THE BILINGUAL

TURN IN SLA

AAAL ConferenceAtlanta-- March 6-9, 2010

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

LOURDES ORTEGA

Please cite as:

Ortega, L. (2010). The Bilingual Turn in SLA. Plenary delivered at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Atlanta, GA, March 6-9.

Copyright © Lourdes Ortega, 2010

thanks

Heidi Byrnes Viviana Cortes Hiram Maxim (Max)

AAAL, Atlanta &GSU

No handout, but ppt available on my website

Why this now?

intense reflection efforts:

2000 2010

intense reflection efforts:

2000 2010

¡Ánimo, que tú puedes! Άντε, Λουρδάκι μου,

κουράγιο! Don’t give up, you can

do it!Das Schaffst Du

doch!

Conclusion: Since mid to late 1990s, great expansions and healthy developments in Second Language Acquisition

Social Turn

Epistemological Diversity

Almost 2 years ago… AAAL invitation…

What’s still missing in SLA?

the monolingual bias,the problem of

nativeness

Canagarajah (2004) Firth & Wagner (1997) García (2008) Hall et al. (2006) Holliday (1994) Holliday & Aboshiha (2009) Jenkins (2006) Leung (2005) Norton & Toohey (2001) Rampton (1990) Seidlhofer (2001) Shohamy (2006) Sridhar (1994)

and so many more ... ... ... ...!

Extensive attention from social and critical perspectives:

But, theoretical-philosophical musings only?

has yet to be fully recognized and redressed

In SLA, too, it has been denounced for a long time now:

Birdsong (2005)V. Cook (since 1991)Klein (1998)Singleton & Aronin (2007)Valdés (e.g., 2005)

Monolingual Bias

Monolingual bias in SLA is real and pervasiveIt has ideological rootsOvercoming this state of affairs is desirable……and possible through a Bilingual Turn

Task

Standards and values from within cognitive, linguistic, quantitative SLAInsights from linguistic & psycholinguistic research on bilingualismSome tools from critical sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology

Tools

-lingua

l-

Terminology

unimon

obi

multi

ism

ity

neutral

=morethanone lg.

broader construct

linguistic competen

cies

1. Monolingual bias in SLA…

…real…pervasive

appearance of monolingualism as the norm, mirage of L2 acquisition as monolingual-like

Sampling: NSs, NNSsData elicitation: L2 onlyData analysis: bilingual transcribers, coders, raters?Constructs/interpretations: designed to explain “learning how to behave monolingually in a new language”

Research practices:

Why (monolingual) First Language Acquisition?

Choice of feeder disciplines:

BFLA has been available in our landscape since the 1970s!(De Houwer, 2009; Li Wei & Moyer, 2008)

IDEOLOGICALROOTS

the construct of nativeness

What do we mean by “native”?

a language user…+ by birth+ born to one language only+ no detectable traces of other languages

“monolingual native”

“native” =

“native” =“monolingual by birth”

“non-native” =“bilingual by experience”

a thing or concept is named by one of its parts, and we understand the meaning of the whole

A form of metonymy called

SYNECDOCHE:(ενα είδος μετωνυμίας -- συνεκδοχή)

“non-native speaker” =

“native speaker” =

By birth

One langua

ge

Multiple

languages

Not by birth

Synecdoche supports monolinguality as default

+L2 users’ bilinguality is

erased

Three consequences:(following Gal & Irvine, 1995)

+Synecdoche also places the definitional weight

with birth(rights)

Unilingual default

Two definitional features

L2 acquisition = “efforts by monolingual adults to add on a monolingual-like command of an additional language”

(Ortega, 2009, p. 5)+in an imagined world where what’s given/owned by birth can never be matched or altered by experience/history

Monolingual Bias in SLA

unilingualism as implicit norm

bilinguality as

invisible reality

birth as inalienab

le privilege

Deleterious consequence

s

Bilingual insights, ways out

2. Unilingualism as implicit norm…

… ‘bad science’

Is the ‘language faculty’ monolingual?

No! No monolingual “confusion” out of which the ability to “cope” with multiple languages self-organizes!

Bilingual insight #1

Infants and babies exposed to bilingual input engage in bilingual learning from the start

Phonology: babies 0-to-5 days of birth (e.g., Byers-Heinlein, Werker, & Burns, 2008)

High amplitud sucking

paradigmMorphosyntax: case studies across 29 children and 13 different language pairs (De Houwer, 2005)

Monolinguality as default lack of responsiveness to best cognitive science knowledge

from birthOne language

“unilingual native”

Several languages

by later experience

“multicompetent user”

“multilingual

native”

“delayed first

language

acquisition”

a number of learning profiles are common and relevant:

late bimodal bilinguals

the ‘language faculty’is a lot more complex

and dynamic thandichotomous nativeness

thinking can allow us to imagine!

Environmental influences are all important for multiple-language acquisition… and the environment is multilingual too!

Bilingual insight #2

“… the timing of acquisition of a bilingual’s two languages is related to amount of exposure to each language” (and, particularly more so, in a bilingual’s minority language, where input effects reach into adulthood)

(Gathercole & Thomas, 2009)

Lg A

Lg A

Lg B

Lg B

Lg A & B

Lg A & B

Lg A & B

Lg A & B

Lg A

Lg A

Grosjean’s (2008) Complementarity Principle Figure 3.1

Multilingual environment, with the multiple languages mapped differentially across domains of life and social networks

Relevant for bilingual learning is the totality of all multiple-language input across domains, purposes, and social networks

Yet, in SLA, environment is largely ‘assumed’:

“SL/FL setting”“length of stay/residence”“length of study”birth itself

Idealization of learning environments as ‘assumed’ rather than ‘empirically documented’ in SLA poor science

Ranta & Meckelborg’s (2009)computerized log methodology

How much contact does an “SL” setting afford?In this case, at least: “the answer is clearly both “not as much as you might expect” and also “it depends on the learner””

(p. 13)

Chinese graduate students at a Canadian university during their first 6 months of study

e.g., oral interactions with friends in English:

Average: 11 minutes dailyIndividual variation: 1.79 – 47.14 min. daily

Ranta & Meckelborg (2009)

Bilingual orientation: e.g., Watching TV in English while talking to my spouse in Chinese

‘Input/environment’ must be empirically investigated:

Whenever possible, multilingually…

unilingualism as implicit norm

“bad science”

In sum:

1. Monolingualism is not the default, the starting or end point, or the ‘normal’ comparison for SLA2. Environment and input are multilingual and all-important; they cannot be left assumed, they must be investigated multilingually

3. Multilinguality as invisible reality…… ‘unethical’

Deficit construction of

L2 users

What ethical concerns?

How is deficit constructed?

Unilingual analyses only

By erasing bilinguals’ other languages from analysis, their repertoires are made to look like “less” instead of “more”

Mental L2 lexicon

“How does the bilingual lexicon develop?”

SLA adultSizeL2

DiversityL2

MultidimensionalWord

knowledgeL2

DepthBreadthStrength

L2

“L2Vocabulary”

By definition, bilingual users have a larger total linguistic repertoire than monolingual users!

(De Houwer, 2009)

Bilingual insight #3

Bilingual lexicon

“How does the bilingual lexicon develop?”

Bilingual child doubletsLA-Lα

singletsLA-øø-Lα

lg-uniqueLALα lg-neutral

LA=LαCognatesLA~Lα

“TotalVocabulary”

This is not trivial for descriptions of L2 vocabularyMost relevant for the

study of academic vocabulary e.g., L2 users developing academic vocabularies in L2-medium schools/universities!

Bilingual competence should be investigated not just in one language, the analytical focus must be on the bilingual’s total language repertoire.

discourse

Other ways in which deficit is constructed?

Much more often than not, SLA discourses construct L2 learning and learners as defined by impossibility and failure, bounded by deficiency and disadvantage

…proponents of this view offer an explanation for adults’ relative failure to reach nativelikeness that is based on neurological changes that occur at a certain age (e.g., puberty) and that lead to a sudden or gradual deterioration or distortion of the implicit language learning mechanism…

…proponents of this view offer an explanation for adults’ relative failure to reach nativelikeness that is based on neurological changes that occur at a certain age (e.g., puberty) and that lead to a sudden or gradual deterioration or distortion of the implicit language learning mechanism…

… a number of studies show that L2 learners’ employment of formulaic sequences is often problematic. Although learners can produce a considerable number of native-like sequences…, there is evidence that learners’ restricted formulaic repertoires lead them to overuse those sequences they know well … Still, overall, nonnative use of formulaic sequences is less pervasive and less diverse than native norms … It is not surprising, therefore, that L2 learners’ failure to use native-like formulaic sequences is one factor in making their writing feel nonnative…

… a number of studies show that L2 learners’ employment of formulaic sequences is often problematic. Although learners can produce a considerable number of native-like sequences…, there is evidence that learners’ restricted formulaic repertoires lead them to overuse those sequences they know well … Still, overall, nonnative use of formulaic sequences is less pervasive and less diverse than native norms … It is not surprising, therefore, that L2 learners’ failure to use native-like formulaic sequences is one factor in making their writing feel nonnative…

How does the discourse of deficit work?

nativeness

“Virtue of monolingu

al nativeness

”Linguicism

“Unilingual native speakers must be the benchmark for L2 learning because their linguistic purity and prowess deserves this place”…

… “if multilingual (late) users are studied and explained as deficient, it is because they simply don’t measure up to the superior competence of native speakers”…

… “and it’d be to their advantage if they did.”

Illiberal discourses masqueraded by liberal arguments

(Blackledge, 2005)

“Discourses […] make some things in the world noticeable and discussible, and others invisible, and, in the last analysis, even create “things” themselves”

(Hill, 2008, p. 19)

(Why) should we care about discourse?

Discourses of deficit are also persuasive even to those who are construed as deficient by them:

“many bilinguals … have a tendency to evaluate their language competencies as inadequate. Some criticize their mastery of language skills, others strive their hardest to reach monolingual norms, others still hide their knowledge of their “weaker” language, and most simply do not perceive themselves as being bilingual even though they use two (or more) languages regularly”

cf. Cook (1999), Canagarajah (2004), Jenkins (2006)

Grosjean (2008, p. 224)

Do we assume responsibility?

How?

One useful tool for thinking of how to dismantle the

discourse of deficit:

Hill’s (2008) analysis of language ideologies that

support covert racism

Hill (2008):

personalist ideology: meaning comes from speaker intentions (p. 38)

referentialist ideology: meaning comes from reference, words should match the world and be true (p. 90)

social alexithymia: inattention to the feelings of people [who are the target of systematic discrimination] (p. 114)

performative ideology: “some words are not understood as true or false, but as assaultive” (e.g., hate speech) (p. 40)

Do we assume responsibility?

Option 1: We can embrace certain ideologies that support inaction …

[paraphrasing Hill (p.

180)]

“I am a good and normal mainstream sort of ……… I am not a …….., because ……. are bad and marginal people”... [personalist ideology]

“Therefore, if you understood my words to be ……., you must be mistaken.” [referentialist ideology]

“I may have used language that would be …. in the mouth of a …. person, but if I did so, [ I didn’t mean it]” [personalist-referentialist ideology]

“If you understood my meaning to be ….., not only do you insult me, […] you are oversensitive” [social alexithymia]

Option 2: We can confront the ethical problem through a performative ideology that demands action…

The linguicism of the monolingual native virtue is traumatic for those who are targets of it;

whether accurate or inaccurate, (referentialist ideology)

intentional or unintentional… (personalist ideology),

… it hurts(performative ideology)and therefore…

… it cannot be dismissed as exaggerated (social alexithymia)

instead, it must be redressed with reparation

Bilingual insight #4

Discourse of deficitBFLA alternatives

native-like choices

mature choices

fluid meaningsnon-target-like meanings

transfer caused/induced

transfer supported by…

inability to discriminatetolerance towards other

sound boundaries..

“L1 and L2” “language pairs”

“just” political correctness?

Much more:a call for

realignment of discourse with

beliefs, values, and desired effects

Bilingualism:Deficit or

Potentiality?

bilinguality as

invisible reality

“unethical”

In sum:

1. It supports deficit rather than potentiality

3. Discourses of deficit hurt and must be redressed by emphasizing potentiality

2. When only one of the languages is visible, deficiency (“less”) is created

4. Birth as inalienable right… … ‘most

uncertain solution’

Two bilingual insights erode the “inalienable birthrights” position

The languages of the bilingual interact, and the interactions are in all directions

Bilingual insight # 5

Remarkable: interactions affect the native language as well

Kroll, Gerfen, & Dussias (2008, p. 109)

In adult L2 acquisition, too, reverse interactions (Ln-to-L1) have been documented, e.g.,

For rhetorical preferences, Kubota (1998)For expression of motion, Brown & Gullberg (2008)For lexical semantics & morphosyntax, Pavlenko & Jarvis (2002)Many more: Cenoz et al. (2001), Cook (2003)

Also remarkable: reverse interactions happen even at intermediate proficiency levels (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008)

Interesting: interactions are typically captured only when data are elicited in participants’ multiple languages

Acute awareness that changes in experience have tremendous, disproportionate, ripple effects on the shape and outcomes of bilingualism across individuals

Bilingual insight # 6

Life events, turning points, changing soundscapes, rapid forgetting and relearning, throughout the whole lifespan…

De Houwer (2009)Schmid (2010)

These bilingual insights counter the myth of immutable, fixed, inalienable privileges of the language(s) owned by birth…

Experience/history can and do alter (and they sometimes can take over) what is given/owned by birth

However, there is considerable murkiness and complexity…

Whence the ideology of inalienable birthrights?

etic.............................................................emic

general..............................................particular

homogeneous.....................................variable

inherited~birth..........................made~history

Epistemological tensions across social sciencesNativist theories........................Empiricist theories{Biology} ................................................{Sociality}

The Social Turn

Lg instinct..................................Lg social tool

initial state...............................................input

grammar rules..........................constructions

inherited~birth..........................made~history

In “cog-ling-quant” SLA:Formalist SLA..................Usage-based SLA

“maybe biological schedules, time-locked from birth to age X (=CP)”

Why are “birth+age” important?

Nativist-

formalist

“maybe biological schedules, time-locked from birth to age X (=CP)”

Nativist-

formalist

The dichotomous research view of “native” vs. “non-native” divided along the birthrights line is congruent

“maybe biological schedules, time-locked from birth to age X (=CP)”

Nativist-

formalist

How likely, debunking the birthrights ideology?

Quite unlikely!The NS will probably stay…Best case scenario: monol NS > bil NS

Empiricist usage-based

“maybe experience shapes language (across full lifespan)”

Aren’t birth and age just proxies for “experience”?

Why are “birth+age” important?

Why dichotomize a priori into native/non-native participants?

Mustn’t mature, experienced users -regardless of their birth status - be a main yardstick?

Mustn’t “history of usage” be a main focus of the research?

Empiricist usage-based

“maybe experience shapes language (across full lifespan)”

Only a non-dichotomous research continuum of varying ages / histories of exposure / proficiencies would be congruent…

Yet, native speakers are as prominent in usage-based research as in other types of SLA research

Yet, birth privileges are looming immutable in metaphors such as ‘L1 entrenchment’ and ‘competition’

How can we make sense of this ontological-

epistemological incongruence?

Ideological multiplicity (Philips, 2004):

Usage-based SLA participates from social and biological narratives at once

It participates in what Cameron (2010) calls a “new biologism” associated with a “Darwinian turn,” which attempts to de-dichotomize the biology-sociality divide

“Language is socially constructed […] Language use, social roles, language learning, and conscious experience are all socially situated, negotiated, scaffolded, and guided.”

N. Ellis & & D. Larsen-Freeman (2006, p. 572)

Phenomena investigated, much less social:

Language users as intuitive statisticiansL1 EntrenchmentPrototypicality, reliability, & genericity of constructionsZipfian distributions of form-function mappings…

Will the privileges of the birth language(s) be ever doubted????(e.g., the metaphors of entrenchment & competition…)

Empiricist usage-based

How likely, debunking the birthrights ideology?

Formalist SLA: Positive developments towards bilingual outlook, e.g., Montrul (2004, 2010); Haznedar & Gavruseva (2008), Rothman (2008; Rothman & Iverson, 2010)…Usage-based SLA: Most promising theory at many levels, e.g., Ortega, (2009), Mellow (2010)

I don’t want to overemphasize the negative!

But, will the ideology of immutable birthrights be dislodged in either theory any soon?

On this score, uncertainty

birth as inalienab

le privilege

“most uncertain solution”

In sum:

1. We do have empirical evidence from bilingual studies undermining birthrights ideologies2. But will the ‘privilege of nativeness’ be seen as a problem? Unlikely by formalist theories (nativism), with difficulty by empiricist theories (ideological multiplicity and murkiness of the new biologism)

5. In conclusion:

I have painted a bleak picture of a discipline blinded by the monolingual bias

The covertness and naturalization of ideologies makes irrationality difficult to recognize

A subtle leap from apparently neutral scientific constructs…

… into un-recognized ideologies that end up hurting disciplinary knowledge and goals:

MonolingualIdeology

Nativist/biologistIdeology

Linguicism

It has deleterious consequences for good science and for ethical accountability

Overcoming the monolingual bias is desirable

We can turn to research on bilingualism and harness and heed this knowledge in the field of SLA

Possible way out?

So, what does the project of a

bilingual turn for SLA look like?

1. We would consider and compare a variety of language learning profiles in order to explain the multicompetence of late language learners2. We would see multilingual users by birth and by later experience as offering the most basic and central comparison

3. We would make the investigation of environmental influences paramount and we would investigate them as multilingual ‘input/environment’, focusing on histories of use4. As much as possible, we would analyze complete repertoires of bilinguals across languages, so as to always search for “more” rather than “less” in bilinguality and so as to keep in sight that neither L2 nor L1 are immutable or fixed

5. We would constantly self-search into the ideological roots of our thinking about monolingualism, bilinguality, and birthrights, and we would unmask and dislodge negative language ideologies that support the linguicism of the native speaker virtue6. We would cultivate a performative ideology that sees linguicism as hurftul and makes us willing to search for positive discourse that is supportive of our bilingual values

Can embracing the project of a bilingual

turn help?

Probably, particularly with closer alignment to BFLA:

We share our interests inmultiple-language

acquisition

much could be learned & achieved

However, uncertainties and challenges await, of

course

Ideologies and discourses are always subject to multiplicity (Philips, 2004) and re-contextualization (Blommaert, 2001)

Monolingualism as affirmative action e.g., monolingual discourse

strategies and monolingual speakers support bilingualism (e.g., Lanza, 2004)

Nativeness myth as strategic essentialisme.g., native speakers are

holders of the key to language preservation (e.g., Fishman, 2000)

Multilingualism as constructing deficit (Valdés, 2006)e.g., balanced bilingualism is

the goal, “pseudobilingualism” is to be remedied

Nevertheless, a bilingual turn would provide

fruitful reorientation for

SLA

birth as inalienabl

e privilege

Empirical focus on experience,

maintaining critical agnosticism/openness

towards birth and originary contributions

unilingualism as implicit normNon-normative

comparisons with multilingual natives

& other diverse multiple-language

learning profiles over the life span

bilinguality as

invisible reality

Keep visible focus on multilinguality, engaging in the analysis of L1/L2

users’ multiple-language repertoires and viewing

bilingualism as potentiality

The Bilingual Turn in SLA?

“learningto be bilingual”

“pathwaysto multicompetence”

in pursuit of knowledge about:

supportive of:

Thank Youlortega@hawaii.edu

References cited and consulted: Adolphs, S., & Schmitt, N. (2003). Lexical coverage of spoken

discourse. Applied Linguistics, 24, 425-438. Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A corpus-based study of

spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Birdsong, D. P. (2005). Nativelikeness and non-nativelikeness in

L2A research. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 319-328.

Blackledge, A. J. (2005). Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1-17.

Blommaert, J. (2001). Context is/as critique. Critique of Anthropology, 21, 13-32.

Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A Study of Japanese Speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 225–251.

Byers-Heinlein, K., Werker, J. T., & Burns, T. (2008). Language preference and discrimination in newborns with prenatal bilingual exposure. Paper presented at the Poster presented at the XVIth International Conference on Infant Studies.

Cameron, D. (2010). Sex/Gender, Language and the New Biologism. Applied Linguistics.

Canagarajah, S. (2004). Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical learning. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 116-137). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal, 93, 336-353.

Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research, 7, 103-117.

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185-209.

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

Cook, V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition research? In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 16-26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

De Houwer, A. (2005). Early bilingual acquisition: Focus on morphosyntax and the Separate Development Hypothesis. In J. Kroll & A. d. Groot (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 30-48). New York: Oxford University Press.

De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, E. (2006). Monolingualism: The unmarked case. Estudios de Sociolingüística, 7(2), 173-196.

Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language Emergence: Implications for Applied Linguistics—Introduction to the Special Issue. Applied Linguistics, 27, 558-589.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300.

Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (2000). Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Gal, S., & Irvine, J. T. (1995). The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research, 62, 966-1001.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. (with contributions by Hugo Baetens Beardsmore). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gathercole, V. C. M., & Thomas, E. M. (2009). Bilingual first language development: Dominant language takeover, threatened minority language take-up. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 213–237.

Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying Bilinguals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Harley, B., & Wang, W. (1997). The critical period hypothesis: Where are we now? In A. M. B. d. Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 19-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Haznedar, B., & Gavruseva, E. (Eds.). (2008). Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 220–240.

Hill, J. H. (2008). The everyday language of white racism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, A., & Aboshiha, P. (2009). The denial of ideology in perceptions of 'nonnative speaker' teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 669-689.

Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 137-162.

Joseph, J. E., & Taylor, T. J. (Eds.). (1990). Ideologies of language. London: Routledge.

Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 48, 527-550.

Kroll, J. F., Gerfen, C., & Dussias, P. E. (2008). Laboratory designs and paradigms: Words, sounds, and sentences. In Li Wei & M. G. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 108-131). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 69-100.

Lakshmanan, U. (2005). Child L2 Acquisition and the Fossilization Puzzle. In Z. H. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 100 - 133). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Lanza, E. (2004). Language Mixing in Infant Bilingualism: A Sociolinguistic Perspective (revised ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119-143.

Li, P., Sepanski, S., & Zhao, X. (2006). Language History Questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 202-210.

Li Wei, & Moyer, M. G. (Eds.). (2008). The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mellow, J. D. (2010). Fostering diversity and minimizing universals: Toward a non-colonialist approach to studying the acquisition of Algonquian languages. Native Studies Review, 19(1).

Montanari, S. (2010). Translation equivalents and the emergence of multiple lexicons in early trilingual development. First Language, 30, 102–125.

Montrul, S. A. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and in adult L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Montrul, S. A. (2010). How similar are adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 167 - 207.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, England: Longman/Pearson Education.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold.

Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23, 190-214.

Philips, S. U. (2004). The organization of ideological diversity in discourse: Modern and neotraditional visions of the Tongan state. American Ethnologist, 31, 231 – 250.

Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the "native speaker": Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. English Language Teaching Journal, 44, 97-101.

Ranta, L., & Meckelborg, A. (2009). How much exposure do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Unpublished manuscript.

Rothman, J. (2008). Linguistic epistemology and the notion of monolingualism. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(3), 441-458.

Rothman, J., & Iverson, I. (in press). Independent Normative Assessments for Bi/Multilingualism, Where art thou? In Cruz-Ferreira (Ed.), Multilingual Norms: Language Norming in Multilingual Contexts (pp. 33-51). New York: Mouton DeGruyter.

Schmid, M. S. (Ed.). (2010). New perspectives on L1 attrition. Special Issue of Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(1), 1-83.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 133-158.

Shohamy, E. (2006). Rethinking assessment for advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes, H. D. Weger-Guntharp & K. Sprang (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment (pp. 188-208). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Silva-Corvalán, C., & Montanari, S. (2008). The acquisition of ser, estar (and be) by a Spanish-English bilingual child: The early stages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 341-360.

Singleton, D. (2003). Critical period or general age factor(s)? In M. P. García Mayo & M. L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language (pp. 3-22). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Singleton, D., & Aronin, L. (2007). Multiple Language Learning in the Light of the Theory of Affordances. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 83-96.

Sridhar, S. N. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 800-805.

Thomas, M. (2004). Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition: A history. New York: Routledge.

Valdés, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or seized? Modern Language Journal, 89, 410-426.

Valdés, G. (2006). The teaching of heritage languages: Lessons from California. In G. Valdés, J. A. Fishman, R. Chávez & W. Pérez (Eds.), Developing minority language resources: The case of Spanish in California (pp. 235-272). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Wiley, T. G. (2007). The foreign language "crisis" in the United States: Are heritage and community languages the remedy? Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4(2-3), 179-205.

Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55-82.