both of these concepts view L2 speakers as bilinguals in their
own right, their relevance, or indeed even their existence, is rarely seen or acknowledged in most FL
classrooms throughout the world today. An epistemological change regarding the status of bilingu-
alism and the attainment of multi-competence and translanguaging practices as defined goals in FL
education is required if we are to effectively prepare FL learners to engage in the multiple discursive
practices of bilinguals outside the classroom in the real world.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 7

Traditional FL classrooms have a tendency to teach just that; language for use in the classroom. By
embracing the emergent bilingual perspective of FL learners, FL classrooms become unique linguistic
microclimates and speech communities. They evolve from teaching classroom language to develop-
ing bilingual languaging skills that students can use in the real world regardless of proficiency level or
the time spent using each language. Because, unlike traditional monolingual FL classrooms, in the
real world if an emergent bilingual prefers to plan an email in their L1 before writing it in their L2,
they will. If they wish to consult a bilingual dictionary or employ translation as a means of compre-
hension, they will. If they wish to read texts in both languages or code switch with similarly placed
peers mid-conversation, they will. And why should they not? The use of both the L1 and L2 is a stra-
tegic tool at the emergent bilingual’s disposal, and not recognising this in the FL classroom is a waste
of a valuable opportunity to practice developing the integrated use of both languages effectively. If
we reframe FL education as bilingual education, and encourage the use of naturally occurring bilin-
gual languaging strategies, learners will leave the classroom with developed cognitive skills and the
ability to act in the real world as the emergent bilinguals they are. It is hoped that the view presented
in this paper raises awareness regarding the need for a reconceptualisation of FL learners as emer-
gent bilinguals, and for bilingual approaches to become standard practice in the instruction and
learning of FL education environments.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Blake Turnbull is currently undertaking his Ph.D. thesis in Foreign Language Acquisition and Education at Kyoto Univer-
sity, Japan. His research interests include second language education, ESL/EFL, Japanese EFL education, bilingual edu-
cation, translanguaging, multilingualism, and teacher education and training.

References
Abello-Contesse, C. 2013. “Bilingual and Multilingual Education: An Overview of the Field.” In Bilingual and Multilingual
Education in the 21st Century: Building on Experience, edited by C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López
Jiménez, and R. Chacón-Beltrán, 3–23. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Barnard, R., and J. McLellan. 2014. Code-switching in University English-Medium Classes: Asian Perspectives. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Bloomfield, L. 1985. Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Butzkamm, W. 2011. “Why Make Them Crawl When They Can Walk? Teaching with Mother Tongue Support.” RELC Journal
42 (3): 379–391. doi:10.1177/0033688211419830.
Butzkamm, W., and J. Cadwell. 2009. The Bilingual Reform: A Paradigm Shift in Foreign Language Teaching. Tübingen: Narr
Studienbücher.
Canagarajah, A. S. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge.
Cook, V. J. 1991. “The Poverty-of-the-Stimulus Argument and Multi-competence.” Second Language Research 7 (2): 103–
117. doi:10.1177/026765839100700203.
Cook, V. J. 2001. “Using the First Language in the Classroom.” Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne
des Langues Vivantes 57 (3): 402–423. doi:10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402.
Cook, V. J. 2013. “What Are the Goals of Language Teaching?” Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 1 (1): 44–56.
Cook, V. J. 2016. “Premises of Multi-competence.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence, edited by V.
Cook and L. Wei, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creese, A., and A. Blackledge. 2015. “Translanguaging and Identity in Educational Settings.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 35: 20–35. doi:10.1017/S0267190514000233.
Cummins, J. 2007. “Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual Classrooms.” Canadian Journal of
Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée 10 (2): 221–240.
Dalton-Puffer, C., and U. Smit. 2013. “Content and Language Integrated Learning: A Research Agenda.” Language
Teaching 46 (4): 545–559. doi:10.1017/S0261444813000256.
8 B. TURNBULL

Diebold, A. R. 1961. “Incipient Bilingualism.” Language 37 (1): 97–112. doi:10.2307/411253.

Forman, R. 2016. First and Second Language use in Asian EFL. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
García, O. 2009a. “Emergent Bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a Name?” TESOL Quarterly 43 (2): 322–326. doi:10.1002/j.
1545-7249.2009.tb00172.x.
García, O. 2009b. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
García, O., and J. O. Kleifgen. 2010. Educating Emergent Bilinguals: Policies, Programs, and Practices for English Language
Learners. New York: Teachers College Press.
García, O., and Wei Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Graham, H., and G. Cook. 2012. “Own-Language Use in Language Teaching and Learning: State of the Art.” Language
Teaching 45 (3): 271–308. doi:10.1017/S0261444812000067.
Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosjean, F. 1989. “Neurolinguists, Beware! The Bilingual Is Not Two Monolinguals in One Person.” Brain and Language 36
(1): 3–15. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5.
Grosjean, F. 2013. “Bilingualism: A Short Introduction.” In The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism, edited by F. Grosjean and P.
Li, 5–25. Sussex: WileyBlackwell/John Wiley & Sons.
Hakuta, K. 1986. Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
Hall, G., and G. Cook. 2013. Own-Language Use in ELT: Exploring Global Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haugen, E. I. 1969. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behavior. Vol. 1. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Hockett, C. F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Levine, G. S. 2011. Code Choice in the Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Levine, G. S. 2014. “Principles for Code Choice in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Focus on Grammaring.” Language
Teaching 47 (3): 332–348. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000498.
Lin, A. 2015. “Conceptualising the Potential Role of L1 in CLIL.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 28 (1): 74–89. doi:10.
1080/07908318.2014.1000926.
Macaro, E. 2014. “Overview: Where Should We Be Going with Classroom Codeswitching Research?” In Code-switching in
University English-Medium Classes: Asian Perspectives, edited by R. Barnard and J. McLellan, 10–23. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Mackey, W. F. 1987. “Bilingualism and Multilingualism.” In Socio-linguistics/soziolinguistik: An International Handbook of the
Science of Language and Society, Vol. 1, edited by U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, and K. Matheier, 699–713. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Macnamara, J. 1969. “How Can One Measure the Extent of a Person’s Bilingual Proficiency?” In Description and
Measurement of Bilingualism: An International Seminar, University of Moncton, June 6–14, 1967, edited by L. Kelly,
80–97. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ortega, L. 2016. “Multi-competence in Second Language Acquisition: Inroads into the Mainstream?” In The Cambridge
Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence, edited by V. Cook and L. Wei, 50–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turnbull, M., and J. Dailey-O’Cain. 2009. “Introduction.” In First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning,
edited by M. Turnbull and J. Dailey-O’Cain, 1–14. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

View publication stats