See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259438531X

Defining MultilingualismX

Article in Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · March 2013

DOI: 10.1017/S026719051300007X

CITATIONS READS

24 5,044

1 author:

Jasone CenozX
Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea X

126 PUBLICATIONS 2,427 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILEX

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

translanguaging in education View projectX

Translanguaging in the school context View projectX

All content following this page was uploaded by Jasone Cenoz on 11 November 2016.X

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION TO 
MULTILINGUALISM
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2013), 33, 3–18.

© Cambridge University Press, 2013, 0267-1905/13 $16.00 doi: 10.1017/S026719051300007X

Defining Multilingualism

Jasone Cenoz

This article looks at the definitions and scope of multilingualism and the different perspectives
used in its study. Multilingualism is a very common phenomenon that has received much scholarly
attention in recent years. Multilingualism is also an interdisciplinary phenomenon that can be
studied from both an individ-ual and a societal perspective. In this article, several dimensions of
multilingual-ism are considered, and different types of multilingualism are discussed. The article
summarizes the themes researched in various areas of the study of mul-tilingualism such as
neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, linguistics, education, sociolinguistics, and language policy.
These areas look at language acquisition and language processing as well as the use of different
languages in social con-texts and adopt a variety of research methodologies. The last section of the
article compares monolingual and holistic perspectives in the study of multilin-gualism, paying
special attention to new approaches developed in the past few years that argue for establishing
more fluid boundaries between languages.
Multilingualism is not a recent phenomenon. Multilingual scholars from different parts
of Europe were responsible for the translation of Arabic and Greek texts into Latin and
the transmission of learning in the Middle Ages. Multilingualism was also present in the
first written examples of the Spanish and Basque lan-guages, the Glosas Emilianenses.
These were notes in Spanish and Basque written in a Latin book at the end of the 11th
century. At the societal level, a well-known example is multilingualism in England after
the Norman Conquest in 1066. En-glish was the language of the majority of the
population, but Norman French was the language of the ruling class, and Latin was the
language of record keeping and the Church. An older example of multilingualism is
Sumerian-Akkadian in Southern Mesopotamia during the third millennium BCE.

Nowadays, multilingualism is a very common phenomenon all over the world. This is to
be expected, considering that there are almost 7,000 languages in the world and about
200 independent countries (Lewis, 2009). It is not only that there are more languages
than countries but also that the number of speakers of the different languages is unevenly
distributed, meaning that speakers of smaller languages need to speak other languages in
their daily life. Multilinguals can be speakers of a minority indigenous language (e.g.,
Navajo in the United States,

3
4 JASONE CENOZ

Maori in New Zealand, or Welsh in the United Kingdom) who need to learn the dominant
state language. In other cases, multilinguals are immigrants who speak their first language(s)
as well as the language(s) of their host countries. In some cases, languages are learned as
they spread internationally, and it is considered that they open doors for better economic and
social opportunities. This is currently the case with English, which is the most widespread
language and is very common as a school subject and as a language of instruction in schools
and universities all over the world (see, e.g., Kirkpatrick & Sussex, 2012).

Several factors have contributed to the current visibility of multilingualism. Among them,
globalization, transnational mobility of the population, and the spread of new technologies
are highly influential in different political, social, and educational contexts. Aronin and
Singleton (2008) compared the features of historical and contemporary multilingualism and
reported seven distinctions. These distinctions can be clustered into three main areas:

Geographical: In comparison with the past, multilingualism is not limited to geographically

close languages or to specific border areas or trade routes. It is a more global phenomenon
spread over different parts of the world.

Social: Multilingualism is no longer associated with specific social strata, professions, or

rituals. It is increasingly spread across different social classes, professions, and sociocultural
activities.

Medium: In the past, multilingual communication was often limited to writ-ing, and mail was
slow. In the 21st century, because of the Internet, multi-lingual communication is multimodal
and instantaneous.

Globalization has increased the value of multilingualism. Speaking different languages has
an added value. As Edwards (2004) pointed out, speaking English can be necessary, “but the
ability to speak other languages none the less ensures a competitive edge” (p. 164). This need
for other languages is obvious if we consider that English is the most widely used language
on the Internet, but the percentage of Internet users of English has decreased from 51.3% in
2000 to 26.8% in 2011. The percentage for the second most used language in 2011, Chinese,
was 24.2%, and for the third, Spanish, 7.8% (Internet World Stats, 2011), but many other
languages are used as well.
Given its growing importance in modern society, multilingualism has at-tracted increasing
attention in applied linguistics as it can be seen in the ti-tles of journals, articles, books, and
academic conferences that use the term multilingualism. At the same time, within applied
linguistics, the study of multi-lingualism has been approached from different perspectives, as
will be seen in the next sections.

TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF MULTILINGUALISM

Multilingualism is a complex phenomenon that can be studied from different per-spectives in

disciplines such as linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics,
DEFINING MULTILINGUALISM 5

and education. There are many definitions of multilingualism. For example, Li (2008)
defined a multilingual individual as “anyone who can communicate in more than one
language, be it active (through speaking and writing) or passive (through listening and
reading” (p. 4). A well-known definition of multilingualism is given by the European
Commission (2007): “the ability of societies, institu-tions, groups and individuals to engage,
on a regular basis, with more than one language in their day-to-day lives” (p. 6). These
definitions of multilingualism are relevant for discussing some of its dimensions: the
individual versus social dimension, the proficiency versus use dimension, and the
bilingualism versus multilingualism dimension.

The Individual Versus Social Dimension of Multilingualism

Multilingualism is at the same time an individual and a social phenomenon. It can be

considered as an ability of an individual, or it can refer to the use of languages in society.
Individual and societal multilingualism are not completely separated. It is more likely that the
individuals who live in a multilingual community speak more than one language than for
individuals who live in a monolingual society. Traditionally, there have been more
multilinguals in areas where regional or minority languages are spoken or in border areas.
However, the intense spread of English as a lingua franca and the mobility of the population
to urban areas across nations have resulted in other situations as well. Today, it is possible to
find many individuals who have learned English and live in traditionally mono-lingual areas.
It is also possible to find many monolingual speakers in big cities in Europe or North
America where there is a very high level of linguistic diversity as a result of immigration,
particularly in contexts in which English is the majority language.

Individual multilingualism is sometimes referred to as plurilingualism. The Council of

Europe (n.d.) website defines plurilingualism as the “repertoire of varieties of language
which many individuals use” so that “some individuals are monolingual and some are
plurilingual.” In contrast, multilingualism is under-stood as “the presence in a geographical
area, large or small, of more than one ‘variety of language’. . .; in such an area individuals
may be monolingual, speaking only their own variety.” This distinction is the same as the
most widely used distinction between individual and societal multilingualism. However,
plurilin-gualism was also used by Moore and Gajo (2009) to highlight “the focus on the
individual as the locus and actor of contact” (p. 138) in a holistic view of multilingualism, as
we will see later.

Within individual multilingualism, there can be important differences in the experience of

acquiring and using languages. An individual can acquire the differ-ent languages
simultaneously by being exposed to two or more languages from birth or successively by
being exposed to second or additional languages later in life. These experiences are related to
the different possibilities in the organi-zation of bilingual memory and the distinctions
between compound, coordinate and subordinate multilinguals (see also De Groot, 2011).

At the societal level, there is an important distinction between additive and subtractive
multilingualism. In the case of additive multilingualism, a language
6 JASONE CENOZ

is added to the linguistic repertoire of the speaker while the first language continues to be
developed. In contrast, subtractive multilingualism refers to situations in which a new
language is learned and replaces the first language. Additive multilingualism is more likely to
happen when speakers of a major-ity language acquire other languages; subtractive
multilingualism can often be found when immigrant schoolchildren are required to shift to
the language of the host country without being given the opportunity to develop their own
language. A related issue is the difference between being multilingual in demo-graphically
strong languages with a high status and weaker languages (Kramsch, 2010).

The Proficiency Versus Use Dimension of Multilingualism

The definitions given above refer to the individual or societal ability to com-municate in
more than one language, but the definition of the European Com-mission also refers to the
use of the languages in everyday life. The focus on ability or use depends on the perspective
of analysis of the broad phe-nomenon of multilingualism and is also related to the individual
and societal dimension. Scholars interested in individual multilingualism often consider the
level of proficiency in the different languages. As Bassetti and Cook (2011) pointed out, most
definitions cluster in two groups: One considers maximal proficiency to be necessary, while
the other accepts minimal proficiency. Baker (2011) considered that a maximalist definition
requiring native control of two languages is too extreme, but that a minimalist definition that
considers incip-ient bilingualism with minimal competence to be considered bilingual is also
problematic.

A related issue is the distinction between balanced and unbalanced multi-lingualism. A

balanced multilingual is equally fluent in two or more languages, and an unbalanced
multilingual has different levels of proficiency in the different languages. Today, the idea of
perfect mastery and perfect balance of two or more languages is no longer considered a
requirement to be bilingual or multilingual (Skutnabb-Kangas & McCarty, 2008).
The use dimension of multilingualism is often considered as the main charac-teristic when
defining multilingual individuals. For example, Ludi¨ and Py (2009) referred to “each
individual currently practising two (or more) languages, and able, where necessary, to switch
from one language to the other without major difficulty, is bilingual (or plurilingual)” (p.
158). Grosjean (2010) also highlighted the use of two or more languages in everyday life as
the main characteristic.

A distinction that brings together proficiency and use is that of receptive ver-sus productive
multilingualism. Receptive multilingualism “refers to the constel-lation in which
interlocutors use their respective mother tongue while speaking to each other” (Zeevaert &
Ten Thije, 2007, p. 1). Receptive multilingualism has a strong tradition in Scandinavia,
where speakers of languages such as Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian use their respective first
languages when communicat-ing with each other because they can understand the languages
used by their interlocutors.
DEFINING MULTILINGUALISM 7

The Bilingualism Versus Multilingualism Dimension

The term multilingualism has gained currency in recent years at the expense of bilingualism,
but the difference between the two terms is not always clear, and different positions can be
found:

Bilingualism as the generic term. This is the traditional position that re-flects the importance
of research involving two languages rather than additional languages. Bilingualism generally
refers to two languages but can include more languages (Cook & Bassetti, 2011).

Multilingualism as the generic term. This can be regarded as the main-stream position
nowadays. Multilingualism is often used to refer to two or more languages (Aronin &
Singleton, 2008). Bilingualism or trilingualism are instances of multilingualism.

Bilingualism and multilingualism as different terms. Some researchers use the term bilingual
for users of two languages and multilingual for three or more (De Groot, 2011). This position
is also common among scholars working on third language acquisition and trilingualism
(Kemp, 2009).

In this article we use multilingualism as a generic term including bilingualism.

RESEARCH THEMES IN THE STUDY OF MULTILINGUALISM

Research on multilingualism has had an important boost recently and has been approached
from different perspectives in applied linguistics. At the individual level some of the most
relevant areas are the following: the cognitive outcomes of multilingualism, the relationship
between language and thought in multilinguals, multilingual language processing, the
multilingual brain, and cross-linguistic in-teraction. At the societal level, multilingualism has
been examined as related to globalization, mobility of the population, and the effect of new
communication techniques. Some of the most relevant areas are the following:
multilingualism as a social construct, multilingual identities, multilingual practices and
multilin-gualism, multimodality, and new technologies.

Cognitive Outcomes of Multilingualism

The effect of multilingualism on cognition has a long tradition particularly in educational

contexts, but in the past few years more attention has been paid to the relationship between
the knowledge of two or more languages and the specific aspects of cognition. For example,
some studies have focused on the differences between monolinguals and multilinguals in
selective attention and inhibitory control (Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan, 2004;
Bialystok, Craik,

Luk, 2008). These studies look at some features of language processing in two languages and
do not analyze the way multilingual speakers communicate in everyday life. The results
indicate that multilinguals of different ages develop
8 JASONE CENOZ

resources that allow them to perform better on some metalinguistic tasks and can even slow
down some aspects of the cognitive decline associated with aging.

The Relationship Between Language and Thought in Multilinguals

There are an increasing number of research studies on the relationship between

multilingualism and conceptualization. Some scholars consider that multilin-guals and
monolinguals have a conceptual base that is identical (see, e.g., De Bot, 2008), while others
think that the differences are not only quantitative but also qualitative (Kecskes, 2010). The
volume edited by Pavlenko (2011) explores the way the acquisition of additional languages is
related to conceptual develop-ment and restructuring and reports interesting findings on areas
such as visual perception, inner speech, and gesturing (see also Cook & Bassetti, 2011; Jarvis
& Pavlenko, 2008).

Multilingual Language Processing

The mechanisms involved in comprehension and production in two or more languages have
been examined as related to phonetics, lexis, and grammar. The area that has received more
attention in recent years is the multilingual lexicon. Research studies have tried to test if all
the languages of a multilingual are activated and compete against each other in language
processing as well as the factors influencing the activation (see Dijkstra, 2009) and have also
looked at mental representations of the multilingual lexicon (Pavlenko, 2009).

The Multilingual Brain

The use of neuroimaging techniques (MRI, fMRI, PET) and methods to analyze the electrical
activity of the brain (ERP, EEG) has opened new possibilities in the study of multilingualism.
They give the opportunity to relate language processing to different parts of the brain and to
explore some characteristics of bilingual processing. Even though much more research is
needed, there is already some indication that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), the
anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and the caudate are the areas where bilingual language
control is regulated both for comprehension and production tasks (De Groot, 2011). These
techniques provide the opportunity to analyze different aspects of bilingual processing with
more accuracy and from different angles, but more research is needed to confirm the
exploratory results.

Cross-Linguistic Interaction

The study of different forms of cross-linguistic interaction, including code switching and
code-mixing, has a long tradition in research on multilingual-ism. Recent trends in the study
of code-switching look at it critically and as related to the negotiation of identities (Gardner-
Choros, 2009; Lin & Li, 2012). Studies on third language acquisition have reported the
multidirectionality of cross-linguistic interaction and indicate that there could be closer links
between
DEFINING MULTILINGUALISM 9

languages other than the first and also between languages that are typologically related (see,
e.g., De Angelis, 2007). Cross-linguistic interaction has also been ex-amined when looking at
the early acquisition of two or more languages (Paradis, 2007).

Multilingual Individuals

The focus on the multilingual individual rather than on the languages spoken by the
multilingual individual has resulted in interesting insights about the char-acteristics of
language learning and language use by multilinguals (Kramsch, 2010; Todeva & Cenoz,
2009). A related aspect is the study of emotions and their dynamics (Dewaele, 2010;
Pavlenko, 2005). Apart from questionnaires and interviews, memoirs and online data have
also contributed to research in this area.

Multilingualism as a Social Construct

The work of the French sociologist Bourdieu (1991) has been extremely influ-ential in the
development of poststructuralist critical approaches to the study of multilingualism. Bourdieu
viewed linguistic practices as a form of symbolic capital. Language varieties that are
legitimated by the social groups in power are more valuable forms of symbolic capital.
Institutions and particularly education are crucial to reproduce legitimacy. Bourdieu’s
theories have stimulated re-search that critically analyzes discourse practices so as to identify
the sociopo-litical implications of the use of different languages. Research in this area has
proved that the use of linguistic resources can be constrained by institutional ideologies and
how linguistic practices represent power relations (Gardner & Martin-Jones, 2012; Heller,
2007). An interesting feature of this line of research is that multilingualism is seen as a
socially constructed phenomenon where languages are sets of resources rather than as fixed
linguistic systems.
Multilingual Identities

There has also been an important development in the study of identities (Block, 2008;
Edwards, 2012; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). A poststructuralist view con-siders identities
as multidimensional, dynamic, and subject to negotiation. An interesting development is the
analysis of code-switching and translanguaging as related to the development of identities
(Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Garc´ıa, 2009). The choice of one or another language is not
only dependent on the availability of the linguistic resources the multilingual individual has
at his or her disposal, but at the same time an act of identity.

Multilingual Practices

A related development of multilingualism at the societal level has been the study of language
practices in different contexts. For example, Canagarajah and Liyanage (2012) highlighted
the importance of language practices in pre-colonial
10 JASONE CENOZ

and post-colonial non-Western contexts for the study of multilingualism. The study of
multilingual practices in urban contexts had already given interesting insights about crossing
language boundaries in the 1990s (Rampton, 1995) and has been expanded in recent years
(Block, 2008; Byrd Clark, 2009; Jørgensen, 2008).

Multilingualism, Multimodality, and New Technologies

The development of multimedia technology, communication channels, and me-dia has

encouraged multimodal literacy, which is based on the affordances provided by gesture,
sound, visuals, and other semiotic symbols including but not limited to language (Lytra, 2012;
Shohamy & Gorter, 2009).

ATOMISTIC AND HOLISTIC VIEWS OF MULTILINGUALISM

As we have already seen, the study of multilingualism has gone in different directions. In this
section we will discuss the trend towards holistic rather than atomistic views in recent years.
According to the Oxford Dictionaries, the term holistic can be understood as “the belief that
the parts of something are inti-mately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the
whole” and can be opposed to atomistic, which “regards something as interpretable through
analysis into distinct, separable, and independent elementary components”
(http://oxforddictionaries.com/). The study of multilingualism, particularly in linguistics and
psycholinguistics, has traditionally focused on the analysis of specific elements rather than on
the relationship among these elements. Atom-istic research on multilingualism usually looks
at one specific feature of syntax, phonetics, or lexis in the development and acquisition of one
language. For example, the focus can be on the acquisition of wh-questions or weak vowels in
English, or the subjunctive in Spanish. As Li (2011) pointed out, the idea is to look at “one
language only” or “one language at a time” (p. 374) even if proficiency in two or three
languages is analyzed. The atomistic view, which is the most widespread view adopted in
multilingualism studies, is characterized by focusing on specific elements and separating the
languages. Code-mixing and code-switching are often seen as problematic because they
indicate lack of competence. Atomistic views of multilingualism consider languages as
discrete, fixed, and independent entities and imply that multilinguals are expected to be like
two or more monolinguals.

Atomistic views of multilingualism are widespread and generally accepted, but they have also
been contested since the late 1980s. Grosjean (1985), using a holistic view of bilingualism,
considered that bilinguals are fully competent speaker-hearers who have a unique linguistic
profile. Cook (1992), also adopt-ing a holistic view, proposed the term multicompetence as a
complex type of competence, which is qualitatively different from the competence of
monolin-gual speakers of a language. Cook considered that the knowledge multilingual
speakers have of their language is different from that of monolingual speakers because
acquiring a second language can have an effect on the first language
DEFINING MULTILINGUALISM 11

(Cook, 2003). These ideas are widely used in theoretical and empirical work on
multilingualism (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Jessner, 2008).

The trend towards a holistic view of multilingualism has spread in different directions in
recent years. In this section I will use the elements of the focus on multilingualism (Cenoz &
Gorter, 2011) to discuss the main contributions. This approach for teaching and research in
multilingual education relates the way multilingual students (and multilingual speakers in
general) use their com-municative resources in spontaneous conversation to the way
languages are learned and taught at school. It analyzes the gap between the traditional focus
on one language at a time in research on multilingualism and multilingualism in real life
communication involving all the languages and multilingual discursive practices. It explores
the possibility of establishing bridges that can link these two realities so that multilingual
students can use their own resources to a larger extent in formal education. Focus on
multilingualism has three dimensions: the multilingual speaker, the whole linguistic repertoire,
and the social context. In this section I will use the three dimensions of focus on
multilingualism as a framework to discuss holistic views of multilingualism without limiting it
to educational contexts.

The Multilingual Speaker

The holistic view of multilingualism highlights the characteristics of multilingual speakers as

different from those of monolingual speakers. Multilingual speakers use the languages at their
disposal as a resource in communication, and as their repertoire is wider, they usually have
more resources available than monolingual speakers. As Block (2007) suggested,
multilinguals do not seem to be semilingual, but rather hyperlingual. Research on third
language acquisition has indicated that bilinguals can also use these resources to learn
additional languages (Cenoz, 2009).
At the same time, it is important to take into consideration that multilin-gual speakers use
different languages, either in isolation or mixed, according to their communicative needs and
their interlocutors. While monolingual speakers use one single language in all situations,
multilingual speakers navigate among languages and do not use each of their languages for the
same purposes in all communicative situations, in the same domains, or with the same people
(Moore

Gajo, 2009). A multilingual person may read the newspaper in one language but a technical
report in another language. The same multilingual person may chat on the Internet in two
languages depending on their interlocutors but watch movies in only one of those languages.
Grosjean (2010) said that it is a myth to believe that bilinguals have exactly the same equal
and perfect knowledge of two languages. In fact, this is even more the case if three or more
languages are involved.

In spite of these differences between monolinguals and multilinguals, the communicative

skills of multilingual speakers have traditionally been measured from a monolingual
perspective against the yardstick of the ideal native speaker of each of the languages involved.
This monolingual bias in multilingualism re-search does not take into consideration the
characteristics of multilinguals at the
12 JASONE CENOZ

cognitive level (Cook & Bassetti, 2011; Kecskes, 2010; Pavlenko, 2011). It does not consider
either that multilinguals can use their languages as a resource so that the languages reinforce
one another or the way multilingual speakers navigate between languages in real
communication. As Cruz-Ferreira (2010) pointed out, the monolingual norm has focused on
languages and on native speakers using monolingual norms so as to see how they differ from
language learners who have been considered deficient. A holistic approach to multilingualism
does not look at each ideal native speaker of each of the languages, but at the multilingual per-
son as a whole. The holistic view of multilingualism focusing on the multilingual speaker is
sometimes referred to as plurilingualism (Canagarajah & Liyanage, 2012; Moore & Gajo,
2009).

Another important dimension of holistic views of multilingualism is that the development of

multilingual competence is dynamic and involves changes in language acquisition and
language use (Jessner, 2008). The exposure multilin-gual speakers have to the languages in
their repertoire is not fixed, and their multicompetence is also variable. In fact, the proficiency
of monolingual speak-ers is also dynamic, but the dynamics can be seen more clearly in the
case of multilingual speakers.

The Whole Linguistic Repertoire

Another dimension of focus on multilingualism is the need to adopt a holistic view of all the
languages spoken by multilinguals, rather than focusing on one language at the time. An
important point of this view is the boundaries between languages. Atomistic views of
multilingualism have focused on specific elements of one language and have considered any
type of mixing between languages as an indicator of low proficiency. Languages have been
analyzed separately, completely independent of each other. However, when multilingual
speakers communicate in real life, they use languages as a resource. The boundaries between
their languages are soft. Multilingual speakers, unlike monolinguals, have the possibility of
using elements from the different languages at their disposal.
Holistic views of multilingualism pay attention to the way multilingual speak-ers use their
linguistic resources in ways that are different from the way mono-lingual speakers use of
single languages. Multilingual speech is creative and includes instances of language
interaction in different directions. There is an increasing number of scholars who reject the
idea of languages as discrete bounded entities and consider that the hybridity of multilingual
communication can be better explained by focusing on features and resources (Jørgensen,
2008; Rampton & Charalambous, 2012). New terms such as metrolingualism (Otsuji

Pennycook, 2009), heteroglossia (Bailey, 2012), or polylingualism (Jørgensen, 2008) have

been proposed in the past few years.

A term that has gained currency lately is translanguaging (Creese & Black-ledge, 2010; Garc
´ıa, 2009; Li, 2010). This term is a translation of the Welsh term trawsieithu, which was first
used by Williams (2002). Its original meaning referred to the educational practice of using
Welsh and English in the classroom so that students read a passage or listened to some
information in one language and had
DEFINING MULTILINGUALISM 13

to develop their work in another language. Garc´ıa (2009) broadened the scope of the term to
refer to the process that involves multiple discursive practices and is the norm in multilingual
communities.

A holistic view of the linguistic repertoire can also be adopted in multilingual education when
several languages are studied as school subjects or languages of instruction. A holistic
approach aims at integrating the curricula of the different languages to activate the resources
of multilingual speakers. In this way multi-lingual students could use their resources cross-
linguistically and become more efficient language learners than when languages are taught
separately. Research that analyzes the written production of multilingual children in two and
three languages indicates that general writing strategies transfer cross-linguistically (Cenoz &
Gorter, 2011; Soltero-Gonzalez,´ Escamilla, & Hopewell, 2012). These findings can have
important pedagogical implications because the same strat-egy does not have to be taught in
different languages but only practiced and reinforced once it has been learned in one language.

The Social Context

As we have already seen, sociological, sociolinguistic, and anthropological ap-proaches to the

study of multilingualism are widely used. A holistic view of multi-lingualism focuses on
multilingual language use in social contexts and takes into account the interaction between
multilingual speakers and the communicative context. Being a competent multilingual implies
acquiring skills to be accepted as a member of a community of practice (Kramsch &
Whiteside, 2007). While engaging in language practices, multilingual speakers shape this
context (see also Canagarajah 2007; Kramsch, 2010). Nowadays, the communicative context
is often multimodal and can combine visuals, sound, texts, and other semiotic symbols. A
holistic view of multilingualism sees multilingual competence as linked to the social context
in which language practices take place. In these contexts, the boundaries between languages
and between different semiotic devices are often blurred.

In sum, in the past few years there has been a shift from the strong atomistic perspective that
has traditionally focused on the multilingual as the sum of sev-eral monolinguals, one
language at the time, to holistic perspectives based on the multilingual speaker, the whole
linguistic repertoire, and the social context. Even though holistic views of multilingualism
have contributed to our under-standing of the complex phenomenon of multilingualism,
atomistic views can also provide relevant information about some specific linguistic,
psycholinguis-tic, or neurolinguistic aspects of multilingualism.
FINAL REMARKS

Research on multilingualism may be seen as heterogeneous or even disorganized because it is

based on different theoretical frameworks and uses a wide range of methodological
approaches. However, this is to be expected if we consider that research on multilingualism is
studied by experts in linguistics, neurolinguistics,
14 JASONE CENOZ

sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and education, among others. Multilingual-ism has

multiple facets, and researchers in all these areas have different goals when they try to test
hypotheses or answer research questions. In this article, we have seen that there are different
dimensions, that the focus of research may be on individual or social multilingualism, and that
it is possible to adopt an atom-istic or a holistic perspective. Multilingualism is also
widespread geographically, and multilingual speakers can be found in all parts of the world.
At the societal level, multilingualism can often be found at different levels: in the family, at
work, and in education. Multilingualism can be developed in early childhood or later on in
life, and it can involve a limitless combination of languages.

Research on multilingualism is highly productive, as shown by new proposals, concepts,

hypotheses, and findings. The need to improve our knowledge of indi-vidual and societal
multilingualism is linked to globalization. The intensification of international contacts, the
internationalization of the economy, and the mo-bility of the population have produced more
opportunities to conduct research on multilingualism and have also highlighted the importance
of this research. Research on multilingualism has also benefitted from technology. Nowadays,
it is possible to investigate patterns of brain activation using a wide range of techniques. It is
also possible to take a large number of pictures of the linguistic landscape using digital
cameras or to analyze online communication among multilinguals. Technology can facilitate
data collection and analyses and, at the same time, help to move research forward by
providing new insights.

Traditional ways of approaching research in multilingualism have been chal-lenged by holistic

approaches in recent years. Both atomistic and holistic views of multilingualism can
contribute to our knowledge of multilingualism provided that multilingualism is seen not just
as a simple additional of languages but as a phenomenon with its own characteristics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to acknowledge the funding by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness EDU2012-32191 and the Basque Department of Education, Research and
Universities IT714-13-UFI 11/54. I would like to thank the volume editor Charlene Polio and
the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cook, V., & Bassetti, B. (Eds.). (2011). Language and bilingual cognition. Oxford, UK:

Psychology Press.

This edited book explores the relationship between language and cognition. The volume is divided into
three parts: (a) the relationship between language and cognition, (b) bilingual cognition, and (c)
applications and implications of bilingual cognition research. The volume explores the relationship
between language and cog-nition in different domains of thinking, including time, space and motion,
reason, and
DEFINING MULTILINGUALISM 15

emotion and sensory perception. This volume can certainly be of great interest for students and
researchers.

De Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An

introduction. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

This monograph looks at individual multilingualism from a psycholinguistic approach. This substantial,
introductory text of more than 500 pages provides an up-to-date account of comprehension, production,
and acquisition processes. The volume also discusses the cognitive consequences of multilingualism and
neuropsy-chological aspects of multilingualism. It is a very welcome contribution to studies on
multilingualism that can be highly recommended both to students and researchers.

Garc´ıa, O. (2009). Introducing bilingual education. In O. Garc´ıa (Ed.), Bilingual education in the 21st
century: A global perspective (pp. 3–17). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

This volume presents a holistic approach to the study of multilingual educa-tion. The author proposed a
new paradigm looking at the complexity and dynamics of multilingual education. This book is highly
recommended for all those interested in multilingual education and multiple discursive practices in
school contexts. The book contains 15 chapters and covers a range of topics: translanguaging,
educational policies, assessment, education practices, and multiliteracy.

Li, W., & Moyer, M. (Eds.). (2008). The Blackwell handbook of research methods on bilingualism and
multilingualism (pp. 3–17). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

This edited volume contains 22 chapters and specifically addresses method-ological issues when
conducting research on multilingualism. It provides a theoretical background of research in bilingualism,
but the main focus is on procedures, methods, and tools. The last part of the volume provides ideas for
projects and dissemination and provides sources on multilingualism. It is an excellent multidisciplinary
guide for students and new researchers in multilingualism.
Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of
multilingualism. London, UK: Routledge.

This edited volume contains 32 chapters and focuses on sociolinguistic and ethnographic research in
multilingualism. It looks at discourses about multilingualism in social, cultural, and political contexts;
multilingualism in education; multilingualism in other institutional sites; multilingualism in social and
cultural change; and multilin-gual practices. It is an outstanding contribution to the study of societal
multilingualism.

REFERENCES

Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2008). Multilingualism as a new linguistic dispensation.

International Journal of Multilingualism, 5, 1–16.

Bailey, B. (2012). Heteroglossia. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of multilingualism (pp. 499–507). London, UK: Routledge.

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Bassetti, B., & Cook, V. (2011). Language and cognition: The second language user. In V. J. Cook & B.
Bassetti (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition (pp. 143–190). Oxford, UK: Psychology Press.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive
control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290–303.
JASONE CENOZ

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older
bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-tion, 34, 859–873.

Byrd Clark, J. (2009). Multilingualism, citizenship, and identity: Voices of youth and symbolic
investments in an urban, globalized world. London, UK: Continuum.

Block, D. (2007). Bilingualism: Four assumptions and four responses. Innovation in Lan-guage
Learning and Teaching, 1, 66–82.

Block, D. (2008). Multilingual identities in a global city. London, UK: Palgrave.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Canagarajah, S.
(2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language

acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939.

Canagarajah, S., & Liyanage, I. (2012). Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism. In

M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of mul-tilingualism (pp.
49–65). London, UK: Routledge.

Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an

international perspective. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing.

Modern Language Journal, 95, 356–369.

Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557–591.

Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cook, V., & Bassetti, B. (Eds.). (2011). Language and bilingual cognition. Oxford, UK:

Psychology Press.

Council of Europe. (n.d.). Policies for Plurilingualism. Council of Europe, Educa-tion and Language,
Language Policy (website). Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/ t/dg4/linguistic/Division_en.asp

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A peda-gogy for
learning and teaching. Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115.

Cruz-Ferreira, M. (Ed.). (2010). Multilingual norms. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.

De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
De Bot, K. (2008). Review article: The imaging of what in the multilingual mind? Second Language
Research, 24, 111–133.

De Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An

introduction. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Dewaele, J. M. (2010). Emotions in multiple languages. London, UK: Palgrave.

¨

Dijkstra, A. (2009). The multilingual lexicon. In S. Dominiek, J. O. Ostman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.),
Cognition and pragmatics: Handbook of pragmatics highlights (pp. 369–389). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Edwards, V. (2004). Multilingualism in the English-speaking world. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Edwards, J. (2012). Multilingualism: Understanding linguistic diversity. London, UK:

Continuum.

European Commission. (2007). Final report: High level group on multilingualism. Lux-embourg:
European Communities. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/
policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf

Garc´ıa, O. (2009). Introducing bilingual education. In O. Garc´ıa (Ed.), Bilingual education in the 21st
century: A global perspective (pp. 3–17). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gardner-Choros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, S., & Martin-Jones, M. (Eds.). (2012). Multilingualism, discourse, and ethnography.

London, UK: Routledge

Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 6, 467–477.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heller, M.
(2007). Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller (Ed.) Bilingualism as

a social approach (pp. 1–24). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.

DEFINING MULTILINGUALISM 17

Internet World Stats. (2011). Internet world users by language. Retrieved from
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm

Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Jessner, U. (2008). A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistic aware-ness. Modern
Language Journal, 92, 270–283

Jørgensen, J. N. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children and adoles-cents.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 5, 161–176.

Kecskes, I. (2010). Dual and multilanguage systems. International Journal of Multilingual-ism, 7, 91–
109.

Kemp, C. (2009). Defining multilingualism. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The explo-ration of
multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism, and multiple language acquisition
(pp. 11–26). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Kirkpatrick, A., & Sussex, R. (Eds.). (2012). English as an international language in Asia:

Implications for language education. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Kramsch, C. (2010). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C., &
Whiteside, A. (2007). Three fundamental concepts in SLA and their rele-

vance in multilingual contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 905–920.

Lewis, M. P. (Ed.). (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (16th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL
International. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com/

Li, W. (2008). Research perspectives on bilingualism and multilingualism. In W. Li & M. Moyer (Eds.),
The Blackwell handbook of research methods on bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 3–17). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.

Li, W. (2010). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by
multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222– 1235.

Li, W. (2011). Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code- and mod-eswitching by

minority ethnic children in complementary schools. Modern Language Journal, 95, 370–384.
Lin, A., & Li, D. C. S. (2012). Codeswitching. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 470–481). London, UK: Routledge.

Ludi,¨ G., & Py, B. (2009). To be or not to be . . . a plurilingual speaker. International Journal of
Multilingualism, 6, 154–167.

Lytra, V. (2012). Multilingualism and multimodality. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 521–537). London, UK: Routledge.

Moore, D., & Gajo, L. (2009). Introduction: French voices on plurilingualism and pluricul-turalism:
Theory, significance, and perspectives. International Journal of Multilingual-ism, 6, 137–153.

Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2009). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity, and language in flux.

International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, 240–254.

Paradis, J. (2007). Early bilingual and multilingual acquisition. In P. Auer & W. Li (Eds.), Handbook of
multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 15–44). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and multilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2009). The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches. Cleve-

don, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages. Clevedon, UK: Multi-lingual
Matters.

Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual con-texts.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language & ethnicity among adolescents. London, UK: Long-man.
18 JASONE CENOZ

Rampton, B., & Charalambous, C. (2012). Crossing. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 482–498). London, UK: Routledge.

Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & McCarty, T. (2008). Key concepts in bilingual education: Ide-ological,
historical, epistemological, and empirical foundations. In J. Cummins & N. Hornberger (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education: Bilingual education (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 3–17). New York,
NY: Springer.

Soltero-Gonzalez,´ L., Escamilla, K., & Hopewell, S. (2012). Changing teachers’ perceptions about the
writing abilities of emerging bilingual students: Towards a holistic bilingual perspective on writing
assessment. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 71–94.

Todeva, E., & Cenoz, J. (Eds.). (2009). The multiple realities of multilingualism. Berlin, Germany:
Mouton de Gruyter.

Williams, C. (2002). Extending bilingualism in the education system. (Education and Lifelong Learning
Committee ELL-06–02 [p. 4]). Retrieved from http://www.
assemblywales.org/3c91c7af00023d820000595000000000.pdf

Zeevaert, L., & Ten Thije, J. D. (2007). Introduction. In J. D. Ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive
multilingualism (pp. 1–21). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
 X
View publication stats