Handbook Of Multilingualism And Multilingual Communication Peter Auer Editor Li Wei Editor

Handbook Of Multilingualism And Multilingual
Communication Peter Auer Editor Li Wei Editor
download
https://ebookbell.com/product/handbook-of-multilingualism-and-
multilingual-communication-peter-auer-editor-li-wei-
editor-50966472
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Handbook Of Bilingualism And Multilingualism 2nd Edition Tej K
Bhatia Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-handbook-of-bilingualism-and-
multilingualism-2nd-edition-tej-k-bhatia-editor-23459990
The Handbook Of Bilingualism And Multilingualism 2ed Tej K Bhatia
William C Ritchie Eds
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-handbook-of-bilingualism-and-
multilingualism-2ed-tej-k-bhatia-william-c-ritchie-eds-4158096
The Handbook Of The Neuroscience Of Multilingualism Schwieter
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-handbook-of-the-neuroscience-of-
multilingualism-schwieter-10823404
The Routledge Handbook Of Multilingualism 1st Edition Marilyn
Martinjones
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-
multilingualism-1st-edition-marilyn-martinjones-5047240

The Routledge Handbook Of Multilingualism First Published In Paperback
Marilyn Martinjones
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-routledge-handbook-of-
multilingualism-first-published-in-paperback-marilyn-
martinjones-11348692
The Cambridge Handbook Of Childhood Multilingualism Anat Stavans
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-handbook-of-childhood-
multilingualism-anat-stavans-46086350
The Cambridge Handbook Of Language Contact Volume 2 Multilingualism In
Population Structure Salikoko Mufwene
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-cambridge-handbook-of-language-
contact-volume-2-multilingualism-in-population-structure-salikoko-
mufwene-49511992
Handbook Of Psychology Developmental Psychology Richard M Lerner M A
Easterbrooks Jayanthi Mistry
https://ebookbell.com/product/handbook-of-psychology-developmental-
psychology-richard-m-lerner-m-a-easterbrooks-jayanthi-mistry-44869188
Handbook Of Home Language Maintenance And Development Andrea C
Schalley
https://ebookbell.com/product/handbook-of-home-language-maintenance-
and-development-andrea-c-schalley-44875220

Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication
HAL 5
≥

Handbooks of Applied Linguistics
Communication Competence
Language and Communication Problems
Practical Solutions
Editors
Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos
Volume 5
Mouton de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Handbook of
Multilingualism and
Multilingual
Communication
Edited by
Peter Auer and Li Wei
Mouton de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.
앪
앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication /
edited by Peter Auer, Li Wei.
p. cm. ⫺ (Handbooks of applied linguistics ; 5)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-018216-3 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Bilingualism. 2. Multilingualism. I. Auer, Peter, 1954⫺
II. Wei, Li, 1961⫺
P115.H366 2007
4041.2⫺dc22
2007001159
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
ISBN 978-3-11-018216-3
쑔 Copyright 2007 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin.
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book
may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-
copy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publisher.
Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen.
Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen
Printed in Germany.

Introduction to the handbook series v
Introduction to the handbook series
Linguistics for problem solving
1. Science and application at the turn of the millennium
The distinction between “pure” and “applied” sciences is an old one. Accord-
ing to Meinel (2000), it was introduced by the Swedish chemist Wallerius
in 1751, as part of the dispute of that time between the scholastic disciplines
and the then emerging epistemic sciences. However, although the concept of
“Applied Science” gained currency rapidly since that time, it has remained
problematic.
Until recently, the distinction between “pure” and “applied” mirrored the
distinction between “theory and “practice”. The latter ran all the way through
Western history of science since its beginnings in antique times. At first, it was
only philosophy that was regarded as a scholarly and, hence, theoretical disci-
pline. Later it was followed by other leading disciplines, as e.g., the sciences.
However, as academic disciplines, all of them remained theoretical. In fact, the
process of achieving independence of theory was essential for the academic dis-
ciplines to become independent from political, religious or other contingencies
and to establish themselves at universities and academies. This also implied a
process of emancipation from practical concerns – an at times painful develop-
ment which manifested (and occasionally still manifests) itself in the discredit-
ing of and disdain for practice and practitioners. To some, already the very
meaning of the notion “applied” carries a negative connotation, as is suggested
by the contrast between the widely used synonym for “theoretical”, i.e. “pure”
(as used, e.g. in the distinction between “Pure” and “Applied Mathematics”)
and its natural antonym “impure”. On a different level, a lower academic status
sometimes is attributed to applied disciplines because of their alleged lack of
originality – they are perceived as simply and one-directionally applying in-
sights gained in basic research and watering them down by neglecting the limit-
ing conditions under which these insights were achieved.
Today, however, the academic system is confronted with a new understand-
ing of science. In politics, in society and, above all, in economy a new concept
of science has gained acceptance which questions traditional views. In recent
philosophy of science, this is labelled as “science under the pressure to suc-
ceed” – i.e. as science whose theoretical structure and criteria of evaluation are
increasingly conditioned by the pressure of application (Carrier, Stöltzner, and
Wette 2004):

vi Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos
Whenever the public is interested in a particular subject, e.g. when a new disease de-
velops that cannot be cured by conventional medication, the public requests science
to provide new insights in this area as quickly as possible. In doing so, the public is
less interested in whether these new insights fit seamlessly into an existing theoretical
framework, but rather whether they make new methods of treatment and curing poss-
ible. (Institut für Wirtschafts- und Technikforschung 2004, our translation).
With most of the practical problems like these, sciences cannot rely on know-
ledge that is already available, simply because such knowledge does not yet
exist. Very often, the problems at hand do not fit neatly into the theoretical
framework of one particular “pure science”, and there is competition among dis-
ciplines with respect to which one provides the best theoretical and methodo-
logical resources for potential solutions. And more often than not the problems
can be tackled only by adopting an interdisciplinary approach.
As a result, the traditional “Cascade Model”, where insights were applied
top-down from basic research to practice, no longer works in many cases. In-
stead, a kind of “application oriented basic research” is needed, where disci-
plines – conditioned by the pressure of application – take up a certain still dif-
fuse practical issue, define it as a problem against the background of their
respective theoretical and methodological paradigms, study this problem and
finally develop various application oriented suggestions for solutions. In this
sense, applied science, on the one hand, has to be conceived of as a scientific
strategy for problem solving – a strategy that starts from mundane practical
problems and ultimately aims at solving them. On the other hand, despite the
dominance of application that applied sciences are subjected to, as sciences they
can do nothing but develop such solutions in a theoretically reflected and me-
thodologically well founded manner. The latter, of course, may lead to the well
known fact that even applied sciences often tend to concentrate on “application
oriented basic research” only and thus appear to lose sight of the original prac-
tical problem. But despite such shifts in focus: Both the boundaries between
disciplines and between pure and applied research are getting more and more
blurred.
Today, after the turn of the millennium, it is obvious that sciences are re-
quested to provide more and something different than just theory, basic research
or pure knowledge. Rather, sciences are increasingly being regarded as partners
in a more comprehensive social and economic context of problem solving and
are evaluated against expectations to be practically relevant. This also implies
that sciences are expected to be critical, reflecting their impact on society. This
new “applied” type of science is confronted with the question: Which role can
the sciences play in solving individual, interpersonal, social, intercultural,
political or technical problems? This question is typical of a conception of
science that was especially developed and propagated by the influential philos-
opher Sir Karl Popper – a conception that also this handbook series is based on.

Introduction to the handbook series vii
2. “Applied Linguistics”: Concepts and controversies
The concept of “Applied Linguistics” is not as old as the notion of “Applied
Science”, but it has also been problematical in its relation to theoretical lin-
guistics since its beginning. There seems to be a widespread consensus that the
notion “Applied Linguistics” emerged in 1948 with the first issue of the journal
Language Learning which used this compound in its subtitle A Quarterly Jour-
nal of Applied Linguistics. This history of its origin certainly explains why even
today “Applied Linguistics” still tends to be predominantly associated with
foreign language teaching and learning in the Anglophone literature in particu-
lar, as can bee seen e.g. from Johnson and Johnson (1998), whose Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Applied Linguistics is explicitly subtitled A Handbook for Lan-
guage Teaching. However, this theory of origin is historically wrong. As is
pointed out by Back (1970), the concept of applying linguistics can be traced
back to the early 19th century in Europe, and the very notion “Applied Lin-
guistics” was used in the early 20th already.
2.1. Theoretically Applied vs. Practically Applied Linguistics
As with the relation between “Pure” and “Applied” sciences pointed out above,
also with “Applied Linguistics” the first question to be asked is what makes it
different from “Pure” or “Theoretical Linguistics”. It is not surprising, then, that
the terminologist Back takes this difference as the point of departure for his dis-
cussion of what constitutes “Applied Linguistics”. In the light of recent contro-
versies about this concept it is no doubt useful to remind us of his terminological
distinctions.
Back (1970) distinguishes between “Theoretical Linguistics” – which aims
at achieving knowledge for its own sake, without considering any other value –,
“Practice” – i.e. any kind of activity that serves to achieve any purpose in life in
the widest sense, apart from the striving for knowledge for its own sake – and
“Applied Linguistics”, as a being based on “Theoretical Linguistics” on the one
hand and as aiming at usability in “Practice” on the other. In addition, he makes
a difference between “Theoretical Applied Linguistics” and “Practical Applied
Linguistics”, which is of particular interest here. The former is defined as the use
of insights and methods of “Theoretical Linguistics” for gaining knowledge in
another, non-linguistic discipline, such as ethnology, sociology, law or literary
studies, the latter as the application of insights from linguistics in a practical
field related to language, such as language teaching, translation, and the like.
For Back, the contribution of applied linguistics is to be seen in the planning
of practical action. Language teaching, for example, is practical action done
by practitioners, and what applied linguistics can contribute to this is, e.g., to
provide contrastive descriptions of the languages involved as a foundation for

viii Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos
teaching methods. These contrastive descriptions in turn have to be based on the
descriptive methods developed in theoretical linguistics.
However, in the light of the recent epistemological developments outlined
above, it may be useful to reinterpret Back’s notion of “Theoretically Applied
Linguistics”. As he himself points out, dealing with practical problems can have
repercussions on the development of the theoretical field. Often new ap-
proaches, new theoretical concepts and new methods are a prerequisite for deal-
ing with a particular type of practical problems, which may lead to an – at least
in the beginning – “application oriented basic research” in applied linguistics
itself, which with some justification could also be labeled “theoretically ap-
plied”, as many such problems require the transgression of disciplinary bound-
aries. It is not rare that a domain of “Theoretically Applied Linguistics” or “ap-
plication oriented basic research” takes on a life of its own, and that also
something which is labeled as “Applied Linguistics” might in fact be rather re-
mote from the mundane practical problems that originally initiated the respect-
ive subject area. But as long as a relation to the original practical problem can be
established, it may be justified to count a particular field or discussion as be-
longing to applied linguistics, even if only “theoretically applied”.
2.2. Applied linguistics as a response to structuralism and generativism
As mentioned before, in the Anglophone world in particular the view still
appears to be widespread that the primary concerns of the subject area of ap-
plied linguistics should be restricted to second language acquisition and lan-
guage instruction in the first place (see, e.g., Davies 1999 or Schmitt and Celce-
Murcia 2002). However, in other parts of the world, and above all in Europe,
there has been a development away from aspects of language learning to a wider
focus on more general issues of language and communication.
This broadening of scope was in part a reaction to the narrowing down the
focus in linguistics that resulted from self-imposed methodological constraints
which, as Ehlich (1999) points out, began with Saussurean structuralism and
culminated in generative linguistics. For almost three decades since the late
1950s, these developments made “language” in a comprehensive sense, as
related to the everyday experience of its users, vanish in favour of an idealised
and basically artificial entity. This lead in “Core” or theoretical linguistics to a
neglect of almost all everyday problems with language and communication en-
countered by individuals and societies and made it necessary for those inter-
ested in socially accountable research into language and communication to draw
on a wider range of disciplines, thus giving rise to a flourishing of interdiscipli-
nary areas that have come to be referred to as hyphenated variants of linguistics,
such as sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics, psycholinguistics, conversation
analysis, pragmatics, and so on (Davies and Elder 2004).

Introduction to the handbook series ix
That these hyphenated variants of linguistics can be said to have originated
from dealing with problems may lead to the impression that they fall completely
into the scope of applied linguistics. This the more so as their original thematic
focus is in line with a frequently quoted definition of applied linguistics as “the
theoretical and empirical investigation of real world problems in which lan-
guage is a central issue” (Brumfit 1997: 93). However, in the recent past much
of the work done in these fields has itself been rather “theoretically applied” in
the sense introduced above and ultimately even become mainstream in lin-
guistics. Also, in view of the current epistemological developments that see all
sciences under the pressure of application, one might even wonder if there is
anything distinctive about applied linguistics at all.
Indeed it would be difficult if not impossible to delimit applied linguistics
with respect to the practical problems studied and the disciplinary approaches
used: Real-world problems with language (and to which, for greater clarity,
should be added: “with communication”) are unlimited in principle. Also,
many problems of this kind are unique and require quite different approaches.
Some might be tackled successfully by applying already available linguistic
theories and methods. Others might require for their solution the development
of new methods and even new theories. Following a frequently used distinction
first proposed by Widdowson (1980), one might label these approaches
as “Linguistics Applied” or “Applied Linguistics”. In addition, language is
a trans-disciplinary subject par excellence, with the result that problems do not
come labelled and may require for their solution the cooperation of various dis-
ciplines.
2.3. Conceptualisations and communities
The questions of what should be its reference discipline and which themes,
areas of research and sub-disciplines it should deal with, have been discussed
constantly and were also the subject of an intensive debate (e.g. Seidlhofer
2003). In the recent past, a number of edited volumes on applied linguistics have
appeared which in their respective introductory chapters attempt at giving a
definition of “Applied Linguistics”. As can be seen from the existence of the
Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (AILA) and its numerous
national affiliates, from the number of congresses held or books and journals
published with the label “Applied Linguistics”, applied linguistics appears to be
a well-established and flourishing enterprise. Therefore, the collective need felt
by authors and editors to introduce their publication with a definition of the sub-
ject area it is supposed to be about is astonishing at first sight. Quite obviously,
what Ehlich (2006) has termed “the struggle for the object of inquiry” appears to
be characteristic of linguistics – both of linguistics at large and applied lin-
guistics. Its seems then, that the meaning and scope of “Applied Linguistics”

x Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos
cannot be taken for granted, and this is why a wide variety of controversial con-
ceptualisations exist.
For example, in addition to the dichotomy mentioned above with respect to
whether approaches to applied linguistics should in their theoretical foundations
and methods be autonomous from theoretical linguistics or not, and apart from
other controversies, there are diverging views on whether applied linguistics is
an independent academic discipline (e.g. Kaplan and Grabe 2000) or not (e.g.
Davies and Elder 2004), whether its scope should be mainly restricted to lan-
guage teaching related topics (e.g. Schmitt and Celce-Murcia 2002) or not (e.g.
Knapp 2006), or whether applied linguistics is a field of interdisciplinary syn-
thesis where theories with their own integrity develop in close interaction with
language users and professionals (e.g. Rampton 1997/2003) or whether this
view should be rejected, as a true interdisciplinary approach is ultimately im-
possible (e.g. Widdowson 2005).
In contrast to such controversies Candlin and Sarangi (2004) point out that
applied linguistics should be defined in the first place by the actions of those
who practically do applied linguistics:
[…] we see no especial purpose in reopening what has become a somewhat sterile
debate on what applied linguistics is, or whether it is a distinctive and coherent
discipline. […] we see applied linguistics as a many centered and interdisciplinary
endeavour whose coherence is achieved in purposeful, mediated action by its prac-
titioners. […]
What we want to ask of applied linguistics is less what it is and more what it does, or
rather what its practitioners do. (Candlin/Sarangi 2004:1–2)
Against this background, they see applied linguistics as less characterised
by its thematic scope – which indeed is hard to delimit – but rather by the
two aspects of “relevance” and “reflexivity”. Relevance refers to the purpose
applied linguistic activities have for the targeted audience and to the degree that
these activities in their collaborative practices meet the background and needs
of those addressed – which, as matter of comprehensibility, also includes taking
their conceptual and language level into account. Reflexivity means the contex-
tualisation of the intellectual principles and practices, which is at the core of
what characterises a professional community, and which is achieved by asking
leading questions like “What kinds of purposes underlie what is done?”, “Who
is involved in their determination?” “By whom, and in what ways, is their
achievement appraised?”, “Who owns the outcomes?”
We agree with these authors that applied linguistics in dealing with real
world problems is determined by disciplinary givens – such as e.g. theories,
methods or standards of linguistics or any other discipline – but that it is deter-
mined at least as much by the social and situational givens of the practices of
life. These do not only include the concrete practical problems themselves but

Introduction to the handbook series xi
also the theoretical and methodological standards of cooperating experts from
other disciplines, as well as the conceptual and practical standards of the prac-
titioners who are confronted with the practical problems in the first place. Thus,
as Sarangi and van Leeuwen (2003) point out, applied linguists have to become
part of the respective “community of practice”.
If, however, applied linguists have to regard themselves as part of a commu-
nity of practice, it is obvious that it is the entire community which determines
what the respective subject matter is that the applied linguist deals with and
how. In particular, it is the respective community of practice which determines
which problems of the practitioners have to be considered. The consequence of
this is that applied linguistics can be understood from very comprehensive to
very specific, depending on what kind of problems are considered relevant by
the respective community. Of course, following this participative understanding
of applied linguistics also has consequences for the Handbooks of Applied Lin-
guistics both with respect to the subjects covered and the way they are theoreti-
cally and practically treated.
3. Applied linguistics for problem solving
Against this background, it seems reasonable not to define applied linguistics as
an autonomous discipline or even only to delimit it by specifying a set of sub-
jects it is supposed to study and typical disciplinary approaches it should use.
Rather, in line with the collaborative and participatory perspective of the com-
munities of practice applied linguists are involved in, this handbook series is
based on the assumption that applied linguistics is a specific, problem-oriented
way of “doing linguistics” related to the real-life world. In other words: applied
linguistics is conceived of here as “linguistics for problem solving”.
To outline what we think is distinctive about this area of inquiry: Entirely
in line with Popper’s conception of science, we take it that applied linguistics
starts from the assumption of an imperfect world in the areas of language and
communication. This means, firstly, that linguistic and communicative compet-
ence in individuals, like other forms of human knowledge, is fragmentary and
defective – if it exists at all. To express it more pointedly: Human linguistic and
communicative behaviour is not “perfect”. And on a different level, this imper-
fection also applies to the use and status of language and communication in and
among groups or societies.
Secondly, we take it that applied linguists are convinced that the imperfec-
tion both of individual linguistic and communicative behaviour and language
based relations between groups and societies can be clarified, understood and to
some extent resolved by their intervention, e.g. by means of education, training
or consultancy.

xii Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos
Thirdly, we take it that applied linguistics proceeds by a specific mode of
enquiry in that it mediates between the way language and communication is ex-
pertly studied in the linguistic disciplines and the way it is directly experienced
in different domains of use. This implies that applied linguists are able to dem-
onstrate that their findings – be they of a “Linguistics Applied” or “Applied
Linguistics”-nature – are not just “application oriented basic research” but can
be made relevant to the real-life world.
Fourthly, we take it that applied linguistics is socially accountable. To the
extent that the imperfections initiating applied linguistic activity involve both
social actors and social structures, we take it that applied linguistics has to
be critical and reflexive with respect to the results of its suggestions and sol-
utions.
These assumptions yield the following questions which at the same time de-
fine objectives for applied linguistics:
1. Which linguistic problems are typical of what areas of language competence
and language use?
2. How can linguistics define and describe these problems?
3. How can linguistics suggest, develop, or achieve solutions of these prob-
lems?
4. Which solutions result in what improvements in speakers’ linguistic and
communicative abilities or in the use and status of languages in and between
groups?
5. What are additional effects of the linguistic intervention?
4. Objectives of this handbook series
These questions also determine the objectives of this book series. However, in
view of the present boom in handbooks of linguistics and applied Linguistics,
one should ask what is specific about this series of nine thematically different
volumes.
To begin with, it is important to emphasise what it is not aiming at:
– The handbook series does not want to take a snapshot view or even a “hit
list” of fashionable topics, theories, debates or fields of study.
– Nor does it aim at a comprehensive coverage of linguistics because some
selectivity with regard to the subject areas is both inevitable in a book series
of this kind and part of its specific profile.
Instead, the book series will try
– to show that applied linguistics can offer a comprehensive, trustworthy and
scientifically well-founded understanding of a wide range of problems,
– to show that applied linguistics can provide or develop instruments to for
solving new, still unpredictable problems,

Introduction to the handbook series xiii
– to show that applied linguistics is not confined to a restricted number of
topics such as, e.g. foreign language learning, but that it successfully deals
with a wide range of both everyday problems and areas of linguistics,
– to provide a state-of-the-art description of applied linguistics against the
background of the ability of this area of academic inquiry to provide de-
scriptions, analyses, explanations and, if possible, solutions of everyday
problems. On the one hand, this criterion is the link to trans-disciplinary co-
operation. On the other, it is crucial in assessing to what extent linguistics
can in fact be made relevant.
In short, it is by no means the intention of this series to duplicate the present
state of knowledge about linguistics as represented in other publications with
the supposed aim of providing a comprehensive survey. Rather, the intention is
to present the knowledge available in applied linguistics today firstly from an
explicitly problem solving perspective and secondly, in a non-technical, easily
comprehensible way. Also it is intended with this publication to build bridges to
neighbouring disciplines and to critically discuss which impact the solutions
discussed do in fact have on practice. This is particularly necessary in areas like
language teaching and learning – where for years there has been a tendency to
fashionable solutions without sufficient consideration of their actual impact on
the reality in schools.
5. Criteria for the selection of topics
Based on the arguments outlined above, the handbook series has the following
structure: Findings and applications of linguistics will be presented in concen-
tric circles, as it were, starting out from the communication competence of the
individual, proceeding via aspects of interpersonal and inter-group communi-
cation to technical communication and, ultimately, to the more general level of
society. Thus, the topics of the nine volumes are as follows:
1. Handbook of Individual Communication Competence
2. Handbook of Interpersonal Communication
3. Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions
4. Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere
5. Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication
6. Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning
7. Handbook of Intercultural Communication
8. Handbook of Technical Communication
9. Handbook of Language and Communication: Diversity and Change.
This thematic structure can be said to follow the sequence of experience with
problems related to language and communication a human passes through in the

xiv Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos
course of his or her personal biographical development. This is why the topic
areas of applied linguistics are structured here in ever increasing concentric
circles: in line with biographical development, the first circle starts with
the communicative competence of the individual and also includes interper-
sonal communication as belonging to a person’s private sphere. The second
circle proceeds to the everyday environment and includes the professional and
public sphere. The third circle extends to the experience of foreign languages
and cultures, which at least in officially monolingual societies, is not made by
everybody and if so, only later in life. Technical communication as the fourth
circle is even more exclusive and restricted to a more special professional clien-
tele. The final volume extends this process to focus on more general, supra-in-
dividual national and international issues.
For almost all of these topics, there already exist introductions, handbooks
or other types of survey literature. However, what makes the present volumes
unique is their explicit claim to focus on topics in language and communication
as areas of everyday problems and their emphasis on pointing out the relevance
of applied linguistics in dealing with them.
Bibliography
Back, Otto
1970 „Was bedeutet und was bezeichnet der Begriff ‘angewandte Sprachwissen-
schaft’?“. Die Sprache 16: 21–53.
Brumfit, Christopher
1997 How applied linguistics is the same as any other science. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7.1: 86–94.
Candlin, Chris N. and Srikant Sarangi
2004 Making applied linguistics matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1.1: 1–8.
Carrier, Michael, Martin Stöltzner, and Jeanette Wette
2004 Theorienstruktur und Beurteilungsmaßstäbe unter den Bedingungen der
Anwendungsdominanz. Universität Bielefeld: Institut für Wissenschafts-
und Technikforschung [http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/iwt/projekte/wissen/
anwendungsdominanz.html, last time accessed 05. 01. 2007].
Davies, Alan
1999 Introduction to Applied Linguistics. From Practice to Theory. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Davies, Alan and Catherine Elder
2004 General introduction – Applied linguistics: subject to discipline? In:
Alan Davies and Catherine Elder (eds.) The Handbook of Applied Lin-
guistics, 1–16. Malden etc.: Blackwell.
Ehlich, Konrad
1999 Vom Nutzen der „Funktionalen Pragmatik“ für die angewandte Linguistik.
In: Michael Becker-Mrotzek und Christine Doppler (Hrsg.) Medium Spra-
che im Beruf. Eine Aufgabe für die Linguistik, 23–36. Tübingen: Narr.

Introduction to the handbook series xv
Ehlich, Konrad
2006 Mehrsprachigkeit für Europa – öffentliches Schweigen, linguistische Di-
stanzen. In: Sergio Cigada, Jean-Francois de Pietro, Daniel Elmiger und
Markus Nussbaumer (Hrsg.) Öffentliche Sprachdebatten – linguistische
Positionen. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée/VALS-ASLA-Bulletin
83/1: 11–28.
Grabe, William
2002 Applied linguistics: an emerging discipline for the twenty-first century. In:
Robert B. Kaplan (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, 3–12.
Oxford: OUP.
Johnson, Keith and Helen Johnson (eds.)
1998 Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. A Handbook for Language
Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaplan, Robert B. and William Grabe
2000 Applied linguistics and the Annual Review if Applied Linguistics. In:
W. Grabe (ed.) Applied Linguistics as an Emerging Discipline. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 20: 3–17.
Knapp, Karlfried
2006 Vorwort. In: Karlfried Knapp, Gerd Antos, Michael Becker-Mrotzek, Ar-
nulf Deppermann, Susanne Göpferich, Joachim Gabowski, Michael Klemm
und Claudia Villiger (Hrsg.) Angewandte Linguistik. Ein Lehrbuch. 2. Au-
flage, XIX–XXIII. Tübingen: Francke – UTB.
Meinel, Christoph
(2000) Reine und angewandte Wissenschaft. In: Das Magazin. Hrsg. vom Wissen-
schaftszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen 11/1: 10–11.
Rampton, Ben
1997/2003 Retuning in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Lin-
guistics, 7 (1): 3–25, quoted from Seidlhofer (2003), 273–295.
Sarangi, Srikant and Theo van Leeuwen
2003 Applied linguistics and communities of practice: gaining communality or
losing disciplinary autonomy? In: Srikant Sarangi and Theo van Leeuwen
(eds.) Applied Linguistics and Communities of Practice, 1–8. London: Con-
tinuum.
Schmitt, Norbert and Marianne Celce-Murcia
2002 An overview of applied linguistics. In: N. Schmitt (ed.) An Introduction to
Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (ed.)
2003 Controversies in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, Henry
[1980] 1984 Model and fictions. In: Henry Widdowson (1984) Explorations in Ap-
plied Linguistics 2, 21–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, Henry
2005 Applied linguistics, interdisciplinarity, and disparate realities. In: Paul Bru-
thiaux, Dwight Atkinson, William G. Egginton, William Grabe, and Vai-
dehi Ramanathan (eds.) Directions in Applied Linguistics. Essays in Honor
of Robert B. Kaplan, 12–25. Clevendon etc: Multilingual Matters.

xvi Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos

Introduction to the handbook series xvii
Preface
Peter Auer would like to thank Hanna Beier and Elin Arbin, who did a great job
in helping to copy-edit and proof-read the manuscripts. Li Wei is grateful to Zhu
Hua who read and commented on some of the chapters and helped with the
proofreading. He did his part of the editing work while at Newcastle University.
He would like to acknowledge the support his personal assistant Sam Taylor
gave him.
Peter Auer, Freiburg
Li Wei, London

xviii Karlfried Knapp and Gerd Antos

Introduction to the handbook series xix
Contents
Introduction to the handbook series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVII
Introduction: Multilingualism as a problem? Monolingualism as
a problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Peter Auer/Li Wei
I. Becoming bilingual
1. Early bilingual and multilingual acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Johanne Paradis
2. Multilingualism and the family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Elizabeth Lanza
3. Growing up in a multilingual community: Insights from language
socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Patricia Baquedano-López and Shlomy Kattan
4. Becoming bi- or multi-lingual later in life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Jean-Marc Dewaele
5. Becoming bilingual through bilingual education . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Colin Baker
II. Staying bilingual
6. Bilingual children in monolingual schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
J. Normann Jørgensen and Pia Quist
7. From minority programmes to multilingual education . . . . . . . . 175
Guus Extra
8. From biliteracy to pluriliteracies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Ofelia García, Lesley Bartlett and JoAnne Kleifgen
9. Multilingualism and Specific Language Impairment (SLI) . . . . . . 229
Monika Rothweiler
10. Measuring bilingualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Manfred Pienemann and Jörg-U. Keßler

xx Contents
III. Acting multilingual
11. Code-switching as a conversational strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Joseph Gafaranga
12. Mixed codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Pieter Muysken
13. Multilingual forms of talk and identity work . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Benjamin Bailey
14. Crossing – negotiating social boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Pia Quist and J. Normann Jørgensen
15. Bilingual professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
Dennis Day and Johannes Wagner
16. Multilingualism in the workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
Celia Roberts
17. Multilingualism and commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
David C.S. Li
IV. Living in a multilingual society
18. Societal multilingualism: reality, recognition and response . . . . . 447
John Edwards
19. Multilingualism of autochthonous minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
Penelope Gardner-Chloros
20. Multilingualism of new minorities (in migratory contexts) . . . . . 493
Peter Martin
21. Multilingualism in ex-colonial countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
Christopher Stroud
22. Multilingualism and transnationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
Monica Heller
Biographical notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
Name index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Subject index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576

Introduction: Multilingualism as a problem? Monolingualism as a problem? 1
Introduction: Multilingualism as a problem?
Monolingualism as a problem?
Peter Auer/Li Wei
Applied Linguistics is often conceived as that part of linguistics which deals
with practical problems of everyday life concerning language or communica-
tion. It deals with issues in language and verbal interaction that arise not out of
an academic interest, but out of the needs of language users. Language impair-
ment, reading and writing disabilities, lack of competence in higher stylistic
registers which is required in the upper strata of society, inadequate rhetorical
skills, misunderstandings in intercultural communication, the struggles of learn-
ing a foreign language, communication in high-stress situations or under diffi-
cult conditions – there is a long list of potential problems in language and com-
munication. But why should multilingualism be a problem? We estimate that
most of the human language users in the world speak more than one language,
i.e. they are at least bilingual. In quantitative terms, then, monolingualism may
be the exception and multilingualism the norm. Would it not make more sense to
look at monolingualism as a problem that is real and consequential, but which
can be “cured”? Isn’t the very presupposition of a handbook of applied lin-
guistics on multilingualism prejudiced by monolingual thinking in a world
which is de facto multilingual? Aren’t we turning something into a problem
which is the most natural thing in the world? And isn’t the only reason for not
editing a handbook on monolingualism linguists’ remarkable lack of interest in
the most natural thing in the world?
Indeed, it is a reasonable assumption that the marginal role research on
multilingualism has played within linguistics until some decades ago is a result
of the monolingual bias of (particularly) European thinking about language
which came into being during a phase of European history in which the nation
states defined themselves not in the least by the one (standard) language which
was chosen to be the symbolic expression of their unity. By and large, the study
of linguistics was equal to analysing single languages (even though these were
compared, classified, and typified). The fact that languages influence each other
through language contact (“borrowing”) was acknowledged of course from
the very start of linguistics, but this contact was not seen in the context of multi-
lingualism, and it was taken to be a secondary phenomenon which presupposed
the existence and stability of the language systems in contact. The European
(standard) languages were seen to ‘naturally’ belong to and justify the existence
of the European nations in a one-to-one relationship, such that the establishment
of a new nation state almost inevitably entailed the ‘invention’ of a new stan-

2 Peter Auer and Li Wei
dard language. Being part of a nation was equated with being a native speaker of
‘its’ language. Seen from this perspective, multilingualism deviated from the
norm.
Given the intrinsic link between linguistics as a discipline and the nation
states, it is, then, not surprising that by and large, there are no multilingual
grammars. (There are some exceptions though; for instance, Turkish language
books and practical grammars for second language learners written before 1924
sometimes included a grammar of Osmanic and a grammar of Arabic and/or
Persian. This reflects the fact that before the Turkish language reform (itself
based on the European nation state ideology), educated Turkish was in some
ways amalgamated from these three languages, of which the elites had a good
knowledge.) The languages described and analysed were regarded as self-con-
tained systems. Multilingualism was considered to be the consequence of some
kind of disturbance in the ‘language order’, such as migration or conquest,
which brought language systems into some kind of unexpected and ‘unnatural’
contact with one another, often leading to structural simplification (which, in the
language ideology of the 19th century, usually implied degeneration). Even
today, the ease with which the à la mode parlance of hybridity, borrowed from
so-called cultural studies, has been taken on in sociolinguistic and multilingual-
ism research, particularly on second and third generation bilinguals and multi-
linguals with an immigration background, shows that the idea of multilingual-
ism as a derivative fact is still lingering on: what falls between the codified
grammars of ‘the languages’ is fragile, unstable and can only be understood
with reference to these languages. Indeed, there is some truth to this conviction
in the present language situation in Europe: the large standard languages have
been codified over many centuries, their norms are enforced by effective insti-
tutions, particularly the school system, and their stability is guaranteed by the
fact that they are backed up by a large corpus of written documents which are
easily accessible to everybody since the respective societies are literate to a very
high degree.
But this does not mean that the European nation states such as the United
Kingdom or France were completely monolingual from the very start, or have
ever been, for that matter. It took hundreds of years for them to marginalise lan-
guages other than ‘English’ or ‘French’ in their territories (such as the Celtic
languages or Basque), let alone to homogenise their standard varieties at the
cost of the structurally related regional languages spoken in the area. However,
they succeeded to a remarkable degree, such that only small groups of minor-
ity-language speakers remained 50 years ago. Plurilingual states such as the
Austrian (Habsburg) Empire did not survive (with the exception of Switzerland
with its polyglossic ideology). Immigrant groups (such as the Hugenots in many
Protestant countries, or the Poles in industrialising Germany) quickly adapted
(or were forced to adapt) to the monolingual majority’s language norms. Elite

code-switching, which had been widespread until the 18th and in some places
until the 19th century, with Latin and French as the two most important lan-
guages used in addition to the local vernacular, disappeared in favour of mono-
lingual speech in the (now standardised, and therefore ‘tamed’) vernacular. At
this point, a different view on second language acquisition took over: it was now
seen as a means to communicate with foreigners, not with people of one’s own
(bilingual) community.
Against this background of the rise and dominance of monolingual national
standard ideologies, it can be argued that what we perceive as the problems
surrounding multilingualism today are to a large degree a consequence of the
monolingualism demanded, fostered and cherished by the nation states in Eu-
rope and their knock-offs around the world. The idea (which can still be found
in the public debates about multilingualism today, and had respectable sup-
porters within linguistics even 50 years ago) that multilingualism is detrimen-
tal to a person’s cognitive and emotional development can be traced back to
this ideology, as can the insistence on ‘pure’ language and ‘pure’, ‘non-mixed’
speech: it goes back to the purism debate which accompanied the emergence of
the European standard languages, above all in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries,
and finds its offspring in present-day debates about the proper use of English in
non-English speaking countries. Nobody scolded Martin Luther and his fellow
humanist intellectuals for mixing German and Latin in their dinner table con-
versations, and nobody finds fault with the elite in Kenya who mix Swahili and
English in their everyday speech. For both elites, mixing is prestigious and a
matter of course, because the idea of a pure language as a value in itself is
neither part of 16th century European culture, nor is it part of the language ide-
ology in most of Africa. However, German fashion designers today are criticised
by language purists for speaking or writing German interspersed with English
words, Danish youngsters are criticised for inserting shit into their Danish, and
German-Turkish immigrant adolescents are criticised for mixing Turkish and
German. In all these cases, language purism is nothing but a symbolic battle
field for social conflicts; but the fact that it is a powerful weapon, that it makes
sense as an argument at all in public debate, shows that the normative pattern
against which language is discussed continues to be that of ‘pure’, monolingual
language.
If, then, this handbook is concerned with problems that arise through and su-
rounding multilingualism, it should be clear that these problems are not ‘natu-
ral’ problems which are inherent to multilingualism itself: rather, they arise out
of a certain context in which this multilingualism is seen as a problem or, rather,
creates problems. We address these problems in the four sections of this volume
which represent four perspectives on multilingualism: multilingual language
acquisition (Becoming Multilingual), multilingual language maintenance (Stay-
ing Multilingual), multilingual interaction (Acting Multilingual) and, finally, the

often problematic relationship between a multi- or monolingual society and a
mono- or multilingual individual (Living in a Multilingual Society). We will
briefly comment on these sections and indicate what kind of issues and prob-
lems are discussed in each of them.
Becoming multilingual
Although it is possible at a later stage in life to add another language to one’s
repertoire, and thus change from a monolingual to a bilingual or from a bi- to a
trilingual speaker, for instance as a consequence of migration, many people
are bilingual or multilingual already from birth. In genuinely multilingual so-
cieties, this is a matter of course, but in a more or less monolingual society (take,
as an example, the U.S.A.), the value and importance attached to multilingual
upbringing is a debated issue and depends on many factors. It is fair to say that
a large part of the attention research on multilingualism has received in public
is due to the fact that for more and more people living in monolingual societies,
it is a pressing issue whether and how their children should be brought up
multilingually. Although many multilingual parents want to maintain their
children’s knowledge in the ‘other’ language (i.e. in addition to the dominant,
ambient language in the society) for reasons of identity (it may be their own
mother tongue) and for practical reasons (ability to talk to the people ‘back
home’) and professional (better job opportunities), they also fear that learning
two languages may put extra stress on their child and might delay or even do
irrevocable damage to his or her development and scholastic achievement. This
is particularly the case when the acquisition of the two languages takes place
simultaneously, and not sequentially. Ch. 1 therefore discusses questions of
early multilingual language acquisition from a psycholinguistic point of view:
does it make a difference whether the child is exposed to two languages at the
same time or to one after the other? Under which circumstances will the first
(minority) language be lost, or its acquisition process inhibited? Is there, in gen-
eral, a difference between monolingual and bilingual acquisition of the same
language? Ch. 2 takes up the same issue of bringing up a child multilingually
from a more interactional perspective: How should the parents behave in order
to provide the optimal environment for both languages to be acquired? Should
they themselves code-mix when their child does not consistently use one lan-
guage with them, although they try to follow the “one person – one language”
rule? Becoming multilingual involves more than the acquisition of linguistic
forms, but also the socialisation to the rules and expectations that accompany
the use of those languages. Ch. 3 looks at multilingual acquisition from a lan-
guage socialisation perspective and addresses questions such as: How do com-
munity structures and cultural values impact the process of multilingual acquisi-

tion? How are language ideologies developed through linguistic practices in
families and communities? And how are identities shaped and reshaped by the
language socialisation process? Whereas the first three chapters in this part deal
with early multilingual acquisition, Chs. 4 and 5 examine multilingual acquisi-
tion in schools and in later life. Instead of focussing on the linguistic processes
of second or third language acquisition, Ch. 4 seeks to answer questions such as:
How do adult multilinguals feel about their languages? How do adult multilin-
guals perceive themselves? In what ways do adult multilinguals use emotional
speech and react to emotional expressions? Ch. 5 discusses a variety of bilingual
education programmes, and asks crucial questions such as: What are the key
components of bilingual education? And what are the criteria for the effective-
ness of bilingual education?
Staying multilingual
Becoming multilingual in early childhood is one issue – staying multilingual
later in life is another. In monolingual social contexts, children who have grown
up in a multilingual family often go through a critical phase when they start
school. While the second (non-ambient) language is accepted and useful, per-
haps even preferred in the family context, the schools are usually dominated by
just one language, which is that of the majority – at least in the institutional in-
teractions taking place, for instance in the classroom with the teacher. Certain
‘foreign’ languages are accepted in the curriculum, and a high amount of time
and energy is spent on teaching them to monolingual children (predominantly
English), but other languages have no prestige and do not play a role in the so-
ciolinguistic ‘market’ of the monolingual school. As it happens, the languages
of immigrant communities usually belong to the latter group. (And even though
some of them may figure among the fairly prestigious languages, such as Italian,
the variety of the language spoken in the child’s family (the home language)
may not be a standard variant, and therefore not valued by the school.) It is, how-
ever, not only the school as an institution and its monolingual habitus that puts
considerable pressure on the child to shift from early childhood multilingualism
(or minority language monolingualism) to majority language monolingualism;
the peer group can have the same effect. The more the child is integrated into a
peer network in which the majority language is dominant, the more s/he will
adapt to this language in everyday language use. On the other hand, multilingual
peer groups can play an important role in counteracting the monolingual pres-
sure of the school and in maintaining some version of the minority language, at
least in its oral form.
The crucial role of the school in maintaining the weaker language(s) of a
multilingual person in a monolingual society is of course generally acknowl-

edged. Together with language maintenance in the family, it is the school which
guarantees intergenerational transmission. While the ‘old’ minorities in Europe
today by and large enjoy multilingual (or minority language) schooling and
have access to a good educational infrastructure which may be used or not (cf.
the situation of Welsh, Irish, Sorbian or Bretonic), the situation of the immigrant
languages and their speakers is different. Part II of the handbook deals with
school-related problems particularly with regards to these children. The two in-
troductory chapters (6 and 7) look at multilingual children with an immigrant
background in monolingual schools from two different angles. Ch. 6 focuses
on the situation in Scandinavia but also includes the United States of America;
Ch. 7 focuses on the situation in Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia) but in-
cludes an outlook to Australia (Victoria State). Both chapters give an overview
of existing programmes for immigrant children and how minority languages are
treated in monolingual schools. The options range from complete neglect (‘sink
or swim’ submersion) to reception classes which help pupils from a minority
language background to acquire sufficient knowledge in the majority language
in order to follow a monolingual class in the language, to additional schooling in
the minority language, to bilingual programmes for first graders and to mono-
lingual schooling for children from a minority background in the minority lan-
guage, at least in the first years. The crucial question here is whether schooling
in the minority (mother) language only will enable the children to transfer the
literacy skills acquired during this period to the majority language in which they
are needed to be successful in the monolingual school system in the long run,
and whether schooling in the majority language only will lead to ‘semilingual-
ism’ in the minority language, which in turn will also negatively influence L2
skills (as predicted, among others, by J. Cummins). The counter-position – more
popular in some Western discussions about immigrant multilingualism at the
moment – claims that minority language teaching leads to the segregation of mi-
nority language speakers from the majority school and ultimately to their scho-
lastic failure.
It is often observed that many multilinguals can speak the various languages
in their linguistic repertoire but cannot read or write in them. Bi- and multiliter-
acy has been an issue of concern for many professionals. Ch. 8 deals with this
issue. But instead of seeing it as a singular, primarily cognitive knowledge and
skill set, the authors demonstrate how literacy practices are enmeshed within
and influenced by social, cultural, political, and economic factors, and that lit-
eracy learning and use by multilingual speakers varies according to situation
and entails complex social interactions. They argue that despite the global flows
of people, goods and ideas across national borders in the 21st century, schools
around the world still work towards academic monolingualism and national
ideologies. Linguistic hierarchies are being created, with some languages hav-
ing more power and prestige than others. Literacy is symbolic of the new hier-

archies, with some languages receiving more institutional and practical support
than others as written languages. They point out that educators have the poten-
tial to transform values, as well as literacy practices, by giving room to multi-
modal and plurilingual literacy practices. The authors call for more research
into the role of the media and other institutionalised resources in the develop-
ment of multiliteracies.
Multilingual language acquisition can proceed as fast as monolingual ac-
quisition in the two languages. However, it is also normal for the acquisition of
one language to lag somewhat behind the other, and even for the acquisition of
both languages to proceed somewhat more slowly than in monolinguals. Since
parents and teachers of multilingual children often find it difficult to decide if a
child’s competence in one of the languages lags behind that of monolingual
children in a way which is entirely normal, or whether there are indications of a
pathological delay, this part of the handbook also includes chapters on language
proficiency testing and language impairment. Ch. 9 looks at the (rare) cases of
Special Language Impairment (SLI) in multilingual children and diagnostic
options – a delicate issue, since for many of the relevant languages no testing
materials are available. Although the chapter argues that SLI in multilingual
children may be overlooked more often than in monolingual children, it also
shows that SLI is not a consequence of multilingualism but entirely independent
of it in its pathogenesis.
One of the critical issues in the study of multilingualism is measurement:
How do we measure the extent of bilingualism and multilingualism in a country
or a community? How do we measure the level of bilingualism and multilin-
gualism in an individual? Ch. 10 deals with the measurement of individual
multilingualism, focussing on three key components: linguistic proficiency, lin-
guistic competence and developmental trajectories. As the authors point out,
there is no single standard for the measure of individual bilingualism. Instead, a
number of different disciplines have developed a whole range of measures that
focus on very different aspects of multilingualism. Many of these have never
been tested for their compatibility because they are based on rather different
concepts. Where the compatibility of different measures has been tested empiri-
cally, the results are often difficult to interpret. The authors present a tentative
solution to the problem with a cross-linguistic comparative measurement which
is based on linguistic profiling, which in turn is based on Processability Theory.
However, the authors point out that their proposal is unlikely to answer all the
questions at this moment in time. Much more empirical research on a larger
scale is needed. They raise a number of questions for a future research agenda.

Acting Multilingual
The third part of the handbook looks at adult multilinguals and how they use
their two or more languages in everyday interaction. Chs. 11 and 12 deal with
the most obvious manifestation of multilingualism, i.e. the use of more than one
language within a conversation, within a speaker’s contribution (‘turn’) or even
within a syntactic unit (‘sentence’). These forms of switching and mixing may
have a bad reputation in some multilingual (and monolingual) communities, and
may be looked upon as a ‘debased’ form of speaking, a sign of laziness, or
simply a lack of competence. But it is obvious that this low prestige of mixing
and switching is in itself a consequence of a monolingual ideology which pre-
scribes ‘pure’ language use and sanctions ‘hybrid’ ways of speaking. There are
many arguments against such a negative view, one of which is put forward in
detail in Ch. 11, where it is shown that code-switching can be highly functional,
and does not take place in a random fashion. In an overview of research in this
field from the 1960s onwards, the chapter demonstrates how code-switching
as a conversational strategy shows a high degree of structuring and can frame
(contextualise) utterances in the same way in which monolinguals use prosody
or gesture to contextualise what they say. The two or more languages of bi- or
multilingual speakers provide an additional resource for meaning-construction
in interaction which monolinguals do not have at their disposal. Using the ana-
lytic framework provided by Conversation Analysis, the chapter illustrates how
code-switching can be used not only to organise face-to-face interaction, but
also to construct interpersonal relationships and social identities.
Ch. 12 investigates a more intricate but also more stable way of mixing two
languages, i.e. “mixed codes”. In this chapter, mixed codes refer to ways of
speaking in which substantial amounts of lexical material from at least two lan-
guages are combined on the level of the basic syntactic units (‘sentences’). The
chapter provides a typology of mixed codes which are found in many parts of
the world and thereby at the same time sketches a large number of social situ-
ations under which such mixing occurs.
While chapters 11 and 12 are more concerned with the structural orderliness
of alternating between or combining two languages, Ch. 13 gives another reason
why these phenomena occur: their identity-related function. Displaying and
ascribing (social) identities (personae) to oneself and others is important for
the members of modern and post-modern societies in which social roles are flex-
ible and social categorisation is open to negotiation and re-negotiation. This
process takes place in interaction, and language is a powerful resource for it.
Ch. 13 shows that beyond simple and misleading equations of multilingual talk
with ambivalent (hybrid) identities, the situated use of one language or the other
can be used in complex and context-dependent ways in order to construe social
identities in discourse. These constructions may be subject to negotiation and

must therefore be regarded as interactionally based, indexical (context-depend-
ent) and contingent on the unfolding of the interaction.
Ch. 14 takes the issue of identity-construction one step further by looking
into one particular case of code-switching which had not been studied exten-
sively until recently: the use of a language by speakers who are not ‘entitled’ to
use this language but who ‘transgress’ into another social group’s linguistic
‘territory’. This type of code-switching, often termed “crossing”, has recently
been noticed and studied, particularly with reference to the use of immigrant
languages by adolescent majority speakers, but it can equally be found outside
of immigration contexts, e.g. when Afro-American English features are used by
white speakers. Closely related but not identical is the use of mock varieties of
another language or variety. In both cases, identity is central: speakers play with
other identities than their own, with such diverse purposes as accommodation
to the group of ‘owners’ of that variety, or, on the contrary, antagonistic stance-
taking towards them.
The last three chapters of this part of the handbook are devoted to more spe-
cific domains of multilingual practices. Chs. 15 and 16 look into professional
contexts. In Ch. 15, the multilingual speakers belong to the social and economic
elites, and their multilingualism is the result of the increasing international mo-
bility of highly skilled labour. Managers, sport professionals, engineers, etc. are
drawn to other countries because of their specific skills. They may stay on per-
manently or travel on to other countries, and they may use second languages
(those of the receiving countries or lingue franche) in connection with their pro-
fession. Ch. 16 gives an insight into the opposite end of work migration: the in-
flux of largely unskilled or semiskilled labour into middle and northern Europe
(in this case, England) over the last 50 years, and the concomitant trans-
formation of the workplace from a largely monolingual setting to a multilingual
one. Both domains reflect important changes in Europe which have deeply af-
fected and indeed shaken the monolingual identities of the European nation
states. Many institutions, from hospitals to supermarkets, from soccer teams to
universities, are confronted with new challenges since their employees and their
clients increasingly come from different linguistic backgrounds. Their compet-
ence in the dominant language of the society may be far from perfect, but they
may bring along linguistic resources which the labour market can make use of.
Examples range from multilingual personnel in hospitals where the clients are
sometimes not able to express themselves in the dominant (majority) language,
to management meetings in large international companies in which language
proficiency and professional competence become more and more intertwined.
Ch. 17 addresses questions of multilingualism and commerce. In some
sense, globalisation offers increased opportunities for language contact and
multilingualism. But the reality is very complex. As some of the other chapters
in this volume show, many countries in Africa and Asia are in fact losing their

multilingualism in favour of global languages such as English. In the meantime,
some languages, such as Japanese, Chinese and Spanish, have attracted signifi-
cantly more learners because of the commercial opportunities they are seen
to be able to offer. The chapter discusses the impact of a globalised economy
on societal multilingualism. It examines the role of language in a multilingual
business environment. The author seeks to address questions such as: How do
people from different language backgrounds with varying levels of multilingual
proficiencies cope with language-related problems when engaged in commer-
cial activities? What are the costs and benefits of translation in international
business transactions? How does the emergence of English as a world lingua
franca impact the global market and multilingual individuals in the workplace?
Living in a Multilingual Society
While part three of the handbook is more centred on the individual multilingual
speaker and his or her verbal behaviour, the fourth and final part moves on to
societal questions and problems. It starts with an overview of the world’s most
important language constellations on the state, national and societal levels;
Ch. 18 discusses diverse issues such as language legislation and language rights,
linguistic ecology and language management. The author offers a typological
framework of minority language situations based on the distinctions between
unique versus non-unique, cohesive versus non-cohesive and adjoining and
non-adjoining. The following two chapters (19 and 20) cover the two most im-
portant types of multilingual groups in the context of the (European) monolin-
gual nation states, i.e. ‘old’ (autochthonous) and ‘new’ (immigrant) minorities.
Both were discussed in previous chapters of the handbook as well, but in differ-
ent contexts. From the societal point of view, matters of linguistic rights, lan-
guage planning, standardisation and politics enter into the picture.
‘Old’ or ‘autochthonous’ regions are those which at one point had their own
language(s) and were partly politically independent, but which later joined or
were forced to join a nation state which had a different national standard variety.
As a consequence, the autochthonous language of the area came under the con-
trol of an exoglossic standard which symbolised the power of that nation state.
Since the knowledge and use of the majority language was a prerequisite for
social and economic success in such an area, the speakers of the minority lan-
guage had to become proficient in the majority language as well as in their own
language; in many cases, strong social pressure against the minority language
and its lack of prestige, certainly on the national level, has led to complete lan-
guage shift, i.e. the disappearance of the minority language. A similar situation
emerges when the minority language area is supported by the standard language
of another nation state which is structurally related and which can optionally

function as an exoglossic ‘roof’. (Often, this holds for border areas in which the
political border and the language border do not coincide.) An example of the
first is Saami in Norway, Sweden and Finland; an example of the second, dis-
cussed in detail in this chapter, is Alsatian in France.
The second prototypical constellation – that of ‘new’ immigrant multilin-
gualism – is discussed from a societal point of view in Ch. 20. The review takes
an ecological approach, exploring how the new minorities manage their multi-
lingualism within local, national and global contexts. The author argues that the
migratory histories of the minority groups are an important key to their present
structures, identities and language ideologies. The author contrasts the govern-
ment policies towards new linguistic minorities with the community initiatives
in language and cultural maintenance. The issue of new multilingual practices is
also discussed.
While the preceding chapters have a rather European orientation, the last
two chapters broaden this perspective. Ch. 21 looks into the multilingualism of
ex-colonial states which is in some way related to their colonial past. However,
dealing at length with the examples of Singapore on the one hand, and Mozam-
bique on the other, the chapter shows that the role of the colonial language (Eng-
lish and Portuguese, in this case) in each case is very different, and so is that of
the local languages. The commodification of the colonial languages plays an
important part in this process, but the role of language is also crucial for the
building of new nation states, or its reversal (‘retraditionalisation’). The last
chapter (22) investigates the ways in which globalised commerce and industry
impact multilingualism. While some authors think that globalisation will lead
to the worldwide dominance of English, others think that the global mobility of
information, ideas, services, goods, tourists and work forces increases the need
to communicate, which in turn supports at least certain forms of multilingual-
ism. The chapter argues that globalisation entails a tension between cultural and
linguistic diversity on the one hand, and an opposite push towards erasing it on
the other.
Tremendous progress has been made in research on multilingualism over the
last twenty years, as witnessed in the studies surveyed in this volume. Never-
theless, the monolingual ideology remains dominant in many spheres of society
and public life. Many people, including some of those who are themselves bi-
lingual and multilingual, still have misconceived ideas about multilingualism.
They fail to see how monolingualism as an ideology is creating restrictions, bar-
riers, and conflicts for us all. Instead, they blame multilingualism for the world’s
problems. There is clearly a great deal more to be done, not only in researching
the fundamentals of multilingualism but also in transferring the knowledge of
multilingualism to wider society. This has to be one of the most important chal-
lenges for us in the near future. Political authorities in today’s world do seem to
realise that multilingualism is a sensitive issue. Nevertheless one might wonder

how sincere political authorities are when they officially promote bilingualism
and multilingualism. Do they really want their citizens to be equally fluent in
the national language(s) and minority/immigrant/foreign languages? Or are
they using ‘double-talk’, preferring a minimal bilingualism where knowledge in
the minority/immigrant/foreign language is just enough to allow for basic com-
munication but not enough for the speaker to become or to feel bicultural? Since
culture and language are so closely intertwined, many politicians may fear
that introducing ‘foreign’ languages/cultures too early might have dire political
consequences: i.e. the dilution of the individual’s sense of national identity and
group membership. They may not want the children to be too attracted to the
other language communities, especially in countries where there is tension be-
tween communities. It is important that such socio-political issues are addressed
head-on.
The increased opportunities for individuals to become bilingual and multi-
lingual are one of the most significant social changes in the last two decades.
It has never been easier for people to encounter and learn new languages in
schools, through professional contacts, on the internet, through music, arts and
other forms of entertainment, and in everyday social interaction. Contacts with
people who speak languages other than one’s own are increasingly becoming
part of the daily routine. Multilingualism in turn brings new opportunities to
both the individual and society. Multilingualism offers society a bridge-building
potential – bridges between different groups within the nation, bridges with
groups beyond the artificial boundaries of a nation, and bridges for cross-ferti-
lization between cultures. Multilingualism also prompts society to rethink the
relationship between unity and diversity, to come round for the idea of peaceful
co-existence between different linguistic and cultural groups and to observe the
rights and obligations of one another. Far from being a problem, multilingual-
ism is part of the solution for our future. Social stability, economic develop-
ment, tolerance and cooperation between groups is possible only when multilin-
gualism is respected.

Early bilingual and multilingual acquisition 15
1. Early bilingual and multilingual acquisition
Johanne Paradis
1. Different kinds of child bilinguals and multilinguals
It has been estimated that the majority of children across the globe grow up
speaking more than one language (Tucker 1998), but these bilingual and multi-
lingual children differ from each other in terms of when exposure to each lan-
guage began, and the sociolinguistic context in which their languages are
spoken (Genesee, Paradis and Crago 2004; Goldstein 2004a). These differences
have consequences for acquisition patterns and rates of the languages, as well as
for ultimate proficiency in each language. Furthermore, the research issues and
questions surrounding dual and multiple language acquisition are often different
depending on the kind of child bilingual/multilingual. Genesee et al. (2004)
present a categorization of dual language children based on two intersecting
variables: simultaneous or sequential exposure to two languages, and the minor-
ity or majority status of those two languages. Simultaneous bilingual children
are those whose dual language learning experiences began at birth or at least be-
fore the age of 3;0 (de Houwer 1995; McLaughlin 1978). The majority of sim-
ultaneous bilinguals studied in the research are children acquiring their two lan-
guages at home where each parent speaks their native language to the child;
however, some simultaneous bilinguals acquire both languages from both par-
ents who freely alternate between them, or acquire one language mainly at day-
care and the other at home. The process of simultaneous bilingualism is com-
monly referred to as bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA). Sequential
bilingualism is distinct from simultaneous bilingualism in that one language is
introduced after the other language has become somewhat established, e.g.,
after the age of 3;0. Sequential bilingual children typically speak their first lan-
guage (L1) language at home with both parents, and their second language (L2)
at school.
For some simultaneous and sequential bilingual children, one of their two
languages is a minority language, meaning it is not widely spoken outside the
home, and has little or no cultural, political or educational status in the broader
society. For simultaneous bilinguals this means that the parent who speaks that
language is the primary and sometimes solitary source of that language, a situ-
ation referred to as ‘family bilingualism’ (Lanza 1997). Sequential bilinguals
with a minority L1 are often children from immigrant families where both par-
ents speak the L1 at home, and the child learns the majority societal language in
the community and in school. In contrast, for some bilinguals, both their lan-

16 Johanne Paradis
guages have majority status. French-English bilinguals in Montréal, Canada can
be considered majority language bilinguals because both their languages are
widely spoken in the community and enjoy similar social status. Sequential
bilingual children who speak the societal language at home and in the commu-
nity, like English in Canada or the United States, but attend immersion school in
another language such as French or Spanish by choice, can be considered L1
majority – L2 minority children. It is important to note that the minority-major-
ity distinction is really a gradient rather than categorical concept (Suyal 2002).
For example, both French and English have majority status in the Canadian
provinces of Québec and New Brunswick, Spanish has varying levels of status
depending on the region in the United States (see Oller and Eilers 2002), and
a language like Nepali is a highly minority language in most centres in North
America.
In the context of early multilingual development, the categorization of
Genesee et al. (2004) expands to include more possibilities. For example,
children in the Basque region of Spain may have learned the majority languages
of their community, Basque and Spanish, either simultaneously or sequentially,
and also be acquiring a minority third language (L3), English, in school (Cenoz
2001). Alternatively, children may acquire two minority L1s at home from im-
migrant parents, and will also acquire the majority language of the host country
simultaneously or sequentially through daycare or schooling (Hoffmann 1985;
Maneva 2004).
In this review, simultaneous and early sequential bilingual acquisition is
presented in separate sections, but commonalities between these two groups are
discussed in the final section. Section 2 is focused primarily on research pertain-
ing to simultaneous bilinguals’ development in the preschool years, with some
mention of outcomes in the early school years, and section 3 on sequential
bilinguals mainly reports research conducted with L1 minority L2 learners. For
more information on school age children who experienced BFLA, or who are
majority L1 children learning an L2 at school, see additional readings in section
5, and Baker (this volume). Research on early multilingualism is very limited,
but findings from available studies are included in both sections on simulta-
neous and sequential bilingualism. In addition, how issues raised in research on
bilinguals might impact on multilingual development is discussed even in the
absence of available research. In most cases throughout this chapter, the issues
raised and findings reported for bilingual children would also apply to multilin-
gual children, and thus, use of the term ‘bilingual’ is meant to include multilin-
guals as well.

2. Simultaneous bilingual children
2.1. Patterns and rates of acquisition in simultaneous bilinguals
Unlike sequential bilinguals, simultaneous bilinguals are exposed to two lan-
guages as infants and toddlers, thus, they receive this dual input before they are
old enough to explicitly or consciously understand that their input comes from
two linguistic sources. For this reason, researchers have asked whether these
children forge an initial unitary linguistic system that later must be differenti-
ated into two systems (Genesee 1989; Leopold 1949; Volterra and Taeschner
1978). Currently, researchers have shifted from the ‘one system or two?’ ques-
tion to more nuanced questions about degrees of contact and separation between
the two developing languages of these children (e.g., see contributions in Döpke
2000). Another central issue in BFLA research has been how bilinguals com-
pare to their monolingual age-peers in their learning patterns and linguistic
achievements in each language. Bilingual children have to acquire two lin-
guistic systems in the same amount of time that monolinguals acquire one.
Moreover, they seldom receive equal amounts of input in both languages, and
often one language is more proficient or ‘dominant’ than the other. Therefore, it
is possible that bilinguals acquire their languages at different rates than mono-
linguals. With respect to trilingualism in the preschool years, the issues of
amount of input and linguistic achievement in each language are heightened in
importance. Case studies of early trilingualism have found that the least domi-
nant language, e.g., the language for which the child receives the smallest
amount of input, may display incomplete acquisition of some grammatical as-
pects, or become more a passive than an active language in the child’s repertoire
(Hoffman 1985; Maneva 2004). In this section, we examine how phonological,
lexical and morphosyntactic acquisition unfold in children learning two or more
languages at one time in order to address the following questions: (1) Do bilin-
gual children have a unitary or dual/multiple linguistic system at the early
stages? (2) What is the nature of crosslinguistic influence between the develop-
ing languages of a bilingual child? (3) How do bilinguals compare with mono-
lingual age-mates? Do they display unique developmental patterns? Do they lag
behind monolinguals in their acquisition rates in one or both their languages?
2.1.1. Phonological acquisition in simultaneous bilinguals
Speech perception abilities in infants with monolingual exposure show the fol-
lowing patterns. Initially, infants can discriminate most phonetic contrasts that
are used phonemically in the world’s languages, like [pa] vs. [ba], [da] vs. [a],
or [e] vs. [e]. These language-general perception abilities shift to language-spe-
cific abilities between 6 to 12 months of age such that the infant can only dis-

18 Johanne Paradis
criminate contrasts present in the ambient language, with the shift occurring for
vowels before consonants (see Werker and Curtin 2005 for review). With re-
spect to infants exposed to dual language input, researchers have found that
the shift to language specific abilities follows the same vowels-before-conson-
ants pattern as monolinguals, but that it occurs a few months later (Bosch and
Sebastián-Gallés, 2003; Burns, Werker and McVie 2003). For a minority of
contrasts, such as [d] vs. [ð] in English, discrimination requires language ex-
perience, and Sundara, Polka and Genesee (in press) found that French-English
bilingual four-year-olds lagged slightly behind monolingual English children
in their ability to discriminate this contrast. Taken together, these findings for
bilinguals highlight the role of amount of language exposure in the development
of speech perception.
Regarding production of sounds, determining whether bilingual toddlers
have two distinct phonological systems is complicated by several factors: im-
mense variation in young children’s phonetic productions of individual seg-
ments, crosslinguistic universality of substitution processes, language-specific
segments often being the marked or late-acquired ones, and the possibility that
early linguistic organization consists of an inventory of individual word forms,
without an abstract phonemic system (Deuchar and Quay 2000; Johnson and
Lancaster 1998; Paradis 2001; Vihman 2002). For example, if a bilingual child
substitutes stops for fricative consonants in words from both languages, this may
not constitute pertinent evidence addressing the “one system or two?” question
because two monolinguals acquiring both languages might display the same pat-
tern. Given these complications for the toddler years, consistent evidence of sep-
arate phonological systems in production emerges from research with bilingual
children older than 2;0 (Johnson and Wilson 2002; Kehoe, Lleó and Rakow
2004; Paradis 2001; except see Keshavarz and Ingram 2002). Turning to pat-
terns and rates of development, studies looking at a range of phonological prop-
erties, from acoustic cues to the prosodic structure of words, have found some
bilingual children to lag behind monolinguals in their acquisition rates (Kehoe,
2002; Kehoe, Lleó and Rakow 2004; Lleó 2002), and to display crossover ef-
fects from one phonological system to the other (Ball, Müller and Munro 2001;
Kehoe et al. 2004; Keshavarz and Ingram 2002; Paradis, 2001). The presence
of bilingual/monolingual differences and crossover effects may be predicted by
whether the target structure is marked or late-acquired, as well as by bilingual
children’s dominance (Ball et al. 2001; Kehoe 2002; Lleó 2002; Paradis 2001).
2.1.2. Lexical acquisition in simultaneous bilinguals
Volterra and Taeschner (1978) claimed that bilingual toddlers do not have trans-
lation equivalents, e.g. horse and cheval for a French-English child, in their
early productive vocabularies, and that this constituted evidence for a unitary

lexicon. Subsequent research with larger numbers of children contradicts Volt-
erra and Taeschner’s empirical claim since bilingual toddlers’ early lexicons
consist of 3.9% to 67% translation equivalents, depending on children’s ages
and methods used to determine vocabulary composition (Deuchar and Quay
2000; Johnson and Lancaster 1998; Nicoladis and Secco 2000; Pearson, Fern-
ández and Oller 1995; Quay 1995;Vihman 1985). However, there is no consen-
sus about whether the presence of translation equivalents alone constitutes evi-
dence for differentiation at the lexical level (see Deuchar and Quay 2000;
Johnson and Lancaster 1998; Pearson et al. 1995).
Bilingual children employ the same word learning mechanisms as monolin-
guals to build their lexicons; however, their developmental timetable may be
somewhat altered by the dual language experience (Fennell, Polka and Werker
2002; Hoff and Mackay 2005). For example, Fennell et al. (2002) found that
bilingual and monolingual toddlers both showed the ability to learn new words
for novel objects when the words differed only slightly phonetically (minimal
pairs), but this ability emerged approximately three months later in the bilin-
guals than in the monolinguals. For older bilingual children, the dual language
experience may confer some advantages over monolinguals in cognitive abil-
ities underlying literacy-based lexical skills (see Bialystok 2004 for review).
Regarding word formation rules like compounding, bilinguals can create novel
compounds at the same ages as monolinguals; however, the actual compounds
they produce and the stages they pass through show evidence of crosslinguistic
interference (Nicoladis 2002; 2003). For instance, deverbal compounds in Eng-
lish follow an object-verb-er pattern, e.g., pencil sharpener; whereas in French,
they follow a reversed verb-object pattern, taille-crayon ‘sharpen-pencil’.
French-English bilingual children produced more verb-object novel compounds
in English than English monolinguals, which Nicoladis (2003) attributed to the
influence of French. Importantly, Nicoladis (2003) observed no parallel cross-
linguistic effects on a compound comprehension task, suggesting crosslin-
guistic transfer to be a production phenomenon only.
Another facet of crosslinguistic interaction is crosslanguage interdepend-
ence to facilitate the process of lexical development (cf. Cummins 2000). For
example, learning a translation equivalent for an already lexicalized concept
might be faster than learning a new label for a new concept. Research conducted
to date does not show strong support for this hypothesis. Using data from stan-
dardized measures of vocabulary and early grammatical development, March-
man, Martínez-Sussmann and Dale (2004) found that relationships between
lexical and grammatical measures are stronger within each language of a bilin-
gual toddler than between them. Pearson et al. (1995) argued that their data
showed little evidence for a preference to learn translation equivalents among
Spanish-English bilingual toddlers and two-year-olds. In school-age bilingual
children, Cobo-Lewis, Eilers, Pearson and Umbel (2002) and Pearson (2002)

20 Johanne Paradis
found crosslanguage inter-relationships for literacy-based lexical skills and nar-
rative skills in Spanish and English, but found no compelling crosslanguage
inter-relationships for receptive and expressive vocabulary size and diversity.
Possibly the most significant and long-standing finding emerging from re-
search on lexical development in simultaneous bilinguals is that on standardized
measures of expressive and receptive vocabulary development, simultaneous
bilinguals, as a group, score lower than monolingual age-mates in each lan-
guage. This effect has been shown in toddlers, preschool and school age
children, acquiring English together with Spanish or French (Cobo-Lewis, Pear-
son, Eilers and Umbel 2002; Doyle, Champagne and Segalowitz 1978; March-
man et al. 2004; Nicoladis and Genesee 1996a; Pearson, Fernandez and Oller
1993; Umbel, Pearson, Fernandez and Oller 1992). Vocabulary size reflects
quantity of input in each language, and therefore, bilingual preschoolers can
score closer to monolinguals in the language in which they receive more input
(Marchman et al. 2004; Patterson and Pearson 2004; Pearson et al. 1993; Pear-
son, Fernández, Lewedeg and Oller 1997). For school age bilinguals, input
quantity variables, such as language(s) spoken at home and language(s) of in-
structional program, were associated with lexical achievements and how closely
these children’s performance resembled that of monolinguals (Cobo-Lewis,
Pearson et al. 2002). Regarding vocabulary size as a clinical measure of devel-
opmental progress, Pearson et al. (1993) and Pearson (1998) show that bilingual
children are not delayed in their ability to accumulate lexicalized concepts;
when bilingual children’s total conceptual vocabulary is taken into account
across both languages, they perform on par with monolinguals age-mates. It is
probable that multilingual development in the preschool years would render
children’s vocabularies even more susceptible to this ‘distributed’ effect (Oller
and Eilers 2002), where lexicalized concepts are spread across three or more
languages, and thus, vocabulary size in each language would be smaller than for
monolinguals. However, to date, research on early multilingual children has not
included comparisons with monolinguals based on standardized measures.
2.1.3. Morphosyntactic acquisition in simultaneous bilinguals
There is some debate concerning whether bilingual toddlers have differentiated
morphosyntactic systems since it is possible that even monolingual children
do not have a grammar per se organizing their earliest word combinations (Mei-
sel 1994a; Deuchar and Quay 2000). When bilingual children are reliably using
word combinations and some grammatical morphology in their speech, re-
searchers have found evidence for two separate morphosyntactic systems (Mei-
sel 1989; Meisel 1994a; Paradis and Genesee 1996; 1997). Meisel (1989) dem-
onstrated that two French-German bilingual children’s verb placement followed
appropriate language-specific patterns beginning as early as 2;0. Paradis and

Genesee (1996) examined the distribution of pronouns and finite/nonfinite verbs
in the spontaneous speech of three French-English bilingual two-year-olds and
found that they displayed the same distinct and language-specific patterns of
development as monolingual children. In a case study of a multilingual child,
Maneva (2004) reported that her first word combinations in the flexible word
order languages of Bulgarian and Arabic were mainly verb + subject in con-
struction; whereas, her first word combinations in French, which has fixed word
order, were subject + verb in construction. Thus, the child’s first word combi-
nations reflected typical patterns of her three input languages.
Crosslinguistic influence between the two developing grammatical systems
of bilingual children has recently been the focus of many studies. Researchers
have found examples of crosslinguistic structures in children acquiring French
or Italian along with German and Dutch, and German, Italian, Spanish, French
or Cantonese along with English (Döpke 1998, 2000; Hulk 2000; Müller 1998;
Müller and Hulk 2001; Paradis and Navarro 2003; Serratrice, Sorace and Paoli
2004; Yip and Matthews 2000). Researchers who examined these effects over
time have found that they are temporary, and concentrated between the ages of
2;0 to 3;6. To give an example, German is a verb-second language that has vari-
able but rule-governed word order, and both verb-object and object-verb word
orders are possible; whereas, English has rigid verb-object word order. Döpke
(1998) studied children acquiring English and German simultaneously in Aus-
tralia and found that they went through a stage where they overused the verb-
object word order in German. Since this kind of word order error is very rare in
monolingual German children, Döpke (1998) argued that the quantitative effect
of verb-object structures in the English input constituted competing cues to
those from the German input, and caused the children to take longer to converge
on the appropriate German word order rules. Müller and Hulk (2001) put for-
ward a similar argument in their claim that crosslinguistic effects are likely to
happen where there is structural ambiguity between bilingual children’s two
languages such that language A allows for more than one option for a structure,
but language B only allows for only one. In this case, the more rigid system (lan-
guage B) may influence the system with options, but not the other way around.
Paradis and Navarro (2003) found evidence consistent with Müller and Hulk’s
proposal by examining the use of overt and null subjects by a Spanish-English
bilingual. This child produced more redundant overt subjects in her Spanish
than monolingual children, possibly due to the non-null subject nature of Eng-
lish. In contrast, Yip and Matthews (2000) found evidence for crosslinguistic
transfer in a Cantonese-English child that was not traceable to structural ambi-
guity, and was more likely explained by dominance in Cantonese. For example,
this child sometimes produced head-final relative clauses in English, e.g.
where’s the [Santa Claus give me] the gun? ‘where’s the gun [that Santa Claus
give(gave) me]?’ (Yip and Matthews 2000: 204). It is important to point out that

22 Johanne Paradis
not all researchers have found crosslinguistic influence to be apparent in bilin-
gual children’s morphosyntactic development (Hulk and Müller 2000; Paradis
and Genesee 1996). Whether crosslinguistic influence is an individual or a
group trait, and whether it is the result of structural ambiguity or dominance, is
currently being debated and researched.
As with both phonological and lexical developmental, researchers have
compared morphosyntactic outcomes of bilingual and monolingual age mates in
order to determine if bilinguals lag behind monolinguals due to their reduced
exposure time to each language. Results of such comparisons have been mixed,
with some studies showing no evidence for delayed development in bilinguals
(Paradis and Genesee 1996; Paradis, Crago, Genesee and Rice 2003; Paradis,
Crago and Genesee 2005/2006), while others have found bilinguals to be less
advanced in their development than monolingual age-mates for particular as-
pects of morphosyntax (Gathercole 2002; Gathercole and Thomas 2005; March-
man et al. 2004; Nicoladis, Palmer and Marentette in press). Such mixed find-
ings suggest that morphosyntactic development may be less vulnerable to the
effects of reduced input than vocabulary accumulation.
2.2. Language choice and codeswitching in simultaneous bilinguals
A salient and unique characteristic of bilingual as opposed to monolingual de-
velopment is that these children must learn to choose which language to speak,
and whether or not to mix the two languages, according to the discourse situ-
ation. Bilingual children’s sensitivity to their interlocutors’ linguistic prefer-
ences and needs is displayed by their language choice overall; within the broad
concept of language choice, there are different types of language mixing. Mix-
ing can take the form of inter- or intra-utterance codeswitching. Inter-utterance
codeswitching consists of shifting from one language to another between utter-
ances. Intra-utterance codeswitching consists of producing elements from both
languages in one utterance, e.g., where’s the mitaine go? ‘mitten’, and we bring
saucisses à la garderie yesterday, ‘sausages to the daycare’ (Paradis and Nico-
ladis, in press: 17).
Early models claimed that indiscriminate language choice characterized
bilingual development before 3;0, and this constituted evidence for a unitary lin-
guistic system (Leopold 1949; Volterra and Taeschner 1978). In contrast, more
recent research has shown that bilingual children can differentiate their two lan-
guages according to their interlocutor, at least from the age of 2;0 and possibly
earlier for some (Deuchar and Quay 2000; Genesee, Nicoladis and Paradis 1995;
Lanza, 1997; Nicoladis and Genesee 1996b). Further demonstration of prag-
matic differentiation is shown by bilingual and multilingual children’s ability
to accommodate the language preference of familiar versus unfamiliar interlocu-
tors (Genesee, Boivin, Nicoladis 1996; Maneva 2004; Suyal 2002), and to ac-

commodate shifts in the amount of language mixing initiated by the interlocutor
across different play sessions (Comeau, Genesee and Paquette 2003). However,
pragmatic differentiation is subject to development because four-year-olds
show superior interlocutor sensitivity to two-year-olds (Suyal 2002; Paradis and
Nicoladis in press). Finally, anecdotal evidence for children’s early awareness
of their dual or multiple linguistic systems can be found in overt metalinguistic
statements, for example, az govar’a na balgarski frenski I arabski ‘I speak
Bulgarian, French and Arabic’ at age 2;7 (Maneva, 2004: 116), or behaviour
such as translating for parents at age 2;3 (Hoffmann 1985).
Both child-internal and child-external factors have been proposed to explain
variations in bilingual children’s ability to pragmatically differentiate their lan-
guages. First, children’s interlocutor sensitivity is constrained by their degree of
proficiency in each language. Genesee et al. (1995) found that English dominant
two-year-olds used more French with their French-speaking parent than with
their English-speaking parent, but used a lot of English with both. Examinations
of children’s language choice as a function of their lexical knowledge in each
language have shown that children are more likely to codeswitch when they do
not know the word for the referent in that language, in other words, when they
have a lexical gap (Deuchar and Quay 2000; Nicoladis and Secco 2000; Nico-
ladis and Genesee 1996b). With respect to intra-utterance codeswitching in par-
ticular, some researchers have suggested that bilingual children use mixing to
increase their morphosyntactic expression in their weaker language, which can
be construed as a grammatical gap-filling strategy (Bernardini and Schlyter
2004; Gawlitzek-Maiwald and Tracy 1996; Lanvers 2001; Lanza 1997; Pe-
tersen 1988). With respect to external factors, Lanza (1997; this volume) argued
that through their reactions to children’s mixing, parents may be consciously or
unconsciously negotiating a bilingual versus monolingual discourse context,
and in turn, influencing their children’s language choices (see also Lanvers
2001; Maneva 2004). Other environmental factors, such as, the usual language
of a physical location, or which family members are participating in the dis-
course, can influence bilingual children’s language choice (Deuchar and Quay
2000; Vihman 1998). Finally, Paradis and Nicoladis (in press) and Suyal (2002)
argued that for older preschool bilingual children, understanding of the lan-
guage patterns in the community and the sociolinguistic status of the languages
might influence their language choice (see also Hoffmann 1985; Maneva 2004;
Pan 1995).
Since language choice patterns change over time in bilingual children as
they develop more proficiency in each language, researchers have also asked
whether the structure of their intra-utterance codeswitches changes over time
also as a function of language development. Adult models of bilingual codes-
witching emphasize that combining elements from both languages in one sen-
tence is a systematic or rule-governed process, although the particular rules pro-

24 Johanne Paradis
posed differ between models (e.g. Myers-Scotton 1993; Poplack 1980; see
Muysken this volume). If adult codeswitching is the end point for child bilingual
code-switching, then it is relevant to examine the structural aspects of bilingual
children’s codeswitching to ascertain when in development they demonstrate
adult-like rules. Most investigations addressing this question have examined the
syntactic categories of single-items in mixed utterances because in adult codes-
witching open class words like nouns and verbs are freer to mix into a host lan-
guage sentence than closed class elements (Vihman 1985; Lanza 1997; Meisel
1994b; Köppe 1996; Deuchar and Quay 2000; Nicoladis and Genesee 1998).
All studies except Nicoladis and Genesee (1998) found that young bilingual
children initially showed the reverse pattern to the adults; however, bilingual
children’s patterns may appear distinct from adults’ not because their codes-
witching is constrained by different underlying principles, but because their
lexicons have not developed sufficiently to show the same proportions of open
class and closed class words as adults (see Paradis, Nicoladis and Genesee 2000
for further discussion). Meisel (1994b) also discusses the possibility that early
in development, bilingual children may appear to violate adult rules of code-
switching indirectly because they have not yet acquired the morphosyntactic
structures and lexical items to obey them. Paradis et al. (2000) tested this hy-
pothesis by examining codeswitched utterances in a semi-longitudinal corpus of
15 French-English bilingual children aged 2;0 to 3;6. They found that from 2;0,
the children’s mixed utterances were consistent with the constraints proposed in
the Matrix-Language Frame Model (Myers-Scotton 1993) nearly 90% of the
time, and violations could be explained by the absence of sufficient morphosyn-
tactic development. Other studies of older preschool bilingual children have
found that the patterns in their codeswitched utterances mirrored those of the
adult models to which they were compared (Paradis and Nicoladis in press; Vih-
man 1998). In sum, while there is some dispute about the nature of codeswitch-
ing patterns in very young bilinguals, most research shows that by 3;0, bilingual
children display rule-governed and adult-like patterns.
3. Sequential bilingual children
3.1. Patterns and rates of acquisition in sequential bilinguals
Unlike simultaneous bilinguals, early sequential bilinguals and multilinguals
have one or two languages established before they learn their second or third
one. This raises the question of how children’s L1 influences their L2, or in turn,
their L3 development. Also unlike simultaneous bilinguals, sequential bilin-
guals and multilinguals are learning one of their languages when they are more
cognitively mature, although much younger than adult language learners. This

could potentially speed up the process of acquisition for the target language and
permit them to quickly ‘catch up’ with their monolingual native speaker peers.
It could also mean that age effects on ultimate attainment may be less apparent
than with adult language learners. In this section, phonological, lexical and mor-
phosyntactic acquisition in early sequential bilinguals and multilinguals is dis-
cussed with a view to addressing the following questions: (1) What is the role of
the L1 in child L2 and L3 acquisition? (2) How does child L2 acquisition com-
pare to the monolingual acquisition of the same target language? (3) When, if
ever, do child L2 learners catch up to their native-speaker age peers?
3.1.1. Phonological acquisition in sequential bilinguals
Flege (1999) argues that the starting point for L2 speech development is the L1
phonetic categories. This perspective is supported by research showing that
Spanish L1-English L2 children aged 4–7 years are more accurate in their pro-
duction of phonemes that are shared between the two languages than for pho-
nemes that are only in English (Goldstein 2004b). Furthermore, the effects of
the L1 phonology may extend across a sequential bilingual’s lifespan. Flege
(2004) reports research examining foreign accent ratings of Korean and Japan-
ese L1 children acquiring English, and found that after five years experience
with English, these children still did not rate identically to native English-
speaker peers. Retrospective developmental studies show that adults who began
to acquire their L2 as early as 6–8 years of age can have a perceptible foreign
accent (Flege 1999). Furthermore, phonological distance between the L1 and
the L2 can make a difference in ultimate attainment. Flege and Fletcher (1992)
found that Chinese L1 adults had more perceptible foreign accents than Spanish
L1 adults, even though both groups had been immersed in a majority English en-
vironment from 5–8 years of age. With respect to acoustic properties like voice
onset time, Watson (1991) reported that language-specific production systems
can develop for L1 and L2 (see also Flege 1991), but that the perceptual systems
might be permanently unified between the two languages of early sequential bi-
linguals. Essentially, in the phonological domain, L1 and L2 may always be in-
terconnected, and so child L2 learners may never completely ‘catch up’ to their
monolingual peers in the sense that they may always have a distinct and com-
posite sound system. However, early sequential bilinguals tend to pronounce the
L2 more like monolinguals than L2 adults (Winitz et al. 1995; Flege 2004).
3.1.2. Lexical acquisition in sequential bilinguals
Child L2 learners, with both majority and minority L1s, need to stretch meager
lexical resources in the target language to meet the needs of complex and de-
manding environments like a classroom. Thus, L2 children are often in a situ-

26 Johanne Paradis
ation where the communicative task outstrips the L2 vocabulary they have
learned. Harley (1992) documented phenomena associated with this situation in
English L1 children in French immersion schools, as compared to French mono-
lingual children. In describing a cartoon strip, the L2 children more often used
non-specific nominals e.g. une chose ‘a thing’, or non-specific verbs, e.g., il va
dans l’eau ‘he goes into the water’ instead of il plonge dans l’eau ‘he dives into
the water’ than the native-speakers. The L2 children were also more likely to
use sound symbolism or codeswitching to get the meaning across for a word
they did not know in French. Golberg, Paradis and Crago (under review) looked
at minority L1 children’s non-specific versus appropriate uses of the verb do
over time in their English L2. For example, he do a baseball instead of he
throws a baseball is a non-specific usage. Frequencies of non-specific uses de-
creased steadily from the interval when the children had 9 months exposure to
English until they had 34 months exposure.
The lexical compensatory strategies used by children acquiring their L3
raise the question of which of their other two languages would act as the source
language for interference in the L3: the children’s L1, their more proficient lan-
guage whether L1 or L2, or the language that is typologically closer to the L3?
Cenoz (2001) examined story-telling data in the English L3 of Basque-Spanish
bilingual school-age children. She found that Spanish, which is typologically
closer to English, was the predominant source language for lexical interference
in English, regardless of whether Spanish was the children’s L1 or L2.
Because vocabulary size is important for success in literacy, researchers
have been highly concerned with understanding when L2 children catch up to
their monolingual peers in this domain. Regarding rate of development, it is
possible that L2 learners accumulate vocabulary more rapidly the second time
round because they are more cognitively mature when the process starts, and
also have an existing lexicon in their L1 to draw upon for insight into concep-
tual-lexical mappings. Winitz et al. (1995) found that a Polish L1 child ad-
vanced four developmental years in vocabulary knowledge within one chro-
nological year of exposure to English, as shown by age-equivalency scores on
the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Following the same logic, Gol-
berg et al. (under review) compared age equivalency scores from the PPVT with
months of exposure to English for 19 L2 children. The children gained 3.24
mental age equivalency years in less than three years of exposure to English,
suggesting somewhat more rapid development in L2 than might be expected in
L1; however, age-equivalency scores only outpaced months of exposure during
the last 12 month interval.
Turning to comparisons with monolingual age-mates, Umbel et al. (1992)
studied the receptive vocabulary knowledge of 1st grade Spanish L1 children in
Miami who had been introduced to English in kindergarten. These English L2
learners scored lower than the monolingual norming sample mean on the PPVT;

however, they scored at the mean for the equivalent test in Spanish. This study
indicates that vocabulary accumulation in the majority language is very gradual
for sequential bilinguals, and subsequent research with Spanish-L1-English-L2
children in Miami showed that these children scored below monolingual Eng-
lish children on standardized tests for productive and receptive vocabulary until
5th grade, at which point the gap narrowed (Cobo-Lewis et al. 2002). Golberg et
al. (under review) also compared English L2 children’s performance to the
monolingual norming sample for the PPVT, and found that the children had
nearly caught up to their monolingual peers after just 3 years of full-time
schooling in English, as their mean standard score was 97 at that time. A pos-
sible reason for the more rapid lexical acquisition displayed by the children
in Golberg et al.’s study than for the children in Miami could be opportunities to
use the native language. Spanish-speakers form a large community in Miami
and consequently, Spanish is widely-spoken in social, educational and eco-
nomic spheres in the city. In contrast, the English L2 children in Golberg et al.’s
study were residing in an English majority community where they may have
only rarely spoken their L1 outside the home, and thus, had more opportunities
to use and hear English (see section 3.2). Cobo-Lewis et al. (2002) also found
that L2 children were more likely to lag behind monolinguals on tests of pro-
ductive than receptive vocabulary, and this is consistent with research on lexical
processing in sequential bilinguals. Windsor and Kohnert (2004) examined
word recognition and picture naming in Spanish L1-English-L2 learners and
English native speakers aged 8–13. The L2 learners performed similarly to the
native speakers in both accuracy and response time for word recognition; how-
ever, the English native speakers outperformed the English L2 group for picture
naming accuracy and response time.
What is the role of the L1 in L2 lexical acquisition? Unlike phonology, re-
searchers have paid less attention to L1 influence in lexical acquisition. This is
due in part to the uncertainty about how transfer from one language to the other
would take place in this domain. Patterson and Pearson (2004) suggested that
older sequential bilingual children may take advantage of cognates to enhance
L2 vocabulary acquisition, for literacy in particular.
3.1.3. Morphosyntactic acquisition in sequential bilinguals
The majority of research on L2 children’s acquisition of morphosyntax has been
concentrated on grammatical morphology in general, finite verb morphology in
particular. The findings show that children tend to acquire L2 grammatical mor-
phology more quickly in the nominal than the verbal domain, regardless of tar-
get language, and that this sequence parallels L1 acquisition of morphosyntax
(Dulay and Burt 1973, 1974; Grondin and White 1996; Haznedar 2001; Ionin
and Wexler 2002; Paradis 2005; Paradis and Crago 2000, 2004; Paradis, Le

28 Johanne Paradis
Corre and Genesee 1998; Prévost and White 2000). For example in L2 English,
children generally are more accurate in producing plural [-s] on nouns than they
are in producing third person singular [-s] on verbs. Also like L1, omission er-
rors are more common than commission or substitution errors with grammatical
morphology in L2 English and French (Ionin and Wexler 2002; Jia 2003; Para-
dis 2004, 2005; Paradis and Crago 2000). English L2 children are more likely to
make errors like he want some ice cream (want f wants) than errors like I didn’t
sawed (sawed f see) (Genesee et al. 2004: 124–125).
Research on the role of the L1 in L2 morphosyntax has shown mixed results.
On the one hand, Dulay and Burt (1973) found that 85% of the errors made by
Spanish L1-English L2 children were developmental in origin, in other words,
not the result of transfer from Spanish. On the other hand, Paradis (2004) found
that error patterns with object pronouns in child L2 French reflected transfer
from English. Harley (1989) reported transfer in the use of prepositions in the
French L2 of English L1 children in immersion schools. Regarding the source
language for transfer in L3 acquisition, Hoffmann (1985) found that a Spanish-
German bilingual girl transferred German grammatical elements into her Eng-
lish L3 even though she was dominant in Spanish, presumably because German
and English are more closely related languages (cf. Cenoz, 2001). With respect
to rate of development, Dulay and Burt (1974) found that Chinese L1 children
displayed lower levels of accuracy with grammatical morphemes than Spanish
L1 children; however, Paradis (2005) found that accuracy with a variety of
tense-marking morphemes in L2 English, such as auxiliary verbs and
inflections, was not related to whether the children’s L1 was richly inflected or
not. Retrospective developmental studies have also shown conflicting findings
as to whether typological distance between the L1 and the L2 influences ulti-
mate attainment in early sequential bilinguals. Bialystok and Miller (1999)
found that when exposure to English began before 8 years of age, adult Chinese
L1 and Spanish L1 speakers of English performed virtually the same on a gram-
maticality judgment task as English native speakers. In contrast, McDonald
(2000) found that Vietnamese L1 adults had less accurate grammaticality judg-
ments in English than Spanish L1 adults; both groups had been living in an Eng-
lish majority setting from the age of 5 years.
Akin to lexical acquisition, researchers have examined how L2 children
compare to monolinguals in their rates and achievements in morphosyntactic
development. Jia (2003) compared the average length of exposure time to Eng-
lish needed to master the use of plural [-s] in L1 and L2 learners. She found that
individual variation was possibly larger for the L2 children, but that the aver-
age rate was nearly the same. Thus, it is unsurprising that it takes years for L2
children to display morphosyntactic abilities comparable to their native-speaker
age-peers. Gathercole (2002) compared grammaticality judgments for English
morphosyntax given by Spanish-English sequential bilinguals and English

native-speakers. She found that the L2 children were less accurate than native
speakers in their judgments in 2nd grade, but had nearly caught up by 5th grade.
Gathercole and Thomas (2005) examined performance on a variety of gram-
matical tasks in Welsh from a cross-sectional sample of children aged 3–9 years.
Some children only spoke Welsh at home and some only spoke English at home;
both groups were in Welsh schools. Gathercole and Thomas (2005) found that
for some structures, only the Welsh L2 children in the nine-year-old group dis-
played similar abilities to the Welsh L1 children; however, relatively less
opaque/complex structures were acquired earlier by the Welsh L2 learners.
Paradis (2005) and Paradis and Crago (2005) measured minority L1 English L2
learners’ performance on a test of grammatical morpheme development normed
on monolinguals. Even after 34 months exposure to English, only half of these
children achieved a score in the range of typically-developing monolingual age-
mates. These are the same children that Golberg et al.(under review) studied, so
it seems that catching up to monolingual peers may be slower for grammatical
morphology than it is for the lexicon.
It is pertinent to ask whether sequential bilinguals ever develop completely
parallel morphosyntactic knowledge to monolingual speakers of the target lan-
guage. As with phonological acquisition, there appears to be age effects in mor-
phosyntactic ultimate attainment for sequential bilinguals when exposure to the
L2 begins in middle childhood rather than before (Bialystok and Miller 1999;
Jia 2003; McDonald 2000; Weber-Fox and Neville 1999; 2001). Weber-Fox and
Neville (1999, 2001) found monolingual-bilingual differences in both ERP
measurements of closed class word processing and in grammaticality judgments
of syntactic violations for Chinese-English bilinguals whose onset of L2 ac-
quisition occurred between ages 7–10 years old. Interestingly, they did not find
such differences for open class word processing or in grammaticality judgments
of semantic (lexical choice) violations.
3.2. Individual differences in sequential bilinguals
Sources of individual differences in acquisition are possibly more pronounced
in L2 and L3 acquisition than in L1, since additional sources of variation are
found in the L2/L3 situation, such as, divided input time, presence of other lan-
guages, and variable age of onset for learning. The impact of age of onset and
L1 typology on L2 and L3 development has already been discussed in section
3.1. In this section, we examine some other factors, both internal and external
to the child, that have been found to underlie individual differences in L2 ac-
quisition.
Language aptitude and personality characteristics are two learner-internal
factors thought to underlie variation in outcomes between learners. Language
aptitude is a composite of analytic and working memory skills relevant to ac-

30 Johanne Paradis
quiring compositional structures (e.g. morphosyntax) and words, and is some-
what related to verbal and non-verbal intelligence (Dörnyei and Skehan 2003;
Sawyer and Ranta 2001). Language aptitude is widely considered to be one of
the most reliable factors explaining individual differences in language develop-
ment (Dörnyei and Skehan 2003; Skehan 1991). Ranta (2002) examined lan-
guage analytic aptitude and English L2 attainment in 6th grade French-speaking
children enrolled in a five-month English immersion program. She found that
high and low language aptitude was associated with high and low L2 attain-
ment. Genesee and Hamayan (1980) also found that a more general analytical
skill, nonverbal reasoning, predicted success in French by English L1 children
in 1st grade immersion. In contrast, research investigating the relationship be-
tween personality variables and L2 outcomes have shown mixed results (Dor-
nyei and Skehan 2003; Sawyer and Ranta, 2001), but Strong (1983) claims that
significant relationships between personality variables and L2 outcomes have
been found more often when natural communicative language was measured.
Strong (1983) examined such a relationship in L1 minority children in an Eng-
lish kindergarten. He found that personality variables associated with amount of
social contact with native speakers, namely talkativeness, responsiveness and
gregariousness, were significantly correlated with better English grammar, vo-
cabulary and pronunciation as measured through spontaneous language produc-
tion in child-to-child interactions.
Two learner-external, or environmental, factors found to influence differen-
tial achievement in child L2 learners are socio-economic status (SES) of the
family, and quantity and quality of L2 input. SES is typically measured through
parental levels of education or income, and is a key predictor of outcomes in L1
acquisition (see Oller and Eilers, 2002). Cobo-Lewis, Pearson et al. (2002) and
Gathercole (2002) found that high SES Spanish L1-English-L2 children per-
formed better on vocabulary and morphosyntactic measures than their low SES
counterparts. Golberg et al. (under review) found mother’s level of education
to be the most significant predictor of L2 vocabulary growth in L1 minority
children. Finally, Hakuta, Goto Butler and Witt (2000) examined global oral
English proficiency in L1 minority children in schools with varying percentages
of children qualifying for free lunch programs, which are based on family in-
come. The development of English proficiency lagged behind in schools where
70% of the children were enrolled in free lunch programs.
Child L2 learners receive different amounts of L2 input in their instructional
programs and outside the classroom; they also receive differential quality of
input depending on their input sources. The studies with Spanish-L1-Eng-
lish-L2 children in Miami showed that children in Spanish-English bilingual
programs lagged behind children in English only programs in their vocabulary
and morphosyntactic acquisition in English (but certainly not in Spanish)
(Cobo-Lewis, Pearson et al. 2002; Gathercole 2002). These researchers, Gather-

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

it, and received him in the presence of Gardiner and the Marquis of
Winchester only. She dismissed him curtly—almost rudely—and told
him that after committing such a breach of etiquette as to deliver a
letter to her sister before presenting his credentials, he had better
go home and never come back to England with such a message as
that again. Before Feria left England to see his master in July, 1558,
he visited Elizabeth at Hatfield, and did his best to persuade her that
she had all Philip’s sympathy, and that her safe course would be to
adhere to the Spanish connection. He was no match for her in
diplomacy even then, and got nothing but smiles and genial
generalities. In November Mary was dying, and Dassonleville, the
Flemish agent, wrote to the King begging him to send Feria back
again to forward Spanish interests, “as the common people are so
full of projects for marrying Madam Elizabeth to the Earl of Arundel
or some one else.” On the 8th of November a committee of the
Council went to Hatfield to see Elizabeth and deliver to her the dying
Queen’s message, begging her “when she should be Queen to
maintain the Catholic Church and pay her (Mary’s) debts.” Elizabeth
would pledge herself to nothing. She knew now that she must
succeed, with or without Mary’s good-will, and she meant to have a
free hand. Before the Queen died even, Feria, who had arrived when
she was already almost unconscious, hastened to Hatfield to see the
coming Queen. So long as he confined himself to courteous
commonplace she answered him in the same spirit, but as soon as
he began to patronise her and hint that she owed her coming crown
to the intervention and support of Philip, she stopped him at once,
and said that she would owe it only to her people. She was equally
firm and queenly when Feria thus early hinted at her marriage with
her Spanish brother-in-law before the breath was out of Mary’s body,
and showed a firm determination to hold her own and resist all
attempts to place her under the tutelage of Philip. A week
afterwards the Queen died, and then began the keen contest of wits
around the matrimonial possibilities of Elizabeth, which ended in the
making of modern England.

The first letter that Feria wrote to Philip after the new Queen’s
accession indicated how powerless had been all his blandishments to
pledge Elizabeth. “The new Queen and her people,” he says, “hold
themselves free from your Majesty, and will listen to any
ambassadors who may come to treat of marriage. Your Majesty
understands better than I how important it is that this affair should
go through your hands, which ... will be difficult except with great
negotiation and money. I wish, therefore, your Majesty to keep in
view all the steps to be taken on your behalf; one of them being that
the Emperor should not send any ambassador here to treat of this,
for it would be inconvenient enough for Ferdinand to marry here
even if he took the titbit from your Majesty’s hand, but very much
worse if it were arranged in any other way. For the present, I know
for certain they will not hear the name of the Duke of Savoy
mentioned, as they fear he will want to recover his estates with
English forces, and will keep them constantly at war. I am very
pleased to see that the nobles are beginning to open their eyes to
the fact that it will not do to marry this woman in the country
itself.... The more I think over this business the more certain I am
that everything depends upon the husband this woman may take. If
he be a suitable one, religious matters will go on well, and the
kingdom will remain friendly with your Majesty, but if not it will all be
spoilt. If she decide to marry out of the country she will at once fix
her eyes on your Majesty, although some of them here are sure to
pitch upon the Archduke Ferdinand.”
15
Feria was wrong in his
estimate of Elizabeth’s character. From the first she had determined
to be a popular sovereign, and all observers remarked her almost
undignified anxiety to catch the cheers of the crowd. She knew that
the most unpopular step she could take would be one that bound
her interests to Spain, and particularly a marriage with Philip. A
French marriage was impossible, for the heir to the crown of France
was married to Mary Stuart, whose legal right to the English throne
was undoubtedly stronger than that of Elizabeth herself.
So the Englishmen began to pluck up heart and to think that the
great prize might fall to one of them. Early in December the Earl of

Arundel came over from Flanders, and Feria remarks in one of his
letters that he had seen him at the palace, “looking very smart and
clean, and they say he carries his thoughts very high.” He was a
widower of mature age, foppish and foolish, but, with the exception
of his son-in-law, the Duke of Norfolk, the only English noble whose
position and descent were such as to enable him without impropriety
to aspire to mate with royalty, and for a short time after his arrival
he was certainly looked upon by the populace as the most likely
husband for the young Queen.

CHAPTER II.
The Spanish policy with regard to the Austrian match—
English suitors for the Queen’s hand—Arundel and
Pickering—Philip II.—The Archduke Ferdinand—Lord
Robert Dudley—The Prince of Sweden—Philip’s attitude
towards the Austrian match—The Archduke Charles—
Pickering and Dudley—The Earl of Arran—Dudley’s
intrigues against the Archduke Charles’ suit—Death of
Lady Robert Dudley—Prince Eric again.
In the same ship that brought Arundel from Flanders came that
cunning old Bishop of Aquila, who was afterwards Philip’s
ambassador in England. He conveyed to Feria the King’s real wishes
with regard to Elizabeth’s marriage, which were somewhat at
variance with those which appeared on the surface. Philip had now
definitely taken upon himself the championship of the Catholic
supremacy, and his interests were hourly drifting further away from
those of his Austrian kinsmen, who were largely dependent upon the
reforming German princes. This was the principal reason why Sussex
and other moderate Protestants in England were promoting an
Austrian marriage which, it was assumed, would conciliate Philip
without binding England to the ultra-Catholic party. The Bishop’s
instructions were to throw cold water on the scheme whilst
outwardly appearing to favour it, but if he saw that such a marriage
was inevitable, then he was to get the whole credit of it for his
master, who was to subsidise his impecunious cousin, the Archduke,
and make him the instrument of Spain. Feria confessed himself
puzzled. If he was not to forward the Archduke Ferdinand, he did
not know, he said, whom he could suggest. Everybody kept him at
arm’s length and he could only repeat current gossip. Some people
thought the Earl of Arundel would be the man, others the Earl of

Westmoreland; then Lord Howard’s son, and then Sir William
Pickering; “every day there is a new cry raised about a husband.” “At
present,” he said, “I see no disposition to enter into the discussion of
any proposal on your Majesty’s own behalf, either on her part or that
of the Council, and when it has to be approached it should be
mentioned first to her alone.” The first step, he thought, should be
to arouse the jealousy of each individual councillor of the Queen’s
marriage with any Englishman; and at the same time to work upon
the Queen’s pride by hinting that she would hardly stoop to a
marriage inferior to that of her sister. He thought, however, that a
marriage with Philip would scarcely be acceptable, as he could not
live in England, and Feria was still in hope that if they took any
foreigner the Archduke Ferdinand would be the man. Feria’s plan of
campaign was an ingenious one. After he had aroused Elizabeth’s
jealousy of her dead sister and deprecated the idea of the
degradation to the Queen of a marriage with a subject, “we can take
those whom she might marry here and pick them to pieces one by
one, which will not require much rhetoric, for there is not a man
amongst them worth anything, counting the married ones and all. If,
after this, she inclines to your Majesty, it will be necessary for you to
send me orders whether I am to carry it any further or throw cold
water on it and set up the Archduke Ferdinand, for I see no other
person we can propose to whom she would agree.”
16
Philip had sent to the Queen a present of jewels by the Bishop of
Aquila, with which she was delighted, and assured Feria that those
who said her sympathies were French told an untruth. She was
indeed quite coquettish with him sometimes, but he felt that he was
outwitted. He could get no information as he did in the last reign.
The councillors fought shy of him, anxious as ever for bribes and
pensions, but willing to give no return for them, for the very good
reason that they had nothing to give, they being as hopelessly in the
dark as every one else as to the Queen’s intentions. “Indeed I am
afraid that one fine day we shall find this woman married, and I shall
be the last man in the place to know anything about it,” said Feria.
In the meanwhile Arundel was ruining himself with ostentatious

expenditure; borrowing vast sums of money from Italian bankers
and scattering gifts of jewels of great value amongst the ladies who
surrounded the Queen. He was a man far into middle age at the
time, with two married daughters, the Duchess of Norfolk and Lady
Lumley, and was in antiquity of descent the first of English nobles;
but one can imagine how the keen young woman on the throne
must have smiled inwardly at the idea of the empty-headed, flighty
old fop, aspiring to be her partner. “There is a great deal of talk
also,” writes Feria, “lately about the Queen marrying the Duke
Adolphus, brother of the King of Denmark. One of the principal
recommendations they find in him is that he is a heretic, but I am
persuading them that he is a very good Catholic and not so comely
as they make him out to be, as I do not think he would suit us.” At
last, after the usual tedious deliberation, the prayers and invocations
for Divine guidance, Philip made up his mind that he, like another
Metius Curtius, would save his cause by sacrificing himself. He
approached the subject in a true spirit of martyrdom. Feria had been
repeating constantly—almost offensively—how unpopular he was in
England, ever since Mary died. He had, he was told, not a man in his
favour, he was distrusted and disliked, and so on, but yet he so
completely deceived himself with regard to the support to be
obtained by Elizabeth from her people through her national policy
and personal popularity, as to write to Feria announcing his gracious
intention of sacrificing himself for the good of the Catholic Church
and marrying the Queen of England on condition of her becoming a
Catholic and obtaining secret absolution from the Pope. “In this way
it will be evident and manifest that I am serving the Lord in marrying
her and that she has been converted by my act.... You will, however,
not propose any conditions until you see how the Queen is disposed
towards the matter itself, and mark well that you must commence to
broach the subject with the Queen alone, as she has already opened
a way to such an approach.” It must have been evident to Feria at
this time (January, 1559) that the Queen could not marry his master
without losing her crown. The Protestant party were now
paramount, the reformers had flocked back from Switzerland and
Germany, and Elizabeth had cast in her lot with them. To

acknowledge the Pope’s power of absolution would have been to
confess herself a bastard and an usurper. There was only one
possible Catholic sovereign of England and that was Mary Queen of
Scots, and it is difficult to see what could have been Philip’s drift in
making such an offer, which, if it had been accepted, would have
vitiated his wife’s claim to the crown of England and have
strengthened that of the French candidate.
In any case Elizabeth perceived it quickly enough, and when
Feria approached her and delivered a letter from Philip to her, she
began coyly to fence with the question. She knew she could not
marry Philip; but she was vain and greedy of admiration, and it
would be something to refuse such an offer if she could get it put
into a form which would enable her to refuse it. So she began to
profess her maiden disinclination to change her state; “but,” says
Feria, “as I saw whither she was tending, I cut short the reply, and
by the conversation which followed ... as well as the hurry she was
in to give me the answer, I soon understood what the answer would
be ... to shelve the business with fair words.” The end of it was that
he refused to take any answer at all, unless it were a favourable
one, and so deprived Elizabeth of the satisfaction of saying she had
actually rejected his master’s offer—which was a grievance with her
for many years afterwards.
Of all this the multitude knew nothing. They were busy with
speculation elsewhere. “Il Schafanoya,” the Italian gossip-monger,
gives an interesting account of the coronation ceremony and the
self-sufficient pomposity of Arundel, who was Lord Steward, “with a
silver wand a yard long, commanding everybody, from the Duke (of
Norfolk) downwards.”
17
Lord Robert Dudley as Master of the Horse
“led a fair white hackney covered with cloth of gold after the
Queen’s litter,” but no one as yet seemed to regard him as her
possible consort. That came afterwards. Schafanoya, writing to the
Mantuan ambassador in Brussels (January, 1559), says: “Some
persons declare that she will take the Earl of Arundel, he being the
chief peer of this realm, notwithstanding his being old in comparison

with the Queen. This report is founded on the constant daily favours
he receives in public and private from her Majesty. Others assert that
she will take a very handsome youth, eighteen or twenty years of
age and robust, judging from passion, and because at dances and
other public places she prefers him to any one else. A third opinion
is that she will marry an individual who until now has been in France
on account of his religion, though he has not yet made his
appearance, it being well known how much she loved him. He is a
very handsome gallant gentleman whose name I forget. But all are
agreed that she will take an Englishman, although the ambassadors
of the King of Sweden seek the contrary.”
The “very handsome youth” was perhaps the Earl of Oxford; the
“handsome gentleman” was certainly Sir William Pickering, who for a
time was the favourite candidate. It is known that there had been
love passages long before between Elizabeth and him, but to what
extent was never discovered. He can hardly have been a very stable
character, for he had fled to France under Mary, but had very soon
entered into treacherous correspondence with the Spanish party to
spy upon the actions of the Carews and the rest of the Protestant
exiles. Shortly before Mary’s death he had been commissioned to go
to Germany and bring thence to England a regiment of mercenaries
which had been raised for Mary. They were, however, used by Philip
for his own purposes, and when Elizabeth ascended the throne,
Pickering thought proper to have a long diplomatic illness at Dunkirk,
to learn how he would be received in England after his more than
doubtful dealings. As soon as he was satisfied that bygones would
be bygones, he came to England in fine feather. Tiepolo writes to the
Doge, February 23rd: “Concerning her marriage it still continues to
be said that she will take that Master Pickering, who from
information received by me, is about thirty-six years of age, of tall
stature, handsome, and very successful with women, for he is said
to have enjoyed the intimacy of many and great ones.”
18
Parliament
had sent a deputation to the Queen to urge her to marry, and to
represent the disadvantages of a foreign match, to which the Queen
had given a sympathetic but cautious answer. This had raised the

hopes of Pickering to a great height, and in the early spring he made
his appearance. He had lingered too long, however. Lord Robert
Dudley had already come to the front. Feria wrote to Philip on the
18th of April: “During the last few days Lord Robert has come so
much into favour that he does whatsoever he pleases with affairs,
and it is even said that her Majesty visits him in his chamber day and
night. People talk of this so freely that they go so far as to say that
his wife has a malady in one of her breasts and the Queen is only
waiting for her to die to marry Lord Robert. I can assure your
Majesty that matters have reached such a pass that I have been
brought to consider whether it would not be well to approach Lord
Robert on your Majesty’s behalf, promising him your help and favour
and coming to terms with him.” At the same time the Swedish
ambassador was again pressing the suit of Prince Eric; but he must
have been extremely maladroit, for he offended Elizabeth at the
outset by saying that his master’s son was still of the same mind,
and asked for a reply to the letter he had sent her. “What letter?”
said the Queen. “The letter I brought your Majesty.” Elizabeth replied
that she was now Queen of England, and if he required an answer
he must address her as such. She added that she did not know
whether his master would leave his kingdom to marry her, but she
could assure him that she would not leave hers to be the monarch of
the world, and in the meanwhile she would say neither yes nor no. A
messenger was sent off with this cold comfort, and came back with
fine presents of furs and tapestries, and for a time Swedish money
was lavished on the courtiers very freely—and it is curious that the
King of Sweden is always spoken of as being one of the richest of
monarchs—but the ambassador became a standing joke and a
laughing-stock of the Court ladies as soon as his presents ran out. A
more dignified embassy from Eric shortly afterwards arrived with a
formal offer of his hand, but they were, as the Bishop of Aquila says,
treated in a similar manner, and ridiculed to their own faces in Court
masques represented before them.
A much more serious negotiation was running its course at the
same time. When the Emperor had been informed that Philip had

desisted from the pursuit of the match for himself, he begged him to
support the suit of the Archduke Ferdinand. It was considered
unadvisable to mention at first which of the Archdukes was the
suitor, but Philip himself made no secret of his preference to
Ferdinand, who was a narrow bigot of his own school; so the
Spanish ambassador in England was instructed to forward the matter
to the best of his ability, in conjunction with an imperial ambassador
who was to be sent for the purpose. When the instructions arrived,
matters had gone so far that a secretary had already come to
London from the Emperor with letters for the Queen and a portrait
of Ferdinand. This had been arranged by Sir Thomas Challoner, who
had recently been in Vienna; but much doubt existed as to the
sincerity of Philip’s professions of good-will towards the affair.
Indeed, those who were most in favour of it appear to have thought,
not unreasonably, that the marriage would become impossible if it
were hampered with conditions dictated by Spain. The Austrian
match certainly had influential support at Court. Cecil, Sussex, and
all of Dudley’s many enemies thought at the time that it offered the
best way of checking his growing favour, and forwarded it
accordingly. In April Feria wrote: “They talk a great deal about the
marriage with the Archduke Ferdinand and seem to like it, but for
my part I believe she will never make up her mind to anything that
is good for her. Sometimes she appears to want to marry him, and
speaks like a woman who will only accept a great prince; and then
they say she is in love with Lord Robert and never lets him leave her.
If my spies do not lie, which I believe they do not, for a certain
reason which they have recently given me, I understand she will not
bear children; but if the Archduke is a man, even if she should die
without any, he will be able to keep the kingdom with the support of
your Majesty.”
When Pickering finally arrived, therefore, he found the field
pretty well occupied, but his advent caused considerable stir. He was
at once surrounded by those who for various reasons were equally
against Dudley and a Catholic prince. Two days after his arrival
Dudley was sent off hunting to Windsor, and Sir William was secretly

introduced into the Queen’s presence; and a few days afterwards
went publicly to the palace and stayed several hours by the Queen’s
side. “They are,” wrote Feria, “betting four to one in London that he
will be king.... If these things were not of such great importance and
so lamentable, they would be very ridiculous.”
19
Pickering’s arrival at Court is thus spoken of by Schafanoya,
writing on the 10th of May, 1559: “The day before yesterday there
came Sir William Pickering, who is regarded by all people as the
future husband of the Queen. He remains at home, courted by many
lords of the Council and others, but has not yet appeared at Court. It
is said they wished in Parliament to settle what title they should give
him and what dignity, but nothing was done. Many deem this to be a
sign that she will marry the Archduke Ferdinand, but as yet there is
no foundation for this, although the news comes from Flanders.
Meanwhile my Lord Robert Dudley is in very great favour and very
intimate with her Majesty. On this subject I ought not to report the
opinion of many persons. I doubt whether my letter may not
miscarry or be read, wherefore it is better to keep silence than to
speak ill.”
20
When Challoner had returned from Vienna he had
brought with him full descriptions of the Emperor’s sons. Ferdinand
was a bigot and a milksop, and Charles, the younger Archduke, was
said to have narrow shoulders and a great head. So when Baron
Ravenstein arrived in London on his matrimonial embassy the Queen
was quite ready for him. Ravenstein himself was as devout a
Catholic as his master, and was received very coolly at first. The
Queen told him she would marry no man whom she had not seen,
and would not trust portrait painters; and much more to the same
effect. To his second audience Ravenstein was accompanied by the
Bishop of Aquila, as it was desirable that, if anything came of the
negotiation, Spain should get the benefit of it. It soon became clear
to the wily churchman that Ferdinand would never do. He says: “We
were received on Sunday at one, and found the Queen, very fine, in
the presence-chamber looking on at the dancing. She kept us there
a long while, and then entered her room with us.” The Bishop

pressed her, in his bland way, to favourably consider the offers of the
Emperor’s ambassador; “but I did not name the Archduke, because I
suspected she would reply excluding them both. She at once began,
as I feared, to talk about not wishing to marry, and wanted to reply
in that sense; but I cut short the colloquy by saying that I did not
seek an answer, and only begged her to hear the ambassador.” He
then stood aside and chatted with Cecil, who gave him to
understand that they would not accept Ferdinand, “as they have
quite made up their minds that he would upset their heresy,”
21
and
went on to speak of the various approaches that had already been
made to the Queen; politely regretting that affinity and religious
questions had made the marriage with Philip impossible. In the
meanwhile poor Ravenstein was making but slow progress with the
Queen, who soon reduced him to dazed despair, and the Bishop
again took up the running, artfully begging her to be plain and frank
in this business, “as she knew how honestly and kindly the worthy
Germans negotiated.” And then, cleverly taking advantage of what
he had just heard from Cecil, he said that he had been told that the
Archduke had been represented to her as a young monster, very
different from what he was; “for, although both brothers are comely,
this one who was offered to her now was the younger and more
likely to please her than the one who had been spoken of before. I
thought best to speak in this way, as I understood in my talk with
Cecil that it was Ferdinand they dreaded.” The Queen at this pricked
up her ears, and asked the Bishop of whom he was speaking. He
told her the Archduke Charles, who was a very fit match for her as
Ferdinand was not available. “When she was quite satisfied of this,”
says the Bishop, “she went back again to her nonsense, saying that
she would rather be a nun than marry a man she did not know, on
the faith of portrait painters.” She then hinted that she wished
Charles to visit her in person, even if he came in disguise. Her thirst
for admiration and homage was insatiable, and, popular parvenue as
she was, the idea of princes of spotless lineage humbling themselves
before her very nearly led her into a quagmire more than once. She
probably had not the slightest intention of marrying Charles at the

time, but it would have been a great feather in her cap if she could
have brought a prince of the house of Austria as a suitor to her feet.
But the Bishop was a match for her on this occasion. “I do not know
whether she is jesting ... but I really believe she would like to
arrange for this visit in disguise. So I turned it to a joke, and said we
had better discuss the substance of the business.... I would
undertake that the Archduke would not displease her.” The Bishop
having soothed the Queen with persiflage of this sort, disconsolate
Ravenstein was called back rather more graciously, and told that, on
the Bishop’s request, the Queen would appoint a committee of the
Council to hear his proposals.
In the meanwhile Dudley and Pickering were manœuvring for
the position of first English candidate. Sir William had now a fine
suite of rooms in the palace, and was ruffling bravely, giving grand
entertainments, and dining in solitary state by himself, with minstrels
playing in the gallery, rather than feast, like the other courtiers of his
rank, at one of the tables of the household. He pooh-poohed
Ravenstein and his mission and said that the Queen would laugh at
him and all the rest of them, as he knew she meant to die a maid.
Pickering appears to have rather lost his head with his new grandeur,
and soon drops out of the scene, upon which only the keenest wits
could hope to survive. His insolence had aroused the indignation of
the greater nobles, but somehow it was only the least pugnacious of
them with whom he quarrelled. The Earl of Bedford, who from all
accounts seems to have been a misshapen monstrosity with an
enormous head, said something offensive about Pickering at a
banquet, and a challenge from the irate knight was the immediate
result; Dudley, of all men, being the bearer thereof, always at this
time ready to wound the extreme Protestant party, to which Bedford
belonged. But Pickering was as distasteful to Catholics as to
Protestants. On one occasion he was about to enter the private
chapel inside the Queen’s apartments at Whitehall, when he was
met at the door by the Earl of Arundel, who told him he ought to
know that that was no place for him, but was reserved for the lords
of the Council. Pickering answered that he knew that very well, and

he also knew that Arundel was an impudent knave. The Earl was no
hero, and Pickering went swaggering about the Court for days telling
the story. With such a swashbuckler as this for a rival, it is not
surprising that the handsome and youthful Dudley rapidly passed
him in the race for his mistress’s favour. Dudley played his game
cleverly. His idea was first to put all English aspirants out of the
running by ostensibly favouring the match with the Archduke, whilst
he himself was strengthening his influence over the Queen, in the
certainty that, when matters of religion came to be discussed,
difficulties might be raised at any moment which would break off the
Austrian negotiations. In the meanwhile the Queen coquetted with
dull-witted Ravenstein, and persuaded him that if the Archduke
would come over and she liked him, she would marry him, although
she warned the ambassador not to give his master the trouble of
coming so far to see so ugly a lady as she was. Instead of paying
her the compliment for which she was angling, he maladroitly asked
her whether she wished him to write that to the Archduke. “Certainly
not,” she replied, “on my account, for I have no intention of
marrying.” She jeered at Ferdinand and his devotions, but displayed
a discreet maidenly interest in Charles, and, it is easy to see,
promptly extracted from Ravenstein all the knowledge he possessed,
much to Bishop Quadra’s anxiety. Feria had gone back to Philip, with
the assurance that she never meant to marry, and that it was “all
pastime,” but Quadra thought that she would be driven into
matrimony by circumstances. “The whole business of these people is
to avoid any engagement that will upset their wickedness. I believe
that when once they are satisfied about this they will not be averse
to Charles. I am not sure about her, for I do not understand her.
Amongst other qualities which she says her husband must possess is
that he should not sit at home all day among the cinders, but should
in time of peace keep himself employed in warlike exercises.” For
many reasons it suited Elizabeth to show an inclination to the match;
for she could thus keep the English Catholics in hand,
notwithstanding the religious innovations and her severity, whilst
satisfying others “who want to see her married and are scandalised
at her doings.” But the Bishop disbelieved in the marriage unless she

were driven to it. Whilst Ravenstein was being caressed and
befooled, the French were doing their best to hinder an
understanding with him. There were sundry French noblemen in
London as hostages—and very troublesome guests they were—who
industriously spread the idea that it was ungrateful of the Queen to
disdain to marry one of her own subjects who had raised her to the
throne. When Ravenstein discussed this view with her, “she was very
vexed, and repeated to him that she would die a thousand deaths
rather than marry one of her subjects; but for all this,” says the
Bishop, “he does not seem to have got any further than usual with
his master’s affair.” And Bishop Quadra and his master were
determined he should not do so, except with Spanish intervention
and on Spanish terms, which would make the marriage impossible in
England. Things were thus going prosperously for Dudley. The
Swedish embassy had come and gone, “much aggrieved and
offended ... as they were being made fun of in the palace, and by
the Queen more than anybody. I do not think it matters much
whether they depart pleased or displeased.”
22
It was clear that
Elizabeth would have nothing to do with “Eric the Bad,” and the
Archduke was now the only serious competitor; which exactly suited
Dudley, as he knew the insuperable religious obstacles that could be
raised to him.
But Dudley was not by any means the only artful or self-seeking
man in Elizabeth’s Court, and was not allowed to have all his own
way. The real difficulties of the marriage with the Archduke,
hampered as he would be by unacceptable Spanish conditions, were
soon obvious to the Protestant party, who tried a bold stroke, which,
if their weapon had been a strong instead of a lamentably weak one,
might have altered the whole course of English history. To a French
Catholic princess, as Queen of Scotland and heiress to the crown of
England, the natural counterpoise was a close alliance between
England and Spain; but the Protestants saw that, from a religious
point of view, one position was as bad as the other, and conceived
the idea of encouraging the claims of a son of the house of
Hamilton, who, after Mary, was next heir to the crown of Scotland.

The Earl of Arran, son of the Duke of Chatelherault was in France;
and Cecil’s henchmen, Randolph and Killigrew, were sent backwards
and forwards to him and to Throgmorton, in Paris, to urge him to
action. If he could raise a revolution in Scotland against papists and
foreigners, and seize the crown, he might, thought Cecil, marry
Elizabeth, unite the two countries, and defy their enemies. Trouble in
Scotland was easily aroused; but the King of France, just before his
own death, which raised Mary Stuart to the throne of France as well,
learnt of the plan and ordered Arran’s capture alive or dead. Killigrew
managed to smuggle him out of France disguised as a merchant,
and took him to Geneva and Zurich, where he sat at the feet of
Peter Martyr and other reformers, and then as secretly was hurried
over to England in July, 1559. The Spanish party and the Emperor’s
ambassador soon got wind of it, and were in dismay. The Earl was
hidden first in Cecil’s house, and was afterwards conveyed secretly
to the Queen’s chambers at Greenwich. The news soon spread, and
the marriage was looked upon, all through August and part of
September, as a settled thing;
23
and, although Bedford and Cecil
went out of their way to buoy up the hopes of a marriage with the
Archduke, it was clear to the Spanish party that Arran was the
favoured man, the more especially that Mary Stuart’s husband had
now become King of France. But this did not suit Dudley. Early in
September Lady Mary Sidney, Dudley’s sister, came to the Spanish
ambassador with a wonderful story that a plot had been discovered
to poison the Queen and Dudley at a dinner given by the Earl of
Arundel. This, she said, had so alarmed the Queen, who had now a
war with France on her hands, that she had determined to marry at
once, and awaited the ambassador at Hampton Court with the offer
of the Archduke, whom she would accept. Lady Sidney professed to
be acting with the Queen’s consent, and emphatically insisted that, if
the matter were now pushed and the Archduke brought over at
once, it could be concluded without delay. The cunning Bishop
himself was for once taken in. Before going to Hampton Court he
saw Dudley, who placed himself entirely at the disposal of the King
of Spain, “to whom he owed his life.” He said the Queen had

summoned him and his sister the night before, and had directed
them how to proceed. The marriage, he assured the Bishop, was
now necessary and could be effected.
The Bishop wrote to Cardinal de Granvelle directly after the
interview: “Lord Robert and his sister are certainly acting splendidly,
and the King will have to reward them well—better than he does me
—and your Lordship must remind him of it in due time. The question
of religion is of the most vital importance, as is also the manner of
the Archduke’s marriage and its conditions and ceremonies. In view
of these difficulties it would be better for the wedding to be a
clandestine one. I do not know how he will get over the oath that he
will have to take to conform with the laws of the land, which are
some of them schismatic.”
24
The Bishop’s interview with the Queen, however, fairly mystified
him. She blew hot and cold as usual. “She hoped to God that no
harm would come to the Archduke on his incognito visit; she would
be glad to see him; but mind,” she said, “I am not bound to marry
him if he come,” which the Bishop assured the Emperor “was only
dissimulation, and she really meant to marry him.” She was very
careful to repeat that she had not invited the Archduke, and was not
bound to marry him, and went so far as to say she could not trust
Quadra to state this clearly, and would write to the Emperor herself.
But whilst she said it in words she took equal care to contradict it in
looks and gestures that could never be called up in witness against
her. The Bishop was at last completely won over, and strongly urged
the Emperor to send his son and seize the prize. This new turn of
events hardly pleased Cecil, but it was necessary for him to
dissemble, for Elizabeth was now at war with France and Scotland,
and she could not afford to give the cold shoulder to Spain as well.
When the Bishop saw him on leaving the Queen, he says: “I listened
to him (Cecil) for some time, and seeing that he was beating about
the bush, I begged that we might speak plainly to each other, as I
was neither blind nor deaf, and could easily perceive that the Queen
was not taking this step, to refuse her consent after all. He swore

that he did not know, and could not assure me,” and with this, and
vague protestations of Cecil’s personal wish for the Archduke’s
success, the Bishop had to be contented. He faithfully conveyed the
Queen’s words to the Emperor, but her looks and gestures could not
be put upon paper, so that it is not surprising that his Majesty could
see no further assurance than before that he was not to be fooled
after all. Feria was more deeply versed in the ways of women than
was the Bishop, and on receiving the news, answered: “It seems
that the Emperor up to the present refuses leave for his son to go,
and, to tell the truth, I cannot persuade myself that he is wrong, nor
do I believe that she will either marry him, or refuse to marry him
whilst the matter at issue is only his visit.... As to what Lord Robert
and his sister say, I do not believe more than the first day that the
only thing the Queen is stickling for is the coming of the lad.” There
was one point touched upon by the Queen in her interview with the
Spanish ambassador, which, as he tells his own master, he dared not
refer to in his letter to the Emperor. After much fencing and fishing
for compliments respecting her personal attractions, and expressed
doubts on the Queen’s part as to whether the Archduke would be
satisfied when he saw her, she said that even if he were, he might
be displeased with what he heard about her, as there were people in
the country who took pleasure in maligning her. The Bishop wrote
that she displayed some signs of shame when she said this, whilst
he parried the point diplomatically, and hastened to change the
subject. “I saw she was pleased, as she no doubt thought that if the
Archduke heard any of the idle tales they tell about her (and they
tell many) he might take advantage of them to the detriment of her
honour if the match were broken off, although, from this point of
view, I was not sorry, as the fear may not be without advantage to
us.” But to the Queen he expressed himself shocked that she should
think of such a thing as he had done previously when Lady Sidney
had hinted at a similar doubt. For the next two months an elaborate
attempt was made to keep up the appearance of cordiality towards
the Archduke’s match, and the Spanish party was still further
beguiled by the sudden tendency of the Queen to smile on
Catholicism. Candles and crucifixes were placed on the altar in the

Chapel Royal, and the Queen entertained the Bishop with long
religious discussions, for the purpose of inducing him to believe that
she was a Catholic in her heart. But they could not deceive the
Bishop for very long; nothing definite could be got from the Queen,
from whose side Dudley never moved, and by the middle of
November (1559) the Bishop satisfied himself that he was being
played with. A new Swedish embassy had arrived, and was being
entertained with hopes for the first time, particularly by Dudley, who
thought that the Austrian suit, having now served his turn and
eclipsed Arran, was becoming too hot to be safe for him. The Bishop
writes: “I noticed Lord Robert was slackening in our business, and
favouring the Swedish match, and he had words with his sister
because she was carrying our affair further than he desired. I have
heard from a certain person who is in the habit of giving me
veracious news that Lord Robert had sent to poison his wife.
Certainly all the Queen has done with us and with the Swede, and
will do with all the rest in the matter of her marriage, is only to keep
Lord Robert’s enemies and the country engaged with words, until
this wicked deed of killing his wife is consummated. I am told some
extraordinary things about this intimacy which I would never have
believed, only that now I find Lord Robert’s enemies in the Council
making no secret of their evil opinion of it.” The Queen tried to face
the Bishop with her usual blandishments, but his eyes were opened,
and when he pressed the point closely, she became coolly dignified,
surprised that she had been misunderstood, and threw over Lady
Sidney and Dudley, who reciprocally cast the blame upon each other.
The Bishop and the Emperor’s ambassador were furious; and, as the
best way to checkmate Dudley, approached the Duke of Norfolk,
who had been declaiming for some time against the insolence of the
rising favourite, saying that if he did not abandon his plans he
should not die in his bed, and so forth. The Duke, who was the most
popular as well as the most exalted of the English nobles, listened
eagerly to anything that should injure Dudley, and promised all his
influence and personal prestige in favour of the Archduke. He
recommended that the latter should at once come openly in state to
England, and he, the Duke, wagered his right arm if he did “that all

the biggest and best in the land should be on his side.” Whatever
may have been passing in Norfolk’s mind, there is no doubt as to
what the Bishop’s own plan was, to avenge himself for the trick
played upon him. He says: “I am of opinion that if the Archduke
comes and makes the acquaintance, and obtains the goodwill of
these people, even if this marriage—of which I have now no hope
except by force—should fall through, and any disaster were to befall
the Queen, such as may be feared from her bad government, the
Archduke might be summoned to marry Lady Catharine (Grey) to
whom the kingdom comes if this woman dies. If the Archduke sees
Catharine he should so bear himself that she should understand this
design, which, in my opinion, will be beneficial and even necessary.”
The “design” evidently was the murder of the Queen and Dudley,
and the securing of Catharine Grey to the Spanish interest. A daring
plan, but requiring bold instruments and swift action. Weak, unstable
Norfolk was no leader for such an enterprise, as he proved years
afterwards. Whilst Quadra was plotting and sulking at Durham
House, Dudley’s opponents strove to checkmate him by keeping the
Archduke’s match afoot. Count Helfenstein had come from the
Emperor before the fiasco, and it was now proposed to send special
English envoys to Austria and to the King of Spain, the purpose of
course being to frighten the French into the idea that the matter was
settled. One day at Court Dudley and Norfolk came to high words
about it. He was neither a good Englishman nor a loyal subject who
advised the Queen to marry a foreigner, said Dudley; and on another
occasion, Clinton and Arundel actually fell to fisticuffs on the subject.
The Swedes had stood less on their dignity than the Austrians, and
Eric’s brother, the young Duke of Finland, had come over to press his
brother’s suit. When he arrived with vast sums of money for gifts, as
before, he preferred rather to become a suitor himself, but with little
success. When he begged for a serious audience he was kept so
long outside in an antechamber alone that he went away in a huff.
The Venetian Tiepolo writes on December 15th, giving an account of
Arran’s defeat in Scotland by the French, which, with his growing
dementia, spoilt him as a suitor; and Tiepolo goes on to say: “The
Queen is still undecided about her marriage, though amongst all the

competitors she showed most inclination for the Archduke Charles.
The Duke of Finland, second son of the King of Sweden, is with her.
He came to favour the suit of his elder brother, and then proposed
himself, but the man’s manners did not please the Queen. The
second son also of the late John Frederick of Saxony, who heretofore
was proposed to the Queen by the French, but was afterwards
deserted by them because they wished her to marry an Englishman
... has not relinquished his pretensions, and has sent Count
Mansfeldt to propose to the Queen. The King of Denmark, in like
manner, has not failed to exert himself, although the general opinion
is that if the affairs of the Earl of Arran prosper he will prevail over
all competitors.”
25
All through the winter of 1559–60 matters thus lingered on. The
Bishop plotting and planning for the invasion of England from
Flanders, and completely undeceived with regard to the Queen’s
matrimonial intentions, whilst the English still desired to keep up an
appearance of cordial friendship with the Spanish party, as a
counterpoise to the King of France, with whom they were at war in
Scotland. The Bishop gives an account of an interview which he and
Helfenstein, the new imperial ambassador had with the Queen in
February, and it is clear that at this time she was again very anxious
to beguile the Emperor into sending his son on chance. But
Helfenstein was a very different sort of ambassador from
Ravenstein, and she could not do much with him; his idea being to
hold her at arm’s length until she was forced to write to the Emperor
herself, as she promised to do, in which case it would not, he
thought, be difficult to construe something she might say into a
pledge which she could be forced to fulfil. “I do not,” says the
Bishop, “treat this matter with her as I formerly did, as I want her to
understand that I am not deceived by her.” Nor was he for a time
deceived by Dudley. “The fellow is ruining the country with his
vanity.” “If he lived for another year he” (Dudley) said “he would be
in a very different position,” and so forth. During the summer an
envoy named Florent (Ajacet) was sent by Catharine de Medici and
her son to propose as a husband for Elizabeth a son of the Duke de

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Handbook Of Multilingualism And Multilingual Communication Peter Auer Editor Li Wei Editor

More Related Content

Similar to Handbook Of Multilingualism And Multilingual Communication Peter Auer Editor Li Wei Editor (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Handbook Of Multilingualism And Multilingual Communication Peter Auer Editor Li Wei Editor