Bilingualism as it occurs in current societies is a complex, multidimensional and dynamic phenomenon, calling for new approaches to capture this concept. This study shows the feasibility of a person-centred approach by combining measures of the use of and proficiency in the first and second language from 110 young Turkish–Dutch children at two measurement waves, using two existing datasets. Latent Profile Analysis revealed four profiles, equivalent at age four and six: 1) Dominant L1 use, relatively low L1 and L2 proficiency, 2) Dual L1 and L2 use, around average L1 and L2 proficiency, 3) Dominant L1 use, relatively high L1 and L2 proficiency and 4) Dominant L2 use, relatively high L2 proficiency. Latent Transition Analysis indicated that children changed in profiles over time. Regression analyses showed that profiles were differently related to the family's socioeconomic status and children's nonverbal intelligence at age four. No relations were found at age six.

This study focuses on the relationship between dialect use and the acquisition of standard Dutch vocabulary by young children in the Dutch province of Limburg.1 The results of a newly-developed dialect expressive vocabulary task show extensive inter-individual variation that does not support a dichotomous distinction between monolingual and bidialectal children. The children’s dialect vocabulary scores are neither positively nor negatively associated with their results on a standardized receptive Dutch vocabulary task. Thus, the acquisition of a dialect does not hinder or facilitate the acquisition of standard Dutch vocabulary.

No abstract

No abstract

Interactive acculturationResearch on the acculturation of immigrant and ethnic-cultural minority groups has been strongly influenced by Berry's two-dimensional Integration-Acculturation Model (Berry, 1997). In this framework, acculturation is defined as the interplay of two theoretically independent dimensions: immigrants' preference for maintenance of the heritage culture and language (which can vary from low to high) and their preference for intercultural contact with members of the majority group and more broadly for participation in the majority society (which can also vary from low to high; see Berry et al., 2006). Combined, these orientations result in four types of acculturation strategies: integration (comparatively strong preference for cultural maintenance and comparatively strong preference for intercultural contact and participation in the majority society), assimilation (low preference for cultural maintenance and high preference for majority group contact and participation), separation (high preference for maintenance of the heritage culture together with a strong orientation on the cultural in-group and low majority group contact and societal participation), and marginalization (low preference for cultural maintenance together with limited connection to the in-group and low preference for intercultural contact with the majority group and participation in the majority society). Zagefka et al. (2011), among other scholars, have pointed out that majority group members and the majority society as a whole also have acculturation preferences for immigrants and ethnic-cultural minority groups, which in turn can shape the acculturation strategies of these groups. This view is referred to as the Interactive Acculturation Model (Bourhis et al., 1997;Zagefka et al., 2011). Acculturation of immigrants is seen as an interactive process that is actively co-constructed by both the immigrants and the majority society (Passiatore et al., 2019;Phalet & Baysu, 2020). In this regard, local and national integration policies are of particular interest. Different local and national policies on integration have been identified across Europe and three main models are currently distinguished (Aggestam & Hill, 2008). The assimilation model, also referred to as the 'republican model' (referring to France as a country that exemplifies this model), opts for cultural homogenization, requiring ethnic-cultural minority groups to adopt the predominant national norms and language. The multicultural model, also referred to as the pluralism model, grants rights to ethnic-cultural groups and supports diversity in public institutions, such as education. Finally, the exclusionary model, also known as the separation model, regards immigrants as temporary guest workers with the prospect of returning, while excluding them from full citizenship (Doomernik & Bruquetas-Callejo, 2016;Rodríguez-García, 2010).As stated above, several European countries nowadays opt for an assimilation model in their local and national policies (Malik, 2015). Alth...