A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World

THE DOUGLAS FIR GROUP1

THE PHENOMENON OF indigenous, minority, or heritage , (b) is as old as humanity, but multilingualism has to explain the linguistic processes and outcomes been catapulted to a new world order in the of such learning, and (c) to characterize the lin- 21st century. Social relations, knowledge struc- guistic and nonlinguistic forces that create and tures, and webs of power are experienced by many shape both the processes and the outcomes. One people as highly mobile and interconnected—for of many contributors of knowledge into the learn- good and for bad—as a result of broad socio- ing and teaching of languages in the wider feld political events and global markets. As a con- of applied linguistics, SLA remains focused on sequence, today’s multilingualism is enmeshed understanding linguistic development in an addi- in globalization, technologization, and mobility. tional . Begun as an interdisciplinary en- Communication and meaning-making are often deavor over half a century ago (e.g., Corder, 1967; felt as deterritorialized, that is, lived as something Selinker, 1972), SLA’s early research efforts drew “which does not belong to one locality but which on scholarly developments from the felds of lin- organizes translocal trajectories and wider spaces” guistics and psychology and drew on practical con- (Blommaert, 2010, p. 46), while language use and cerns for language in the post-World learning are seen as emergent, dynamic, unpre- War II era (see Huebner, 1998). In the early 1980s, dictable, open ended, and intersubjectively nego- Hymes’s (1974) work in sociolinguistics and his tiated. In this context, increasingly numerous and notion of communicative competence were in- more diverse populations of adults and youth be- strumental in the reconceptualization of prof- come multilingual and transcultural later in life, ciency in a (Canale & Swain, either by elective choice or by forced circum- 1980) and thus in expanding SLA constructs (see stances, or for a mixture of reasons. They must Hornberger, 2009). However, the legacy of lin- learn to negotiate complex demands and oppor- guistics and psychology meant that most the- tunities for varied, emergent competencies across ories and insights remained strongly cognitive their languages. Understanding such learning re- in orientation and generally ignored other re- quires the integrative consideration of learners’ search, such as Labov’s (1970, 1972) in variation- mental and neurobiological processing, remem- ist sociolinguistics (Tarone, 1979, 1988). A pro- bering and categorizing patterns, and moment- cess of epistemological expansion was initiated in to-moment use of language in conjunction with a the late 1980s and reached momentum by the variety of socioemotional, sociocultural, sociopo- late 1990s (Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner, 1997; litical, and ideological factors. Lantolf, 1996), resulting in a feld that has un- The feld of second language acquisition (SLA) dergone enormous interdisciplinary growth in seeks (a) to understand the processes by which the last 25 years or so (Atkinson, 2011; Swain & school-aged children, adolescents, and adults Deters, 2007). learn and use, at any point in life, an ad- In part, the expansion has been driven by an ditional language, including second, foreign, increase in the number of researchers from a wider range of intellectual traditions and disci- The Modern Language Journal, 100 (Supplement 2016) plinary roots who are interested in the study of DOI: 10.1111/modl.12301 language learning by adults and youth. Inform- 0026-7902/16/19–47 $1.50/0 ing their research efforts are concepts, theories, C °2016 The Modern Language Journal and methodologies from felds that are more 20 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 socially attuned, including anthropology, cogni- SLA in the 21st century, (c) to serve as a plat- tive science (particularly in its variants of cog- form for the development of practical, innovative, nitive integration, situated cognition, and niche and sustainable solutions that are responsive to construction), , and sociology. Various the challenges of language teaching and learn- areas that are considered subfelds of linguis- ing in our increasingly networked, technologized, tics and/or psychology entered the SLA scene and mobile worlds, and (d) to improve commu- thereafter and have contributed to this expan- nication with a wider range of audiences, espe- sion as well, such as anthropological linguistics, cially any and all stakeholders that SLA investi- cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics, cultural gates or whom it hopes to beneft, so they can psychology, developmental psychology, neurolin- use SLA work to improve their material and social guistics, bi/multilingualism, sociolinguistics, and conditions. systemic-functional linguistics. The document presents the framework using Beyond the enrichment brought on by this in- the following progression: We frst position our- terdisciplinary expansion, our present collective selves as authors in relation to the feld of SLA. text is motivated by the conviction that SLA must We then explore the changing nature of lan- now be particularly responsive to the pressing guage learning and teaching in a multilingual needs of people who learn to live—and in fact world. Those considerations usher in our bid for do live—with more than one language at various transdisciplinarity. We describe the framework it- points in their lives, with regard to their educa- self in terms of 10 closely interrelated themes. tion, their multilingual and multiliterate develop- After briefy recapitulating them we sketch out ment, social integration, and performance across some forward directions for language learning diverse contexts. A new SLA must be imagined, and teaching that it implies and conclude with an one that can investigate the learning and teaching invitation to vigorous and fruitful professional de- of additional languages across private and pub- bate of our proposal. lic, material and digital social contexts in a mul- tilingual world. We propose that it begin with the POSITIONING OURSELVES IN RELATION TO social-local worlds of L2 learners and then pose THE FIELD OF SLA the full range of relevant questions—from the neurobiological and cognitive micro levels to the In order to provide an interpretive context macro levels of the sociocultural, educational, ide- for the rest of the document we would like to ological, and socioemotional. explain who we are and how the present text To meet this challenge, we offer here a came about. The framework proposed here is framework for SLA that is transdisciplinary. In the result of intensive collaboration over an ex- agreement with scholars who have called for tended period of time2 among a group of 15 transdisciplinarity in other domains of applied scholars with different theoretical roots, includ- linguistics (e.g., Hornberger & Hult, 2006), ing in no particular order: sociocultural theory we characterize such a framework as problem- (Johnson, Lantolf, Negueruela, Swain), language oriented, rising above disciplines and particular socialization theory (Duff), social identity theory strands within them with their oftentimes strong (Norton), complexity and dynamic systems the- theoretical allegiances. It treats disciplinary ory (Larsen–Freeman), usage-based approaches perspectives as valid and distinct but in dialogue (Ellis, Ortega), the biocultural perspective (Schu- with one another in order to address real-world mann), ecological and sociocognitive approaches issues. Specifcally, it seeks to integrate the many (Atkinson), variationist sociolinguistics (Tarone), layers of existing knowledge about the processes systemic functional linguistics (Byrnes, Doran), and outcomes of additional language learning by and conversation analysis (Hall). Many but per- deriving coherent patterns and confgurations of haps not all of us would consider SLA as one of fndings across domains and “over many different the main research communities in which we par- levels of granularity and timescale” (N. C. Ellis, ticipate actively. We fnd it a strength that our 2014, p. 399). disciplinary and theoretical allegiances with SLA In making this proposal we have four aims: should be so varied. Our views are also enriched (a) to advance fundamental understandings of by the diverse parts of the world in which each of language learning and teaching, including un- us has worked, done research, and collaborated derstandings of linguistic development in an with others. Nevertheless, we must recognize that additional language, taking into account forces our affliation with institutions in only two parts of beyond individual learners, (b) to promote the the world, the United States and Canada, bound development of innovative research agendas for our intellectual views. The Douglas Fir Group 21 We also make explicit four fundamental when new languages are being learned later in choices of wording and substance with regard to life (N. C. Ellis, 2015; Lee et al., 2009; MacWhin- the discipline of SLA, because they have conse- ney, 2012). Consequently, we defne the object quences for positions taken in this document. of inquiry of SLA as additional language learn- First, in negotiating our successive drafts, we ing at any point in the life span after the learn- felt uneasy about certain labels. All labels come ing of one or more languages has taken place in with a disciplinary history, but in SLA many are the context of primary socialization in the fam- encumbered by defcit ideologies that have come ily; in most societies this means prior to formal to be contested (Block, 2003; Cook, 2002; Firth schooling and sometimes in the absence of liter- & Wagner, 1997; Kubota, 2009; Larsen–Freeman, acy mediation. Thus, not only the timing but also 2014a; May, 2011; Norton & Toohey, 2011; Or- instruction and literacy development constitute tega, 2014b). For example, the language that is three sites of difference that distinguish the ob- learned is often referred to as a ‘second language’ ject of study in SLA from that in two neighboring (L2), at times an ‘additional language.’ The peo- felds which, like SLA, are primarily concerned ple who do the learning are called ‘L2 learners,’ with language development, namely monolingual but they can also be referred to as ‘L2 users’ or as frst language acquisition (Ambridge & Lieven, ‘(late) bi/multilinguals.’ In the particular case of 2011) and bilingual frst language acquisition (De learning English in the United States, they have Houwer, 2009). In both, the focus of interest is recently been designated as ‘long-term English primary socialization inside the family, in other learners’ and, even more pointedly, as ‘English words, the period from birth to right before for- learners at risk of becoming long-term mal schooling and literacy enter children’s lives. English learners’ (cf. Olsen, 2010). What is Third, through the prolonged and open inter- being learned is denoted with the nouns ‘acqui- actions that yielded this document all the authors sition,’ ‘learning,’ and ‘development,’ sometimes came to see our ontologies and with them our the- used synonymously as alternative options, some- ories of language and learning as broadly com- times in strong opposition to each other. Our patible in important ways, despite their different own attempt to navigate and resist facile yet optics. When explaining what language is, our var- consequential labels has been to choose less ious theoretical understandings emphasize three defciency-oriented options where this was pos- attributes as central: meaning, embodiment, and sible, though some nonsignifcant alternation self-adaptive local emergence of patterning. Fur- among terms occasionally seemed unavoidable. ther, when it comes to explaining what learn- Second, the timing of learning also posed un- ing is, at least conceptually and often empirically, comfortable challenges. On the one hand, it is our various theories stipulate the mutual entail- crucial in the defnition of SLA’s object of in- ment of the cognitive, the social, and the emo- quiry (as the traditionally used adjective ‘second’ tional. This broad ontological agreement is not indicates). On the other hand, the disciplinary shared among all theories of SLA and, indeed, the understanding of what constitutes ‘a late(r) tim- group authoring this text did not include schol- ing’ is itself a matter of unresolved theoretical ars representing theories that defne language debate. For SLA researchers who interpret the ex- as a bounded system of formal rules and con- tant empirical evidence to be in support of a crit- ceptualize learning as a solely or primarily cog- ical period for the learning of human language nitive phenomenon. These other theories have (e.g., Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003), the certainly shaped SLA as a feld and contribute purview of SLA should be postpubescent learners. valuable knowledge about the research questions We distance ourselves from that position and in- they pursue. However, we believe that the alter- stead side with those who fnd the empirical evi- native ontologies we espouse are needed if re- dence about critical periods thus far inconclusive searchers are to be able to shed a stronger empir- and therefore remain agnostic about them (e.g., ical light on how multilingualism unfolds in the Birdsong, 2014; Muñoz & Singleton, 2011). More- lives of people across their private, public, mate- over, although we acknowledge competing theo- rial, and digital social contexts. ries that posit a marked difference in processes Fourth and fnally, we embrace explicit edu- and mechanisms before and after a certain age cational goals for the feld (e.g., Byrnes, Weger– (e.g., Bley–Vroman, 2009; Paradis, 2009; Ullman, Guntharp, & Sprang, 2006; Duff & Li, 2009; 2005), we favor a fundamental continuity hypoth- Johnson, 2009; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Larsen– esis: To us, there is good reason to consider the Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Norton & Toohey, processes involved in the learning of frst lan- 2004; see Swain & Johnson, 1997, for bilingual guages to be largely the processes also at work and immersion education, particularly for 22 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 younger learners). In this, we side with many (but Heller, 2012); efforts to differentiate and disem- not all) SLA researchers. The National Federa- power social groups ethnically, culturally, and reli- tion of Modern Language Associations giously; and the continued infuence and reentex- (NFMLTA), a major activity of which is the pub- tualization of the nation-state, a market economy, lication of The Modern Language Journal, declares and social inequality (Appadurai, 1996). Global- as its main mission “the expansion, promotion, ization, technologization, and mobility, however, and improvement of the teaching of languages, are forces that exert especially profound and con- literatures, and cultures” (NFMLTA, undated, tinuous pressure on what it means to learn and see: http://nfmlta.org/). We share this aspira- use more than one language. As such, they com- tion to impact and offer our pel the research community to train its eyes with position here as one that is relevant not only to utmost scrutiny to how it investigates and comes language theory and additional language learn- to know its object of study (Reyes, 2013, p. 374). ing but also—and crucially—to the teaching of New mobile technologies that increasingly in- languages. In our estimation, then, SLA, precisely tegrate in complex ways diverse data sources and because of its unmistakable focus on language networks have reached even seemingly remote development, ought to contribute useful knowl- corners of the globe and are changing L2 users’ edge for the improvement of education and worlds. We have come to understand that they are instruction of any and all languages, including neither neutral nor innocent but, in oftentimes English with its special status as a global language. subtle ways, reproduce social, economic, and cul- As we assert and affrm this link (see also Bygate, tural inequalities (e.g., van Deursen & van Dijk, 2004; R. Ellis, 2010; Ortega, 2005), we readily 2014). At the same time, they have also trans- acknowledge that in this document we draw little formed the ways in which language learners in- on the extensive language teaching scholarship terpret and make meaning, and thus the ways in that exists (Borg, 2015; Burns, 2010; Johnson, which they need and want to use language. For 2009; Kubanyiova, 2014; Kubanyiova & Feryok, example, although meaning and communication 2015) or say little about the teachers who do this were always multimodal, using the many technolo- work. Instead, we focus on research into language gies of the body (Mauss, 1973), with new tech- learning and language learners/users. We are nologies multimodality has reached a qualitatively also aware that we run the risk of positioning SLA new level. Graphic, pictorial, audio, physical, and researchers as ‘telling’ language teachers what to spatial patterns of meaning are integrated within, do or how to think about who, what, and how they and even supplant, traditional spoken and written are to teach, thereby potentially leaving out their texts (The New London Group, 1996). Notions of voices, their worlds, or their work. Even so, we space and time collapse online, and boundaries wish to affrm, both as a statement of belief and as between private and public, real and virtual be- a statement of aspiration, a strong commitment come blurred (Thorne, 2013). New technologies on the part of SLA to language teaching and ed- have also created new forms of leisure and new ucation and express the hope that this document opportunities not only for exchanging and inter- might, in time, foster more collaborative forms of preting information but also for authoring knowl- engagement between teachers and researchers. edge and art and for building social networks “in the digital wilds” (Thorne, Sauro, & Smith, 2015, THE CHANGING NATURE OF LANGUAGE p. 215). As a result, the very scope and constitu- LEARNING AND TEACHING IN A tion of communication practices between individ- MULTILINGUAL WORLD uals and within and across social groups and com- munities worldwide have also changed: They have In today’s multilingual world, the rising tide created new needs for new language and new real of globalization has penetrated all aspects of L2 and imagined discourse communities, and they learners’ lifeworlds. Amidst globally felt changes have also created new desires for new products, that seem to occur in breathtaking succession, two commodities, and processes, such as online learn- closely related phenomena of particular durabil- ing. The future is a moving target, and in coming ity have been technologization and mobility. We years the emerging new technologies that people have chosen to emphasize globalization, technol- will want to use in their multiple languages in- ogization, and mobility for their potential to fa- clude mobile devices, game-based learning, and cilitate grass-roots agency and action. At the same (further on the horizon) gesture-based comput- time, we do not wish to naïvely deny the contin- ing and learning analytics (e.g., Spector, 2013). ued existence of traditional power dynamics, such In turn, educators will want to exploit them for as the commodifcation of language (Duchêne & transforming and expanding opportunities for The Douglas Fir Group 23 the learning and teaching of languages (Kern, plicity of languages, discourses, literacy practices, 2014; Thorne, 2013). and interlocutors. It is thus not surprising that The fabric of L2 learners’ social groups and in these superdiverse environments, transformed communities has also been altered by mobility, a as they are by digital means for communicating term which denotes global movements not only across geographical boundaries and by expand- of people, but also of objects, capital, and in- ing opportunities for learning and using addi- formation across the globe. The movement of tional languages, the once normative dichotomies people is of great consequence for understand- in SLA of the ‘second’ and the ‘foreign’ (more ing today’s multilingualism, especially the form recently applied as well to the ‘heritage’ and of human mobility related to migration known the ‘indigenous’) language context or the ‘real as transnationalism, or “the crossing of cultural, world’ and the ‘classroom’ setting become in- ideological, linguistic, and geopolitical borders creasingly questionable. Affordances for language and boundaries of all types but especially those learning and use arise in multilingual and mul- of nation-states” (Duff, 2015, p. 57; see also timodal encounters with different interlocutors Appadurai, 1996). The patterns of such crossing for diverse purposes, across space and time, and or movement, as Duff notes, are further com- in face-to-face and virtual contexts. Moreover, the plicated by virtual and multigenerational expe- diversity of contemporary life outside of class- riences as well as by temporary mobility pat- rooms is transforming language classrooms, mak- terns, for example, involving short-term sojourn- ing them into “complex communicative space[s] ers for tourism, study abroad, or work—and also criss-crossed with the traces of other communica- by the multiple boundary crossing experiences tive encounters and discourses both institutional of returnees (Kanno, 2003; Kubota, 2013a). The and everyday” (Baynham, 2006, p. 25). It is then large-scale movement (including migration) of not surprising that the expanded potential for individuals, families, and larger social groups meaning-making also harbors enormous poten- around the world, along with the movement of tial for miscommunication, as attested in major information and various forms of capital, creates social tensions at all levels of communication in communities that are linguistically, socially, and our world—among individuals and groups, within culturally extraordinarily diverse. To be sure, mul- countries, across countries and regions, and tilingual communities have long existed in tra- globally. ditional cultures around the globe. In parts of Africa, for example, it is common and, indeed, A BID FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARITY expected, for communities to function through multiple languages, so much so that the languages To make sense of the varying processes and themselves become ‘invisible’ in many commu- outcomes of additional language learning arising nities. One might say, then, that what globaliza- from contemporary conditions, SLA and other tion has accomplished is a heightened awareness applied linguistics researchers have looked to of the reality of multilingualism in Western soci- other disciplines for insights and research di- eties, which had accepted the monolingualism of rections. These explorations have resulted in a the nation-state as the ‘real norm.’ Indeed, diver- wealth of approaches to the study of L2 learning sity is now being felt on an unprecedented scale, and teaching that coexist nowadays in addition prompting anthropologists and, subsequently, so- to the historically dominant cognitive and linguis- ciolinguists and scholars in many other social tic approaches (Atkinson, 2011). Among others, science felds to use the term superdiversity these include non-mainstream approaches rep- (Vertovec, 2007, 2015). resented by the present authors. These newer Mobility and migration have triggered transna- approaches to SLA have had a marked impact tionalism and superdiversity and spawned an on- on the breadth and complexity of studies ex- going process of deterritorialization of meaning- amining second, foreign, indigenous, and her- making. As a result, communication now well- itage language learning. However, they “have led, nigh requires the expansion of creative strate- with a few exceptions, independent and even gies from language users as they negotiate so- isolated existences” (Atkinson, 2011, p. xi). Cit- cial and linguistic action in the face of mini- ing the dangers of such isolation for advanc- mal common ground and maximal semiotic de- ing knowledge, some scholars have argued for mands (Canagarajah, 2013; Kramsch, 2009): Het- engagement across perspectives and, where possi- erogeneous forms of social activity and options ble, the construction of bridges or broader frames for participating in them emerge from mobility of reference in which the complementarities (and and transnationalism, by way of involving a multi- differences) are visible (Hulstijn et al., 2014). 24 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 Others have argued that such bridge building ing language, and moment-to-moment language may have limited usefulness in that “no matter use. how much traffc crosses the bridges, the abyss [to be bridged] is still there” (Lantolf, 2014, THE FRAMEWORK p. 370). As a group, we have come to appreciate sev- Our framework encompasses a growing body eral important strengths of transdisciplinarity of theories and research, although we can (Larsen–Freeman, 2012). Indeed, we see an in- do no more than refer to citations that are teresting parallel between the mobility of people representative, rather than inclusive or ex- and transnationalism and the multidirectional, haustive, of the relevant research. Inspired by rhizomatic information fows enabled by tech- Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework for nology and transdisciplinarity. Epistemologically, human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; transdisciplinarity aspires to transcend the bound- Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007), our integrated aries of disciplines and generate knowledge that representation of the multilayered complex- is more than the sum of a discipline-specifc col- ity of L2 learning distinguishes three levels of lection of fndings (Halliday, 1990/2001). Rather mutually dependent infuence (cf. Ricento & than privileging the disciplines “as the locus of in- Hornberger, 1996). As shown in Figure 1, we see tellectual activity, while building bridges between L2 learning as an ongoing process that begins them, or assembling them into a collection,” Hal- at the micro level of social activity (the smallest liday advocates creating “new forms of activity concentric circle), with individuals recruiting which are thematic rather than disciplinary in their neurological mechanisms and cognitive and their orientation” (1990/2001, p. 176). As Hult emotional capacities and engaging with others (2011) notes, a transdisciplinary approach “lends in specifc multilingual contexts of action and itself to a certain intellectual freedom but also interaction, resulting in recurring contexts of use to practical and conceptual challenges to be con- that contribute to the development of multilin- sidered along all phases of the research process” gual repertoires (Rymes, 2010). The engagement (p. 19). Closer to the ground, in its methodolog- in these contexts uses all available semiotic ical orientation, transdisciplinarity seeks to help resources, including linguistic, prosodic, interac- solve problems in socially useful and participant- tional, nonverbal, graphic, pictorial, auditory, and relevant or emic ways with whatever theoretical- artifactual resources. These contexts are situated analytical tools are required (e.g., Bigelow, 2014). within and shaped at a meso level (the middle Mixed methods research that carefully considers concentric circle) by particular sociocultural the contexts of language teaching and learning institutions and particular sociocultural commu- seems to be particularly well suited to this task nities, such as those found in the family, school, (cf. J. D. Brown, 2014; Hashemi & Babaii, 2013; neighborhood, places of work, places of worship, Mackey & Gass, 2015). In both the sciences and social organizations like clubs, community sports the humanities, the movement to transdisciplinar- leagues, political parties, online forums of various ity can also aspire to become a transgressive cri- kinds, and so on. Importantly, the institutions tique of normal science and normative knowledge and communities at the meso level are power- (J. T. Klein, 2014), inviting individual researchers fully characterized by pervasive social conditions to turn critical moments of recognizing differ- (e.g., economic, cultural, religious, political), ence into opportunities for trusting communica- which affect the possibility and nature of persons tion and enrichment across epistemic boundaries creating social identities in terms of investment, (Holbrook, 2013). agency, and power. Together, these institutions, We thus offer a transdisciplinary framework communities, conditions, and possible identities that assumes the embedding, at all levels, of so- provide or restrict access to particular types of cial, sociocultural, sociocognitive, sociomaterial, social experiences. Finally, at the macro level (the ecosocial, ideological, and emotional dimensions. largest concentric circle) there are large-scale, Its goal is to meet the challenge of responding to society-wide ideological structures with particular the pressing needs of additional language users, orientations toward language use and language their education, their multilingual and multiliter- learning (including belief systems and cultural, ate development, social integration, and perfor- political, religious, and economic values) that mance across diverse globalized, technologized, both shape and are shaped by sociocultural and transnational contexts. It does so by pursu- institutions and communities (middle circle) ing an integrative consideration of learners’ men- as well as by the agency of individual members tal and neurobiological processing, remember- within their locally situated contexts of action The Douglas Fir Group 25

FIGURE 1 The Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and Teaching

MACRO LEVEL Belief Systems OF Cultural Values Political Values IDEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES Religious Values Economic Values MESO LEVEL OF Social Identities SOCIOCULTURAL INSTITUTIONS AND COMMUNITIES

Families MICRO LEVEL Schools Semiotic Resources OF Neighborhood Linguistic SOCIAL ACTIVITY Places of Work Prosodic Places of Worship Interactional Social Organizations Nonverbal Graphic Pictorial Auditory Artifactual

and interaction (smallest circle). While each of communication and learning in their multilin- the three levels represented in Figure 1 has its gual lifeworlds. Another goal is to foster in learn- distinctive characteristics, no level exists on its ers a profound awareness not only of the cultural, own; each exists only through constant interac- historical, and institutional meanings that their tion with the others, such that each gives shape to language-mediated social actions have, but also, and is shaped by the next, and all are considered and just as importantly, of the dynamic and evolv- essential to understanding SLA. They persist only ing role their actions play in shaping their own through constant interaction with each other and others’ worlds. Learners as language users and so exist in a state of continuous change (cf. have this power via the semiotic resources they Fairclough, 1996; Larsen–Freeman & Cameron, choose to use and respond to in their interactions 2008). with others. In short, the framework is intended to The framework is built on an understanding help multilingual users to thrive with and through that, ideally, should foster two goals of additional their very multilinguality by the kind of research language learning and teaching. One goal is to and practice it advocates. expand the perspectives of researchers and teach- Pursuit of these goals crucially necessitates ers of L2 learners with regard to learners’ diverse several constructs. One is the construct of commu- multilingual repertoires of meaning-making re- nity, including speech communities (Gumperz, sources and identities so as to enable their par- 1968), discourse communities (Swales, 1990, ticipation in a wide range of social, cognitive, pp. 21–32), and communities of practice and emotional activities, networks, and forms of (Lave & Wenger, 1991). These notions have 26 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 contributed substantially to capturing the social dynamic, and holistic (Larsen–Freeman, 1997; nature of language learning. Most recently, the Tarone, 1983). construct has become contested among other The totality of a speaker’s semiotic resources reasons because of its inability to capture ade- must be considered her or his communicative quately powerful social relationships outside the and interactional competence. It goes without say- community, with individual networks of practice ing that our invoking the term ‘competence’ is being suggested instead in order to describe markedly different from its use by Chomsky, per- people’s engagement with other users and learn- haps even its use by Hymes. Multilingual speakers ers of language (cf. Zappa–Hollman & Duff, will deploy their semiotic resources by choosing 2015). Norm and choice, identity and agency are across their languages and/or varieties and regis- other important constructs. It is communities ters in response to local demands for social action. or, as appropriate, social networks that give rise Multilinguals are well documented as handling to always-changing but nevertheless operational this rich semiotic repertoire fexibly, sometimes norms of language use, form, and function, keeping the languages separate, at other times al- together with exploitable potentials for novel ternating them, mixing them, or meshing them. meaning-making through language choice. Both The competence of multilingual speakers is the language norms and language choice must be holistic sum of their multiple-language capacities developed through experience and both must (Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Cook & Li Wei, 2016; be recognizable as such by a given community of Grosjean, 1989; He, 2013). Their multilingualism users and more locally by a given co-interlocutor, “is fuid, not fxed: diffcult to measure, but real” if learners are to participate in particular types (Gorter, 2015, p. 86). of discourse as legitimate speakers with the right Learners’ developmental trajectories, medi- to be interpreted favorably and to impose mean- ated by the opportunities and struggles of their ing and position themselves in a desirable light multilingual lifeworlds, vary in and outside of (Norton, 2013). In other words, fexible com- the classroom. Some people develop compre- petencies over both norm and choice allow the hensive and elaborate repertoires of multilin- speakers/writers to present themselves and their gual semiotic resources, while others develop views in a particular way, not only accomplishing more specialized resources linked to particu- successful referential communication goals but lar contexts (e.g., technical L2 vocabulary for also refecting the person’s fashioned identity in academic, specifc, or vocational purposes). Yet relation to the topic and audience members. others craft minimal, transitory competences Thus, learning such discursive norms and choices based on snippets of additional languages (e.g., further enables new language users not only isolated greeting/leave-taking patterns like hola to participate in discourse but also to exercise from Spanish or sayonara from Japanese; see agency, that is, to negotiate some impact on their Blommaert & Backus, 2011), or bricolage and local contexts and on the improvement of their mesh resources from multiple languages and va- material and social worlds (Byrnes, 2014b; Miller, rieties (e.g., hip hop varieties; Alim, Ibrahim, 2014). & Pennycook, 2009). Still others appropriate Ensuing from the framework are 10 funda- limited linguistic repertoires for purposes of mental themes. They obtain from the characteris- identity performance, play, and styling (Broner tics of the three levels, their interconnectedness, & Tarone, 2001; Li Wei & Zhu, 2013; Ramp- and their potential as affordances (Gibson, 1979), ton, 2013). Other language users may imag- that is, their potential to offer action possibili- ine themselves to remain steadfastly monolin- ties that can be appropriated, negotiated, trans- gual, discounting their multilectal and multireg- formed, and made into means or constraints for ister competencies. And despite increased and L2 researching, learning, and teaching. In the re- varied social encounters marked by extensive mainder of the article we present each theme in use of multilingual resources, some may insu- turn. late themselves from other languages by choice or circumstance. Further shaping what it means 1. Language Competencies Are Complex, Dynamic, to develop multilingual repertoires is the con- and Holistic tested and ambivalent role of English as a global lingua franca, which affects the worlds of L2 A new, reimagined SLA that addresses the re- learners and users in the realms of educa- alities of L2 learning in a multilingual world tion, diplomacy, science, popular cultural me- necessitates a reconceptualized understanding dia (e.g., movies, music, Twitter, dance), and of linguistic competence: One that is complex, technology. The Douglas Fir Group 27 2. Language Learning Is Semiotic Learning which are reinstantiated with each new use in a slightly different context. Semiotic resources include a wide array of con- The greater the number and diversity of con- ventionalized form–meaning constructions that texts of interaction within and across social in- vary in degree of analytic specifcity, ranging stitutions that L2 learners gain and are given from minimal meaningful units, such as mor- access to and are motivated to participate in, phemes and words, to collocations of units and the richer and more linguistically diverse their other groupings comprising idioms and rou- evolving semiotic resources will be. Likewise, the tines, as well as the more conventionally recog- more extended the learners’ opportunities are nized linguistic units such as sentences (Boyd & for deriving form–meaning patterns from these Goldberg, 2009; N. C. Ellis & Robinson, 2008; meaning-making resources (e.g., through trans- Pawley & Syder, 1983). Semiotic resources also in- parency of connections in their use and guided clude larger, more holistic types of meanings, for support from others to notice and remember the example, at the level of discourse and rhetoric. connections), the more robust their multilingual In the case of oral language use, they also in- repertoires are likely to be. Importantly, however, clude patterns for taking turns, and paralinguis- access is neither easy nor assured and, in some tic resources such as intonation, stress, tempo, cases, is in fact blocked, whether intentionally or pausing, and other such features that accom- unintentionally. pany talk as well as the full array of nonverbal signs—gestures, facial expressions, body position- ing, accompanying action, head movement, etc. 3. Language Learning Is Situated and Attentionally In the case of written language, resources also in- and Socially Gated clude orthographic and typographic representa- tions. Semiotic resources further include visual, Language learning begins at the micro level of graphic, and auditory modes of meaning-making social activity (see the inner concentric circle in (Kress, 2009). Figure 1) through L2 learners’ repeated experi- All semiotic resources, individually and in com- ences in regularly occurring and recurring con- bination, have meaning potentials, that is, con- texts of use, often characterized by interpersonal ventionalized form–meaning combinations that (oral, signed, or written) interaction with other develop from their past uses in contexts of action social actors. From these situated, local iterative in the world that, in turn, are shaped by larger so- contexts, language use and language learning can cial institutions (e.g., the family, schools, places emerge—though they do not always do so. The of work and worship, civic organizations, etc.). scope of these contexts can be wide-ranging and These resources offer particular visions of the includes everyday, informal contexts of interac- world, that is, they create “specifc complexes of tion, such as ad hoc conversations, text messag- values, defnitions of the situation, and meanings ing, online game-playing, as well as more formal of possible actions” (Morson & Emerson, 1990, contexts such as those comprising L2 classrooms p. 22) that bind their users, to some degree, to par- where students instruct and are instructed, in- ticular ways of construing the world (Hall, 2011). form, discuss, problem solve, and so on. These en- This is where the macro level has a powerful infu- counters can be very brief or longer lasting; their ence through the politico-economic system that purposes can be varied, and the means—the semi- impacts schools, work, civic, and religious institu- otic resources—by which they are accomplished tions, etc. The meaning potentials of all semiotic can vary as well (see, e.g., Tarone, 1979, 1985; resources are considered affordances in that in Tarone & Liu, 1995). their local, emergent contexts of use they enable In the feld of usage-based developmental lin- certain possible construals of experience by their guistics, a well-known principle is that regularly users and certain possible interpretations by the occurring and recurring social interactions are recipients (e.g., hearers, readers) (Byrnes, 2006; characterized by joint actions that are depen- N. C. Ellis & Robinson, 2008). dent on intersubjective or shared cognition, that Meaning potentials of semiotic resources, then, is, a human being’s recognition that she can are not neutral, value-free, systems. Rather, each share beliefs and intentions with other humans resource “tastes of the context and contexts (Clark, 1996). Shared attention develops in the in which it has lived its socially charged life” frst 2 years of life, when infants develop their (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 293). In this way all semiotic re- capabilities of attention detection (gaze follow- sources function as the “carriers of sociocultural ing), attention manipulation (directive pointing), patterns and knowledge” (Wertsch, 1994, p. 204), intention understanding (“theory of mind” or 28 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 the realization that others are goal-directed), and support adaptive behavior” (Okon–Singer et al., social coordination with shared intentionality 2015, p. 6). For L2 learners this may mean that (engaging in joint activities with shared interest, the more they experience emotionally and moti- negotiating meanings) (Tomasello, 2003). Shared vationally positive evaluations of their anticipated attention, shared cooperative activity, and shared and real interactions, the more effort they will cognition are key to the emergence of language make to participate in them and affliate with in infants through socially contingent, meaning- others. ful usage. Furthermore, this crucially important As Schumann (2010) and Lee and colleagues activity of joint attention is a process into which (2009) note, infants in normal situations acquire novices are socialized in their particular culture their primary languages through bonding rela- (e.g., P. Brown, 2011). In these usage events un- tionships with their caregivers that are almost un- folding at the micro level of social activity, the conditionally offered to them; by comparison, the semiotic resources that more mature communica- older the learner, the more complicated interper- tors tool and retool to accomplish social actions sonal and social relations become. This means are afforded for the infants, as novice commu- that older learners are likely to experience re- nicators, to appropriate, recycle, and expand in duced intensity of the brain reward system from contextually adaptive ways, as they co-construct such affliations, although these can occur un- meaning. Such contextually adaptive ways ideally der certain circumstances. Consequently, their serve language development, and positive out- interest or motivation to seek out and sustain comes can be expected given average conditions affliative interactions within L2 contexts of ac- of health and social and emotional well-being. In tion (i.e., their emotional investment) and, con- sum, infants’ language learning is gated by both comitantly, their opportunities for learning, are attention and sociality at the same time (N. C. likely to be also reduced. By the same token, Ellis, 2014, 2015). Within the fundamental con- extraordinarily high, and highly emotional, mo- tinuity hypothesis we espouse, these processes are tivation can occur with adult learners. For ex- equally relevant to infants learning their frst lan- ample, Henry, Davydenko, and Dörnyei (2015) guage(s) and to youth or adults learning an addi- found what they call ‘directed motivational cur- tional language (N. C. Ellis, 2015; Lee et al., 2009; rents’ in their study of unusually successful immi- MacWhinney, 2012). The development of an ad- grants learning Swedish. Dewaele and MacIntyre ditional language is thus also attentionally and so- (2014) also found that many foreign language cially gated, as learners’ multilingual repertoires learners report intense feelings of enjoyment, as in their varied micro contexts likewise depend in well as anxiety, in L2 classrooms. Moreover, in an- part on neurobiological mechanisms with which other study Denies, Yashima, and Janssen (2015) all human beings are endowed. showed that the behavioral manifestation of the Socially meaningful interaction is partly de- interactional instinct that SLA research has re- pendent on an interactional instinct, that is, ferred to as ‘willingness to communicate,’ can be a biologically specifed attentional and moti- realized differently in one and the same learner vational brain networked system that pushes group, depending on whether the interaction the infant to seek out emotionally rewarding, takes place in a classroom setting or in the larger affliative relationships with others, and to bond society. It turns out that perceived competence emotionally and affectively (Lee et al., 2009; of self in both the classroom and larger society, Schumann, 2010). As with all learning, for young more so than motivation in and of itself, helped children, adolescents, and adults, too, L2 learn- predict users’ willingness to communicate. Such ing is an emotionally driven process, one that re- differences explain in part the great variability of quires minimally that they be motivated to par- outcomes that is observed in L2 learning. ticipate with others in particular contexts of ac- Also playing a signifcant role in additional tion, in classrooms and society at large. To deter- language learning and use is the set of general mine the reward potential that may be afforded by cognitive and emotional capabilities on which L2 contexts of action, humans evaluate them ac- learners draw to register and catalogue their en- cording to fve dimensions: novelty, pleasantness, counters with the various semiotic resources com- goal or need signifcance, coping potential, and prising their contexts of interaction. These in- self- and social image (Lee et al., 2009). This is clude the abilities to select and attend to par- part of regular brain functioning: Human brains ticular meaning-making components and their “integrate ‘emotional’ (e.g., value, risk) and ‘cog- patterns of action, to form schemas based on nitive’ computations (e.g., prediction , at- their recurrences, to create mappings across tention allocation, action selection) in ways that units based on functional similarities, and to The Douglas Fir Group 29 hypothesize about and continually test their un- (Atkinson, 2014; Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015; derstandings of their meanings. Learning frst Goldin–Meadow & Alibali, 2013; Ibbotson, and second languages, like learning about all Lieven, & Tomasello, 2013). Moreover, “humans other aspects of the world, involves the full scope use the entire body to participate in socially orga- of cognition and emotion: the remembering of ut- nized processes of understanding and learning, terances and episodes; the categorization of expe- [a fact] which ultimately challenges a strict Carte- rience; the determination of patterns among and sian division between mind and body. Instead, between stimuli; the generalization of concep- the mind is the body” (Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015, tual schema and prototypes from exemplars; and p. 442; cf. also Harris, 1998, and his advocacy of the use of cognitive models, metaphors, analo- ‘integrationism’). gies, and images in thinking (N. C. Ellis, 2008, Language learning happens by mediation, 2015). Conscious and unconscious learning pro- through cultural resources and tools that individ- cesses similarly affect the dance of dialogue where uals use to move through, respond to, and make conversation partners align perspectives and sense of their social worlds (cf. Scollon, 2001; means of linguistic expression. Language is used Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1994). The role of me- to focus the listener’s attention to the world, diation in L2 learning is seen as central in socio- potentially relating many different perspectives cultural theories (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Swain, about the same scene or referents. What is at- Kinnear, & Steinman, 2015) but cannot be ig- tended to focuses learning, and so language is nored in any attempts at understanding language both constitutive of and constituted by attention. learning, regardless of theoretical predilections. The functions of language in use determine its us- The semiotic resource of language is itself consid- age and learning (N. C. Ellis, 2014). The more ered to be a mediational tool (see earlier section); routine, frequent, and stable the occurrences of in addition, across various modes of communi- particular resources are in the interactions and cation, mediational semiotic tools can include a the more L2 learners’ attention is drawn to their potentially infnite set of cultural artifacts, such form–meaning pairings, the more entrenched the as diagrams, maps, books, computers, and even resources become as cognitive–emotional repre- furniture, including tables, desks, and chairs sentations of their experiences. All else being (Nishino & Atkinson, 2015). equal, the more extensive, complex, and multi- In classrooms, in addition, mediation is typi- lingual the contexts of interaction become over cally accomplished via a wide range of instruc- time, and the more enduring learners’ participa- tional actions that direct learners to perceive or tion is in them, the more complex and enduring notice the relevant resources and their form– their multilingual repertoires will be. meaning connections and to make connections between them and their contexts of use. For ex- 4. Language Learning Is Multimodal, Embodied, ample, the type of materials used in formal learn- and Mediated ing contexts such as L2 classrooms have been shown to play a signifcant role in shaping stu- Supporting learners’ neurobiological and cog- dents’ contexts of interaction and participation nitive processes are cues used by others, typi- structures, demonstrating that they are not only cally more experienced participants, which index a primary source of the design of curriculum, and at times make transparent the form–meaning but also highly infuential to the scope and types patterns and can assist L2 learners in noticing of instructional interactions that occur within and remembering them. Such assistance can take that learning community (Guerrettaz & Johnston, many forms, such as the use of verbal and non- 2013; Toohey, 2000). verbal actions that explicitly direct learners’ atten- tion to the semiotic resources and their meaning- 5. Variability and Change Are at the Heart of making potentials, and other less explicit actions Language Learning including repetitions, recycling, and recasts of one another’s words; tone, intonation, and pitch Language learning is characterized by variabil- changes; eye gaze and gesture; and so on. ity and change. It is a ceaseless moving target, Nonlinguistic, multimodal semiotic resources with periods of stability but never stasis, and de- are used to make the coupling of a form and scribable via probabilistic predictions but never a meaning socially available during unfold- via deterministic laws. These qualities must be ac- ing interactions. They are not peripheral or counted for within and across units of observa- complementary to language learning. Instead, tion, be it constructions, stretches of discourse, they provide crucial social cues to grammar learners, classrooms, or communities. 30 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

First, no two people, even those in the same [f]or the child, the construction of the grammar classroom, will experience exactly the same social and the construction of semantic/pragmatic con- contexts of language use or resolve them in ex- cepts go hand-in-hand. For the adult, construction actly the same way. Thus, differences at the micro of the grammar often requires a revision of seman- level of social activity and in L2 learners’ history tic/pragmatic concepts [available through the L1], along with what may well be a more diffcult task of of usage across situated, local, iterative contexts perceptual identifcation of the relevant morpholog- will create differences in the learning trajecto- ical elements. (p. 242) ries at the individual level of observation (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Eskildsen & Wagner, In other words, knowledge of the L1 results in a 2015; Larsen–Freeman, 2006; Larsen–Freeman & ‘learned attention’ to language whereby the pro- Cameron, 2008). This is true even when it is cessing of the L2 proceeds in L1-tuned ways (N. C. also possible to observe regular, more general Ellis, 2008). The languages and cultural schemata patterns of development at larger grain sizes of a multilingual interact, both facilitating and (N. C. Ellis, 2008, 2015). There is no learn- complicating the learning of new language at the ing without change, and thus, when a learner level of forms, concepts, and form–meaning map- exhibits high variability in the deployment of pings (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). The more sim- semiotic resources, this is theoretically important ilar, broadly speaking, these L1 forms, concepts, and can be studied in its own right (de Bot and form–meaning pairings are to those in the et al., 2007; Geeslin, 2014; Larsen–Freeman & L2, the easier it may be for L2 learners to learn Cameron, 2008; Preston, 1989; Tarone, 1988). them, while at the same time even slight varia- Variability is not measurement error begging tions and subtle differences across languages can for better control. Acknowledging inter- as complicate the development of apparently simi- well as intra-individual variation helps counter lar L2 forms, concepts, and form–meaning map- defcit orientations in the description of lin- pings. These cross-linguistic infuences are perva- guistic development in an L2 (W. Klein, 1998) sive, but they are also bidirectional; and they are and focus on what learners can do rather dynamic and variable, rather than deterministic than what they cannot do (Donato & Tucker, or constant (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). 2010). Second, cognitive abilities involved in pattern 6. Literacy and Instruction Mediate Language detection appear to be more variable among Learning adults than among children. Differences in them create variation in L2 development across individ- When language is learned during primary so- uals. The sources of such differences appear to cialization in the family, this usually means not be located in phonological short-term memory, only from birth or soon after, but also without associative memory, and implicit learning (Linck the involvement of formal schooling or literacy et al., 2013) as well as perhaps in pattern-detecting mediation. In many—though certainly not all— ability for general statistical learning of artif- societies and for many individuals, on the other cial language (nonmeaningful) stimuli (Misyak & hand, additional language learning tends to be Christiansen, 2012). All else being equal, L2 learn- characterized by the mediation of instruction and ers with higher capacities for detecting patterns literacy. Therefore, both instruction and literacy are likely to do better than those whose capacities need to be understood as sources of infuence are lower (MacWhinney, 2012). However, rather on L2 learning, and disciplinary knowledge about than accepting meager learning outcomes as bio- them has particular potential to improve the logically given once learners have passed a certain learning experiences of the millions of children, age and fnding ways of theorizing them as insur- adolescents, and adults worldwide who, by choice mountable, our stance is that responsible educa- or circumstance, embark on the journey of addi- tional approaches can go a long way toward fos- tional language learning in educational settings. tering other learner abilities that are also known A wealth of psycholinguistically oriented SLA re- to affect learning success, particularly in adult search into the development of L2 literacies has il- learners. luminated the complexities of learning to become Third, in learning multiple languages an- biliterate (Grabe & Stoller, 2011), and particularly other factor that mediates processes and out- in languages with different writing systems (Koda, comes and creates variability is knowledge 2005). We now know that alphabetic print liter- of a previous language or languages, includ- acy shapes the way oral second languages are pro- ing a frst language (L1). As Slobin (1993) cessed and learned (Tarone, Bigelow, & Hanson, describes, 2009), so the fact that almost all SLA research on The Douglas Fir Group 31 L2 processing fails to include learners who are not of adaptive testing, which may make viable more alphabetically literate constitutes a major gap in developmentally sensitive, self-referenced assess- the database for SLA (Bigelow & Tarone, 2004). ment, instead of traditional standardized exam- Admittedly, however, the contexts for addi- inations, which assume a universal defnition of tional language learning can vary greatly within success (McNamara & Roever, 2006; Shohamy, and across people, times, and places, and bilin- 2001). In addition, new instructional approaches guals and multilinguals will avail themselves of in- are needed (Larsen–Freeman & Tedick, 2016) struction and/or literacy to differing degrees and and their linguistic and educational poten- at different points in their learning history. This tial must be empirically understood, including complicates the roles of instruction and literacy genre approaches (Byrnes, 2014a; Byrnes et al., in multilingual development (Bigelow & Tarone, 2006), translingual approaches (García, 2014), 2004; Byrnes et al., 2006; Cumming, 2013; Pet- content-based approaches (Cenoz, 2015), immer- titt & Tarone, 2015; Schleppegrell, 2013), because sion education (Swain & Lapkin, 2005; Tedick, multilingual learners develop both language and Christian, & Fortune, 2011), systemic theoretical literacy along continua as Hornberger has pro- instruction (Zhang & Lantolf, 2015), and ways to posed: support language instructors in teaching their stu- dents to adapt—to mold their language resources multilingual learners develop biliteracy along re- to a rapidly changing world (Larsen–Freeman, ciprocally intersecting frst language–second lan- 2014b). guage, receptive–productive, and oral–written lan- guage skills continua; through the medium of two or more languages and literacies ranging along con- 7. Language Learning Is Identity Work tinua of similar to dissimilar linguistic structures, convergent to divergent scripts, and simultaneous Infuencing learners’ motivation, investment to successive exposure; in contexts scaled from micro in, and access to learning opportunities in L2 to macro levels and characterized by varying mixes contexts of interaction in particular social insti- of monolingual–bilingual and oral–literate language tutions, and ultimately, the substance of their practices; and expressing content encompassing ma- multilingual repertoires, are their social identi- jority to minority perspectives and experiences, ties (Block, 2014a; Kramsch, 2009; Norton, 2013). literary to vernacular styles and genres, and decon- When L2 learners participate in particular social textualized to contextualized language texts [. . .]. contexts of action, they do so as actors with spe- (Hornberger & Link, 2012, p. 265; emphasis in orig- inal) cifc constellations of historically laden, context- sensitive, and locally (re)produced social identi- Moreover, educational responses to the re- ties. Social identities are aspects of L2 learners’ alities of additional language learning in a personhoods that are defned in terms of ways in multilingual world demand that educators and which individuals understand their relationship researchers fully engage with the semiotic reper- to the world. toires of students. Traditional SLA concerns for At a frst, broad level this can entail self- or appropriate instruction have included the ques- other-categorization along socially constructed tion of whether explicit and implicit (or direct understandings of the various groups and cul- and indirect) teaching of language is more effec- tures into which people are born, including, for tive, for example, in discussions of L2 pedagogical example, groups defned by ethnicity, national- interventions designed around for ity, or religion. Beyond the infuence of these grammar teaching, incidental versus preplanned social categories, it may well be the case that error correction, or experiential task-based cur- the most powerful factors are politico-economic, ricula. These traditional discussions and propos- in other words, related to social class (Astarita, als, however, are insuffciently attuned to the 2015; Block, 2014b). A second level of social newly theorized multilingual and hybrid compe- identities must also be considered, defned by tencies of older children, adolescents, and adults the role relationships people create or are as- who use and learn a new language in many parts signed to in the various activities of social insti- of the world (e.g., Heugh, 2015). With more and tutions. For example, when people interact in more such learners/users connected to the inter- activities that are associated with the social in- net inside and outside classrooms, the affordances stitution of the family, they may take on the for autonomous learning, tailored instruction in identity of parents to children and/or of chil- classrooms, social interaction, and learners’ own dren to parents. In activities associated with refection of such interactions need to be better schools, they may take on identities as students understood. Computers also offer the possibility to teachers or peer learners to other students. 32 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 Furthermore, identities are not simply static Tomlin, & Wright, 2013), can be lived as con- or fxed (based on ethnicity or nationality or fictual and ambivalent. A considerable amount role), but they are shaped, performed, fore- of L2 research has examined newcomers’ vari- grounded, and backgrounded in actual con- able degrees of success negotiating their par- texts of interaction depending on how interlocu- ticipation in new, L2-mediated communities of tors attend to or construe aspects of their own practice or other social networks and their op- and others’ identities (Firth & Wagner, 1997). portunities to obtain meaningful assistance to fa- Through varying degrees of access to and mem- cilitate their membership and development (e.g., bership into these new communities, including Morita, 2004; Toohey, 2000). Some of the barri- discourse communities and communities of prac- ers they may encounter may be related to how tice, new identities become available as well (Lam, they are perceived by others (e.g., as outsiders, in- 2000; Norton, 2013), such as language user, or competent) even when such ascriptions may be in- multilingual speaker, not language learner. Thus, correct, unjustifed, or simply discriminatory. Re- identity work shapes language learning, and lan- search on L2 learning that actually incorporated guage learning shapes identity work, both being the learners’ voices has begun to document iden- mutually constitutive. tity struggles that can be explained by the entan- Expectations about how L2 learners’ various glements of local dynamics of linguicism, racism, identities are enacted or expanded are infuenced sexism, ageism, and/or classism: these struggles in part by larger sociocultural norms tied to the point to ideological structures and practices (see discourse communities within social institutions Figure 1, largest concentric circle; and later sec- shaping their contexts of interaction. These ex- tions) that, potentially, have dire consequences pectations, in turn, shape learners’ investments for language learning. in particular linguistic practices and their moti- Another aspect of learners’ social identities vations for seeking out and pursuing interactions that infuences their access to particular social with others. These social institutions give shape to institutions and learning opportunities within the kinds of groups to which they have access and them is not only their desired memberships to the role relationships they can establish with in their present communities but also in their others, which in turn give them access to certain imagined future communities (Dörnyei, 2009; resources for enacting these relationships. Learn- Kanno & Norton, 2003; Norton & Toohey, 2011; ers’ social identities, subjectivities, and sense of Pavlenko & Norton, 2007). Imagined communi- agency are further signifcant to the development ties, drawing on Anderson’s (1983) original con- of their multilingual repertoires in that they in- ception, are those in which learners desire to fuence the kinds of L2 activities and the particu- become, or anticipate becoming, members be- lar semiotic resources for realizing them to which cause they perceive that such communities can of- they have access; and, vice versa, their growing fer them and/or their family members, such as repertoires and abilities will infuence their iden- their children, enhanced opportunities and bet- tities, and their roles, rights, status, means, and ter social experiences. For example, they might agency within their learning communities. gain greater access to a wider range of semi- For example, in the United States and in many otic resources and, concomitantly, greater eco- other parts of the world, depending on their nomic and/or social mobility. Learners’ imag- perceived or ascribed race, ethnicity, gender, or ined identities can have a signifcant impact on social class, some L2 learners may fnd that the op- their investment in language learning, in that portunities they have access to for language learn- these identities can compel them to seek out ing and for participation in their communities are and pursue L2 learning opportunities that might limited or constrained by the ways in which they not otherwise be available to them. Such was are positioned by others, while other L2 learn- the case, for example, for a group of immi- ers may fnd their opportunities to be abundant grant parents of diverse language origins resid- and unbounded (e.g., Collins, 2014). Since group ing in Canada who chose to enroll their chil- identity categorizations are not natural or pre- dren in French immersion programs so that they given, but socially constructed, the barriers they would be better equipped to take on identities as create are likewise socially constructed—and also English–French bilinguals and thereby have ac- often mutually intertwined. For example, race cess to economically more powerful contexts of and ethnicity are shaped by one’s social class and interaction within their desired social institu- are not independent of it (Ratner, 2011), and tions (Dagenais, 2003). Economic privilege and self ascription to simultaneous identities, such identifcation with middle class identities may as middleclassness and blackness (Mocombe, help some multilinguals imagine membership in The Douglas Fir Group 33 future communities as more attainable (Mo- roles than to students’ identities: Teachers have combe et al., 2013). In reverse, learners may en- much greater power to determine the types of counter so many obstacles as they attempt to take activities and resources to which learners will be on a new identity in an imagined community that given access and the opportunities they will have the hurdles are close to insurmountable, as Kozol to engage in the activities; furthermore, it is nor- (1991) has shown for other student populations mally on the basis of the teachers’ assessments in U.S. inner-city schools. that students may proceed with further study. Vari- ation in access to opportunities across learners 8. Agency and Transformative Power Are Means and within a classroom or across classrooms plays a Goals for Language Learning signifcant role in shaping learners’ investment in these contexts (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Morita, In their multilingual contexts of interaction, 2004). Those who are offered more opportunities which are tied to social groups and communities are more likely to be positioned as ‘good’ learn- that themselves participate in larger social insti- ers, an ascription that is likely to advance their in- tutions, L2 learners construct and inhabit multi- vestment in and continued pursuit of L2 learning ple, intersecting social identities, both real and activities. Others who are offered fewer opportu- imagined, and they use these understandings of nities, or who choose not to participate in what their identities and of those they ascribe to others is made available to them, are more likely to be in order to negotiate their engagement in these positioned as ‘poor’ or ‘resistant’ learners, an as- contexts (Norton, 2013). While their understand- cription that is likely to further decrease their in- ings are to a great extent shaped by larger so- vestment in seeking out L2 learning opportunities cial institutional expectations, they, as individual in those contexts (Hall, 1998; Norton & Toohey, agents, also play a vital role in shaping them. In 2011). these ways, not only identity and participation in real and imagined communities involving the L2 9. Ideologies Permeate All Levels but also agency may dramatically affect learners’ L2 trajectories (Duff, 2012; Duff & Doherty, 2015; Language ideologies are especially signifcant Zappa–Hollman & Duff, 2015). to the endeavors of multilingual learning be- For example, in contexts of interaction where cause “beliefs, feelings, and conceptions about L2 learners struggle to participate from one iden- language structure and use [ …] often index the tity position, they may be able to refashion their political economic interests of individual speak- relationships with others by taking on alternative ers, ethnic and other groups, and nation states” identities—for instance, by moving from being (Kroskrity, 2010, p. 192). Thus, ideologies in- considered ‘low-value’ immigrant laborers to be- fuence the access, investment, and agency into ing valued colleagues. When they are able to do a new language that learners may or may not so, they can change their access and opportuni- (be able or willing to) exert. There are at least ties to use particular resources. In so doing, they three reasons why the infuence of ideological take on alternative identities and social roles from structures (see Figure 1, largest concentric cir- which they can participate (Higgins, 2015; Morita, cle) are key to understanding additional language 2004; Norton & Toohey, 2011; Rampton, 2013). learning. However, the degree of infuence L2 learners First, language ideologies are important be- can exert in shaping their identities is not equal cause they infuence language policy and plan- across contexts, as their identities are often a ning on all levels of social activity (Ricento, 2000; product of others’ perceptions, actions, and so- Ruíz, 1988; Tollefson, 2002). Language policies cial construction in interaction with them. Thus, exist at the individual, family, community, state, agentive shaping of identities and refashioning of and national levels. They shape decisions on their relationships with others are “an aspect of which language or languages are offcial, which the action” (Altieri, 1994, p. 4), negotiable in and languages and language varieties are valued, how arising from specifc social and cultural circum- they are to be used in community settings, and the stances constituting local contexts of interaction educational opportunities that are made available in which social and economic power are deeply to individuals to learn, use, and maintain them implicated. (De Costa, 2010; Farr & Song, 2011; Hult, 2014). For example, in formal learning settings such as Many countries have offcial language policies at the classroom, situated within certain geographi- the national level that bestow special status on cal regions within the United States, there is often certain languages. Canada, for example, passed more conventional authority ascribed to teachers’ a law in the 1970s giving equal status, rights, 34 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 and privileges to English and French as offcial One of these ideologies is the ideology of the languages of the country. According to Statistics standard language or the belief in the linguis- Canada (2011), of the 33,121,175 total popula- tic correctness of one variety that is held su- tion of the country, 57% are English speakers (i.e., perior to other coexisting ones: “where there they list English as their mother tongue), 21.3% are two or more variants of some word or are French speakers, and 3% are Chinese speak- construction, only one of them can be right” ers. Chinese Canadians are the seventh largest (Milroy, 2001, p. 535). For example, a perva- Chinese diaspora in the world and the second- sive perception of an ideal standard form of largest visible minority group in the country after English shapes the practices of social institutions South Asian Canadians, and Chinese represents and their members’ beliefs and attitudes about the largest cluster of mother tongue in Canada af- users of English whose language varieties are per- ter English and French. The designation as off- ceived to differ from the norm. Certain English cial language gives French a very different status language varieties associated with some groups than Mandarin Chinese. This distinction then en- and geographies—typically higher class groups ables far more learners to study the former than in English-majority speaking countries—are gen- the latter language because of the institutional, erally considered more correct, and thus more political, and public support for French programs prestigious, than varieties associated with other— of various types, despite the fact that in some mu- typically lower class—groups or geographies— nicipalities (e.g., Vancouver and Toronto) a very typically in countries where the majority lan- large proportion of the population is Chinese- guage is not English (Tupas, 2015). Further, a speaking or would like to learn that language. more prestigious variety is treated as the in- Similarly unintended negative consequences are variant standard against which other varieties, reported by Moore and MacDonald (2013) who and their users, are judged (Labov, 2006). Such point to the way the complex set of rulings by an ideology has signifcant implications for the different indigenous and provincial authorities kinds of learning opportunities that social in- in British Columbia can result in no teaching li- stitutions such as schools make available to L2 censes being issued for a particular indigenous learners and, more particularly, for the ways in language. which learners think about their own and oth- While the United States does not have an of- ers’ language varieties and about language in fcial language policy at the national level, there general. are widely shared ideologies about language that An equally pervasive ideology with dire conse- impact language policy and planning at all lev- quences for L2 learners is the ideology of mono- els of social activity. Ideological structures at the lingualism (Flores, 2013). For example, particu- macro level operate in tandem with the other two larly common in the United States is the belief in levels (Figure 1): If one’s own communities or English monolingualism as the defning charac- surrounding local policies (high school, univer- teristic of American citizenship, despite “ongoing sity entrance, graduation) characterize learning multilingual and multicultural ‘super-diversity’” another language as a waste of time, social micro- (Wiley, 2014, p. 28, emphasis in original). Under interactions will likely have little impact. Ideolo- this pernicious way of thinking, language diversity gies, thus, can limit learners’ (and teachers’) ac- is considered to be an inevitable, even regrettable cess to a fuller range of semiotic resources, often result of immigration, and thus something that through competing discourses over the societal should not be maintained, an asset and commod- goals of classroom language learning. A case in ity “not worn again [or used], except perhaps on point is high-stakes tests that function as gatekeep- special ethnic holidays when it is considered ap- ers to limit access to scarce higher education re- propriate to celebrate diversity” (Wiley & Lukes, sources vis-à-vis the need to compete in an increas- 1996, p. 520). The consequences of such an ide- ingly globalized economy (McNamara, 2012). ology include a continued lack of perceived need Second, several negative language ideologies, in the United States for the study of languages often in conjunction with other ideologies of dif- other than English at all levels of schooling, ference, function to create unfavorable social, ongoing small and large-scale anti-bilingual ed- academic, cognitive, and personal evaluations of ucation movements, and tenacious English-only multilingual speakers as well as of speakers of mi- policies enacted offcially and unoffcially across nority varieties. Negative language ideologies cre- social institutions. Such an ideology is also com- ate ethical liabilities and also distort the object of plicit in the thriving but contradictory demand study, thus posing serious validity threats for the for new college-level programs that are supposed study of bilingual development over the lifespan. to support heritage speakers in the (re)learning The Douglas Fir Group 35 of ancestral, community, or home languages, yet native-speaking golden rule for their interpreta- are often designed as an afterthought (and an af- tions of development, progress, or success, they termath) of tremendous societal pressures to shift are setting up L2 learners for failure, since multi- to the majority language during early schooling lingual competence is simply different in nature (Leeman & King, 2015). from monolingual competence (Cook & Li Wei, This same ideology that holds monolingual- 2016). ism as the “implicit norm” and “default for the The third reason we can give here for the human capacity for language” (Ortega, 2014b, importance of accounting for ideological struc- p. 35) has also had a particularly negative infu- tures in the study of additional language learn- ence on the research agendas of SLA (Blackledge, ing is that, as all humans, language learners them- 2005; Makoni & Pennycook, 2007; May, 2011). selves are ideological beings. While the actual The monolingual bias has its historical roots in usage of the multilinguals’ languages may not the process of standardization that took place in need to refect their language ideologies, these Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries as a part are “mobilized for particular purposes in specifc of the project of the nation-state (Gal, 2012). contexts” (Gal, 2012, p. 29) and infuence peo- In contemporary linguistics it found its strongest ple’s choices for approaching language learning, continuation in Chomskyan conceptualizations of their investments in their target languages, and language as a single system of abstract structures their identity negotiations along the life project of that resides in the mind of “an ideal speaker– multilingualism. listener, in a completely homogeneous speech For example, some multilinguals will profess a community” (1965, p. 3). Despite the substan- relationship to the mother tongue that feels more tial body of empirical evidence revealing the di- authentic, as the language of emotions, home, versity and variability of individual knowledge and intimacy, and a relationship to the second lan- across contexts within and across communities, guage (often English) that is an instrumental one, and despite ongoing critique from various disci- viewing it as the economically useful language re- plinary perspectives (e.g., Firth & Wagner, 1997; served for work (Duchêne & Heller, 2012; Gal, Hall, Cheng, & Carlson, 2006; Larsen–Freeman, 2012). Yet other contradictory and complicat- 2014b; Ortega, 2013, 2014a; Zuengler & Miller, ing ideologies may make available investments to 2006), the bulk of research in SLA and many learn English for economic advancement at one areas of applied linguistics continue to rely on level but also, on another level, for enjoyment and the monolingual native speaker’s idealized com- romantic desire (Kubota, 2011). Some learners petence as a benchmark for defning and eval- may be negatively affected in their language learn- uating L2 learning. The majority of practices in ing efforts by an internalized ideology of defcit language classrooms across the world, as well, that attributes communication failure to the inad- continue to hold to the ideal of an imagined equate linguistic self, whereas others may develop monolingual native speaker (and prospective in- the more liberating ideology of communication terlocutor and role model) who possesses a pow- as a shared enterprise (Subtirelu, 2014). Some erful, standard variety of the target language that transnationals may be convinced by their expe- the learner aspires to learn (Seidlhofer, 2001). riences using English or other lingua francas to Moreover, many well-intentioned educators and abandon ideologies of effcient communication researchers may harbor ambivalent sets of ide- as scripted and uniform and instead develop an ologies that motivate their work. On the one ideology of language as transportable resources to hand, they subscribe to the positive ideologies of negotiate diversity (Canagarajah, 2013), or they bilingualism as a source of cognitive and social may value no particular set of bounded knowl- advantages. On the other hand, they act on edge about a language (for example, English) for the concurrent negative language ideologies the workplace and instead place a premium on of monolingualism and nativespeakerism, which their ability to piece things together in order to posit that learners should develop the pure com- communicate by bricolaging whatever bits of lan- petence of two monolinguals in one head. For ex- guage knowledge they can muster together with ample, French immersion teachers may teach for relevant cultural knowledge of the micro con- bilingualism while banning from their classrooms texts of interaction (Kubota, 2013b). Inside the hallmark behaviors of bilingual competence such family, as well, parents who want to make more as code-switching, uneven language profcien- use of a new language in the home to support cies, or bilectal or multilectal repertoires (e.g., their children’s learning, for example, of an en- Cummins, 2007; Roy & Galiev, 2011). When re- dangered language such as Scottish Gaelic, may searchers and educators insist on a monolingual struggle to negotiate conficting ideologies that 36 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 make an authentic speaker one who is natural, un- accomplishment of the emotional-cognitive-social selfconscious, and fuent and a good parent one brain (Swain, 2013). Language learning is an who does not force a child to speak a language emotionally driven process at multiple levels of (Armstrong, 2013). experience. At the neurobiological level, infor- mation with affective and emotional content af- 10. Emotion and Affect Matter at All Levels fects language perception and language cogni- tion through an interactional instinct driven by Soviet-era psychologists like Luria and Vygot- motivational and reward neural systems (Lee sky have long held the dialectical unity of think- et al., 2009; Schumann, 2010). Concurrently, how- ing and emotion, in both their theoretical model ever, language learning is also an affectively driven of consciousness and as a guiding principle of process, that is, a process that is experienced (and their empirical research (Luria, 1978; Vygotsky, refected upon and expressed and talked about, 1978; cf. Toomela, 2010). Recent neuroscience re- with different degrees of emotion) as an inter- search has come to adopt this insight. As synthe- relational, socially co-constructed phenomenon sized by Okon–Singer et al. (2015), brain imaging (Swain, 2013). Emotions may appear to be raw in research has now accumulated that demonstrates the brain, but they are socially conditioned, and that “emotion and cognition are deeply interwo- affect is imbued with social meanings; social ac- ven in the fabric of the brain” and that, therefore, tion and interaction supports and is supported “widely held beliefs about the key constituents of by “the co-construction of [both] a cognitively ‘the emotional brain’ and ‘the cognitive brain’ permeated set of emotional processes [. . . and] are fundamentally fawed” (p. 8). Phenomeno- an emotionally permeated set of cognitive pro- logically, people normally experience cognition cesses” (Swain, p. 203). And although emotions and emotion as distinct mental faculties. However, are often “the elephants in the room – poorly imaging evidence has led current researchers to studied, poorly understood, seen as inferior to conclude that emotional and cognitive processes rational thought” (Swain, p. 205), they have re- overlap in brain functioning and are therefore cently begun to be the object of study in SLA (De- highly integrated. Thus, on the one hand, atten- waele, 2016; Pavlenko, 2013). Emotions are also tion is emotionally gated in that, for example, enmeshed with identity, agency, and power, all “emotionally-charged cues are more attention- central in the learning and teaching of languages grabbing than neutral cues” (p. 2; see also Todeva, in today’s multilingual world. 2009), and negative emotional information can overload and obstruct working memory, deterio- rating attention to cognitive cues. Conversely, cog- RECAPITULATION AND FORWARD nition is emotionally attuned in that it can be used DIRECTIONS to regulate emotions through fexible strategies that are sensitive to the specifc emotional con- With the framework we have just presented and text. These mutual infuences are not feeting but its 10 attendant themes, we hope to have ignited can be lingering, which suggests cognition and readers’ imagination toward a more comprehen- emotion interact at multiple time scales. Further- sive understanding of additional language learn- more, they exhibit high plasticity, that is, while ing and teaching that comes out of a serious and they arise early in development and tend to be wide-ranging dialogue among maximally diverse infuenced particularly by early experiences, neu- yet compatible approaches to SLA phenomena. ral plasticity and reorganization continue to in- Language learning is a complex, ongoing, mul- fuence learning throughout the lifespan. In sum, tifaceted phenomenon that involves the dynamic Okon–Singer et al. conclude, and variable interplay among a range of individ- ual neurobiological mechanisms and cognitive ca- this work demonstrates that emotional cues, emo- pacities and L2 learners’ diverse experiences in tional states, and emotional traits can strongly their multilingual worlds occurring over their life infuence key elements of on-going information spans and along three interrelated levels of social processing, including selective attention, working activity: the micro level of social action and inter- memory, and cognitive control. Often, this infuence action, the meso level of sociocultural institutions persists beyond the duration of transient emotional challenges. (p. 8) and communities, and the macro level of ideolog- ical structures. Emerging from variations in the If the human brain is a cognitive-emotional patterns of interplay across these dimensions are brain (Pessoa, 2015) as well as a highly attuned equally varied multilingual repertoires, compris- social brain, then multilingual learning is an ing organized collections of recurrent semiotic The Douglas Fir Group 37 resources, each “with affnities to different con- and affliational resources” (Bauman, 2000, p. 1) texts and in constant structural adaptation to us- to which they have access by virtue of their real age” (Bybee & Hopper, 2001, p. 3). Semiotic and imagined memberships in the various groups resources are conceived as an open set of ever- comprising their social institutions. As we have evolving multilingual and multimodal possibili- emphasized, the current social order is partic- ties for making meaning. ularly strongly infuenced by technology-derived The dynamic and malleable repertoires of re- contexts. From the choices and actions learn- sources that L2 learners develop from their life- ers take using their available resources of iden- world experiences are cognitive in that they are tifcation and affliation within “the opportuni- represented in learners’ minds as automatized ties and constraints of history and social circum- (to varying degrees), functionally distributed, and stances” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007, p. 820) context-sensitive. They are, therefore, provisional over their life spans, their multilingual repertoires and fuid collections of constructions, patterns, emerge as highly adaptable, “biographically as- and practices. They are, at the same time, social, sembled patchworks of functionally distributed ideological, and socioemotional-affective, in that communicative resources” (Blommaert & Backus, the development of L2 users’ repertoires is an 2011, p. 9), suggesting that the core function of emergent and social process, always in a state of all learning is environmental adaptivity and co- construction as they navigate their way through adaptivity (Atkinson, 2014; Gamble, Gowlett, & their multilingual contexts of perception; of so- Dunbar, 2014). cial action; and of agency, power, and emotion At the macro dimension of our framework (see (Halliday, 1975; Vygotsky, 1978). Life and experi- largest concentric circle in Figure 1) are large- ence are intertwined beyond referential messages scale, society-wide ideologies, or collectively op- and symbolic expression; language is experience: erational, power-driven systems of beliefs, valua- “embodied, situated enactments of language in tions, and feelings that intersect with social con- situ articulate with thinking, feeling, conscious- structs such as identity, agency, language, learn- ness, and the ‘incessant emergence’ of existence” ing, and education and social issues such as lin- (Ochs, 2012, p. 152). guistic rights and language policies. Ideologies The body of evidence revealing the neurobi- are individual- and group-held cultural, political, ological mechanisms and cognitive capabilities religious, and economic values and beliefs that cir- underpinning L2 learning in their locally emer- culate in discourses and behaviors that are socially gent contexts of social action and interaction (cf. recognizable and expected. They may be hidden the micro level in Figure 1) is compelling. It when they are taken for granted, and they are is, however, incomplete in that it does not rec- often heterogeneous and contradictory (Philips, ognize the constitutive, if not to say causative, 2004). Ideologies are pervasive, enduring, and role of the social, economic, cultural, and polit- permeating all levels of social activity. They in- ical conditions present across contexts of inter- fuence the ways in which individuals view their action and social institutions and communities worlds, guiding how they act within them and (cf. the meso circle in Figure 1). These condi- how they interpret the actions of others. Partic- tions fundamentally shape learners’ access to spe- ularly important in the study of additional lan- cifc types of social experiences and their abil- guage learning are ideologies of language, which ity and willingness to participate in them and are beliefs about what language is and the roles engage with them in affliative and transforma- it plays in the construction of social experiences tive ways. As expected, the experiences and the and the social identities of its members (Kroskrity, particular semiotic resources to which learners 2010; Woolard & Schieffelin, 2004). Furthermore, are exposed or to which they have access will widely circulating ideologies about additional lan- vary substantially as a function of these variations guage learning itself, such as its impact on learn- in social, economic, cultural, political, and reli- ers’ primary language or academic achievement, gious conditions. In turn, these conditions give the speed with which languages can or should be shape to both the route of development and the mastered, and the means by which profciency can substance and functions of learners’ multilingual or should be assessed, are other dimensions of repertoires. macro-level discourse that affect language learn- At the meso, sociocultural level (see second ers’ educational opportunities, expectations, and concentric circle in Figure 1), L2 learning is me- experiences. diated by learners’ engagement in particular con- Our framework is also a bid for transdisciplinar- texts and cultures of interaction and the “so- ity that emerged out of our prolonged interac- cially constituted repertoires of identifcational tions (see Note 2). It has paid off, we feel, as 38 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 we have moved closer to the ideal of transdis- turns to the individual and to society (Callahan ciplinary researchers who accept different con- & Gándara, 2014; Chiswick & Miller, 2015; Grin, ceptualizations of reality (cf. Holbrook, 2013); 2003). Yet other research fnds bilingualism to be are open to other views; and are willing to take almost synonymous with lower socioeconomic in- risks, learn, and become more creative in their come. Much of this confusing picture rests on own inquiry by crossing disciplinary knowledge the power of ideologies to shape not only policy boundaries (Augsburg, 2014). Transdisciplinarity bodies and public perceptions but also education helped us strive to rethink our own understand- and research actors. At the same time, part of the ing of language learning and teaching in today’s present dismal state of knowledge about the so- multilingual world in a fashion that is less en- cial and individual impact of bilingualism and lan- cumbered by turf wars over intellectual bound- guage learning must be attributed to the tradi- aries and gets closer to the ideal of serving “de- tional ways in which key research evidence, such velopment and enrichment through dialogue of as evidence for linguistic success, developmental all the disciplines and theories involved” (Fair- progress, or communicative attainment, is sought clough, 2005, p. 64). and measured, a critique that was at the forefront Our transdisciplinarity bid therefore also turns of the SLA paradigm wars of the mid 1990s (e.g., here into a call to SLA researchers: to expand Firth & Wagner, 1997). The SLA research commu- their analytic gaze to different dimensions of so- nity has responsibility and expertise to contribute cial activity and—without necessarily giving up substantially improved new knowledge in all rele- or even expanding their particular approach—to vant areas, if there is willingness to recognize and think integratively. We do not envision that all re- tackle the challenges of L2 learning and teaching searchers and research programs will attempt to in all their complex and multifaceted nature. The investigate the dimensions of language learning very preparation of this document has made us as depicted in Figure 1, or will do so all at once aware of the extent to which the research com- or within the same study. This would be daunt- munity is likely to be challenged as it strives to ing, potentially opening novice researchers and present its fndings in more accessible ways for col- graduate students to unsustainable vulnerabilities leagues outside its own (sub)specializations and, (Bigelow, 2014). It may even be unnecessary, ei- even more important, for the public at large. ther because a division of labor across research The ever-changing landscapes of L2 learn- programs can be harmoniously achieved (N. C. El- ers’ multilingual worlds call for solutions that lis, 2014) or because a given theory may provide can best be addressed by research collaborations a dialectical solution that enables traveling along undertaken from multiple disciplinary and stake- several dimensions within a given epistemology holder perspectives and in a true spirit of trans- (Lantolf, 2014). There is no single way to achieve disciplinarity. Moreover, bridge-building “still re- integrative but fexible transdisciplinary thinking; tains the disciplines as the locus of intellectual the achievement is partial and liminal — an emer- activity” (Halliday, 1990/2001, p. 176). Concepts, gent transdisciplinarity that is nevertheless hope- theories, and methodologies shape the kinds of ful as a worthwhile pursuit (Ortega, 2014a). data that are gathered and analyzed, and ulti- mately what is found. When questions central to CONCLUSION SLA are posed within the confnes of each theo- retical and epistemological approach within the The value of being multilingual in our glob- discipline, we may be left with a collection of alized world is contested and entangled in con- theory-internal fndings with no principled way of tradictory accounts. Collective ideologies abound integrating them. This would mean that we would that make particular languages “a source of pride” lose out on the opportunity to make visible the for some, for others “a source of proft” (Duchêne multilayered complexity of additional language & Heller, 2012). The specialized research fnds learning and, on that basis, begin to craft contex- that bilingualism in general confers cognitive ad- tualized solutions for improving opportunities for vantages to children and adults (Barac et al., 2014; the teaching and learning of languages. A trans- Bialystok et al., 2014) although such conclusions disciplinary perspective on language learning and are also the ongoing object of heated debate in teaching, on the other hand, helps SLA recog- scientifc circles (see Valian, 2015). Multilingual- nize that its object of inquiry, bi/multilingualism, ism is frequently associated with lower academic which is partially shared with many other disci- achievement during the frst years of schooling plines, is a complex, ongoing, multidimensional (Han, 2012; Hoff, 2013). At the same time, claims phenomenon that involves, as we have proposed, are made that bilingualism yields economic re- the dynamic and variable interplay among a range The Douglas Fir Group 39 of individual neurobiological mechanisms, cogni- ined SLA is provisional and needs to be debated, tive and emotional capabilities, and peoples’ di- subjected to close scrutiny, adapted, and remade. verse experiences in their social worlds. These oc- We offer this article as a frst step in that process. cur over their life spans and along three interre- lated dimensions of social activity: micro contexts of social action and interaction, meso contexts of sociocultural institutions and communities, and NOTES the macro level of ideological structures. Like proponents of other recent move- 1 The authors of this article are, in alphabetical order: ments in SLA towards integrative perspectives Dwight Atkinson, University of Arizona; Heidi Byrnes, (Atkinson, 2011; Beckner et al., 2009; de Bot et Georgetown University; Meredith Doran, The Pennsyl- vania State University; Patricia Duff, University of British al., 2007; N. C. Ellis & Larsen–Freeman, 2006; Columbia; Nick C. Ellis, University of Michigan; Joan Firth & Wagner, 1997, 2007; Hulstijn et al., 2014; Kelly Hall, The Pennsylvania State University; Karen MacWhinney & O’Grady, 2015; Watson–Gegeo, E. Johnson, The Pennsylvania State University; James 2004), we recognize that language inextricably P. Lantolf, The Pennsylvania State University; Diane involves cognition, emotions, consciousness, Larsen–Freeman, University of Michigan and Univer- experience, embodiment, brain, self, human sity of Pennsylvania; Eduardo Negueruela, University of interaction, society, culture, mediation, instruc- Miami; Bonny Norton, University of British Columbia; tion, and history in rich, complex, and dynamic Lourdes Ortega, Georgetown University; John Schu- ways. In addition, we have proposed that a new, mann, UCLA; Merrill Swain, The Ontario Institute for rethought SLA begins with the social-local worlds Studies in Education of the University of Toronto; and Elaine Tarone, University of Minnesota. of L2 learners and then poses the full range 2 The seeds of the framework were planted 7 years of relevant questions, from the neurobiological ago, in a colloquium in 2009 that Dwight Atkinson and cognitive micro levels to the macro levels organized at the American Association for Applied Lin- of the sociocultural, educational, ideological, guistics (AAAL) conference in Denver, Colorado. This and socioemotional. This new SLA addresses resulted in the publication of an edited volume entitled all these levels, from cell to society, as it were, Alternative Approaches to SLA (Atkinson, 2011) whose without losing sight of the local multilingual purpose was to present and compare six approaches to contexts from which the questions arise and of SLA in order to build “a richer, more multidimensional the emic meanings of those questions for people understanding of SLA” (p. xi). The efforts resumed in in the fesh. A central value for it should be 2013 in a 2-day symposium held at the Pennsylvania State University, co-organized by Atkinson and James ecological validity (Cicourel, 2007), that is, fair Lantolf. This meeting was fnancially supported by the and credible representations of the possibilities Center for Language Acquisition, in the College of and constraints faced by L2 learners in their the Liberal Arts, The Pennsylvania State University, social worlds on all levels of activity and across and by Xiaofei Lu, a Gil Watz Early Career Professor time spans. A main target of its research efforts in Language and Linguistics and Associate Profes- would be to understand the varying conditions sor of Applied Linguistics and Asian Studies at The that enable and constrain opportunities for and Pennsylvania State University. It brought together 12 outcomes of language learning across private, of the present authors. Participants were asked to public, material, and digital contexts of social consider areas of commonality and difference between action and interaction. Another main goal would their own approach and those of others in the group, with the overarching goal of fnding synergies across be to communicate with and serve learners them- these emerging traditions and possibilities for greater selves and other stakeholders, including teachers; integrativeness or complementarity among seemingly administrators; appointed and elected offcials; allied perspectives. The 2-day symposium ended with parents; community members; business leaders; a discussion, involving a public audience, of the need and educational, business, and health organi- to design a more encompassing, integrative framework zations. In sum, the new, rethought SLA would for understanding and doing SLA that would speak contribute to the development of innovative to both language teachers and researchers. Following and sustainable lifeworld solutions that support this event, Heidi Byrnes, editor of The Modern Lan- language learners in a multilingual world. guage Journal and one of the symposium participants, Our collective rethinking is frmly grounded in invited the group to contribute a jointly authored paper that formally developed our insights into a carefully sought points of synergy, earnest ethi- framework, to be published in this MLJ’s centenary cal commitment, and a transdisciplinary fexibil- issue. We agreed and arranged to meet again to begin ity achieved from prolonged engagement with the process of writing the paper, this time upon the the substantive challenges and with one another. conclusion of the 2014 AAAL conference in Portland, Nonetheless, our present proposal for a reimag- Oregon, with fnancial support from the NFMLTA, the 40 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 governing organization for The Modern Language Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large. Cultural dimen- Journal. In planning and crafting our contribution to sions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University this centenary issue of The Modern Language Journal, of Minnesota Press. we were greatly inspired by the example of The New Armstrong, T. C. (2013). “Why won’t you speak to me London Group’s 1996 ground-breaking paper. In a in Gaelic?” Authenticity, integration, and the her- personal email communication to Heidi Byrnes (May itage language learning project. Journal of Lan- 22, 2013), Courtney Cazden provided detailed insights guage, Identity & Education, 12, 340–356. about the process by which The New London Group, Astarita, A. C. (2015). The foreign language learning ex- comprised of 10 educators from the United States, periences of frst-generation college and/or self-identifed Great Britain, and Australia, developed the framework working class college students. (Unpublished doctoral of their collective paper, and the description of this pro- dissertation). University of Wisconsin–Madison, cess infuenced ours. The New London Group’s 5-day Madison, WI. meeting was held in New London, New Hampshire, in Atkinson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second the United States, hence their name. Except for the last language acquisition. New York: Routledge/Taylor morning, the 2014 meeting of our group took place in & Francis. the Douglas Fir room, located in the AAAL conference Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mindbody- hotel, hence our collective-author-group’s name. The world: A sociocognitive approach to second lan- substance of our framework was crystallized at the 3-day guage acquisition. Language Teaching, 47, 467–483. meeting of the group in a wholly collaborative spirit. Augsburg, T. (2014). Becoming transdisciplinary: The Together, we brainstormed what we considered to be emergence of the transdisciplinary individual. the overarching themes, elaborated on the ideas, and World Futures, 70, 1–14. negotiated the scope and depth of the argument to be Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by presented in the article. By the end of the meeting we M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). had constructed an outline of a framework of language Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. learning and teaching (the object and scope of inquiry) Barac, R., Bialystok, E., Castro, D. C., & Sanchez, M. for SLA (the feld). Joan Kelly Hall agreed to write a (2014). The cognitive development of young dual frst complete draft of the article following the meeting, language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood which was then circulated to the other authors for Research Quarterly, 29, 699–714. their input and modifcations. Meredith Doran, one Bauman, R. (2000). Language, identity, performance. of the authors who had played an important role in Pragmatics, 10, 1–5. organizing the 2013 meeting and in co-monitoring Baynham, M. (2006). Agency and contingency in the the 2014 meeting, and Kimberly Buescher, a doctoral language learning of refugees and asylum seekers. student at The Pennsylvania State University, compiled Linguistics and Education, 17, 24–39. and systematized all the individual and collective Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., feedback. Using that feedback, and with the further Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen– beneft of the interactions among most of the authors Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Lan- at an invited colloquium organized by Atkinson and guage is a complex adaptive system. Position pa- funded by Language Learning at the AAAL conference per, Language Learning, 59(Supplement 1), 1–27 in Toronto in 2015, Lourdes Ortega prepared a revised Bialystok, E., Poarch, G., Luo, L., & Craik, F. I. M. (2014). document, which was vetted by all authors and further Effects of bilingualism and aging on executive revised. It was then sent to Nancy H. Hornberger, The function and working memory. Psychology and Ag- University of Pennsylvania, and D. Richard Tucker, ing, 29, 696–705. Carnegie Mellon University, who graciously agreed to Bigelow, M. H. (2014). Blending social and cognitive re- serve as external reviewers, and revised once more. search traditions in language learning and teach- ing: A matter of mentoring and modeling. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 402–407. Bigelow, M. H., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in second language acquisition: Doesn’t who REFERENCES we study determine what we know? TESOL Quar- terly, 38, 689–700. Alim, H. S., Ibrahim, A., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2009). Birdsong, D. (2014). The critical period hypothesis Global linguistic fows: Hip hop cultures, youth iden- for second language acquisition: Tailoring the tities, and the politics of language. New York: Rout- coat of many colors. In M. Pawlak & L. Aronin ledge/Taylor & Francis. (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and Altieri, C. (1994). Subjective agency. Cambridge, MA: multilingualism: Studies in honor of David Singleton Blackwell. (pp. 43–50). New York: Springer. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acqui- Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and power in a multilin- sition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: gual world. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Ben- Cambridge University Press. jamins. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Refections on Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning The Douglas Fir Group 41

and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94, 103– infuence on language teaching (pp. 216–234). Cam- 115. bridge: Cambridge University Press. Bley–Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the Byrnes, H. (2014a). Linking task and writing for Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Studies in Sec- language development: Evidence from a genre- ond Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198 based curricular approach. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language ac- Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: In- quisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University sights from and for writing (pp. 235–261). Philadel- Press. phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Block, D. (2014a). Second language identities (2nd ed.). Byrnes, H. (2014b). Theorizing language development London: Bloomsbury. at the intersection of ‘task’ and L2 writing: Re- Block, D. (2014b). Social class in applied linguistics. New considering complexity. In H. Byrnes & R. M. York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: In- Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. sights from and for writing (pp. 79–103). Philadel- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2011). Repertoires re- Byrnes, H., Weger–Guntharp, H., & Sprang, K. A. (Eds.). visited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity. (2006). Educating for advanced foreign language ca- Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, 67. pacities. Construct, curriculum, instruction, assessment. Accessed 23 July 2012 at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ss Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. pp/departments/education/research/ldc/publi Callahan, R. M., & Gándara, P. C. (Eds.). (2014). The cations/workingpapers/67.pdf bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US la- Borg, S. (2015). cognition and language education: bor market. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Research and practice. London: Bloomsbury. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Skilled migration and devel- Boyd, J., & Goldberg, A. (2009). Input effects within a opment: Portable communicative resources for constructionist framework. Modern Language Jour- transnational work. Multilingual Education, 3, arti- nal, 93, 418–429. cle 8. Broner, M., & Tarone, E. (2001). Is it fun? Language Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of play in a ffth grade Spanish immersion classroom. communicative approaches to second language Modern Language Journal, 85, 363–379. teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human develop- Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and con- ment: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, tent and language integrated learning: The same MA: Harvard University Press. or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28, Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioe- 8–24. cological model of human development. In W. Da- Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2015). International mi- mon & R. Lerner (Eds.) Handbook of child psychology gration and the economics of language. In B. R. (pp. 793–828). New York: Wiley. Chiswick & P. W. Miller (Eds.), Handbook in eco- Brown, J. D. (2014). Mixed methods research for TESOL. Ed- nomics (Volume 1A): Economics of international migra- inburgh: Edinburgh University Press. tion (pp. 211–269). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Brown, P. (2011). The cultural organization of atten- Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cam- tion. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin bridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. Cicourel, A. (2007). A personal, retrospective view of 29–55). Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell. ecological validity. Text & Talk, 27, 735–752. Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cam- teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Rout- bridge University Press. ledge/Taylor & Francis. Collins, J. (2014). Literacy practices, linguistic anthro- Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Introduction to fre- pology and social inequality. Working Papers in quency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Urban Language & Literacies, 143. Accessed 15 In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the November 2014 at: https://www.academia.edu/9 emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 1–24). Philadel- 277086/WP143_Collins_2014._Literacy_practices phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. _linguistic_anthropology_and_social_inequality Bygate, M. (2004). Some trends in applied linguistics: Cook, V. (2002). Background of the L2 user. In V. Cook Towards a generic view. AILA Review, 17, 6–22. (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–28). Clevedon, Byrnes, H. (2006). What kind of resource is lan- UK: Multilingual Matters. guage and why does it matter for advanced lan- Cook, V., & Li Wei. (Eds.). (2016). Cambridge handbook guage learning? An introduction. In H. Byrnes of linguistic multicompetence. New York: Cambridge (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution University Press. of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 1–28). New York: Corder, S. P. (1967). The signifcance of learner’s er- Continuum. rors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Byrnes, H. (2013). Renting language in the ownership Language Teaching, 5, 161–170. society: Refections on language use and language Cumming, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of aca- learning in a multilingual world. In J. Arnold & demic language and literacy development. Lan- T. Murphey (Eds.), Meaningful action: Earl Stevick’s guage Learning, 63(S1), 130–152. 42 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instruc- constructions, learned-attention, and the limited tional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Cana- L2 endstate. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), dian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240. Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language Dagenais, D. (2003). Accessing imagined communities acquisition (pp. 372–405). London: Routledge through multilingualism and immersion educa- Ellis, N. C. (2014). Cognitive AND social language us- tion. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2, age. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 397– 269–283. 402. Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learn- investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of ing from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language de Bot, K., Lowie, W. & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dy- learning. (pp. 49–73). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. namic systems theory to second language acqui- Ellis, N. C., & Larsen–Freeman, D. (2006). Language sition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7– emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. 21. Introduction to the Special Issue. Applied Linguis- De Costa, P. I. (2010). Reconceptualizing language, lan- tics, 27, 558–589. guage learning, and the adolescent immigrant lan- Ellis, N. C., & Robinson, P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of guage learner in the age of postmodern globaliza- cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. tion. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4, 769–781. New York: Routledge. De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual frst language acquisition. Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. education and language pedagogy. Language Denies, K., Yashima, T., & Janssen, R. (2015). Classroom Teaching, 43, 182–201. versus societal willingness to communicate: Inves- Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 tigating French as a second language in Flanders. construction learning. Language Learning, 65, 419– Modern Language Journal, 99, 718–739. 448. Dewaele, J.–M. (2016). Emotion and multicompetence. Fairclough, N. (1996). Border crossings: Discourse and In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook social change in contemporary societies. In H. of linguistic multicompetence. New York: Cambridge Coleman & L. Cameron (Eds.), Change and lan- University Press. guage (pp. 3–17). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mat- Dewaele, J.–M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two ters. faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the for- Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in eign language classroom. Studies in Second Lan- transdisciplinary research. In R. Wodak & P. guage Learning and Teaching, 4, 237–274. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse Donato, R., & Tucker, G. R. (2010). A tale of two schools: analysis (pp. 53–70). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: Developing sustainable early foreign language programs. John Benjamins. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Farr, M., & Song, J. (2011). Language ideologies and Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In policies: Multilingualism and education. Language Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, lan- and Linguistics Compass, 5, 650–665. guage identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol, UK: Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, commu- Multilingual Matters. nication, and (some) fundamental concepts in Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (Eds.). (2012). Language in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285– late capitalism: Pride and proft. New York: Rout- 300. ledge/Taylor & Francis. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language Duff, P. (2012). Identity, agency, and SLA. In A. Mackey learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations & S. Gass (Eds.), Handbook of second language acqui- on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Jour- sition (pp. 410–426). London: Routledge/Taylor nal, 91, 800–819. & Francis. Flores, N. (2013). The unexamined relationship be- Duff, P. (2015). Transnationalism, multilingualism, and tween neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cau- identity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, tionary tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 500–520. 57–80. Gal, S. (2012). Sociolinguistic regimes and the manage- Duff, P., & Doherty, L. (2015). Examining agency in (sec- ment of “diversity.” In M. Heller & A. Duchêne ond) language socialization research. In P. Deters, (Eds.), Language in late capitalism: Pride and proft X. Gao, E. Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Interdisci- (pp. 22–37). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Fran- plinary approaches to theorizing and analyzing agency cis. and second language learning (pp. 54–72). Bristol, Gamble, C., Gowlett, J., & Dunbar, R. (2014). Thinking UK: Multilingual Matters. big: How the evolution of social life shaped the human Duff, P., & Li, D. (Eds.). (2009). Indigenous, minority, mind. London: Thames & Hudson. and education in Canada. [Spe- García, O. (2014). Countering the dual: Transglossia, cial issue]. The Canadian Modern Language Review, dynamic bilingualism and translanguaging in ed- 66(1). ucation. In R. Rubdy & L. Alsagoff (Eds.), The Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused lan- global–local interface, language choice and hybridity guage acquisition: The associative learning of (pp. 100–118). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. The Douglas Fir Group 43

Geeslin, K., with Long, A. (2014). Sociolinguistics and Exploring intense and enduring periods of L2 second language acquisition. New York: Routledge/ motivation. Modern Language Journal, 99, 329– Taylor & Francis. 345. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual percep- Heugh, K. (2015). Epistemologies in multilingual edu- tion. New York: Psychology Press. [Classic Edition cation: Translanguaging and genre – companions 2015] in conversation with policy and practice. Language Goldin–Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture’s and Education, 29, 280–285. role in speaking, learning and creating language. Higgins, C. (2015). Intersecting scapes and new mil- Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 257–283. lennium identities in language learning. Language Gorter, D. (2015). Multilingual interaction and minor- Teaching, 48, 373–389. ity languages: Profciency and language practices Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajecto- in education and society. Language Teaching, 48, ries of children from low SES and language minor- 82–98. ity homes: Implications for closing achievement Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49, 4–14. reading (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Holbrook, J. B. (2013). What is interdisciplinary com- Grin, F. (2003). Language planning and economics. Cur- munication? Refections on the very idea of disci- rent Issues in Language Planning, 4, 1–66. plinary integration. Synthese, 190, 1865–1879. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilin- Hornberger, N. H. (2009). Hymes’s linguistics and gual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain ethnography in education. Text & Talk, 29, 347– and Language, 36, 3–15. 358. Guerrettaz, A. M., & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in Hornberger, N. H., & Hult, F. M. (2006). Educational the classroom ecology. Modern Language Journal, linguistics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of lan- 97, 779–796. guage and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 76–81). Gumperz, J. J. (1968). The speech community. In D. L. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Limited. Sills & R. K. Merton (Eds.), International encyclope- Hornberger, N. H., & Link., H. (2012). Translanguaging dia of the social sciences (pp. 381–386). New York: and transnational literacies in multilingual class- Macmillan. rooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Hall, J. K. (1998). Differential teacher attention to stu- Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 261–278. dent utterances: The construction of different op- Huebner, T. (1998). Linguistics, applied linguistics, portunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and and second language acquisition theories. In H. Education, 9, 287–311. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages Hall, J. K. (2011). Teaching and researching language and (pp. 58–74). New York: MLA. culture (2nd. ed.). London: Routledge. Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Recon- DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., Lantolf, J. P., Mackey, ceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of lan- A., & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cogni- guage knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27, 220–240. tive and social approaches to research in second Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explo- language learning and teaching. Studies in Second rations in the development of language, London: Ed- Language Acquisition, 36, 361–421. ward Arnold. Hult, F. (2011). Theme-based research in the transdisci- Halliday, M. A. K. (1990/2001). New ways of mean- plinary feld of educational linguistics. In F. Hult ing: The challenge to applied linguistics. In A. Fill (Ed.), Directions and prospects for educational lin- & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: guistics (pp. 19–32). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Language, ecology, and environment (pp. 175–202). Springer. London: Continuum. [First published in the Ap- Hult, F. (2014). How does policy infuence language in plied Linguistics Association of Greece’s Journal education? In R. Silver & S. Lwin (Eds.), Language of Applied Linguistics, 6, 7–36, special issue edited in education: Social implications (pp. 159–175). Lon- by S. Efstathiadis, Selected Papers from the 9th don: Continuum. World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Halkidiki, Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Matura- Greece, 1990] tional constraints in SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. Han, W.–J. (2012). Bilingualism and academic achieve- H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acqui- ment. Child Development, 83, 300–321. sition (pp. 539–588). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Harris, R. (1998). Integrationism. Oxford, UK: Perga- Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An mon. ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: The Uni- Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods versity of Pennsylvania Press. research: Toward new research designs in applied Ibbotson, P., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2013). linguistics. Modern Language Journal, 97, 828–852. The attention–grammar interface: Eye-gaze cues He, A. (2013). The wor(l)d is a collage: Multi- structural choice in children and adults. Cognitive performance in Chinese heritage speakers. Mod- Linguistics, 24, 457–481. ern Language Journal, 97, 304–317. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic infuence Henry, A., Davydenko, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2015). in language and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence The anatomy of Directed Motivational Currents: Erlbaum. 44 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social con- A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge. text. Studium Generale, 23, 30–87. Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural iden- Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, tities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Mahwah, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Labov, W. (2006). The social stratifcation of English in New Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (Eds.). (2003). Imagined com- York. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. munities and educational possibilities. [Special Is- Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the sue]. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2 self: A case study of a teenager writing on the in- (4). ternet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457–482. Kern, R. (2014). Technology as pharmakon: The Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: “Letting all promise and perils of the internet for foreign the fowers bloom!” Language Learning, 46, 713– language education. Modern Language Journal, 98, 749. 340–357. Lantolf, J. P. (2014). The sociocultural perspective. Stud- Klein, J. T. (2014). Discourses of transdisciplinarity: ies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 368–374. Looking back to the future. Futures, 63, 68–74. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural the- Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language ory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vy- acquisition research. Language Learning, 48, 527– gotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New 550. York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and cross-linguistic approach. New York: Cambridge Uni- the genesis of second language development. Oxford: versity Press. Oxford University Press. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s Larsen–Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science schools. New York: Broadway Publishing. and second language acquisition. Applied Linguis- Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject: What foreign tics, 18, 141–165. language learners say about their experience and why it Larsen–Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of com- matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. plexity, fuency, and accuracy in the oral and writ- Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach ten production for fve Chinese learners of En- to contemporary communication. New York: Rout- glish. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619. ledge/Taylor & Francis. Larsen–Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic sys- Kroskrity, P. (2010). Language ideologies. In J. O. Ost- tems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied man & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of prag- linguistics? Language Teaching, 45, 202–214. matics (pp. 1–24). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Larsen–Freeman, D. (2014a). Saying what we mean: Benjamins. Making the case for ‘language acquisition’ to be- Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Knowledge base of language come ‘language development.’ Language Teaching, teachers. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclope- 48, 491–505. dia of applied linguistics. Wiley–Blackwell. Published Larsen–Freeman, D. (2014b). Another step to be online only: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1415 taken—Rethinking the end point of the inter- Kubanyiova, M., & Feryok, A. (Eds.). (2015). Language language continuum. In Z.–H. Han & E. Tarone teacher cognition in applied linguistics research: (Eds.), . Forty years later (pp. 203–220). Revisiting the territory, redrawing the bound- Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. aries, reclaiming the relevance. Modern Language Larsen–Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques Journal, 99, 435–449. and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Ox- Kubota, R. (2009). Rethinking the superiority of the na- ford: Oxford University Press. tive speaker: Toward a relational understanding of Larsen–Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex sys- power. In M. D. Neriko (Ed.), “Native speakers” re- tems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Univer- visited: Multilingualism, standardization, and diversity sity Press. in language education (pp. 233–247). Berlin: Mou- Larsen–Freeman, D., & Tedick, D. J. (2016). Teaching ton de Gruyter. world languages: Thinking differently. In D. Gito- Kubota, R. (2011). Learning a foreign language as mer & C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teach- leisure and consumption: Enjoyment, desire, ing (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educa- and the business of eikaiwa. International Jour- tional Research Association. nal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Le- 473–488. gitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cam- Kubota, R. (2013a). Language and education for re- bridge University Press. turnees. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia Lee, N., Mikesell, L., Joaquin, A. D. L., Mates, A. W., & of applied linguistics. Wiley–Blackwell. Schumann, J. H. (2009). The interactional instinct: Kubota, R. (2013b). “Language is only a tool”: Japanese The evolution and acquisition of language. Oxford: expatriates working in China and implications for Oxford University Press. language teaching. Multilingual Education, 3, Leeman, J., & King, K. (2015). Heritage language ed- article 4. Accessed Sept. 9 2015 at www. ucation: Minority language speakers, second lan- multilingual-education.com/content/3/1/4 guage instruction, and monolingual schooling. In The Douglas Fir Group 45

M. Bigelow & J. Ennser–Kananen (Eds.), Handbook Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of of educational linguistics (pp. 210–223). New York: age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment. Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Language Teaching, 44, 1–35. Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multilitera- H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., et al. (2013). Hi-LAB: cies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational A new measure of aptitude for high-level language Review, 66, 60–92. profciency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566. Nishino, T., & Atkinson, D. (2015). Second language Li Wei, & Zhu, H. (2013). Translanguaging identi- writing as sociocognitive alignment. Journal of Sec- ties and ideologies: Creating transnational space ond Language Writing, 27, 37–54. through fexible multilingual practices amongst Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extend- Chinese university students in the UK. Applied Lin- ing the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilin- guistics, 34, 516–535. gual Matters. Luria, A. R. (1978). Selected writings of A. R. Luria. Edited Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical peda- with an introduction by M. Cole. While Plains, NY: gogies and language learning. New York: Cambridge M. E. Sharpe. University Press. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44, MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the Unifed 412–446. Model. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook Ochs, E. (2012). Experiencing language. Anthropological of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). New Theory, 12, 142–160. York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Okon–Singer, H., Hendler, T., Pessoa, L., & Shack- MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (Eds.). (2015). The man, A. J. (2015). The neurobiology of emotion– handbook of language emergence. Malden, MA: Wiley– cognition interactions: Fundamental questions Blackwell. and strategies for future research. Frontiers in Hu- Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (Eds.). (2007). Disinventing man Neuroscience, 9, article 58. and reconstituting languages. Clevedon, UK: Multi- Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulflling the unkept lingual Matters. promise of educational opportunity for long-term English Mauss, M. (1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together. Society, 2, 70–88. Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our re- May, S. (2011). The disciplinary constraints of SLA search? The ethical as transformative lens in in- and TESOL: Additive bilingualism and second lan- structed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89, 427– guage acquisition, teaching and learning. Linguis- 443. tics and Education, 22, 233–247. Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary McNamara, T. (2012). Language assessments as Shibbo- progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the leths: A poststructuralist perspective. Applied Lin- bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(Sup- guistics, 33, 564–581 plement 1), 1–24. McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The Ortega, L. (2014a). The cognitive-social gap: Multi- social dimension. Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell. ple understandings, hopeful commensurabilities. Miller, E. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 407–414. in the making. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ortega, L. (2014b). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the conse- turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: quences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguis- Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education tics, 2, 530–555. (pp. 32–52). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Fran- Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical cis. learning and language: An individual differences Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants study. Language Learning, 62, 302–331. of second languages. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: Mocombe, P. C., Tomlin, C., & Wright, C. (Eds.). (2013). John Benjamins. Race and class distinctions within Black communities: A Pavlenko, A. (2013). The affective turn in SLA: From racial-caste-in-class. New York: Routledge/Taylor & ‘affective factors’ to ‘language desire’ and ‘com- Francis. modifcation of affect.’ In D. Gabrys–Barker & J. Moore, D., & MacDonald, M. (2013). Language and lit- Bielska (Eds.), The affective dimension in second lan- eracy development in a Canadian native commu- guage acquisition (pp. 3–28). Bristol, UK: Multilin- nity: Halq’eméylem revitalization in a Stó:lo¯ Head gual Matters. Start program in British Columbia. Modern Lan- Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communi- guage Journal, 97, 702–719. ties, identity, and English language teaching. In J. Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and iden- Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International hand- tity in second language academic communities. book of English language teaching (pp. 669–680). New TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573–603. York: Springer. Morson, G., & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Cre- Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic ation of a prosaics. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer- theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fuency. sity Press. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language 46 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

and communication (pp. 191–226). London: Long- (pp. 239–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University man. Press. Pessoa, L. (2015). Precis on The Cognitive-Emotional Spector, J. M. (2013). Emerging educational technolo- Brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, e71. gies and research directions. Educational Technology Pettitt, N., & Tarone, E. (2015). Following Roba: What & Society, 16(2), 21–30. happens when a low-educated multilingual adult Statistics Canada. (2011). Census of Popula- learns to read. Writing Systems Research, Special Is- tion and Statistics Canada (Catalogue no. sue: Initial L2 literacy development in adolescents and 98–314-XCB). Accessed April 5 2015 at adults, 7, 20–38. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum- Philips, S. U. (2004). The organization of ideological di- som/l01/cst01/demo11a-eng.htm versity in discourse: Modern and neotraditional vi- Subtirelu, N. (2014). A language ideological perspective sions of the Tongan state. American Ethnologist, 31, on willingness to communicate. System, 42, 120– 231–250. 132. Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language ac- Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and quisition. New York/Oxford: Blackwell. emotion in second language learning. Language Rampton, B. (2013). Styling in a language learned later Teaching, 46, 195–207. in life. Modern Language Journal, 97, 360–382. Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). "New" mainstream SLA Ratner, C. (2011). Macro cultural psychology: A political phi- theory: Expanded and enriched. Modern Language losophy of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal, 91, 820–836. Reyes, A. (2013). Linguistic anthropology in 2013: Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Immersion edu- Super-new-big. American Anthropologist, 116, 366– cation: A category within bilingual education. In 378. R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion ed- Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspec- ucation: International perspectives (pp. 1–16). Cam- tives in language policy and planning. Journal of bridge: Cambridge University Press. Sociolinguistics, 4, 196–213. Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocul- Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling tural theory in second language education: An introduc- the onion: Language planning and policy and the tion through narratives (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Mul- ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401–427. tilingual Matters. Roy, S., & Galiev, A. (2011). Discourses on bilingual- Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving socio- ism in Canadian French immersion programs. The political context of immersion education in Canadian Modern Language Review, 67, 351–376. Canada: Some implications for program Ruíz, R. (1988). Orientations in language planning. In development. International Journal of Applied S. McKay & S.–L. Wong (Eds.), Language diversity: Linguistics, 15, 169–186. Problem or resource? (pp. 3–25). New York: Newbury Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic House Publishers. and research settings. New York: Cambridge Univer- Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus sity Press. on communicative repertoires. In N. Hornberger Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Lan- & S. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language edu- guage Learning, 29, 181–191. cation (pp. 528–548). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage Matters. systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 143–163. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in Tarone, E. (1985). Variability in interlanguage use: A supporting academic language development. Lan- study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. guage Learning, 63(S1), 153–170. Language Learning, 35, 373–403. Schumann, J. (2010). Applied linguistics and the neuro- Tarone E. (1988). Variation in interlanguage. London: Ed- biology of language. In R. Kaplan, (Ed.), The Ox- ward Arnold. ford handbook of applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 244– Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hanson, K. (2009). Literacy 259). Oxford: Oxford University Press. and second language oracy. Oxford: Oxford Univer- Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: The nexus of prac- sity Press. tice. London: Routledge. Tarone, E., & Liu, G.–Q. (1995). Situational context, Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The variation, and second language acquisition theory. case for a description of English as a lingua franca. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 133– practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. 158. G. Widdowson (pp. 107–124). Oxford: Oxford Uni- Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL—International versity Press. Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Tedick, D., Christian, D., & Fortune, T. W. (2011). Immer- 10, 219–231. sion education: Practices, policies, possibilities. Cleve- Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective don, UK: Multilingual Matters. on the uses of language tests. New York: Longman. Thorne, S. L. (2013). Digital literacies. In M. Hawkins Slobin, D. I. (1993). Adult language acquisition: A view (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situ- from child language study. In C. Perdue (Ed.), ated views and perspectives (pp. 193–219). New York: Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives Routledge/Taylor & Francis. The Douglas Fir Group 47

Thorne, S. L., Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2015). Technolo- Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. gies, identities, and expressive activity. Annual Re- Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 1024–1054. view of Applied Linguistics, 35, 215–233. Vertovec, S. (Ed.). (2015). Routledge international hand- Todeva, E. (2009). Multilingualism as a kaleidoscopic book of diversity studies. New York: Routledge/Taylor experience: The mini-universes within. In E. To- & Francis. deva & J. Cenoz (Eds.), The multiple realities of mul- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of tilingualism: Personal narratives and researchers’ per- higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Har- spectives (pp. 53 74). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. vard University Press. ¡ Tollefson, J. W. (Ed.). (2002). Language policies in edu- Watson–Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and cation: Critical issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- epistemology: Toward a language socialization baum. paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88, Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Boston, 331–350. MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, so- in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture and Activity, cial relations and classroom practice. Clevedon, UK: 1, 202–208. Multilingual Matters. Wiley, T. (2014). Diversity, super-diversity, and monolin- Toomela, A. (2010). Review essay: Poverty of modern gual language ideology in the United States: Toler- mainstream psychology in autobiography: Refec- ance or intolerance? Review of Research in Education, tions on a history of psychology in autobiography, 38, 1–32. Volume IX. Culture & Psychology, 16, 127–144. Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and Tupas, R. (Ed.). (2015). Unequal Englishes: The politics of standard English ideologies in the United States. Englishes today. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 511–535. Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience per- Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language spective on second language acquisition: The ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–82. declarative–procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Zappa–Hollman, S., & Duff, P. (2015). Academic En- Mind and context in second language acquisition: Meth- glish socialization through individual networks of ods, theory, and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 333–368. DC: Georgetown University Press. Zhang, X., & Lantolf, J. P. (2015). Natural or artifcial: Is Valian, V. V. (2015). Bilingualism and cognition. Bilin- the route of L2 development teachable? Language gualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 3–24. Learning, 65, 152–180. van Deursen, A. J., & van Dijk, J. A. (2014). The digital Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and socio- divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & cultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? Society, 16, 507–526. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.