SECTION A: INTRODUCTION TO

MULTILINGUALISM

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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, Lüdi 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.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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; Garcı́a,
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

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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; Garcı́a, 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

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 DEFINING MULTILINGUALISM 13

to develop their work in another language. Garcı́a (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-González, 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,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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.

Garcı́a, O. (2009). Introducing bilingual education. In O. Garcı́a (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.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 16 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. Östman, & 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
Garcı́a, O. (2009). Introducing bilingual education. In O. Garcı́a (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.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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.
Lüdi, 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.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 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-González, 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.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X Published online by Cambridge University Press