In the wake of the enactment of Sweden's Language Act in 2009 and in the face of the growing presence of English, Swedish universities have been called upon by the Swedish Higher Education Authority to craft their own language policy documents. This study focuses on the discursive negotiation of institutional bilingualism by a language policy committee at one Swedish university during the process of developing a draft language policy. Following an ethnographic/discourse analytic orientation to language policy and planning research, data were collected during language policy committee meetings at the university. Using nexus analysis, circulating discourses are mapped and analyzed, with a specific focus on how these discourses were negotiated through mediated actions during committee meeting interaction and then entextualized in a draft policy. Analysis reveals how ‘bilingualism’ became reinterpreted as ‘parallel language use,’ a concept developed and used in Nordic language planning over the past 15 years. Analysis further shows how committee members negotiated the meaning of parallel language use and the processes of resemiotization that took place as discourses from other sociolinguistic scales entered into the committee's discussion and writing. In all, the study highlights discursive mechanisms of language planning and the interplay of social actors and texts.

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.

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.