We have witnessed a growing number of investigations into the acquisition process in a multilingual context, which has become recognized as an independent field, quantitatively and qualitatively different from second language acquisition. Scholars have started to differentiate between learners/speakers on the basis of the complexity of their linguistic background, with the numer of known languages being an additional variable. A growing body of studies into the acquisition of third language phonology demonstrates an inherent complexity of the field reflected, among others, in multidirectional dynamic cross-linguistic influence. As shown, multilingual learners have at their disposal a broadened phonetic repertoire, a raised level of metalinguistic awareness and enhanced perceptual sensitivity, which may facilitate the learning of subsequent phonological systems. Thus, this chapter aims to compare bilingual and trilingual phonetics and phonology by providing an overview of recent research into both subdomains, identifying their common features and, importantly, their points of departure for L3 phonology, with a view to providing new insights into the acquisition of speech.

This chapter discusses the Ontogeny Phylogeny Model (OPM), which focuses on the formation and development of second language phonological systems. It proposes an interrelationship between L2 native-like productions, L1 transfer, and universal factors. The model argues that chronologically, and as style becomes increasingly formal, L2 native-like processes increase, L1 transfer processes decrease, and universal processes increase and then decrease. It further claims that the roles of universals and L1 transfer are mediated by markedness and similarity, both of which slow L2 acquisition. Specifically, in similar phenomena L1 transfer processes persist, while in marked phenomena universal processes persist. The OPM also argues that these same principles obtain for learners acquiring more than one L2, monolingual and bilingual acquisition, and L1 attrition. In addition to the chronological stages and variation of the individual learner, the model claims that these relationships hold true for language variation and change, including pidgins and creoles.

Evidence that listeners attend to and track subphonemic phonetic details is indicated by listeners’ ability to reliably connect subphonemic variation and, often, socio-indexical associations in ways that align with the patterns realized in production. Bilinguals are presented with the task not only of associating within-language variation (e.g., social group X is connected to a particular range of phonetic realizations within language Y) but also of attending to how ethnolects and bilingually accented speech index social categories across languages. Having access to multiple languages also gives bilingual speakers a larger repertoire with which to index language- and community-specific social meaning. This chapter outlines the linguistic structures bilinguals may connect across their languages and then presents a specific exemplar model, noting the opportunities within the model’s structure for bilingual dynamics. The heterogeneity of bilingual individuals and speech communities is necessarily addressed, as this dynamic adds to the complexity and intrigue of studying bilingual populations.

Peru is a multiethnic society whose postcolonial language regime was marked by the dominance of Spanish as the exclusive language of state bureaucracy up until recently. There are now forty-eight different Indigenous languages recognized by the state. The process of language regime transformation in Peru started with state traditions of monolingualism by defect, followed by incremental change in state recognition of Indigenous languages and the subsequent development of Indigenous language rights as manifested in constitutional and legislative norms. The adoption of a multilingual language regime based on linguistic rights for minorities was not the product of the Indigenous movement´s actions, nor those of ethnic parties. Institutional reforms that were not designed, and were not expected, to advance linguistic rights, allowed some actors the framework to accelerate incremental change.

This chapter introduces the geographic area covered by the book. It reviews the changes that have taken place since the previous edition in 2007, in terms of the people who live there, their distribution, and the languages they use, showing that Britain and Ireland are becoming increasingly multiethnic and are homes to a rich array of languages and dialects. It also provides an overview of the rest of the book.

This chapter begins by outlining the history and development of Yiddish, the traditional vernacular of Ashkenazi Jews, and it discusses how Yiddish went from being a vibrant language spoken by millions to being an endangered minority language with only a fraction of its original speaker population – primarily as a result of the Holocaust. The chapter explains how Yiddish came to be spoken in Britain from the 1880s onwards, when large numbers of Ashkenazim fled there to escape poverty and pogroms, and it details the initial tensions and subsequent cooperation between different waves and generations of Yiddish-speaking newcomers (which entailed shifting attitudes towards the Yiddish language). The chapter then provides an overview of the past and current geographical distribution of Yiddish-speaking communities in Britain, with a focus on the main urban centres, and it explores especially London’s thriving Yiddish culture between the two World Wars. This is followed by a discussion of the linguistic consequences of contact between Yiddish and English speakers, and particularly borrowings from each language into the other. Throughout, differences are explained regarding the language use and intergenerational transmission patterns of Yiddish among Haredi as compared to secular communities.

Over c. 50 years, language education has been a significant site of ideological struggle over England’s position in the world, and the last two decades have seen intensification in the assertion of English nationalism in central government. Our analysis of this history starts with the development of multicultural language education in the 1970s and 1980s, highlighting the factors that contributed to this: activist pressure from minority communities, educational philosophies valuing the ‘whole child’, educational decision-making embedded in local democratic structures, and a legislative strategy that promotied good community relations. This started to change in the 1990s, with the curriculum centralisation and the side-lining of LEAs initiated by the Thatcher government. Efforts to regulate increased population movement also made borders and immigration status more of a priority than multiculturalism, and after 2001, security, social cohesion and the suspicion of Muslims started to dominate public discourse. These developments are analysed in six areas of language education policy: standard English, English as an additional language for school students, English for adult speakers of other languages, modern languages, and community languages in mainstream and supplementary schools. Finally, we consider the role of universities in these processes.

The Chinese are one of the longest established and largest immigrant groups in Britain. There are a number of mutually unintelligible regional languages that are spoken amongst the Chinese. A complex pattern of multilingualism is emerging in the community. Intergenerational language maintenance and language shift are key sociolinguistic issues that the communites are collectively addressing. Contacts between the different languages have resulted in structural innovation and change that impact on all the languages concerned.

This chapter charts the European aspect of the linguistic mosaic of Britain and Ireland drawing on data from the 2011 and 2021 censuses as well as data from the UK’s EU Settlement Scheme. It offers a critical assessment of the practices that statistical authorities adopted for publishing language data they collected by means of the censuses, showing that the aggregation of respondents’ write-in responses into so-called ‘main language group classifications’ and ‘table categories’ led to a significant under-reporting of the number of languages spoken in Britain and Ireland including languages classified as European. It further presents arguments that have been raised by linguists regarding the phrasing of the language question in census questionnaires and suggests new sources of statistical information that could be used in conjunction with census data in order to obtain a fuller picture of European multilingualism in the British Isles. It finally takes issue with the labelling of particular languages as ‘European’ based on essentialist and hierarchising assumptions about the links between language, ethnicity, nationality, ancestry and identity, arguing that all languages that are spoken by citizens who identify as European should be considered European languages.

Much of Australia’s superdiversity is apparent in the cultural and linguistic repertoires of children growing up in multilingual families and communities in linguistically diverse highly urbanised and peri‐urban communities. Ideally, this superdiversity should lead to positive views of early multilingualism that inform curriculum and pedagogy which is responsive to children’s multiple linguistic repertoires and cultural practices. This approach would represent a welcome departure from deficit-based views of multilingualism, embedded in a monolingual mindset and English-only pedagogies that informs much of educational policy in Australia. However, in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) there remains a serious lack of investment, curriculum guidelines and pedagogical support in promoting and extending young children’s multilingual potential.

In the 21st century, voluntary and increasingly forced migration has brought about linguistic, cultural, socioeconomic, and religious diversity that continues to enrich educational settings. Australian early childhood centres and schools, like many others around the world, are increasingly comprised of teachers and young people who speak multiple languages and dialects, and who connect to and interact with diverse cultures and traditions within a range of new and evolving spaces. Yet in English speaking countries in the global north and south there is a persistent and widespread adherence to a monocultural, monolingual orientation ‘English-only’ approach. This comprises of placing emphasis on knowledge created in and communicated through English only. This orientation has a significant influence on inclusion and engagement for all young people and the ways educators teach and students learn across educational contexts.

This chapter shows how part of Kerouac’s motivations for his literary experiments was to bring English closer to himself and at the same time to move it away from the monolingualism that dominated US literature and culture. He aimed to create a prose that in its syntax, vocabulary, and rhythms was open to foreignness, which many critics and scholars both then and now have taken for simply bad writing. Though French was his starting point, he wanted to bring American English closer to all languages. Correlatively, in his fiction he depicts peoples of a variety of ethnic and linguistic heritages. In On the Road, the road is Sal Paradise’s means to encounter these different populations and their languages, the place where they all encounter each other. In his other novels, Kerouac paints tenderly detailed pictures of the Franco-American population of Lowell, Massachusetts that he hailed from, as well as towns and cities in places such as France and North Africa. This chapter shows that a major impulse of his writing is to imagine a utopia of global cultural and convergence and to contribute to ushering it into existence.

The pro-Brexit campaign leading up to the 2016 referendum in the UK and in its aftermath was accompanied and driven by a narrative that was hostile to immigration and its cultural implications. Language played a role, with Leave campaigners criticising the presence of multiple languages in UK society and government agencies embarking on an 'English first' campaign that linked community languages to lack of integration and social incoherence. At the same time some arguments in support of foreign language learning embraced the Brexit narrative claiming that language skills will help post-Brexit Britain gain global influence. The chapter surveys different strands of UK language policy and concludes with an assessment of latest Census figures on language pointing to the increase in multilingualism.

This chapter overviews broad issues related to language acquisition research and answers fundamental questions related to first language acquisition, such as What is language? and How do children learn their first language? It begins by introducing some components of language, such as grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, pragmatics, and discourse. It also discusses language varieties (e.g., American English vs. Indian English) and explains their legitimacy. Then, the chapter addresses language learning during the first years of a child’s life. It also discusses bilingualism, especially of those who start learning multiple languages in their early years (simultaneous bilingualism). In order to understand second language acquisition for the rest of the textbook, the chapter focuses on a question: How are children able to learn a language without formal instruction? In order to answer this question, multiple language acquisition theories will be discussed.

Cities are contact zones characterised by conviviality of cultures. They have been described as the ideal setting for multilingual utopias, where institutional spaces emerge that cultivate multilingualism. In the context of globalisation and super-diversity, cities can redefine themselves as post-national spaces. Neoliberalism embraces diversity for its profitablity value; it is opposed by notions of the right to the city and local citizenship. Critical social and sociolinguistic theory embraces definitions of identity, community and language that recognise the dynamics of multiple components in individuals' repertoires of features and networks of practice. Traditional notions of identity, belonging, commuity and language give way to an appreciation of the fluidity of forms of belonging and networking practice. Diasporas are understood as translocal networks of practice with multiple expressions of belonging. Manchester as an early industrial city offers an interesting setting to observe the evolution of diaspora communities and their alignment with fluid language practices.