Recent research suggests that multilingual students tend to use their complete language repertoires, particularly their L1, when writing in a non-native language (e.g. Cenoz & Gorter 2011; Wang 2003). While there is some international research on the L2 and L3 writing process among bilinguals, the L2/L3 writing process of bilingual and multilingual individuals in the Swedish context remains unexplored (Tholin 2012). This study, carried out in a Swedish secondary school, focuses on 131 bi- and multilingual students’ (age 15-16) self-reported languages of thought while writing an essay in English, which is a non-native language. Drawing on the translanguaging framework (Blackledge & Creese 2010; García 2009) and a model of the L2 writing process (Wang & Wen 2002), the questionnaire data of the present study reveal that the participants’ L1 is reported to be heavily activated during the L2 writing process, particularly at the prewriting, planning stage. Additionally, the emergent bilingual participants who grew up as monolinguals (L1 Swedish) report a greater tendency to transition to thinking in the target language (English, their L2) once they have reached the actual writing stage than some of the emergent trilingual participants who grew up as bilinguals (of Swedish and another L1, used primarily in the home). On the basis of these findings, we suggest a need to move away from the monolingual teaching practices common in Swedish schools, allowing space for students to translanguage as they are engaging with writing tasks in a non-native language.

The study uses think aloud and retrospective interview data from bi- and multilingual students age 15-16 in Swedish compulsory school, in order to study a) the extent to which they use their entire linguistic repertoires, and b) whether the participants prefer to think aloud in L1 or L2 while writing. 

This study is a contribution to the empirical underpinning of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), and it aims to identify linguistic correlates to the proficiency levels defined by the CEFR. The study was conducted in a Swedish school setting, focusing on English, French and Italian, and examined the relationship between CEFR levels (A1–C2) assigned by experienced raters to learners’ written texts and three measures of syntactic complexity (based on length of t-unit, subclause ratio, and mean length of clause (cf. Norris & Ortega, 2009)). Data were elicited through two written tasks (a short letter and a narrative) completed by pupils of L2 English (N = 54) in years four, nine and the final year of upper-secondary school, L3 French (N = 38) in year nine and the final year of upper-secondary school, and L4 Italian (N = 28) in the final year of upper-secondary school and first year of university. The results showed that, globally, there were weak to medium-strong correlations between assigned CEFR levels and the three measures of syntactic complexity in English, French and Italian. Furthermore, it was found that syntactic complexity was homogeneous across the three languages at CEFR level A, whereas syntactic complexity was different across languages at CEFR level B, especially in the data for English and French. Consequences for the empirical validity of the CEFR framework and the nature of the three measures of complexity are discussed.

Research has indicated social benefits of drawing on students’ full language repertoires (Cummins, 2017), and vocabulary experts recommend using L1s to establish initial form-meaning mapping for new L2 words (Schmitt, 2008). Though classroom-based research investigating effective teaching/learning practices in multilingual classrooms is scarce, Shin, Dixon and Choi (2019) report that intervention studies published in the last decade suggest that L2 learners benefit more from L1 translations than from L2-only explanations. Yet, we know of no studies comparing conditions involving more than two languages.

In an intervention study we compared the effects on vocabulary learning of three week-long teaching/learning conditions in multilingual EFL classrooms in Sweden. The three learning conditions were: English Only (EO); English and Swedish (E&S); English, Swedish and any Other language(s) (E&S&O) known by the learners. Learners aged 15-16 from six intact classes (N = 127) were instructed to follow the imposed condition that applied each week. Teaching materials for each condition comprised a text, including 12 carefully piloted English target words, vocabulary exercises, and vocabulary lists of the target words, in either EO, E&S, or E&S&O. We used a counter-balanced, repeated-measures design, with pretest (PT) (36 words), 3 x treatment, immediate posttests (IPT) (3 x 12 words), and delayed posttest (DPT) (36 words) 8 weeks after the treatments. The test format targeted meaning recall (expressed in any of the participants’ languages or even drawings).

Mixed effects modeling showed that learners in all classes improved significantly in the IPTs compared to PTs, but that scores on the DPTs were low. Importantly, in 3 of 6 classes no differences were found between the 3 conditions, but in 3 classes learners scored significantly lower in the EO condition, with conditions involving learners’ L1(s) providing better results. Factors such as English proficiency and preferred learning conditions will also be discussed.

Although research indicates cognitive (Wu et al., 2013) and social (Cummins, 2017) benefits of drawing on students’ whole language repertoires, and vocabulary experts emphasizing the merit of using L1s to establish initial form-meaning mapping (Schmitt, 2008), classroom-based research on what teaching/learning practices may be effective in multilingual classrooms is scarce.

We present results from an intervention comparing the effects on vocabulary learning of three week-long teaching/learning conditions: English Only (EO); English and Swedish (E&S); and English, Swedish and any Other language(s) (E&S&O) that learners know. Participants are learners (age 15-16) in six intact classes.

Teaching materials for each of the three conditions comprised (1) a text, including 12 controlled and piloted English target words, (2) vocabulary exercises and (3) vocabulary lists covering the target words, the latter being either EO, E&S, or E&S&O. We used a counter-balanced, within-subject design, featuring pretest–3 x treatment–immediate posttest–delayed posttest. The vocabulary test format targeted meaning recall knowledge at all test times, with answers in any language allowed. Learners were instructed to follow the imposed condition each week. 

Gain score analyses (ANOVAs) of three classes showed that all performed better in the E&S condition, irrespective what week this treatment condition took place. Thus, learning English vocabulary with Swedish translation equivalents yielded higher gain scores for all classes. We will present results for all six classes (Total N = c. 120), and factors such as language proficiency, language dominance, preferred teaching/learning approach, and perceived learning will be incorporated as covariates in the analysis.

Vocabulary experts recommend first language (L1) translation equivalents for establishing form–meaning mappings for new second language (L2) words, especially for lower proficiency learners. Empirical evidence to date speaks in favor of L1 translation equivalents over L2 meaning definitions, but most studies have investigated bi- rather than multilingual learners. In our study, we investigated instructed English vocabulary learning through an intervention study in six language-diverse secondary school English classrooms in Sweden (N = 74) involving three conditions for presentation of word meanings: (a) definitions in the L2 (English), (b) translation equivalents in the shared school and majority language (Swedish), and (c) translation equivalents in the shared school and majority language plus other prior languages among the learners (Swedish and other). Based on overall weighted mean effect sizes and mixed-effects modeling, the results showed that conditions that involved L1 translation equivalents yielded higher scores than did target language definitions in immediate posttests with a small effect size but no differences in delayed posttests.

This ethnographic/discourse analytic study investigates how a task force of stakeholders at a major Swedish university developed an institutional language policy. An ecological approach in conjunction with nexus analysis is used to trace intertextual and interdiscursive connections that were made during negotiations and ultimately entextualized in a policy document.

Contemporary multilingualism in Sweden led to the creation of a language law in 2009 (SFS 2009:600), making Swedish the official language and passing on the responsibility for protecting the continued use of Swedish in all domains of society to public sector institutions. Given the growing need for English in today’s globalized tertiary-level education and scientific research, Swedish universities now need to develop their own procedures and policies that attend both to the language law and to the need to be globalized.

This paper, then, which reports on part of a larger ethnographic/discourse analytic project, examines how ideologies about English and multilingualism are entextualized in a language policy that was developed by a committee at a major Swedish university. Using nexus analysis (Scollon & Scollon, 2004), we map the discourses in place reflected in the policy in order to lift forward how core language ideologies are intertwined with institutional language planning. Analysis brings to light intertextual connections to language ideologies reflected in the national language law, in particular (i) ‘clear language’ in all the university’s communication regardless of language used and (ii) Swedish as the main language to be used in all official documents that have legal force. Moreover, the need to be globalized and accessible to non- Swedish-speaking individuals is to be met by Swedish-English bilingualism, resemiotized (Scollon & Scollon 2004) in the policy as ‘parallel language use’, in most of the university’s communication. Further, Swedish is stipulated as the main medium of instruction in first-cycle undergraduate courses, with growing use of English at the second- and third-cycle levels, and in the university’s research activities. Finally, reflecting Sweden’s linguistic hierarchy (Hult 2012), multilingualism was backgrounded in the policy text but still framed as important asset to the university. 

In this paper, the language policies of three Swedish universities are examined as instances of language planning in local contexts. Although Sweden has the national Language Act of 2009 (SFS 2009:600) as well as a general Higher Education Ordinance (SFS 1993:100; SFS 2014:1096), language planning for higher education is left to the purview of individual institutions. Since language planning in local contexts often involves the intersection of locally situated communication needs and wider circulating ideologies, the present study considers how national language planning goals are taken up and reinterpreted by higher education institutions. In particular, the focus is on universities whose policies are framed using the Nordic language planning concept of “parallel language use”, which has emerged over the last 20 years as a way to theorize a sociopolitical balance between English and Scandinavian languages. The concept indexes a range of issues related to the relative position of Swedish and English, including linguistic tensions surrounding international aspirations and national responsibilities for universities and the mitigation of purported domain loss by Swedish to English. Drawing upon a discourse analysis of policy approach, we analyze the policies of these three universities as examples of local language planning, focusing on how they engage with ideas related to parallel language use while also expanding upon the concept to include the linguistic needs of local students and staff.

With increasing mobility of people across the world, there is a pressing need to develop evidence-based teaching practices that lead to high-quality education, which serves the needs of inclusive societies and social and epistemic justice. This book presents cutting-edge qualitative case-study research across a range of educational contexts, research-method contributions and theory-oriented chapters by distinguished multilingual education scholars. These take stock of the field of translanguaging in relation to the education of multilingual individuals in today's globalized world. The volume breaks new ground in that all chapters share a focus on teachers as 'knowledge generators' and many on teacher-researcher collaboration. Together, the chapters provide comprehensive and up-to-date applications of the concept of pedagogical translanguaging and present recent research in educational contexts that have hitherto received scant attention, namely secondary-level education, education for adult immigrants and the school-wide introduction of pedagogical translanguaging in primary school. 

Den språkliga mångfalden i samhället har ökat markant ochi många klassrum finns ett tiotal språk representerade blandeleverna. Ofta varierar även kunskaperna i engelska beroendepå tidigare skolgång och möjlighet att använda engelskautanför skolan. Föreläsningen handlar om just förkunskapersom en viktig resurs i klassrummet och presenterar följande:

• Den senaste forskningen om transspråkande,ordförrådsutvecklingoch språkundervisning.
• Erfarenheter bland elever som flyttat till Sverige ochlärt sig svenska och engelska först i skolåldern.
• Sju erfarna engelsklärare och deras undervisning iklasser med språklig mångfald.
• Exempel på övningsuppgifter som bygger på ochutvecklar elevers flerspråkighet.

It is well known that interaction is a crucial source of input and serves as a pre- requisite for learning (Ellis 2008), and that L2 users’ engagement levels in interactive tasks enhance learning (Tudor 2001; van Lier 2008). Recent interaction research has shown that drawing on L2 users’ entire linguistic repertoires can enhance students’ levels of engagement in class discussions (cf. Author 2013), and that flexible, multilingual practices enhances learning (Hall & Cook 2012; Hornberger 2002). We also know from a number of recent studies that multilinguals naturally activate other languages known to them as they engage with L2/L3/L4 learning tasks (Cenoz & Gorter 2011; Falk & Bardel 2010; García 2013).

Building on this research and framed by the Interaction Hypothesis (Gass 2003) and task-based language teaching (e.g. van den Branden 2007), the present study presents a detailed, qualitative analysis of teacher-led interaction aimed to enhance the learning of L2 morphosyntax in three bilingual classrooms at a Swedish university. It forms part of longitudinal study, combining ethnographic data collection with an experimental design. Three groups of students (CEFR level B2) were taught L2 grammar over one semester by the same instructor, who also audio- recorded the lessons. Two of the three groups were formed by matched-pair random assignment, while the third group was an intact group. In two of the groups, bilingual grammar tasks were used, typically involving L1-to-L2 translation tasks, whereas in the third group exactly the same grammar structures were covered using tasks without involving L1-L2 comparison or translation, except for the end-of-course exam preparation session. The analysis focuses on examining student and teacher agency as an effect of the whether the tasks were bilingual (L1-to-L2 translation) or monolingual (in L2 only), and as an effect of properties of the three different groups. The data were examined using Nexus Analysis (Scollon & Scollon 2004), which is (critical) discourse analysis of ethnographic data, focusing on social actions in groups (in this case student-initiated communicative turns). The results reveal that student interaction patterns in the three different groups differed as an effect of the different tasks. Consistently across all three groups, student-initiated turns were more common when students drew on their L1, and there was a tendency for students who otherwise remained quiet to initiate discussion in the L2 when having the opportunity to draw on their L1. The analysis also shows a certain amount of variation between the groups when engaging with the same task. The nexus analysis of the interaction patterns presented offers a socio-culturally context-sensitive way of understanding why and how teacher-student and student-teacher interaction developed and differed between the three groups. 

This article explores the value of judiciously used first language (L1)‐to‐second language (L2) translation in meaning‐focused, advanced‐level academic language education. It examines languaging in the teacher‐led discourse (TLD) that arises when translation tasks are used and compares it to languaging during the TLD engendered by 4 other grammar‐focused tasks. Data were collected in 3 different groups of students who were taught by the same teacher within a functioning university course in English at a Swedish university. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of audio‐recorded lessons revealed that translation tasks led to (a) particularly high levels of student‐initiated referential questions that break the initiation‐response‐feedback pattern and (b) a less‐frequent focus on targeted L2 grammar as student attention tended to be drawn to vocabulary. Qualitative analysis of teacher scaffolding suggests that the teacher used translation to create a forum for student‐centered discussion of various aspects of English language use in order to meet one of the course goals. The relatively strong presence of student‐initiated interaction suggests that translation may have particular potential to engender student activity. It is argued that translation, therefore, may have an important, yet limited, place in academic‐level language education where knowledge of the L1 is shared.

This dissertation examines the effects of the three major lexical form-classes in English (nouns, lexical verbs, and adjectives) on lexical infelicity in the English of adult advanced Swedish learners. By lexical infelicity is meant deviations from the native English norm in meaning only. Morphological form is not taken into account. It has previously been established that there are some clear, distinct patterns exhibited by nouns and verbs in first language acquisition and processing, at leas in English. Explanations have been sought in the semantic properties of prototypical nouns and verbs, in the possibly elusive nature of verb reference, in features of input in first language acquisition, and in the suggestion that, in first language acquisition, gaining command of verbs requires a higher level of cognitive development than acquiring nouns. Very few studies have examined form-class effects in foreign or second language learning, and it has not yet been firmly established whether any of the major lexical word classes causes foreign language learners to produce more lexical infelicities than others. In addition, a descriptive account of English verbs from the point of view of foreign language learners seems noticeably absent in the literature.

This dissertation adopts a theoretical view developed through research in cognitive psychology and linguistics. The data consist of three different written tasks: free composition, written retelling of a short narrative, and translation test (from Swedish into English). The subjects are all native speakers of Swedish, most of whom were registered as undergraduates studying English at a Swedish university, but a few were preparing to take the Certificate for Proficiency in English in Sweden. The tasks were selected because they exert different degrees of control over word selection, i.e. students' mental lexicons are searched under somewhat different conditions for each task. Infelicities in the compositions and retellings were identified by a relatively large number of native speakers of English, representing different geographical varieties. For the translations, a committee of lecturers collaborated during the marking process, thus identifying the infelicities.

This dissertation contributes to a currently increasing body of research on English verbs by showing that these subjects are more likely to use lexical verbs than nouns infelicitously in the freer writing tasks, i.e. the compositions and retellings. From the infelicities generated, it is also shown which classes of lexical verbs and nouns tend to be used infelicitously, which is an issue not previously addressed. Results pertaining to adjectives remain hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive. It is further revealed that the kind of infelicity produced to a certain extent depends on the type of task, and the notion of task-type effect is therefore advanced. The findings are discussed in the light of previous research in the L1 and L2 acquisition of English, and with regard to the semantic properties of nouns and verbs. It is argued that the findings may be explained by the more complex semantics of verbs, and by the properties of certain frequent and semantically general English lexical verbs. This study therefore supports the previously generated hypothesis that English verbs are unprivileged in language acquisition partly due to their complex semantics. Implications for research methodology and further research are suggested.