In this chapter we explore the ramifications of the fact that young L2 beginners have less experience of language at large than older L2 beginners. One inference from this might be that older learners are linguistically advantaged. Much L2 literature, however, claims that pre-adolescents are better equipped for all language learning, i.e. those whose L2 exposure begins in childhood generally outachieve older beginners. Another viewpoint we mention is that amount of exposure rather than capacity is the crucial factor; indeed, it is a fact that many mature adults catch up with younger learners, given ample time and input. The question we explore is whether younger learners, nevertheless, demonstrate superior capacity, since they seem able to "juggle" two nascent languages, whereas in the case of older beginners the L1 is already firmly established before L2 acquisition commences. We suggest that investigation of the extent to which multiple languages can be "juggled" by younger learners and the characteristics thereof needs to probe the nature of the experience of each language and the mind-brain characteristics of individual learners. We discuss these topics in relation to the notion of child-centredness in L2 research and the methodologies one should consider in seeking to understand them.

Si vous demandez à des passants quel est le meilleur âge pour apprendre une langue étrangère, la majorité d’entre eux répondront certainement «le plus tôt est le mieux». Cet article montre pourtant que la réponse à cette question est plus complexe. S’il est vrai que, en contexte de migration, les apprenants précoces tendent à atteindre un meilleur niveau sur le long terme que leurs pairs plus âgés, de nombreux exemples montrent que des apprenants tardifs peuvent aussi passer pour natifs de la L2. En ce qui concerne le contexte scolaire, les résultats clairs et consistants de plus de 50 ans de recherche montrent qu’un apprentissage précoce ne confère aucun avantage en comparaison d’un apprentissage plus tardif.

Multilingualism has entered a new phase of importance in the modern world. In education this is visible, for instance, in terms of the number and variety of languages on curricula. Moreover, in many jurisdictions, the proportion of multilingual students in classrooms has increased substantially (Aronin and Ó Laoire, 2004; Edwards, 2009). This has created a new classroom dynamic, full of opportunities and challenges. There is longstanding evidence of students of multiple languages making use of available affordances in their language learning (Singleton & Aronin, 2007). More recently, the notion of translanguaging has emerged and has developed in multiple directions (Singleton & Flynn, 2022). Our contention is that in an instructional environment, translanguaging insights can be usefully wedded to the notion of affordances to optimize the provision of learning opportunities.

This article focuses on two very different categories of learners of other languages -migrant learners and third-age learners.It shows that, in both these cases, recounting the experience of language learning seems to yield benefits for the process, and the fact of this same outcome for two such different groups would appear to imply that, whatever the category of learners such benefits accrue.

The term translanguaging goes back more than a quarter-century, originating in the domain of the teaching of Welsh, but it has over the years developed a wide variety of usages. While translanguaging is claimed to have advantages over other language education models, many of its new interpretations, which take it some distance from its original pedagogical sense, are seen by some as problematic. The new conceptualizations go beyond the pedagogical practice of drawing on multiple language varieties in order to facilitate learning; they, indeed, often extend to general, overarching accounts of language deployment among multilinguals, which sometimes do not differentiate between individual language competencies. Proponents of translanguaging in its more traditional sense point to pedagogical advantages and opportunities it presents in the (language) classroom. Even in this context, however, there is debate about the appropriateness of utilizing translanguaging in, for example, minority language maintenance contexts. In this article, we explore the variety of uses of the term translanguaging and the attendant claims attached to them. Our conclusion is that the critical factor in the capacity of the term to retain coherence and intelligibility is the maintenance of constant awareness of and attention to the perspective in which it is applied.

Abstract When intra-individual variation in language use is discussed it tends to be seen as not having much significance. The recognizability of the relation of variants to each other is (usually tacitly) acknowledged; intra-individual variation is often attributed to influence across different varieties of the language in question (and, in L2 variation, also across languages); in addition such variation is frequently seen as a concomitant of the way in which the given linguistic feature develops. None of these commentaries actually has much to do with randomness; all seem to relate to identifiable complexes of correlation. The present article begins by exploring how the concept of randomness is to be understood and defined. It proceeds to explore the relationship of intra-individual linguistic variation to the recognizability of the connections between variables, to cross-varietal influence and to acquisitional trajectories. It probes the question of whether, in the light of the putatively explanatory factors for intra-individual variation considered, much room remains for its treatment as straightforwardly random.