This article addresses age-related attainment effects in second language acquisition, posing the question of whether such effects are to be explained in terms of a Critical Period with a predictable and abrupt offset point or in terms of the impact of a wider range of factors. It attempts to explore this question by focusing on four discussion points in the current debate: (i) the wide use of native-speaker behaviour as the key L2 attainment yardstick; (ii) the degree of compatibility of prevailing views regarding the notion of a critical period for L2 acquisition; (iii) the relative narrowness of much research in this area, where age of L2 onset is often regarded as the crucial if not the only critical variable; and (iv) insights relative to maturational constraints on language acquisition offered by recent brain research. The article concludes that a loosening of the association between ultimate L2 attainment research and Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) issues would shed more light on L2 attainment in terms both of the comprehensiveness and of the acuity of the insights which would result.

This book is an authoritative account of multilingualism in the present era, a phenomenon affecting a vast number of communities, thousands of languages and millions of language users. The book’s focus is specifically on the knowledge and use of multiple languages, but its treatment of the topic is very wide-ranging. It deals with both bilingualism and polyglottism, at the level of the individual speaker as well as at the societal level. The volume addresses not only linguistic facets of multilingualism but also multilingualism’s cultural, sociological, educational, and psychological dimensions, moving from classic perspectives to recent and emerging directions of interest. The book’s extensive coverage takes in topics ranging from the ‘new linguistic dispensation’ in our globalized world to child development in multilingual environments, from the classification of multilingual groupings to characteristics of the multilingual mind. This breadth makes Multilingualism an ideal advanced textbook for undergraduate and postgraduate students in the areas of linguistics, education and the social sciences.

This article is concerned with age in second language learning. It steers well clear, however, of the well-worn issue of maturational constraints and the intractable problems of locating their consensual offset point and finding indisputable evidence for or against them. Instead we propose something completely different in our agenda for age-related research: a programme on some poorly understoodnon-maturational dimensions of the age factor which will stand some chance of yielding results unlikely to become entangled in theoretical controversy. In other words, the results will, we think, be immediately usable and useful. The topics included in our outlined agenda are: (1) age effects in various dimensions of language teaching and learning (in relation to bilingualism and biliteracy, to different target languages and to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); (2) what can be observed in respect of second language (L2) learning in the third age; (3) an ecological perspective on age in classroom L2 research methodology; and (4) an exploration of the attitudes of teachers of different-aged L2 learners.

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.

The traditional definition of language aptitude sees it as “an individual’s initial state of readiness and capacity for learning a foreign language, and probable facility in doing so given the presence of motivation and opportunity” (Carroll, 1981, p. 86). This conception portrays language aptitude as a trait, in the sense of exhibiting stability over long periods of time and being immune to training. The trait view of language aptitude tends towards the notion that it is innate, and indeed language aptitude has often been associated with the popular notion of a “gift for languages” (cf. Rosenthal, 1996, p. 59). The view of language aptitude as an innate trait has, however, long been questioned (see e.g., Neufeld, 1978). Recently, this questioning has intensified (see Singleton, 2014), especially since the development of a widespread consensus that working memory needs to be recognized as an important component of language aptitude (see Wen, 2016). Working memory was also once thought of as a trait, but is now recognized as susceptible to the influence of experience and instruction (see e.g., Williams, 2012). The present paper will track the trajectory of the above theoretical discussion and will explore the implications of the stage it has now reached.

This article focuses on the uncertainty surrounding the issue of the Critical Period Hypothesis. It puts forward the case that, with regard to naturalistic situations, the hypothesis has the status of both “not proven” and unfalsified. The article analyzes a number of reasons for this situation, including the effects of multi-competence, which remove any possibility that competence in more than one language can ever be identical to monolingual competence. With regard to the formal instructional setting, it points to many decades of research showing that, as critical period advocates acknowledge, in a normal schooling situation, adolescent beginners in the long run do as well as younger beginners. The article laments the profusion of definitions of what the critical period for language actually is and the generally piecemeal nature of research into this important area. In particular, it calls for a fuller integration of recent neurolinguistic perspectives into discussion of the age factor in second language acquisition research.