Research into multilingual issues in ECEC contexts: proposing a transdisciplinary research field

Introduction

The European Early Childhood Education Research Journal (EECERJ) defines its scope as being ‘multidisciplinary, embracing all related fields including psychology, sociology, child health and social work’. In this editorial for the EECERJ Special Issue on Multilingual Childhoods, we present our argument for educational linguistics to be included as a ‘related field’, as well as an overview of articles published between 2000 and 2020 investigating how multilingual issues have been addressed in EECERJ. A conclusion drawn from this review is that research into multilingualism in the early childhood education and care (ECEC) context draws inspiration from both educational research and linguistics.

Linguistics and education are occasionally understood as two distinct research disciplines. Like most disciplines, both are characterized by the tension between tidiness and manageability on the one hand, and closeness to their object of study on the other. While linguistics has tended to move towards idealization and formalization of data, education has tended to resist calls for a formal science of learning (Brumfit 1996). Applied linguistics is the subdiscipline that has dealt with issues related to educational issues such as language teaching in formal schooling contexts. But even Pennycook (1994, 299) has claimed that applied linguistics seems to be divorced from educational theory and there has been a tendency to deal with language teaching as a predominantly psycholinguistic phenomenon isolated from its social, cultural, and educational context. Within ECEC research, linguistics and even applied linguistics seem to be almost invisible in that the research discipline itself is not explicitly mentioned. Despite this, we believe that linguistics is the basis for some of the ECEC research that deals with language-related issues.

Educational linguistics: a transdisciplinary research field

A field of research that has emerged in recent years, with a clear orientation and reciprocity to the research field of education, is educational linguistics. Since the late 1970s, it has mainly involved school-based research, such as language teaching/learning methodology, teaching/learning a language as a foreign or second language or teaching/learning a language for academic or specific/special purposes. It is considered a well-established field of teaching and scholarly research (Hornberger 2001) and is seen as the subdiscipline of applied linguistics that ‘integrates the research tools of linguistics and other related disciplines of the social sciences to investigate holistically the broad range of issues related to language and education’ (2001, 10). Educational linguistics covers the total education process, moving beyond classroom studies and issues related to teaching and learning, to include cultural, political, historical and ideological issues. For early childhood education, an educational sector that comprises education and care and is more holistic in approach, incorporating educational linguistics seems more appropriate. It is also in line with other subdisciplines such as educational psychology and educational sociology, to signal that it is not about teaching methods, but rather a field of research.

According to Hornberger (2001), there are three major dimensions that characterize educational linguistics. First, educational linguistics represents a reciprocal integration of linguistics and education. As van Lier puts it, ‘Educational linguistics is therefore not simply linguistic theory applied to educational practice, […] rather the relationship must be reciprocal and dynamic’ (Van Lier 1994, 203). Educational linguistics is transdisciplinary in the way that it is informed by but not limited to linguistic research, for language activity is constrained by social, economic, political, and ethical factors which are beyond the immediate concerns of linguistics (Brumfit n.d.). Educational linguistics thus serves to generate new understandings of theory and practice beyond what is possible from specific disciplines (Hult 2008, 19). Following Halliday's notion of transdisciplinary, it is a field that supersedes disciplines by ‘creating new forms of activity which are thematic rather than disciplinary in their orientation’ (Halliday 2001, 196).

Second, educational linguistics provides in-depth analytical insight into a breadth of issues related to language [and] learning (Hornberger 2001). For example, in the Blackwell Handbook of Educational Linguistics (Spolsky and Hult 2008), five broad core themes are identified: linguistically and culturally responsive education, language education policy and management, literacy development, acquiring a language and language assessment. ECEC research is broad in scope, and it is important to shed light on its complexity, which can easily be related to these five core themes.

Third, educational linguistics is problem-oriented and practice-based in its focus on specific ways in which theory, research, policy, and practice inter-relate. Typical characteristics of educational linguistics are the problem- and practice-based approaches to real life problems. Hornberger points out that the ‘starting point is always the practice of education and the focus is squarely on [the role of] language [in] learning and teaching’ (Hornberger 2001, 19).

Educational linguistics was established as a research field primarily for research on issues concerning education, and early childhood education is not excluded, despite being limited in evidence. Given the recent global mobility trends, more and more children from birth to six grow up in multilingual environments and attend early years services in a language different from their home environment. Despite linguistic diversity steadily increasing and an increasingly common phenomenon of contemporary early childhood education and care, there has been little research that focuses on linguistic diversity and second language and or multilingual pedagogy in these contexts, as our overview of articles from the last twenty years in EECERJ indicates.

Shifting trends and fundamental discussions about multilingual issues

Within research into second language acquisition (SLA) and multilingualism, there have been several fundamental discussions about ‘the object of inquiry’, i.e. language. In contemporary SLA and multilingual research, there is remarkable epistemological diversity (Ortega 2013). One noticeable change in SLA research is coined as ‘the social turn’ (Block 2003), which refers to the shift from traditional cognitive linguistics towards more sociocultural perspectives of multilingual and second language learning. Second language acquisition and multilingual research are based on cognitive-oriented theories, often associated with quantitative, cognitive, positivist epistemologies within socially oriented linguistics, where the social dimensions of language learning and development are evident. The social turn in SLA research implied that language cannot be considered exclusively as a set of structures to be internalized and a process that can be studied in isolation from the social world. Cognitive aspects were thus framed within a sociocultural phenomenon and seen through Vygotskian perspectives as a socio-cognitive phenomenon where language is considered as meaning making (c.f. Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics).

Following the social turn in research, discussion around language as the object of inquiry developed, i.e., ‘the multilingual turn’, where power, ideology and underlying values and norms in research, pedagogy and practices were questioned (García and Wei 2013; May 2011). Language is no longer considered an individual phenomenon, but also a social one, for language use and linguistic practices are woven into social practices and therefore must be considered in light of larger social and thus ideological contexts. Research into multilingualism and SLA were criticized for a having a monolingual bias, i.e., that research was founded on monolingual-based theories, pedagogies and practices in education. These had evolved from the notions of ‘the idealized native speaker’, and the related concepts of ‘interlanguage’, ‘language competence’ and ‘fossilization’ which have framed these fields following monolingual speaker norms (May 2014). In contrast, the multilingual turn champions an approach that foregrounds the multiple competencies of bi/multilingual learners as the foundation for successful language teaching and learning. These perspectives are also linked to power, categorization of language and how the research community regenerates perceptions of language. Recent multilingual research questions what counts as language and whether languages are relatively solid systems or more fluid and dynamic constructions. Makoni and Pennycook (2007, 27) argue that the metadiscourse on language is closely linked to Western linguistic and cultural assumptions. Referring to languages in a numerical sequence is an example of a metadiscursive construction that safeguards colonial and western nation-building interests, where the statement ‘one nation/one people/one language’ is an example of such ideological interests.

In an educational context, these fundamental discussions are highly relevant in terms of different conceptualizations and assumptions of multilingual issues. Discussions focus on whether language can be described as a system to be acquired, learned, or taught; the ‘teachability of languages’ (Wong-Fillmore 1989); aspects of language practices and meaning making in educational settings; and ideological, cultural and political aspects of education. Different terms are used to describe how two or more languages are used and the settings and contexts for language learning and teaching.

Terminology and labels

The term ‘multilingualism’ is often seen as all-embracing for a spectrum of practices that involve the use of two or more linguistic resources, some of which belong to what is conventionally seen as ‘a language’, while others belong to different linguistic varieties, registers, styles, genres and accents (Weber and Horner 2012, 3). The Council of Europe (2003) defines multilingualism as ‘the presence of several languages in a given space independently of those who use them’ – this definition suggests a coexistence of languages and successfully removes any sense of hierarchy (García 2009).

Baker (2011) defines bilingualism as the ability to use more than one language but contests that it is simply about using two languages, as this depends upon the multiple perspectives the phenomena is seen from – sociological, sociolinguistic, political, geographical, educational or even socio-psychological. Baker reinforces the difference between individual bilingualism and societal bilingualism pronouncing that it is ‘the attitudes of individuals towards a particular language [that] may affect language maintenance, language restoration, language shift or language death in society’ (2). Functional bilingualism for an individual then, concerns ‘when, where, and with whom people use their two languages’ (5).

This serves to introduce the many terms associated with societal bilingualism and the ‘second language learner’. ‘Home language’, ‘heritage language’ and ‘minority language’ overlap but have essential differences. Home language is the language (or variety of language) spoken in the home. It can also be referred to as the ‘mother tongue’ or the ‘first language(s)’ (L1) and is likely to be the first language a child is exposed to. Heritage languages (HL) are usually home languages, though socio-culturally complex in relation to the speaker, as they may be associated with older generations. Heritage languages are often ‘the languages of immigrant, refugee or indigenous groups within the broader social context’ (Murphy 2014, 49). Heritage language speakers in the context of ECEC would typically have achieved some competence in the HL ‘through language socialization patterns in the home’ (ibid: 50) and are likely to, though not necessarily, belong to an ethnolinguistic community.

The term minority language is sometimes used interchangeably with HL, but it is also seen alongside the term majority language, this is because the focus is on the child's learning of the majority language, which would sequentially suggest it is the child's second language (L2). Here is where the common use of ‘second language learner’ tends to appear and referents like ‘Norwegian as second language’ or if in the UK, ‘English as an additional language’, are common. The fact that a majority language in one context may become a minority language in another makes this distinction an interesting one, for example Spanish is a majority language in South America but the largest minority language in the United States.

Finally, ‘[modern] foreign language’ learning (MFL/FL) is described as an ‘increasingly prevalent way for children [to] become multilingual’ (Murphy 2014, 131) and which involves exposure to a modern or foreign language, usually English, as a subject in an educational context. This language will be different to the national or dominant language(s) or home or minority language(s) (c.f. European Commission 2011) and will involve explicit language instruction (García 2009), usually for short periods of time, weekly.

The terms second/additional language learner, home/heritage language speaker and minority/majority language speaker are all contested by García (2009, 59–60):

Language learning is a continuous developmental process that occurs throughout a lifetime and is recursive and circular [as such] characterizing bilingual learners as second language learners robs bilingualism of its possibilities of being considered the norm for large sections of the world's population. … Those who are learning a second language should be considered emergent bilinguals so that educators can understand that it will be impossible for their students to leave their home language practices behind if they are going to succeed in learning the additional language.

García's use of ‘emergent bilingual’ is gaining in popularity due to the abovementioned multilingual turn. Synonymous with the term ‘emergent bilingual’, the term ‘emergent multilingual’ is now more commonly used (Alstad 2015, 286; Back, Han, and Weng 2020, 287), and in our view emphasizes multilingualism in a broad sense, including two or more languages, different modalities and a variety of language use. Nevertheless, terms like ‘home language’, ‘heritage language’ or ‘second language’, contested by Garcia, continue to be widely employed and regularly serve as a reference point in the literature. The next part of our paper presents the review of the last twenty years of the EECERJ for articles that address multilingual-related issues.

A review of EECERJ articles: selection criteria

The review of articles, published between 2000 and 2020, was undertaken using the search engine on the journal website. Table 1 exemplifies the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review centred on ‘the theoretical and empirical investigation of real-life problems [in ECEC] in which [more than one] language is a central issue’ (Brumfit 1995, 27), as such the existence of more than one language needed to be evident in (a) the choice of participants for a study, (b) the focus of the data collection and analysis, and (c) the conclusions with implications for future practice. As the review was on early childhood education before formal schooling, articles in which the research was undertaken in formal education were not considered. In addition, articles were excluded which focused solely on student teachers, educators, and parents if there were no direct implications for children in ECEC.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for review of EECERJ articles.

Topics	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Date of publication	Articles from 2000 to 2020	Articles before 2000
Key terms	In two of the following: title, keywords, abstract	Only referred to in main body of the article
Essential issue	The existence of more than one language was an essential issue for the research ie in the selection of the participants, in the focus of the data collection, in the data analysis / in the conclusions	Another language was contemplated but not an essential issue to the research described in the article
Context/focus	Children 0 to 6 years old before entry into formal education	Children in formal education settings (i.e. 5/6 years old in grade 1)/Student teachers/educators/parents
Conclusions	More than one language was the focus of the conclusions and implications for practice.	Not referred to in the conclusions
Type of study	Theoretical overviews; empirical reports; meta-studies on language-related topics	Meta-studies that make reference to other issues / topics that might include languages

The different terminology used within the field of multilingualism directed our search for key words. Articles were considered if specific language-related terms, including those discussed earlier (see Table 2), were found in two of the following places in the article: the title, the keywords, the abstract.

Table 2. Search terms used in the review of EECERJ articles.

Language-related search terms
Bilingual/ism; Trilingual; Multilingual/ism; Plurilingual/ism
Language + Dual; Home; Heritage; Minority; Majority; Additional; Second; Foreign
Immersion
“Language awareness”
Sensitization
Linguistic + Diversity; Landscapes
“Family language policy”

Trends in researching multilingualism in the EECERJ since 2000

Of the possible 919 articles published between January 2000 and December 2020, just under 2% (n = 18) were considered relevant to the theoretical and empirical investigation of real-life problems in ECEC in which more than one language is a central issue. An overview of these articles can be found in Appendix I. Six of these articles were published between 2000 and 2009, while 12 were published between 2010 and 2020. This suggests, as we suspected, that research into multilingualism is on the increase, but still a very under-represented research field in the EECERJ. Given the increasing amount of emergent multilingual children and more complex linguistic diversity in ECEC contexts, there is a clear need to encourage more research into multilingual issues.

The essential issues: approaches to multilingual research

The identified articles all examine theoretical and empirical conditions where multilingualism is a central issue in an ECEC context. If we link the 18 articles to the core themes in the Handbook for Educational Linguistics, all the articles can be placed within the five themes or sub-areas i.e., ‘linguistically and culturally responsive education’, ‘language education policy and management’, ‘literacy development’, ‘acquiring a language’ or ‘language assessment’. More than half of the 18 articles (n = 10) are related to the theme acquiring a language, e.g. Drury's articles on language socialization (Drury 2000; 2013), Elvin, Maagerø, and Simonsen's article on foreign language development (Elvin, Maagerø, and Simonsen 2007) or Gunnerud, Reikerås and Dahle's article on the influence of home language on second language comprehension (Gunnerud, Reikerås, and Dahle 2018). Four of the articles are explicitly about literacy development (Beecher and Makin 2002; Kim 2014; Kristoffersen and Simonsen 2014; Lee and Hassett 2017), while the remaining (n = 4) were categorized as studies that relate to linguistically and culturally responsive education. However, as Hult notes (2008, 20), this categorization in relation to the core themes is not necessarily mutually exclusive. Articles could have been categorized differently, but they all relate to the central themes in educational linguistics, where multilingual issues are at the very core and the purpose is to ‘inform or to be informed by educational practice, either directly or indirectly’ (Hult 2008, 20).

Bilingualism was mentioned in just under half of these articles (n = 8), referring to the development of two languages simultaneously, however, only four articles focused on bilingual education, with the objective being that children learn two languages simultaneously in an educational setting. The languages were: English and Mandarin (Soderman and Oshio 2008); Hebrew and Arabic (Bekerman and Tatar 2009); Russian and German or Hebrew (Moin, Schwartz, and Breitkopf 2011) and English and Korean (Lee and Hassett 2017). In addition, one article (Kim 2014) refers to trilingualism in a report on a case-study of the researcher's daughter in Korean, English, and French upon moving to Canada.

Five of the articles researched second language learning (L2), where the research focus was on the child or children's acquisition of the official language of the setting and community, which differed from their home language(s). Drury (2000; 2013) investigated L2 English in the UK and Beecher and Makin (2002) L2 English literacy in Australia. Gunnerud, Reikerås, and Dahle (2018) investigated L2 Norwegian and Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014) L2 Norwegian literacy support for deaf children. Although there were references to children's HLs in many of the articles, an actual focus on HLs was only found in two articles. Pels (2003) investigated HL maintenance, Moroccan Arabic, in Germany, and Stephen, McPake, and McLeod (2012) researched HL revitalization in Gaelic-medium immersion education.

Foreign language (FL) learning was the concern of six articles in this review, all targeting the learning of English (Brumen, Berro, and Cagran 2017; Dolean 2015; Elvin, Maagerø, and Simonsen 2007; Uslu 2020; Vehkakoski 2010; Waddington, Bernal, and Jofré 2018). Five of the six articles were written after 2011 contesting to the fact that English as a FL has encroached into ECEC more recently. The fact that one-third of the articles discuss FL learning is itself indicative of its growing popularity and, recognizing that it may not be a practice which is as beneficial as this popularity (Singleton and Pfenninger 2019), more research with a critical view towards this practice should also be appearing.

Contexts and settings

Two thirds of the articles (n = 12) report on research undertaken in Europe and the remaining articles come from Australia, Canada (n = 2), China, Israel (n = 2) and the USA. A characteristic of ECEC contexts in most of these countries is the combination of informal child-initiated and spontaneous activities and formal, planned, adult-led activities oriented towards specific learning outcomes. In several countries, there are no curricula with specified learning objectives, but rather specified areas and topics that teachers and staff should focus on. Of the articles published, half of them cover the whole environment with both formal and informal learning activities. Three articles look at informal activities and language socialization or children's meaning making processes in different activities (Drury 2000; Kim 2014; Pels 2003), while the remaining articles have a focus on more formal planned, teacher-led activities.

Articles in general mirror the two major models for ECEC provision in Europe (Eurydice 2019). One such model, followed in most countries, divides the youngest children (under 2 years), labelled as daycare, childcare service, crèche etc. with focus on care, and pre-primary provision (over 2 years) with a focus on education, teaching, and learning. The second major model is a unitary model for children 0–6 years, combining upbringing, care and education. Most of the published articles involve or refer to children in pre-primary provision, and just three involve the youngest children (Kim 2014; Kristoffersen and Simonsen 2014; Gunnerud, Reikerås, and Dahle 2018). This is in line with research in general that suggests there is less research on emergent multilingual toddlers in ECEC (Lindquist and Garmann 2019). The fact that most of the studies are conducted in Western settings, may have an influence on the knowledge development about multilingualism in ECEC settings.

Research approaches and data collection strategies: types of studies

Regarding methodological orientation (quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods) and data collection strategies, 17 of the articles were empirical studies. The remaining, Dolean (2015), presented a review with theoretical discussion on age of onset for providing FL teaching services. Of the 17 empirical articles, three used quantitative methods (Gunnerud, Reikerås, and Dahle 2018; Moin, Schwartz, and Breitkopf 2011; Uslu 2020) with a quasi-experimental design with pre-and post-tests, five employed mixed methods, and the remaining ten used qualitative methods. The overall picture is that the main methodological approaches are case studies and ethnographic approaches. Typical examples are Drury (2000) and Kim (2014).

Interviews (n = 11), which included focus groups and discussions involving teachers and parents, and observations of children (n = 11), are by far the most common data collection strategies. There were also examples of children participating in discussion groups (Waddington, Bernal, and Jofré 2018) or teachers being observed (Vehkakoski 2010). Other approaches to data collection, such as studies of artefacts and children's drawings, are rarely employed. Only three of the articles focus on literacy or multiliteracy, which is surprising, as attention to emergent (muli)tiliteracy in general language pedagogy research is a growing research field (McLachlan and Arrow 2017).

Most of the articles reviewed undertook empirical research into the setting through investigation into adult practices and approaches (Elvin, Maagerø, and Simonsen 2007; Vehkakoski 2010; Kristoffersen and Simonsen 2014; Brumen, Berro, and Cagran 2017; Waddington, Bernal, and Jofré 2018) or child behaviour (Beecher and Makin 2002: Soderman and Oshio 2008; Lee and Hassett 2017; Gunnerud, Reikerås, and Dahle 2018; Uslu 2020). Two articles viewed the setting through the voice of the parents and their reasons for selecting bilingual education (Bekerman and Tatar 2009; Moin, Schwartz, and Breitkopf 2011). The perspective, with respect to the children-focussed research, seems to align with an adult agenda, seeing the child as the passive object of the adult researcher, with research being done on or about children rather than with or even by children (c.f. Kuchah and Pinter 2021; Lundy 2007).

Discussion

The three major dimensions of educational linguistics that Hornberger underlines, its transdisciplinarity, that it embraces many topics and that it is problem- or practice-based, apply to the articles we have identified. In addition, many of the studies are associated with the discussions in second language and multilingual research that we mentioned above, like the social turn and the sociocultural context for multilingual development. They also relate to research orientations and discussions in the ECEC research, such as Lee and Hassett’s (2017) study of children and ideological becoming. Although parent collaboration is a key issue in ECEC and several studies involve parents’ voices and perspectives on pedagogical practices and educational choices (Bekerman and Tatar 2009; Moin, Schwartz, and Breitkopf 2011; Pels 2003), there are few studies embracing children's voices or their perspectives on multilingualism. Investigating children's voices in research occurs both in general pedagogical research (Christensen and James 2008) and in research into multilingualism in older children (Pinter 2014; 2019), it is rare in the ECEC context (an exception being Ibrahim 2015, 2021).

Despite the small number of articles in total, we note that articles concerning multilingual issues are increasing. If this is the case, then it is in line with the trend for the research field in general, where we see more publications and handbooks (Mourão 2019; Mourão and Lourenço 2015; Murphy and Evangelou 2016; Schwartz 2018; 2020) and several attempts to formalize the research forces through networks. The Research in Early Years Language Learning (REYLL) network was established in 2014 as a research strand in the Early Language Learning Research Network (ELL ReN) – part of the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA), and quickly gathered researchers from around the world. It represents early childhood education within the field of early language learning/multilingualism. A year later, the EECERA Multilingual Childhoods special interest group, was launched. It represents multilingualism within the field of early childhood education. Interaction between the two groups is facilitated through an online discussion list,¹ as well as through regular events and encounters. This combined research community is planning its fourth international, biannual conference in Granada for 2022. The emergence of a distinct, though interdisciplinary research field seems to meet a need. There are research networks on multilingualism, but they are not specifically focused on ECEC and educational contexts. Similarly, the networks for ECEC are rather broad and do not focus specifically on multilingualism.

Contributions in the special issue on Multilingual Childhoods

The present special issue aims to expand the theoretical and epistemological perspectives on research into multilingual issues in ECEC research. All the articles in the special issue constitute unique contributions that both individually, and together expand the field of educational linguistics in ECEC research, theoretically and in relation to their methodological approaches. The range of languages and country contexts is extended to include Ireland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Sweden, Germany, France and Portugal. Additionally, the articles contribute to knowledge development of multilingual issues involving toddlers. While previous studies on multilingual issues published in EECERJ focus on both formal, teacher-led, and planned activities and informal, child-initiated activities and play, the articles in this special issue shift towards more informal learning environments and activities. In sum, the nine articles in this special issue expand the field of research into ECEC in general and regarding educational linguistics in particular.

The multilingual turn in action

Following the multilingual turn, three of the articles investigate multilingualism and approaches to fostering and supporting multiple languages in the ECEC setting from different perspectives - practitioner practices, ECEC teacher education and an innovative look at semiotic landscapes. Claudine Kirsch reports on the use of language-supporting strategies and the translanguaging practices of staff in multilingual ECEC contexts in Luxembourg. Using data from observations and interviews with three practitioners, she demonstrates how professional development can contribute to providing the skills and competences to help practitioners address children's linguistic needs by sharing examples of how they use Luxembourgish, French and the children's home languages, in daily conversations, routines and language and literacy activities.

Andrea Young and Latisha Mary share research into a teacher education course designed to raise student teachers’ critical language awareness towards multilingualism. They describe the process of creating a bank of filmed classroom interactions and interviews and how these were used in the training course. The qualitative analysis of their students’ comments and discussions clearly shows how instrumental the films were in fostering a deeper understanding of the issues and the theories behind linguistically inclusive pedagogical practices as well as in empowering them to act as future agents of change.

Anja Pesch describes an ethnographic study which explored the multilingual discourses existent in two ECEC settings in Norway and Germany. She compares the semiotic landscapes and oral linguistic practices encountered in these settings and concludes that there is a complexity of connections that is truly dynamic. She notes that discourses were contrasting, and the mono-lingual semiotic landscape was countered by a dynamic, multilingual oral discourse, just as the multilingual semiotic landscape was annulled by a monolingual oral practice. Implications for recognizing the interplay between action and practice are described. These three articles break the ice and are the first to appear in the EECERJ regarding multilingualism in ECEC, seen here as the existence of many languages in a setting, as opposed to the umbrella term described earlier. Our hope is that many more will follow.

The emergent multilingual child's agency

Two articles report on research that provides an important contribution to our understanding of children's agency in multilingual ECEC contexts. This has been a focus in ECEC research in general, but less so in research involving multilingual children. Here, attention is given to the emerging multilingual child and their language acquisition process and the acculturation of newly arrived children as they interact with peers. Mila Schwartz, Sujoud Hijazy and Inas Deeb share their long-term research investigating the affordances of free play in a bilingual Hebrew-Arabic-speaking preschool in Israel. Based on data from observations they provide fascinating examples of the children daring to use the L2, peer language mediation, creative repetition, self-talk, and peer correction in the L2. Their research suggests that practitioners need to become more aware of the affordances of play over the academization of their preschool curriculum, as well as their role as mediators.

Ellinor Skaremyr presents two ethnographic case-studies of children from migrant backgrounds as they use multiple communicative tools, such as speech, body language and materials, in individual ways, to interact and communicate with their peers. Referring to speech events, Skaremyr describes the way the two children shadowed and code-switched, invented language and used expressive body language. She concludes that there is a need for a more holistic preschool pedagogy which recognizes children as active agents together with the force of friendship and peer-support for successful integration and communication.

Staff and families’ opinions, perspectives and experiences in multilingual contexts

The three articles in this section expand on previous studies that investigate the perspectives and opinions of families and staff, and their experiences with multilingual or home language development. Hanna Ragnarsdottir’s article, reporting on a longitudinal qualitative study, continues the previous theme of migrant children in ECE, this time focussing on the voices of their parents and the setting staff. Ragnarsdottir critically examines the data from interviews with six refugee Syrian families and the staff in six ECEC settings. She highlights issues related to preparation for the arrival and reception of refugee children, educational practices and language acquisition and educational partnerships with parents. Ragnarsdottir concludes that, though most of the children are doing well in the preschools, many challenges exist related to differences in values, languages and expectations between the schools and the parents.

The next two articles focus on parents and their quest to ensure their children either become or remain emergent multilinguals. Said (2021) shares her mixed-methods research into parental language ideology and the home literacy environment in Arabic-English speaking families. She identifies the variety of ways parents, and mothers, support their children's well-being and bi-literacy development in Arabic. She makes several recommendations for the increased support from educational establishments and collaboration between home and school.

Máire Mhic Mhathúna and Fiona Nic Fhionnlaoich researched parents and their reasons for sending their children to Irish-medium preschools which coincides with changes in policies and extended free ECEC provision in Ireland. Based on a review of international literature on parental decision making and childcare, they developed a survey for parents. Their results suggest that Irish-medium preschool education can contribute to fostering an interest in the language, facilitate the use of some Irish in the home and then provide an impetus to sending the children on to Irish-medium primary education. They make recommendations for Irish-medium preschool provision and its dissemination.

Foreign language education for emerging multilinguals

The final article is by Sandie Mourão, who takes a critical look at English as a FL in Portugal. She used data from interviews and fieldnotes to identify how collaborative practices between ECEC practitioners and itinerant teachers of English can result in integrating early English initiatives. She highlights the need for more robust policymaking, and training which alerts ECEC practitioners to their pro-active role in early English initiatives and the benefits of collaborative practices. As editors we share our hopes for future articles related to FL education in ECEC to take a more critical stance to the way such initiatives are organized, investigated, and reported.

Future research in educational linguistics and multilingual ECEC contexts

Research involving multilingualism in ECEC contexts can contribute to expanding the field of educational linguistics in terms of themes, age range and educational contexts, but also regarding ECEC research in terms of more specialized approaches to investigating multilingual issues. As we have shown, there is an increasing interest in multilingual childhoods both within the EECERA research community, and outside it. Nevertheless, there remains a paucity of research about the following: the voices and perspectives of emergent multilingual children; language policy and management; critical approaches to multilingual pedagogies, and critical approaches to assessment and emergent multilinguals. In addition, the field would benefit from incorporating innovative methodological approaches involving children and professionals in the research.

In moving the research field of multilingualism in ECEC forward, we challenge researchers, practitioners, teacher educators and policy makers to a critical exploration of the implications of the research and findings in this special issue. Decisive questions in future research, policy making, and practice might include:

1. How do specific ECEC contexts and settings affect multilingual development?

2. How can we support the competent emergent multilingual child by means of critical multilingual awareness and pedagogies in both ECEC and ECEC teacher education?

3. How do social, cultural, political, and ideological conditions influence multilingual pedagogies and practices in ECEC contexts?

These questions relate to core themes in educational linguistics - we invite researchers to explore these themes further in relation to ECEC.

Notes

1 https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A0=EARLY-YEARS-LANGUAGE-LEARNING

Appendix I: Overview of articles 2000–2020.

Table

Decade	Article	Country	Multilingual focus	Focus of research	Age	Formal / informal	Core themes	Data collection
2000	Drury (2000)	UK	English L2	Child, home and ECE setting	4,5 years	Informal	AL	Int/Obs
	Beecher and Makin (2002)	Australia	English L2(literacy)	Home and ECE setting	4 year	Formal informal	LD	Int/Obs
	Pels (2003)	The Netherlands	Family language policy Arabic	Mothers and home	–	Informal	LCRE	Int/obs
	Elvin, Maagerø, and Simonsen (2007)	Norway	English FL	ECE setting / approach	3–5 years	Formal	AL	Obs
	Soderman and Oshio (2008)	China	Chinese L2	Child in ECE setting	3–6 years	Formal informal	AL	Obs/P-P-T
	Bekerman and Tatar (2009)	Israel	Bilingual Arab and Hebrew	Parents	–	formal	LCRE	Int
2010	Vehkakoski (2010)	Finnish	English FL	Child in ECE setting	6 years	formal	AL	Obs
	Moin, Schwartz, and Breitkopf (2011)	Germany / Israel	Bilingual Russian with Hebrew or German	Parents	3–6 years	-	LCRE	Qr
	Stephen, McPake, and McLeod (2012	Scotland	Scottish Gaelic immersion	ECE setting	3–5 years	Formal informal	LCRE	Qr/Int
	Drury (2013)	UK	English L2	Child, home and setting	4 years	Formal informal	AL	Int/Obs
	Kim (2014)	Canada	Trilingualism Korean, French & English	Child, home and ECE setting	1–6 years	Informal	LD	Obs/Jor/Art
	Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014)	Norway	Norwegian L2 literacy	ECE setting / approach	2–5 years	Formal informal	LD	Int/Obs/Jor
	Dolean (2015)	–	English FL	–	–	–	AL	–
	Brumen, Berro, and Cagran (2017)	Slovenia	English FL	ECE setting / approach	3–5 years	Formal informal	AL	Qr / Int / Obs
	Lee and Hassett (2017)	USA	Bilingual Korean / English	Child and ECE setting	5 years	formal	LD	Obs / Jor / Art
	Gunnerud, Reikerås, and Dahle (2018)	Norway	Norwegian L2	Child in ECE setting	2,5 years	Informal	AL	Obs
	Waddington, Bernal, and Jofré (2018)	Spain	English FL	Child in ECE setting	4-5 years	Informal	AL	Int / Obs
2020	Uslu (2020)	Turkey	English FL	Child in ECE setting	5 years	Formal	AL	P-P-T
Multilingual Childhoods Special Issue
	Kirsch 2021	Luxembourg	Multilingual / translanguaging	ECE staff	3–6 years	Informal	LCRE	Ob / Int
	Young & Mary 2021	France	Multilingualteacher education	Teacher education	3–4 years	Informal	LCRE	Qr / Int
	Pesch 2021	Norway/Germany	Multilingual / semiotic landscape	ECE setting	3–6 years	-	LCRE	Ob / Jor
	Schwarz, Hijazy & Deeb 2021	Israel	BilingualArab / Hebrew	Child and setting	1–6 years	Informal	AL	Ob / Jor
	Skaremyr 2021	Sweden	Swedish L2	Child and setting	3–5 years	Informal	AL	Ob / Jor
	Ragnarsdottir 2021	Iceland	Icelandic L2	ECE setting staff and families	1–5 years	Informal	LCRE	Int
	Said 2021	UK	Family language policy Arabic	Parents	1–6 years	–	LD	Qr / Int / Ob
	Mhic Mhathúna & Nic Fhionnlaoich 2021&	Ireland	Immersion education Irish-medium	Parents	3–5 years	–	LCRE	Qr
	Mourão 2021	Portugal	English FL	ECE staff	3–6 years	Formal informal	LCRE	Int/Jor

Key: AL = Acquiring a language; LD = Literacy development; LCRE = Linguistically and culturally responsive education; Ob = Observation; Int = Interview / focus group; Qr = Questionnaire/survey; Jor = Journal / dairy / fieldnotes; P-P-T = Pre-/Post-Tests; Art = Artefacts.