This case study investigates the acquisition of Russian in a language contact situation. It examines a simultaneous Swedish-Russian bilingual child born and raised in Sweden. Qualitative analysis is provided from age 1;4 to 8;5 focusing especially on the earliest stages (before the end of the critical period at 4;5). The aim was to investigate (a) whether the child reaches the same milestones as monolingual children, (b) whether there is evidence that two separate linguistic systems have been developed, (c) whether the child’s grammatical competence in both languages might be qualitatively different from that of monolingual children and (d) whether there is interaction between the languages. The hypothesis tested is that ample input is needed to construct and develop two linguistic systems on a native-speaker level. The main result is that the two linguistic systems do not develop independently from each other; rather, 2L1s develop in permanent interaction where the weaker language – Russian – happens to be influenced by the stronger one – Swedish. The bilingual environment per se might lead to decreased structural complexity in the weaker language. Language dominance is viewed as a major determiner of cross-linguistic effects. This could lead to the development of a new individual variety of Russian (outside Russia).   The results confirm the hypothesis that, even though there was exposure to both languages from birth onwards, the amount of input in the weaker and grammatically more complex language (Russian) received before the cri­tical period was not enough to completely develop full native command of it. The lack of input has an impact on the acquisition of morphology: some morphological categories may have been set randomly or not at all. The structures observed are more ty­pical of L2 than L1 ac­quisition. Morphology may be considered a vulnerable domain since complex mor­phological rules in Russian cannot develop with­out ample input.

Bilingualism characterizes not only people, but homes, schools, and communities across the United States. While some bilingual people are forced to suppress their bilingualism, others are encouraged to develop their skill set to a level of becoming biliterate. Bilingualism and biliteracy are key features in dual language bilingual education (DLBE) programs where students are provided daily opportunities to develop two languages simultaneously, along with grade-level academic content. Research in DLBE suggest closure of the achievement gap (Valentino & Reardon, 2015). Traditionally, DLBE programs were designed to keep the two target languages (for example, Spanish and English) separate as designated by time, space, teacher, and academic content area. Teachers who work under these strict guidelines often find that policing language use is both restrictive and unnatural, thus interfering with the flow of bilingual language development. This qualitative case study included 10 teacher participants from one rural school district in the Midwest. The study investigated how teachers perceive and respond to the constraints of language separation during instructional activities. Data were gathered from teacher interviews, classroom observations, and written informal interviews. Findings from this study indicate that under the strict separation of language program model, DLBE teachers brought their unique personal bilingual experiences to their practice by creating opportunities for dynamic and flexible bilingual language use during instructional time. The following strategies contributed to their students’ dynamic bilingualism: (a) the student as teacher, (b) active learning, student engagement, and group work, (c) the use of cognates, (d) strengthening bridges between languages and metalinguistic transfer, (d) reading the word and the world or learning literacy with culturally and contextually relevant literature, and (e) code-switching and translanguaging as a means of addressing the subtractive nature of language learning within an additive bilingual model. On the basis of the findings, the researcher recommends that DLBE program models open spaces for practicing dynamic and flexible bilingualism. Strategizing spaces for the use of two languages during instructional time fosters growth and development for students to become functionally bilingual and biliterate.