Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Lingua xxx (2019) 102747 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners Barbara Hofer *, Ulrike Jessner Dyme Research Group, Institute of English, Innsbruck University, Innrain 52, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria Received 8 April 2019; received in revised form 9 September 2019; accepted 9 September 2019

Abstract Over the past decades, the concept of multi-(lingual) competence1 has been the focus of significant academic interest. Ever since Cook introduced the notion of multi-competence in the 1990s, the concept has attracted a lot of attention and has been discussed extensively at the theoretical level. At the practical level, however, multi-competence has not been investigated much, if at all. In fact, there is a very distinct lack of empirical research, especially into what constitutes multi-(lingual) competence in young learners and into assessment of multi-(lingual) competencies in these learners. With this paper we hope to contribute to reducing the gap between the wealth of scholarly debates and theorizations on the one hand and the concomitant dearth of practical applications on the other. The paper discusses multi-(lingual) competences in young learners at the primary level and proposes a special assessment tool, which allows for components of young learners’ multi-(lingual) competence to be measured in a systematic way. Potential advantages of instantiating multilingual pedagogies and multilingual benchmarks for assessment are examined and suggestions for holistic testing paradigms are provided. In developing our arguments in favour of a multi-competence approach to learning and performance evaluation, we adopt a holistic DMM (Dynamic Model of Multilingualism)-informed perspective. © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multilingual competences; Metacognition; Meta- and crosslinguistic awareness; Multilingual assessment; Multilingual education

1. Introduction Over the past decades, the concept of multi-(lingual) competence has been the focus of significant academic interest. Ever since Cook introduced the notion of multi-competence in the 1990s, the concept has attracted a lot of attention and has been discussed extensively at the theoretical level. At the practical level, however, multi-competence has not been investigated much, if at all. In fact, there is a very distinct lack of empirical research, particularly into what constitutes multi(lingual) competence in young learners, and into assessment thereof. Studies have, within a limited purview, investigated isolated skills (e.g. Egli Cuenat, 2016; Riehl, 2013, Tsai and García, 2000), but no comprehensive investigation of young learners’ multilingual competences (that we know of) has been carried out to date. With this paper we hope to contribute to reducing the gap between the wealth of scholarly debates and theorizations on the one hand and the concomitant dearth of practical applications on the other. We also hope to bring the multilingual test procedure presented here to the attention of a wide readership that includes not only educators and scholars in research on multilingualism and applied linguistics

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Hofer). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747 0024-3841/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

2

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

but also speaks to linguists. Linguists working in various branches of linguistics and from different theoretical frameworks employ language assessments and tests of grammaticality judgments and might find the Multilingual Competence Test a useful addition to the more traditional batteries. Broadly speaking, the literature thus far has approached multilingual assessment mainly from two vantage points, i.e., one pertaining to language and minority rights, linguistic and cultural equity and the political ideologies reflected in longstanding monolingual assessment procedures, the other centering on educational issues in a wider sense but with a specific view to promoting (w)holistic multilingual pedagogies and instantiating multilingual norms and assessments within additive (and mainly Western) school contexts. While acknowledging the absolute pre-eminence of the former, the primary concern in this paper is with the latter. Hence, our attention here is mainly directed towards the promotion of a multilingual perspective on language(s) teaching and assessment and towards fostering students’ multilingual proficiency. A central aim of this paper is to highlight the importance of assessing learners’ language proficiency holistically, with a view to their multilingual competencies and multilingual agency. We begin by outlining the theoretical framework within which this research is situated. We then discuss current positions and perspectives on multilingual learning and contrast mono- and multilingual approaches to language competence and assessment. Next, we sketch some of the characteristic features of multilingual learner/users and look at what constitutes multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Special attention is also given to the effects of crosslinguistic interactions in the mind and to learner/users’ multilingual repertoire and ability to exploit the resources at their disposal. Finally, we present a new assessment paradigm which measures components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners and we briefly report on work in progress in multilingual South Tyrol where the new test paradigm has been implemented as part of an investigation into early multilingual learning. The new Multilingual Competence Test, short MCT, goes in some significant way beyond traditional monolingual testing practices in that it integrates multiple languages and allows for a range of linguistic and metacognitive competences to be identified and measured. We close with an outlook and an appraisal of how the new assessment tool and our current investigation can incentivize further research on multi-(lingual) competences and multilingual testing. As indicated, we commence by delineating the theoretical framework that provides the basis for our considerations on multilingual learning and assessment.

2. Theoretical framework A holistic DMM- (Dynamic Model of Multilingualism) informed approach presents the epistemological framework for our discussion of multi-(lingual) competences and assessment. DMM proposes a complexity-based theory for multiple language development and highlights the variability, non-linearity and complex dynamics inherent in individual multilingualism. Every learner-user is seen as having her/his individual route of development, which includes not only positive growth but also deterioration and/or forgetting (Herdina & Jessner 2002, 93) and is contingent on a myriad of factors, in particular on prior linguistic knowledge and experience. DMM construes multilinguals and their languages as dynamic and evolutionary systems in time. From a DMM perspective, multilingual development and proficiency are seen as a function of complex dynamic interactions between the multiple languages in the mind. These interactions influence and co-determine the development and behaviour of the entire multilingual system (Jessner, 2008, 274) and result in important qualitative changes. More specifically, these transformations give rise to new emergent properties, most notably to the so-called M(ultilingualism) factor (henceforth M-factor) which comprises a series of skills and abilities (including language- and non-language specific skills) that are unique to multilinguals and are not found as such in monolinguals or even bilinguals. The M-factor is seen as having significant catalytic and accelerating effects on the multilingual system’s developmental trajectory and on the level of proficiency attained and is anticipated to yield substantial cognitive and linguistic gains. From a DMM view, the single most important component of the M-factor is metalinguistic awareness (MLA) which in multilingual users develops due to their prior linguistic knowledge and their experience with multiple languages (Jessner, 2008, 275; Hufeisen and Jessner, 2018, 78--79). Together with crosslinguistic awareness (XLA), MLA forms a key constituent of multilingual awareness (Jessner, 2006). Multilingual awareness and skill are here conceptualized as the ability to focus on multiple languages at any one time and to reflect and contrast aspects of languageS at all levels, from the linguistic to the sociocultural and pragmatic. As specified above, metalinguistic and crosslinguistic awareness are the single most distinguishing features of multilingual systems (see also Ref. Jessner et al., 2018). Jessner (2006) identifies enhanced levels of meta- and cross-linguistic awareness as the prime reason for ‘the multilingual advantage’ and for multilinguals’ distinct approach to language(s). Our understanding is that multilingual awareness and abilities constitute central components of multi-(lingual) competence as they capacitate the multilingual learner-user to (1) perceive pertinent affordances, (2) exploit synergies between languages and (3) help reduce the cognitive load involved in the processing and integration of (new) linguistic material. Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

3

The DMM is grounded in a holistic view of multilingualism (Herdina & Jessner 2002, 150). In DMM, the adoption of a holistic approach is seen as a basic precondition for understanding the complexities and dynamics involved in the behavior and development of multilingual systems (Jessner, 2018a, 262). Holistic approaches to multilingual learning and assessment regard languages as assets and resources and view competence in two or more languages as conjoined and complementary (Lopez et al., 2016, 9; see also Refs. Canagarajah and Wurr, 2011; Mohanty, 2007; Ruiz, 1984). They reject the idea of languages as hermetically sealed units (Garcia, 2007) which supposedly subsist as discretely separate systems. From a holistic perspective it makes little sense to investigate multi-(lingual) development and/or competency by looking at the single languages in isolation. Rather, as underscored in DMM, it is the entire picture, i.e. the learner-user as a whole, with all their languages, (perceived) needs and motivations, that must be taken account of. 3. The monoglossic habitus of educational institutions Two major trends on the socio-economic and educational level are discernable in Europe today. First, the ability to communicate in an L2 or/and L3 is fast becoming a crucial prerequisite for many (young) people’s academic and socioeconomic advancement. Second, classrooms throughout Europe are becoming increasingly heterogeneous in terms of their student population and linguistic composition. At the same time, there is a strong perception at all levels of society that sound and sustainable solutions are needed to tackle these new developments. While schools are beginning to respond to this perceived need for action and increasingly promote the teaching and learning of multiple languages, it must be said that the educational landscape in many parts of the Western world is still dominated by monolingual ideologies and teaching traditions (Hufeisen and Jessner, 2018, 89). The implication is that the focus in the language learning classroom is almost exclusively on bolstering proficiency in the single languages (Jessner, 2017). Not surprisingly, this monoglossic (Garcia, 2009) habitus is also reflected in the application of assessment procedures. In point of fact assessment in the overwhelming majority of schools in Europe is typically carried out by looking at languages one at a time, and separately from other languages (Lopez et al., 2016, 3; Shohamy, 2011, 418). Moreover, a prevailing assumption in many schools still appears to be that language proficiency is exhausted in grammatical knowledge, with linguistic accuracy being the primary goal of foreign language learning (Canagarajah and Wurr, 2011, 7). In comparison, multi-(lingual) competences, whether in teaching and learning or in assessment, are treated stepmotherly and receive little attention, if any at all. Multi-(lingual) competences, as we explicate below, are distinct from monolingual competences in the single languages. Multi-(lingual) competences relate to ‘‘the totality of differentiated abilities and competencies that multilinguals develop and refine as a function of their regular usage of multiple languages and their extensive multilingual experience’’ (Hofer, 2017, 6). In the classroom, these competences are developed through holistic multi-lingual instructional routes. Monolingual competences, by contrast, are the result of unilingual reductionist-based traditions (Lambert 1990 in Gorter and Cenoz, 2017, 236). In the following section we explore in some detail how different perspectives on multilingual learning relate to and skew the concept of multi-(lingual) competence. 4. Conflicting interpretations of multilingual learning Different definitions of multilingual learning are typically rooted in divergent theoretical positions. It follows herefrom that promoting multilingual learning and teaching can mean rather different things to different people (Scarino, 2014, 291). Some may conceive of it as merely increasing the number and range of languages taught, in which case the multiple languages are typically viewed as distinct and independent entities. In this case, language arrangements in the classroom typically follow the principle of (more or less) complete compartmentalization, which is to say that the curricular languages are strictly separated and the primary objective is to promote knowledge of the respective target languages. Being multilingual is then understood as having attained high (ideally native-like) levels of proficiency in several languages, and assessment is not really discussed other than in relation to the single languages (or is subject to restrictive government policies, as revealed in Naomi Flynn’s blog on the recent instantiation and curious subsequent removal of an innovative assessment scheme in the UK; retrieved on October, 1, 2018 from: https://ealjournal.org/2018/09/10/ removal-ofthe-dfe-proficiency-scales-a-missed-opportunity/). We call this the monoglossic isolationist approach to multilingual learning. Monoglossic approaches and practices are typically grounded in the assumption that a multilingual’s languages exist and operate as separate systems, and that, in the classroom, the languages are best kept apart to avoid undesired interferences. In contrast, those who take a more holistic stance critique positions which treat languages as isolated systems and classroom arrangements whose sole aim is to develop monolingual target language proficiency in monolingual encounters with the single languages (Scott, 2015, 448). Advocates of this approach want to see a review of language learning goals in schools and call for the implementation of holistic pedagogies that do not just privilege a handful of prestigious languages (and speakers) but seek to incorporate a wider variety of codes, including minority and heritage Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

4

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

languages as well as a focus on language(s) awareness (Hofer and Allgäuer-Hackl, 2018; Hufeisen, 2018). The underlying assumption is that ‘‘bi/multilinguals’ learning is maximized when they are allowed and enabled to draw from across all their existing language skills (in two + languages), rather than being constrained and inhibited from doing so by monolingual instructional assumptions and practices’’ (Hornberger, 2005, 607; Jessner, 2019). Fostering multi-(lingual) competences is a primary purpose of this approach. The perception with regards to classroom practices and language assessment is that integrated approaches to language(s) learning and testing are better suited to prepare the new generations of multilinguals for the complexities of a multilingual world than monoglossic approaches (Kramsch, 2009, 190; see also Creese and Blackledge, 2010, 112), because they allow (all) multilingual learner/users to showcase, use and refine their multiple language resources. An implication of this line of reasoning is that fostering multi-(lingual) competences needs to become a central component of any multilingual pedagogy. In the same way, language assessment, too, needs to focus more on what multilingual learner/users are capable of achieving with their multiple codes and resources, and less on their lacunae and shortcomings in the single languages. As educators we also need to be aware that current conceptualizations of language and language proficiency are shaped by dogmatic monolingual traditions and ideologies (Ellis, 2007; Canagarajah and Wurr, 2011; Garcia, 2009; Shohamy, 2011). We elaborate on this issue in the next section where we consider different conceptions of linguistic competence. 5. What does it mean to know a language? Weber and Horner (2012, 159) explicate that what is generally meant by knowledge of a ‘language’ is knowledge of a standard variety of the official or national language of the state and that for a whole range of reasons, which are linked to social identity formation and cohesion and to political interests, nations naturally have an interest in making sure that the standard variety, which represents, unifies and strengthens the state’s (ideally) homogeneous society is maintained and kept pure and uncontaminated (see also Ref. Shohamy, 2006). Seen from this perspective, monolingual norms are politically constructed and perpetuated by official policies and by dogmatic language theories which are embedded in monoglossic ideologies. Chomsky’s (1965) generativist postulates and his apotheosis of the ideal (implicitly monolingual) speaker-listener are a paradigmatic case in question. The recent multilingual turn has changed perceptions of what it means to know (a) language(s) (May, 2014) and of the benefits of being multilingual (Jessner, 2018, 32). It is no longer just the speaker’s incapacity to attain native-like mastery in one language or another that is foregrounded, but increasingly their ability to perform (with relative success) in a range of languages and sociocultural contexts (see for example the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, CEFR, Council of Europe, 2001, and the Framework for Pluralistic Approaches, FREPA 2012 for more on this). Current understandings of what it means to know (a) language(s) hinge on both, knowledge of (a) language(s) and, perhaps more importantly, knowledge of how to use the language(s) (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, 56). Language competence in the present day is no longer seen as the ‘‘’mastery’ of one or two, or even three languages, each taken in isolation, with the ‘ideal native speaker’ as the ultimate model. Instead, the aim is to develop a linguistic repertory, in which all linguistic abilities have a place. . .’’ (Council of Europe, 2001, 5). Given this understanding, language competence can be defined as the ‘‘ability to use languages for the purpose of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent has proficiency, of varying degrees, in several languages and experience of several cultures’’ (Council of Europe, 2001, 168). In the following section we further elaborate on this concept of multi(lingual) competence. 6. Defining multi-(lingual) competence As conceptualized by Cook in the early 1990s, the notion of multi-competence was first used to refer to the ‘compound state of a mind with two grammars’ (1991), where grammar relates to the total knowledge of language in the mind (Cook, 2012, 3768), and was then altered and extended to include ‘the knowledge of more than one language in the same mind or the same community’ (2012). When the concept was first introduced, the aim was to counter the portrayal of L2 learners as deficient and incompetent speakers of each language and to highlight the distinctive characteristics of users of multiple languages, because, as explicated by Cook (2003, 5), (1) (2) (3) (4)

the L2 user has other uses for languages than the monolingual; the L2 user’s knowledge of the second language is typically not identical to that of a native speaker; the L2 user’s knowledge of his or her first language is in some respect not the same as that of a monolingual, and L2 users have different minds from those of monolinguals.

Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

5

Over the years and decades, the concept of multi-competence has been taken up and further developed by scholars in TLA and multilingualism research (Coste, 1997; Dewaele, 2016; Dewaele and Li, 2012; Hall et al., 2006; Kordt, 2018; Singleton and Aronin, 2007). Multi-(lingual) competence, as we conceive it, relates to a multifaceted and highly complex construct. We propose to construe multi-(lingual) competence as the dynamic complex of all the multilingual learner/user’s language- and usagerelated competences (Hofer, 2017, 101--102). Multi-(lingual) competence, as we view it, reflects what individuals are and become through their multiple language use and experience, namely linguistically skilled, cognitively-flexible and culturally sensitive multi-lingual agents. This holistic account of multi-(lingual) competences coincides with Cook’s observation that multi-competence is not confined to language alone (Cook, 2016, 3), but that it is a state of mind and as such affects the whole person and mind (Cook, 2006, 20; Scott, 2015, 457). On the above understanding and for the purposes of our investigation, we view the construct of multi-(lingual) competence as comprising, in particular, and to varying degrees, (but not exclusively) the following key components (see: Hofer & Jessner (in press for more):        

LS1, LS2, LS3, LSn, etc. (where LS refers to language system) the ability to reflect on linguistic structures and on language use and functions the ability to think and operate across language boundaries the ability to interpret and compare new linguistic material against already acquired knowledge the ability to switch flexibly from one language to another the ability to transfer knowledge and skills from one language to another the ability to translate from one language into another the ability to perceive and make good use of the affordances and synergies that present themselves.

7. Characteristics of the multi-(lingually) competent learner/user Research in the field of applied linguistics and multilingualism, in particular, has consistently shown that the experience of learning a second and third language changes the learner’s mind and approach towards language(s) (Anderson, 2000; Bialystok and Barac, 2012). In the DMM the emergence of a specialized meta-system is posited for experienced multilingual learner/users. This meta-system is the result of a complete metamorphosis and develops due to the presence and interaction of multiple language systems and variables in the mind (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). It comprises the positive effects of the M-factor (introduced earlier) and distinguishes the multilingually competent learner/user from the inexperienced or monolingual learner of an L2. Grosjean’s analogy of the hurdler illustrates this point. As specified by Grosjean (1985, 2008), the hurdler develops completely different motor skills from the sprinter and high-jumper because he combines movements and techniques from both disciplines. In the same way, the multilingual speaker also develops competences that differ from those of a monolingual and even from a bilingual. It follows that in the same way as the performance of the hurdler cannot be compared to that of a sprinter or high-jumper, the multilingual’s knowledge and use of language(s) cannot be likened to that of a mono- or bilingual. Instead, as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages reminds us, multilinguals develop ‘‘a unique competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. In different situations, a person can call flexibly upon different parts of this competence to achieve effective communication with a particular interlocutor. For instance, partners may switch from one language or dialect to another, exploiting the ability of each to express in one language and to understand the other; or a person may call upon the knowledge of a number of languages to make sense of a text, written or even spoken, in a previously ‘unknown’ language, recognizing words from a common international store in a new guise’’ (Council of Europe, 2001, 4). Hence, the picture that emerges, is of a multi-lingually well-versed and competent user of languages who has very specific resources at her/his disposal. It is these resources and young multilingual learner/users’ ability to leverage them, that are at the core of the present paper. As indicated earlier, an important focus of this paper also relates to the interdependence and transferability of skills and knowledge across languages. In the next section we therefore discuss the effects of cross-lingual interactions (henceforth CLIN) on the learner/user’s overall multilingual competency. 8. Cross-language interactions in the mind Having multiple languages in one’s repertoire has been found to confer a number of benefits (Cenoz, 2003), also in the case of incipient learners (Yelland et al., 1993). Cook suggests that learning languages heightens people’s awareness of Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

6

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

language in general (2012, 48) and increases their knowledge of L1 (Cook, 2003, 11). In a similar vein, Berthele (2011) points out that learning and using languages can lead to measurable advantages in third language acquisition and to enhancements in particular cognitive skills. Paradowski (2010) provides a whole list of advantages that users of multiple languages accrue on account of their multilingual experience including greater cognitive flexibility, better problem solving and higher-order thinking skills, better verbal and spatial abilities, a better ear for listening and sharper memory, a better understanding of one’s L1, better communicative skills, a sharper perception of language and an enhanced capacity for additional language learning (see also Ref. ter Kuile et al., 2011). To boot, there seems to be neuroscientific evidence to the effect that multilingualism can increase the connections between the brain’s hemispheres (Cook, 2013, 49). How do these benefits come about? We know from an abundant body of research that links are established between the languages during multilingual processing (Ringbom, 2001, 2007; Jessner, 2006). The resulting cross-linguistic interactions (CLIN) have been evidenced to generate synergetic effects from which multilinguals can benefit in significant ways. Cummins (1980) was among the first scholars to highlight the positive effects of the inter-connectedness of bilingual speakers’ languages. Cummins postulated the existence of a common underlying resource pool and operating system, the so-called CUP (Common Underlying Proficiency), intimating that there is extensive interaction and transfer between the languages with potential linguistic and cognitive advantages for the speaker (see also Ref. Kecskes and Papp, 2000). The Common Underlying Proficiency model predicts that ‘‘experience with either language can, theoretically, promote the development of the proficiency underlying both languages, given adequate motivation and exposure to both, either in school or wider environment’’ (Cummins, 1980, 95). If we apply this to the multilingual context and speaker, the interactions and inter-change between the multiple languages in the mind must be taken to be infinitely more complex and dynamic. This leads us to speculate that the advantages which can accrue from these interactions will be exponentially greater (Hufeisen and Jessner, 2018, 79) compared to those in bilinguals. The common proficiency underlying multiple languages can be thought of as an extended and integrated multilingual operating system (MOS) with dynamic and complex cross-language interactions and with cross-fertilization effects that facilitate and expedite the processing and learning of multiple languages. The DMM models these interaction phenomena in a Dynamic Systems and Complexity-based framework and construes them as powerful multi-directional effects which allow the multilingual learner/user to draw upon resources from all their languages, to make use of analogies between languages (such as in the case of cognate relationships), to draw cross-lingual inferences, transfer knowledge and translate from one language into another. CLIN must be seen as playing a pivotal role in determining the behavior, and hence the performance, of the multilingual system (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). This is substantiated by research carried out in various tri- or multilingual settings, which has found significant positive effects of CLIN (Cenoz, 2003, 76). (,Munoz (2005, 84), for example, reports high correlations between trilingual learners’ L1, L2 and L3 and suggests that learners’ abilities acquired in one language are successfully transferred to their other languages. De Angelis and Jessner (2012) investigated how the three language systems of young adolescent learners in South Tyrol interact with one another during an academic writing assignment, and how these interactions influence learner performance. They found strong associations between all three languages and positive effects of bilingualism on third language learning. Linguistic and metacognitive advantages originating from cross-linguistic interactions and consultations have also been evidenced by Allgäuer-Hackl (2017), Hofer (2015, 2017), Jessner (2006), Jessner et al. (2016) and Traxl (2015). It follows that far from being detrimental, multi-directional crosslingual knowledge flow and transfer must be seen as supportive of multilingual learning and processing. Premised on the hypothesis that the presence of multiple languages in the mind carries positive implications, leading, amongst other things, to enhanced meta- and cross-language awareness and skill and a heightened flexibility at the level of thinking and carrying out linguistic operations, we anticipate the cross-lingual interactions in the mind of our young respondents to translate into multi-competent behavior and a distinct capacity to perform multilingually, as required in the Multilingual Competence Test (see part II). We now turn to assessment and contrast deficit-oriented monoglossic approaches to testing with resource-oriented multilingual procedures.

9. Monolingual vs holistic approaches to multilingual assessment Historically, assessment paradigms in South Tyrol and in many other parts of the world, have been based on monolingual conceptions of language, treating multilinguals as several monolinguals in one person. In most educational contexts, the native-speaker norm is still the ultimate benchmark of all language learning and multilingual learners are implicitly expected to approximate native speaker proficiency in the languages they study. What is routinely ignored is that multilinguals, because they are constantly engaged in the maintenance and upgrade of several language systems - which they often use in different domains and for different everyday functions, do not easily (and certainly not commonly) attain native-like and/or equally high levels of competence in these languages. Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

7

The resulting implication is that speakers of two or more languages, who do not approach the native-speaker target levels set for them by the educational language policies, are often viewed as deficient monolinguals in each language (Jessner et al., 2016, 3). In South Tyrol (but this probably holds true for other bi- or multilingual contexts, too) we notice time and again that the constant highlighting of shortcomings results in the de facto internalization of deficit-oriented views by many bi- and multilinguals, who, when asked, are quick to supply a comprehensive list of their language-related inadequacies. This monolingual mindset bears testimony to the fact that the presumption that a person can only be called truly bi- or multilingual if s/he is fully competent and has equal and perfect knowledge of all her/his languages, still prevails ( Jessner et al., 2016, 3; see also Ref. Cook, 2013, 49). Little or no allowance is made for the possibility that multilinguals may have other competences, which monolinguals (and even bilinguals) do not develop. In contrast, from a holistic multilingual perspective, the aim is to foreground multilingual learner/users’ multiple resources and competences and to acknowledge their differential quality and unique value (Gorter and Cenoz, 2017; Herdina & Jessner, 2002). In the specific case of learner assessment this requires that pupils’ entire linguistic repertoire (i. e., all their languages and not just a given target language) is taken into account and that learners are not reduced to their deficits or inadequacies in the single languages (Grosjean, 2008; Roy, 2016; Shohamy, 2011). A number of very valid approaches to holistic language assessment have been proffered in recent years. In the following we briefly outline some of them. One of the earliest propositions for a holistic approach to multilingual proficiency and assessment comes from Herdina & Jessner (2002). Taking account of the likelihood that attainment will be partial in one or more languages (which is to say that multilingual speakers do not likely display perfect and/or balanced mastery in all their languages), they propose a cumulative efficiency measure as an alternative to monolingual measures of proficiency. The cumulative efficiency measure establishes how well multilinguals can communicate in one or all their languages (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, 128). Advocating heteroglossic approaches to language(s) testing, Garcia (2009) dedicates an entire chapter to the issue of assessment in speakers of multiple languages. She calls for authentic and formative testing and suggests that the best way to assess multilingual learners ‘‘is for teachers to observe and listen [. . .], and to record these observations systematically over long periods of time’’ (Garcia, 2009, 378). Poehner (2008), for his part, calls for dynamic assessment formats in which multilingual learning and assessment are integrated and complement each other in a single activity (see also Ref. Lantolf and Poehner, 2004). In their effort to implement multilingual scoring procedures, Cenoz et al. (2013) rely on a multilingual index to assess and evaluate multilingual respondents’ overall linguistic competences. They argue that an important first step when measuring multilingual proficiency is to take account of students' entire linguistic repertoire including differences in their L1s. Their conclusion is that test outcomes will differ ‘‘when assessment looks at one language at a time instead of the whole linguistic repertoire’’ (Gorter and Cenoz, 2017, 243). Schissel et al. (2018) similarly conclude that integrating multilingual resources in a test design will allow test-takers to make use of all their linguistic resources and will give them the chance to demonstrate more complex, higher-order reasoning skills. The authors created special assessment instruments for pre-service English teachers in Mexico and found that these performed better on a multilingual task than on a monolingual English task. Efforts at multilingual assessment (mainly with an eye to subject matter testing) are also reported in Shohamy (2011). They include bilingual test formats which allow test-takers to choose the language of testing and/or saltate freely from one language to the other in order to ease meaning-making, or others which require students to read a text in one language, summarise it in another language and discuss the contents in a third language. Escamilla et al. (2013) advocate biliterate assessment practices to evaluate language skills in speakers of more than one language. They propose to complement quantitative approaches with holistic qualitative approaches which also factor in aspects such as bilingual strategy use and individual developmental trajectories. For a more extensive overview of multilingual assessments the reader is referred to Gorter and Cenoz, 2017 (see also Refs. Garcia, 2009; Lopez et al., 2016; Roy, 2016). In the following we take a closer look at multilingual testing and pinpoint some of the challenges that test designers will have to contend with when devising apposite assessment tools for their specific exploratory foci.

10. Assessing multilingual competences: Practical hurdles and challenges Drafting a test design that allows for multilingual competences to be captured and rated in a systematic way, poses some major challenges. A first challenge, we might say, is to decide on the specific components of multi-competence that are to be assessed, an enterprise which is very much dependent on how one conceptualizes and defines the construct of multi-(lingual) competence. Given the definitional fuzziness and inconsistent use of the notion in the pertinent disciplines and literature this is probably the first issue that needs to be clarified. Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

8

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

A further difficulty that test designers will encounter relates to the range of languages to be included in the respective test paradigm. From a holistic multilingual perspective, the aim is to take account of all the test takers’ languages and language varieties. In practice, of course, this is not always possible, especially if the linguistic resources of the teacher/ experimenter do not match those of the pupils and because measuring all the languages spoken by a given learner (cohort) may prove impracticable. Another crucial aspect which needs to be addressed in this context concerns the issue of language norms. That is, the validity and exclusivity of monolingual norms needs to be reconsidered at all levels of educational policy making, if a new multilingual paradigm is to bring on a sustained impact. As long as monoglossic-informed language norms are the only (accepted) ones in schools, we will not likely see any big changes on this front. It is therefore vital that language norms and standards which are grounded on monolingual ideologies are, if not replaced, then at least complemented with holistic, multilingual norms, because these latter do not throw into prominence the test takers’ shortcomings in the single languages but instead bring to the fore their special multi-lingual skills and competences (Hofer, 2017). In order for this to happen, multilingual standards for language(s) learning and assessment must first be endorsed at the highest level of decision-making. Only then can we realistically expect them to trickle down to the schools and classrooms (Wei, 2016, 9). At the risk of stating the obvious we also note that there is not, and never can be, one single multilingual assessment tool that is universally applicable across all sociolinguistic and cultural contexts. Hence, if we wish to capture multi(lingual) competence in diverse learner/user cohorts or individuals we need tailor-made solutions for the specific target populations and their language constellations. Guided by these principles we have compiled a test paradigm for the assessment of multi-(lingual) competences in young multilingual learner-users (Hofer and Jessner in press). In the next section we provide a brief outline of the specific nature, structure and aims of the Multilingual Competence Test (MCT). Selected test items serve to exemplify the type of tasks that respondents are required to carry out during the test procedure. 11. The MCT The Multilingual Competence Test, short MCT, is targeted to a very specific multilingual cohort with their own distinctive language constellation, namely young learners (aged 9--12) with a solid understanding of German (though not necessarily as L1 speakers) and various proficiencies in Italian and English. The Multilingual Competence Test focuses on German, Italian and English as the 3 curricular languages taught in all elementary schools in South Tyrol, and on a range of other, typologically related (Romance and Germanic) languages, which are not part of the curriculum and do not therefore form part of the canon of languages taught at the primary level in this region. It is important to note at this stage that apart from being deployed as an assessment tool (which is of course its original designation), the Multilingual Competence Test can also be used for in-class activities to stimulate metacognitive crosslingual reflection and engagement, thus serving the purpose of furthering language learning through targeted multilingual awareness training.

11.1. The Aims The Multilingual Competence Test aims to highlight, valorize and measure the special (meta- and cross-lingual) skills and abilities that multilingual learner/users bring to the classroom and develop as a function of their extensive experience with multiple languages. We take the view that pupils’ multilingual and cross-cultural expertise need to be acknowledged and commended in all formal educational contexts so that their rich multilingual and multicultural knowledge base can be capitalized on for further learning (whether that be language or subject learning). It is to be hoped that the wider application of the new test procedure will draw increased attention and stimulate a long-overdue fundamental debate on the importance and on the benefits of fostering multilingual skills at all levels of schooling (see also Hufeisen and Jessner, 2018). As we have already noted, the tendency in monoglossic-oriented contexts has been to view cross-linguistic interference phenomena (including transfer, code-switching, borrowing, etc.) as obstructive and causing interference and errors. Recent scholarship in the field of multilingualism has sought to change this by highlighting the beneficial effects of multilingual cross-language interactions for multilingual processing and development (Berthele, 2011; Cummins, 2013; Hufeisen, 2018; Ringbom, 2007). The ability to identify interlingual correspondences and draw inferences, for instance, has been shown to boost multilingual growth. This seems to suggest that learner-users who are skilled at identifying analogies between language and at making inferences across languages will develop enhanced comprehension and production skills. Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

9

With this in mind, the Multilingual Competence Test focuses young multilingual learner/users’ ability to operate across languages and carry out elaborate multi-lingual operations in a range of cross-language tasks. More specifically, the MCT measures constitutive components of young learners’ multi-(lingual) competence including inferencing abilities, crosslingual transfer skills, contrastive analysis, error detection across languages, word, sentence and text translation, as well as some target language text production. In addition, the Multilingual Competence Test assesses young multilingual learner/users’ meta- and cross-linguistic understanding and skill through a detailed analysis of pupils’ verbalized reflections about their subjective interlingual associations. After each task test-takers are invited to specify how they arrived at a given solution. By asking respondents to articulate their meta- and crosslinguistic reflections, the test paradigm thus elicits important data that provide new insight into meta- and cross-lingual processing in young multilingual learner/users and allow for a better understanding of how young multilinguals exploit their prior linguistic knowledge and language learning experience(s). In work in progress in the multilingual region of South Tyrol the new multilingual paradigm has been deployed with a view to establishing whether young emergent multilingual learner/users in their fifth and final year of primary school (with German as their vehicular language) and with limited formal second and foreign language instruction (in L2 Italian and L3 English), can be considered multi-competent, and if so, what special skills and abilities they possess that qualify them as multi-lingually competent. For the purposes of this research, multi-(lingual) competence has been operationalized as the capacity to flexibly operate across languages as manifested in the overall percentage of correctly completed tasks in the MCT. Data evaluation for this investigation is ongoing. The final results will be reported in due course. 11.2. Structure The Multilingual Competence Test consists of two main parts and altogether 12 test-sections. Part I (comprising 4 testsections) assesses how test-takers cope in mixed-language tasks involving the 3 curricular languages German, Italian and English. While German and Italian are official languages in South Tyrol, English is taught as L3. Part II widens the scope and looks at how testees perform when new, other-language material (in Dutch, Swedish, Spanish, French and Ladin), is added. Part II consists of 8 test-sections. The MCT is a paper and pencil test and is intended for group-administration. Test completion takes about 2 h. The following 2 test items are presented here to illustrate what type of tasks respondents are required to carry out. While the examples reported below are in English, the language used in the original test version is German (note that the present research was carried out in German-language schools with the large majority of children being dominant in German). The first example is drawn from part I of the MCT, the second from part II. 11.3. Examples The first item is based on the 3 curricular languages taught in South Tyrol. Item 1 requires respondents to determine which of three given sentences share the same meaning and which is the odd one out. Each sentence is rendered in a different language. Once test takers have completed this first step, they then need to verbalize their train of thought and explicate how they arrived at the given solution.

Example Item 1: Two of the following sentences share the same meaning. Find and tick them. Then explain why you think that this is so. & Il bambino sta leggendo un libro.

& The boy is reading a book. & Der Junge hat gerade ein Buch gelesen. I think that these two sentences share the same meaning because: ________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

The second item is taken from part II of the Multilingual Competence Test and requires test takers to translate the semantic content of three foreign language sentences into German. The meaning is the same in all 3 sentences. The working languages for this item are French, Ladin and Spanish, which are not formally taught Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

10

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

in primary schools in South Tyrol. The rationale for including these languages is to test for metalinguistic awareness and ability across a range of languages. As in the previous item, test takers are then required to explain how they proceeded in completing the task. Example Item 2: The following 3 sentences share the same meaning. Can you provide the German translation? What helps you understand? Please explain in as much detail as possible. Con mi familia hablo italiano. German translation: Cun mia familia bai talian. ________________________________________ Avec ma famille je parle italien. I can understand and translate these sentences because: _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 12. Preliminary findings As indicated earlier, data evaluation for the present study is still ongoing, which is to say that no definitive results are available as of yet. This said, a first perusal of pupils’ multilingual reflections leads us to surmise that our young multilingual learner/users are indeed capable of tackling multiple language codes and of accessing the meaning of new foreignlanguage syntagma through the successful application of cross-linguistic contrastive and inferencing strategies. The extent to which pupils are able to engage with and make sense of (new) linguistic material seems to vary though. A first glimpse of our young multilingual learner/users’ metalinguistic verbalizations is provided below. To exemplify how participants go about contrasting and decoding the linguistic material at hand, we provide one sample answer for each of the two test items shown above. Sample 1:

In sample 1 the pupil in question has successfully resolved the given task, which, the reader will recall, consists in finding the two matching sentences and identifying the odd one out (see above). The pupil’s metalinguistic reflections read as follows: ‘‘I think that the first two sentences say that the boy is reading a book and the other sentence says that the boy has just read a book’’. The pupil’s metalinguistic comment indicates that she can penetrate the syntax and meaning of the three sentences, put the given vary-lingual syntagma in relation to one another and successfully arrive at the correct task resolution. Sample 2 relates to example item 2 as reproduced above:

Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

11

After providing the correct German translation for the three foreign-language sentences (see above), the pupil in sample 2 explains that she can understand the sentences ‘‘because Spanish is so similar to Italian. I understand the words: con, mia, familia, italiano, mia, familie*, famille, parle. And then I thought that this could be the translation.’’ Like in example 1, the pupil here exhibits a robust understanding of the analogies between the respective language codes and of the transferability of linguistic knowledge from one language to another. Though neither particularly elaborate or sophisticated, the verbal reflections provided by the pupils are indicative of a sound understanding of how language(s) work and connect to one another. The pupils’ metalinguistic cognitions testify to a solid knowledge of language(s) and about language(s) (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). The pupils also show that they can, in their own limited but coherent and meaningful way, articulate their meta- and crosslinguistic reflections. We are confident that further analysis of the data will provide us with a more fine-grained and differentiated picture of what young multilingual learner/users are capable of doing with language(s), and of different facets of their meta- and crosslinguistic reasoning. 13. Conclusion The present paper has highlighted multilingual learner/users’ special linguistic and metacognitive competencies and has drawn attention to the fact that multilinguals have ‘‘a different way of using and knowing’’ their languages (Jessner, 2019), which far from being symptomatic of an incomplete or deficient language system, is the manifestation of a highly specialized and complete system in its own right. By putting forth an innovative tool for the measurement of multilingual competences at the primary level the authors have taken a significant step towards bridging the empirical gap in the literature on multi-competence and multilingual assessment. A major merit of the new test paradigm can be seen as lying in its potential to open up novel paths for research on multi-(lingual) competences, be that in South Tyrol or elsewhere. In conclusion, we should like to reiterate that in order to prepare learners for life in an increasingly multilingual society, curriculum policies and educational institutions need to give increased emphasis to multilingual competences. Kindergartens, schools and universities need to aim at intensifying their investment with regards to building up these competences, not in lieu of, but alongside the promotion of single language proficiencies. Likewise, assessment procedures will need to take account of the special multi-lingual resources and skills that multilingual learner/users bring to the language learning classroom, or else many of these resources will be left to lie fallow (Hofer and Allgäuer-Hackl, 2018). Assessment of multi-(lingual) competences is not intended to replace (all) extant monolingual paradigms but is rather construed as a complement and improvement of existing practices and as a useful means of accentuating the importance of meta- and cross-language functional competencies for learner/users’ self-efficacy and for their full participation in multilingual societies.

Conflict of interest No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Anderson, J.R., 2000. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 8th ed. Worth Publishers, N.Y. Allgäuer-Hackl, E. (2017) The Development of Metalinguistic Awareness in Multilingual Learners. How Effective is Multilingual Training in the Classroom? Dissertation, University of Innsbruck. Berthele, R., 2011. On abduction in receptive multilingualism. Evidence from cognate guessing tasks. Appl. Linguist. Rev. 2, 91--220. Bialystok, E., Barac, R., 2012. Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Dev. 83 (2), 413--422. Canagarajah, A.S., Wurr, A.J., 2011. Multilingual communication and language acquisition: new research directions. The Reading Matrix 11 (1), 1--15. Cenoz, J., 2003. The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: a review. Int. J. Biling. 7 (1), 71--87. Cenoz, J., Arocena, E., Gorter, D., 2013. Multilingual students and their writing skills in Basque, Spanish and English. In: Gathercole, V. (Ed.), Bilingual Assessment: Issues. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp. 186--205. Chomsky, N., 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Cook, V. (Ed.), 2003. Effects of the L2 on the L1. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Cook, V., 2012. Multi-competence. In: Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp. 3768--3774. Cook, V., 2013. What are the goals of language teaching? Iran. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 1 (1), 44--56.

1

The terms multi-competence(s) and multi(lingual) competences and multilingual competencies are used interchangeably in this paper.

Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

12

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

Cook, V., 2016. Premises of multi-competence. In: Cook, V., Li, Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1--25. Cook, V.J., 2006. Interlanguage, multi-competence and the problem of the "second" language. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata VI (3), 39--52. Coste, D., 1997. Multilingual and multicultural competence and the role of school. Lang. Teach. 30, 90--93. Council of Europe, 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Retrieved from www.coe.int/t/dg4/Linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf) Creese, A., Blackledge, A., 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? Mod. Lang. J. 94 (1), 103-115. Cummins, J., 1980. The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education. In: Alatis, J.E. (Ed.), Georgetown Universtity Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1980. Current Issues in Bilingual Education. Georgetown University Press, Georgetown. Cummins, J., 2013. Current research on language transfer: implications for language teaching policy and practice. In: Siegmund, P., Gogolin, I., Schulz, M.E., Davydova, J. (Eds.), Multilingualism and Language Diversity in Urban Areas. Acquisition, Identities, Space, Education. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 289--304. De Angelis, G., Jessner, U., 2012. Writing across languages in a bilingual context: a dynamic systems theory approach. In: Manchòn, R.M. (Ed.), L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives. Trends in Applied Linguistics Series. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 47--68. Dewaele, J.M., 2016. Multi-competence and personality. In: Cook, V., Li, Wei (Eds.), In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 403--419. Dewaele, J.M., Li, W., 2012. Multilingualism, empathy and multicompetence. Int. J. Multiling. 9 (4), 352--366. Egli Cuenat, M., 2016. Schreiben in drei sprachen: sprachenübergreifender erwerb von textkompetenz im schulischen kontext. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 103, 57--78. Ellis, E., 2007. Monolingualism: the unmarked case. Estudios de Sociolinüística 7 (2), 173--196. Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-González, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., Escamilla, M., 2013. Biliteracy From the Start: Literacy Squared in Action. Caslon Publishing, Philadelphia, PA. Garcia, O., 2007. Foreword. In: Makoni, S., Pennycook, A. (Eds.), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK, pp. xi--xv. Garcia, O., 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Wiley/Blackwell, Malden, MA. Gorter, D., Cenoz, J., 2017. Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Lang. Educ. 31 (3), 231--248. Grosjean, F., 1985. The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 6, 467--477. Grosjean, F., 2008. Studying Bilinguals. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hall, J., Cheng, A., Carlson, M., 2006. Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language knowledge. Appl. Linguist. 27, 220--240. Herdina, P., Jessner, U., 2002. A dynamic model of multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic perspective. In: Information Structure in Spoken Arabic. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Hofer, B., 2015. On the dynamics of early multilingualism. In: A Psycholinguistic Study on the Effects of Trilingual Learning at the Primary Level in South Tyrol. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Hofer, B., 2017. Emergent multicompetence at the primary level: a dynamic conception of multicompetence. Lang. Aware. 26 (2), 96--112. Hofer, B., Allgäuer-Hackl, E., 2018. A dynamic view of multilingual learning: the common plurilingual curriculum from a DMM perspective. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 29 (2), 245--269. Hofer, B. and Jessner, U. (in press). MehrSprachigKompetent MSK 9-12. Mehrsprachige Kompetenzen fördern und evaluieren. Innsbruck: Studia Verlag. Hornberger, N.H., 2005. Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. Mod. Lang. J. 89, 605-609. Hufeisen, B., 2018. Institutional education and multilingualism: PlurCur as a prototype of a multilingual whole school policy. EuJAL 6 (1), 1--32. Hufeisen, B., Jessner, U., 2018. The psycholinguistics of multilingualism: learning and teaching multiple languages. In: Aronin, L., Singleton, D. (Eds.), Twelve Lectures of Multilingualism. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp. 65--100. Jessner, U., 2006. Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English As a Third Language. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Jessner, U., 2008. Teaching third languages: findings, trends and challenges. Lang. Teach. 41 (1), 15--56. Jessner, U., 2017. Multicompetence approaches to language proficiency development in multilingual education. In: Garcia, O., Lin, A., May, S. (Eds.), Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 3rd ed. Springer, Cham, pp. 161--173. Jessner, U., 2018. Metacognition in multilingual learning. A DMM perspective. In: Haukås, Å., Bjørke, C., Dypedahl, M. (Eds.), Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching. Routledge, London, pp. 31--47. Jessner, U., 2018a. Language awareness in multilingual learning & teaching. In: Garrett, P., Cots, J. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness. Routledge, New York, pp. 257--274. Jessner, U., 2019. Metalinguistic awareness and multilingual development. In: Darquennes, J., Salmons, J., Vandenbussche, W. (Eds.), Handbook of Language Contact. Mouton, New York. Jessner, U., Megans, M., Graus, S., 2016. Crosslinguistic influence in Third language acquisition. In: Alonso, R. (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 193--214. Jessner, U., Törok, V., Pellegrini, C., 2018. The role of Latin in multilingual learners’ strategies. Lang. Educ. Multilingualism 1185-102. Kecskes, I., Papp, T., 2000. Foreign Language and Mother Tongue. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Kordt, B., 2018. Affordance theory and multiple language learning and teaching. Int. J. Multiling. 15 (2), 135--148. Kramsch, C., 2009. The Multilingual Subject. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lambert, W. E. 1990. "Issues in Foreign Language and Second Language Education." In Proceedings of the Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Students' Issues (pp. 321-360). 1st ed. Washington DC: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (ED). Lantolf, J.P., Poehner, M.E., 2004. Dynamic assessment of L2 development: bringing the past into the future. J. Appl. Linguist. 1, 49--72. Lopez, A.A., Turkan, S., Guzman-Orth, D., 2016. Assessing multilingual competence. In: Shohamy, E., Hornberger, N.H. (Eds.), Language Testing and Assessment, Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Princeton, NJ, USA, pp. 1--12. May, S. (Ed.), 2014. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. Routledge, Oxford.

Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747

+ Models

LINGUA-102747; No. of Pages 13

B. Hofer, U. Jessner / Lingua xxx (2019) 102747

13

Mohanty, A., 2007. Multilingualism of the unequals and predicaments of education in India: mother tongue or other tongue? In: Garcia, O., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Torres-Guzmán, M.E. (Eds.), Imagining Multilingual Schools. Languages in Education and Globalisation. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 262--283. Munoz, C., 2005. Trilingualism in the Catalan Educational System. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 171, 75--93. Paradowski, M.B., 2010. The Benefits of Multilingualism. Multilingual Living Retrieved from: http://www.multilingualliving.com/2010/05/01/ the-benefits-of-multilingualism-full-article/ (last accessed May 18, 2018). Poehner, M.E., 2008. Dynamic Assessment of Advanced L2 Learners of French PhD diss. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA Riehl, C., 2013. Multilingual discourse competence in minority children: Exploring the factors of transfer and variation. Eur. J. Appl. Linguist. 1 (2), 254--292. Ringbom, H., 2001. Lexical transfer in L3 production. In: Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., Jessner, U. (Eds.), Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 59--68. Ringbom, H., 2007. The Importance of Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning: Comprehension, Learning and Production. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Roy, S., 2016. Assessing bilingual and multilingual learners in mainstream classrooms. In: Scott, S., Scott, D.E., Webber, C.F. (Eds.), Leadership of Assessment, Inclusion, and Learning, The Enabling Power of Assessment 3. Springer, Princeton, NJ, USA, pp. 225--241. Ruiz, R., 1984. Orientations in language planning. NABE J. 8 (2), 15--34. Scarino, A., 2014. Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia -- unlearning monolingualism. Int. J. Multiling. 11 (3), 289--306. Schissel, J.L., Leung, C., López-Gopar, M., Davis, J.R., 2018. Multilingual learners in language assessment: assessment design for linguistically diverse communities. Lang. Educ. 32 (2), 167--182. Scott, V.M., 2015. Multi-competence and language teaching. In: Cook, V., Li, Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic MultiCompetence. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 445--460. Shohamy, E., 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Routledge, London. Shohamy, E., 2011. Assessing multilingual competencies: adopting construct valid assessment policies. Mod. Lang. J. 95 (III), 418--429. Singleton, D., Aronin, L., 2007. Multiple language learning in the light of the theory of affordances. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 1, 83--96. ter Kuile, H., Veldhuis, M., Van Veen, S., Wicherts, J., 2011. Bilingual education, metalinguistic awareness, and the understanding of an unknown language. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 14 (2), 233--242. Traxl, C., 2015. Metalinguistic Awareness in Primary School Children. English as a Third Language Diploma thesis. Leopold-Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria. Wei, L., 2016. Conceptualising multilingual capabilities in anglophone higher degree research education: challenges and possibilities for reconfiguring language practices and policies. Educ. Sci. 6 (39), 1--12. Tsai, M., García, G., 2000. Who’s the boss? How communicative competence is defined in a multilingual preschool classroom. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 31 (2), 230--252. Weber, J.-J., Horner, K., 2012. Introducing Multilingualism. A Social Approach. Routledge, Oxon, UK. Yelland, G., Pollard, J., Mercury, A., 1993. The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Appl. Psycholinguist. 14, 423-444.

Please cite this article in press as: Hofer, B., Jessner, U., Assessing components of multi-(lingual) competence in young learners. Lingua (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102747