A DST Model of Multilingualism and the Role of Metalinguistic Awareness ULRIKE JESSNER University of Innsbruck English Department Innrain 52/III A-6020 Innsbruck Austria Email:
[email protected] This paper suggests that a dynamic systems theory (DST) provides an adequate conceptual metaphor for discussing multilingual development. Multilingual acquisition is a nonlinear and complex dynamic process depending on a number of interacting factors. Variability plays a crucial role in the multilingual system as it changes over time (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). A number of studies on multilingualism have shown that there are qualitative differences between second and third language learning and that these can be related to an increased level of metalinguistic awareness. From a DST-perspective, metalinguistic knowledge and awareness of this knowledge play a crucial role in the development of individual multilingualism. Language development is a complex and dynamic process. Although this statement can be regarded as common knowledge for many researchers in the field of applied linguistics, most studies on language acquisition are nevertheless still placed within a theoretical framework working with static or linear presuppositions. With an increase in the number of languages involved in multilingual development, the dynamics, that is, the changes and the complexity of language learning, become even more evident. Consequently, a number of researchers have argued that language development only can be adequately researched by applying a multilingual norm to linguistic research; in other words, it is only by investigating multilingual development that we can evaluate language development (e.g., Abunawara, 1992; Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2003b; Cook, 1991; De Angelis & Selinker, 2001; Flynn, Foley, & Vinnitskaya, 2004; Herdina & Jessner, 2002). In this paper, Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) will be presented as an adequate methodological tool to investigate multilingual phenomena. DST has been known in sciences such as meteo-
The Modern Language Journal, 92, ii, (2008) 0026-7902/08/270–283 $1.50/0 C 2008 The Modern Language Journal
rology, mathematics, neurology, and psychology for some time, but was not applied to second language acquisition (SLA) until the 1990s (Bleyhl, 1997; Karpf, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Meara, 1999). Over the last decade, interest in the application of DST to SLA has grown considerably (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; de Bot & Makoni, 2005; Dewaele, 2002; Kramsch, 2002; LarsenFreeman, 2002; van Lier, 2004), and is also shown by this Special Issue of The Modern Language Journal . The Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (DMM), which applies DST to multilingual acquisition (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), can be regarded as a first step toward the exploitation of the method in research on multilingualism. In the DMM, metalinguistic knowledge and awareness of that knowledge have been detected as crucial factors contributing to the catalytic effects that bilingualism can show on third language (L3) learning (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). This paper will discuss the advantages that the application of DST to multilingualism can offer, by focusing specifically on the changing role of metalinguistic awareness in the use and learning of several languages. I will start with the exploration of the characteristics of multilingual development as “ideal” prerequisites for the application of DST to language acquisition research. How DST is applied
271
Ulrike Jessner to multilingualism research in the DMM will be described in the next section. The role of metalinguistic knowledge and awareness of this knowledge in multilingual learning and processing will be studied with a special focus on a recent study carried out with trilingual learners. Finally, future avenues of research on multilingualism will be discussed. CHARACTERISTICS OF MULTILINGUAL DEVELOPMENT Over the last few years, research on L3 acquisition or multilingualism has been increasingly intensified (see, e.g., Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a, 2001b, 2003a) with the main goal of describing multilingual phenomena in order to investigate differences and similarities between second (L2) and L3 acquisition. Most studies have been carried out in the fields of crosslinguistic lexical transfer, the effects of bilingualism on L3 learning, child trilingualism, and tertiary education (see Jessner, 2006). One of the most important questions in the field is related to the status of the L2 in L3 use and acquisition. In various studies of multilingualism, it turned out that the speakers did not rely on their first language (L1) as expected, but on their L2. In several studies of learning an L3 of IndoEuropean origin, it could be shown that L3 learners whose L1 is typologically unrelated to the L2 and/or L3 tend to transfer knowledge from their L2, or in the case of bilinguals, from the related L1 (e.g., Ahukanna, Lund, & Gentile, 1981; Bartelt, 1989; Cenoz, 2001; Chandrasekhar, 1978). These results also have been supported by studies focusing only on Indo-European languages (e.g., De Angelis, 2005a, 2005b; De Angelis & Selinker, 2001; Dewaele, 1998). The activation of languages other than the target language is influenced by factors such as psychotypology (perceived linguistic distance between languages), recency of use, the level of proficiency in the target language (Hammarberg, 2001), the foreign language effect (i.e., the tendency in language learners to activate an earlier L2 in L3 performance; Meisel, 1983), and the learner’s perception of correctness of a target word (De Angelis & Selinker, 2001) (for a list of influential factors, see also Hall & Ecke, 2003). Crosslinguistic influence in a multilingual system not only takes place from the L1 to the L2 and vice versa. Further influence has been detected from the L1 to the L3 and from the L2 to the L3 and vice versa. This expansion of transfer possibilities demonstrates that multilingual acqui-
sition is a far more complex process than SLA, where the role of the L1 in the development of the L2 has been researched extensively. This discussion also makes evident that learning another language (e.g., an L3) can counteract the maintenance of an L2 or L1. In other words, language attrition or loss appears more often in multilingual than in bilingual contexts. In this case, the L3 will become more dominant than the L2 owing to the limitation of resources for languages, as defined in Zipf’s law of least effort (Zipf, 1968). Consequently, using an L1 as indicator for “permanent” language dominance over the lifespan will turn out to be problematic in a multilingual context (see also Jessner, 2003a). Language attrition processes also point to the fact that language learning consists of nonlinear and reversible processes (i.e., development refers to both acquisition and attrition) (Cook, 2003; de Bot & Clyne, 1989; de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Jessner, 2003a). Even if parts of the multilingual system can become fossilized (i.e., will in very general terms stop growing), they will still be able to exert influence on other parts of the system. In contrast to SLA, in third language acquisition (TLA), the routes of learning or order of acquisition show greater diversity, as can be seen in the following:
SLA 1 L1 → L2 2 Lx/Ly
versus
TLA 1 L1 → L2 → L3 2 Lx/Ly/Lz 3 Lx/Ly → L3 4 L1 → Lx/Ly
In contrast to SLA, where we have to deal with two possible acquisition orders, in TLA there may be at least four acquisition orders: 1. The three languages can be learned consecutively. 2. The three languages can be learned simultaneously. 3. L1 and L2 are learned simultaneously before learning the L3. 4. L2 and L3 are learned simultaneously after the acquisition of the L1 (see also Cenoz, 2000). Studies on multilingual development also have made clear that the use of terminology in multilingualism research is problematic. For instance, L1, the term that in SLA studies is used to refer to the dominant language of the bilingual system, cannot easily be applied to a multiple
272 learning context since dominance (breadth or frequency of use) does not necessarily correspond to chronological order of acquisition and is subject to change. This issue becomes most relevant when we think about processes of interruption, that is, when learning or using a particular language is given up for a while due to changes in needs or motivation and/or relearning of languages (e.g., L1→L2→L3→L2) (see, e.g., Faingold, 1999). From the above, it becomes clear that the description of individual multilingual development (i.e., contact with more than two languages over the lifespan) has to take changes in multilingual proficiency into account. Figure 1 (based on Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p.123) models the development of a multilingual system. It demonstrates how the speaker develops language proficiency in more than two languages over a certain period of time. Whereas the primary language system(s) of the speaker remain(s) dominant during this time, the secondary or incipient system undergoes development. The development of the third system is dependent on the acquisition of the first two systems, which in certain cases may take place at the same time, in the same way as simultaneous bilingualism. A closer look at the figure shows that transitional bilingualism forms an integral part
FIGURE 1 Development of Learner Multilingualism
The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) of the development of learner multilingualism (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 125). For modeling purposes, the authors use an ideal learning curve, although this seems to suggest that the level of proficiency of the primary language system remains constant, whereas, in fact, “the level at which a language system stabilises is not fixed and invariable [. . .] but subject to constant variation” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 113), as already mentioned. The graphs used in the DMM “simply relate language learning to time needed and predict the modifications in expected language growth due to the effect of certain factors assumed to affect multilinguals and ignore the fact that the level of achievement is heterogeneous even in monolinguals let alone multilinguals” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, pp. 88–89). To summarize, it can be stated that the development of a multilingual repertoire or multilingual development: changes over time; is nonlinear; is reversible, resulting in language attrition and/or loss; and is complex. Variation in multilingual development and use is strongly linked to the dependence of the system on social, psycholinguistic, and individual factors (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), not to mention the mode of language learning in the form of either natural or instructional learning, but
Ulrike Jessner also various combinations of both (see Cenoz & Genesee, 1998). A DST approach, which uses dynamic modeling to investigate properties of the dynamic adaptation to contexts in change, is able to take all the relevant characteristics of multilingual learning and use into account. In the following section, the application of the DMM to current multilingualism research will be presented in more detail. APPLYING DST TO MULTILINGUALISM The DMM was conceptualized to: (a) serve as a bridge between SLA and multilingualism research (b) indicate that future language acquisition studies should go beyond studies of the contact between two languages, turning their attention toward trilingualism and other forms of multilingualism (c) overcome the implicit and explicit monolingual bias of multilingualism research through the development of an autonomous model of multilingualism (d) provide a scientific means of predicting multilingual development on the basis of factors found to be involved (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, pp. 86–87) Consequently, multilingualism research should avail itself of an autonomous theoretical basis, not merely relying on the findings of L1 and/or L2 learning research since both the results and predictions of research will always be distorted by the assumptions of individual language acquisition studies, which are often cross-sectional. In DST, the call for studies of individual language acquisition is more pronounced than that for group studies. Thus far, developmental aspects have not been a prime object of investigation in the sense of longitudinal studies. However, if our goal is to find out about the differences and similarities between various forms of language development, in particular between SLA and TLA, we need to change our focus of attention and our conceptual approach. MAIN FEATURES OF THE DMM In this part of the discussion, the main characteristics of the DMM will be presented in order to distinguish it from other, more common, approaches to language acquisition research. (a) In the DMM, the discussion focuses not on languages (L1/L2/L3/Ln) but on the development of in-
273 dividual language systems (LS 1 /LS 2 /LS 3 /LS 4 , etc.) forming part of the psycholinguistic system. According to the DMM, the multilingual system is dynamic and adaptive. The multilingual system is accordingly characterized by continuous change and nonlinear growth. As an adaptive system, it possesses the property of elasticity, the ability to adapt to temporary changes in the systems environment, and plasticity, the ability to develop new systems properties in response to altered conditions. This corresponds with van Geert (1994), who stated that “a system is, by definition, a dynamic system and so we define a dynamic system as a set of variables that mutually affect each other’s changes over time” (p. 50; see also Briggs & Peat, 1989, p. 11). (b) In the DMM, psycholinguistic systems are defined as open systems depending on psychological and social factors. Linguistic aspects of individual multilingualism are shaped by the sociolinguistic settings in which ´ Laoire and the multilingual’s life takes place. O Aronin (2004) present an ecological model of multilinguality. They state that multilinguality is intertwined with many, if not all, aspects of identity and that the social and cultural environment plays a decisive role in the structure and specifications of multilinguality. In other words, language needs change according to the personal situation or even changes in identity, as sometimes found in the lives of immigrants. Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2006) refer to the dynamic interaction between psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, and situational aspects as “intrinsic dynamics of the learner,” that is, the interaction between the social context, the physical environment, and the cognitive context (task). They also point out that learning and change is at once individual and social (see also de Bot, 2000). (c) In the DMM, language choice or use depends on the perceived communicative needs of the multilingual speaker. In the model, perceived communicative needs, which are psychologically and sociologically determined, are identified as the driving force of language learning and use. The speaker decides which language to use with whom and in which situation, and also when and why another language should be added to the multilingual’s repertoire. Baker (2001) states that “language choice— who will speak what language, when and to whom (Fishman, 1965)—can be the result of a large and interacting set of factors” (p. 13). Several factors have been said to influence the decision to speak a particular language to
274 a particular person at a particular moment. Grosjean (2001) suggests including the following: . . . the participant(s) . . . (this includes such factors as language proficiency, language mixing habits and attitudes, usual mode of interaction, kinship relation, socioeconomic status, etc.), the situation (physical location, presence of monolinguals, degree of formality and of intimacy), the form and content of the message being uttered or listened to (language used, topic, type of vocabulary needed, amount of mixed language), the function of the language act . . . and specific research factors (the aims of the study taking place . . . , the type and organization of the stimuli, the task used, etc.). (p. 5)
Grosjean’s work on language mode (e.g., 2001) discusses the notion of language choice in multilingual speech situations and the psychological and sociological conditions of change in that choice. According to Grosjean (2001), a trilingual person can function in a monolingual, bilingual, or trilingual mode with various levels of activation, in relation to her or his position on the language mode continuum. Activation of the various languages is strongly influenced, among other factors, by the speaker’s usual language mixing habits, language proficiency, socioeconomic status, the presence of mono- and bilinguals, and the degree of formality (see also de Bot, 2004, on the concept of the language node).
The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) this takes place, and the time span over which the language system is maintained (see also Jessner, 2003a). A well-known example of the stabilizing effect of a language system is fossilization, a very common phenomenon in multilingual learning. The reasons for fossilization are complex and interrelated over time; in many cases, they are related to domain specificity in bi- or multilingual contexts (see Larsen-Freeman, 2006, for a critical study of research on fossilization). (e) In the DMM, language systems are seen as interdependent (rather than autonomous systems, as they are perceived in mainstream SLA research). The behavior of each individual language system in a multilingual system largely depends on the behavior of previous and subsequent systems, and it would therefore not make sense to look at the systems in isolation (see also Bates & Carnevale, 1992, p. 11, on nonlinear behavior). Furthermore, the DMM establishes a bridge between SLA (process) and bilingualism (product) because it provides a tool that can be used to view learner systems and stable systems as variants of multilingual systems obeying the same fundamental principles. By researching the dynamics of TLA or multiple language acquisition, the link between bilingualism as product and SLA as process can be understood as TLA can result from different approaches to language learning.
(d) In the DMM, systems stability is related to language maintenance.
(f) In the DMM, the holistic approach is a necessary prerequisite for understanding the dynamic interaction between complex systems in multilingualism.
In the DMM, it is argued that the learner’s resources are limited; that is, the learner has a certain amount of time and energy available to spend on learning and maintaining a language. Consequently, in a psycholinguistic context, the learner will gradually lose access to knowledge if not enough time and energy is spent on refreshing the knowledge of an L2 or L3 so that positive growth can counteract the negative growth that eventually results in language attrition or gradual language loss. Thus, maintenance of a language system results in an adaptive process in which the level of language proficiency is adjusted to the perceived communicative needs. The stability of a psycholinguistic system is dependent on the requirements of language maintenance; that is, the system will erode if not enough energy and time is invested in maintaining the system. Other factors influencing systems stability are the number of languages involved, the maturational age at which a language is learned and relative stability established, the level of proficiency at which
The complexity and variability, as a measure of stability (see van Geert, 2006) of the multilingual system are influenced by individual cognitive factors such as motivation, anxiety, language aptitude, and self-esteem as well as social factors, which can influence linguistic aspects of the multilingual system. As Briggs and Peat (1989) describe, “every complex system is a changing part of a greater whole, a nesting of larger and larger wholes” (p. 148). The DMM can be used to take a holistic view of multilingualism; that is, a multilingual system should be modeled according to holistic principles (Philips, 1992). Such a holistic view is a necessary presupposition of a dynamic view; a dynamic view of multilingualism assumes that the presence of one or more language systems influences the development not only of the L2, but also the development of the overall multilingual system. In other holistic approaches, the relationship between the dynamics of language development
Ulrike Jessner and holism has not specifically been discussed. Since the publication of the DMM in 2002, the term multicompetence, created by Cook (e.g., 1991; based on Grosjean, e.g., 1985, 2001), has established itself as the most widely used term for bilingual and multilingual competence in applied linguistics. Recently, Cook himself has given up on using “bilingual” since he considers it biased. Instead, he has introduced the L2 use as a better concept. Although he has shown interest in the role of the L2 in the L1 (Cook, 2003), in contrast to the DMM, he has not focused on aspects of change in language development in his definition of language competence in bilinguals. According to Cook (2002), L2 users are characterized as follows: 1. The L2 user has other uses for language than the monolingual. 2. The L2 user’s knowledge of the second language is typically not identical to that of a native speaker. 3. The L2 user’s knowledge of his or her language is in some respects not the same as that of a monolingual. 4. L2 users have different minds from those of monolinguals. (pp. 4–8) Cook’s ideas about the integration continuum, which captures different relationships between two language systems in the same mind from separation to integration, thus fits with the DMM; that is, “it sees the language system of the L2 user as a whole rather than as an interaction between separate language components” (Cook, 2003, p. 11). This also implies that the relationship between the L1 and the interlanguage within one mind is different from that between the interlanguage in one mind and the L2 when the L2 has the status of an L1 in another mind (Cook, 2006). Cook himself pointed out in his plenary lecture given at the European Second Language Association Conference in 2006, that in order to capture the multilingual learner’s mind, we need a holistic approach such as that taken by Herdina and Jessner (2002) (Cook, 2006). A DST PERSPECTIVE OF MULTILINGUAL PROFICIENCY In the DMM, multilingual proficiency is defined as the dynamic interaction among the various psycholinguistic systems (LS 1 , LS 2 , LS 3 , LS n ) in which the individual languages (L1, L2, L3, Ln) are embedded, crosslinguistic interaction, and what is called the M(ultilingualism) factor.
275 The latter refers to all the effects in multilingual systems that distinguish a multilingual from a monolingual system, that is, all those qualities that develop in a multilingual speaker/learner due to the increase in language contact(s). As mentioned above, language contacts depend on the perceived communicative needs of the individual. In other words, the psycholinguistic systems of the multilingual individual, which are in constant change, interact with each other in a nonadditive but cumulative way. Crosslinguistic interaction in multilinguals, seen as a wider concept than Kellerman and Sharwood Smith’s (1986) crosslinguistic influence, is described as an umbrella term, including not only transfer and interference, but also codeswitching and borrowing. Furthermore, it is also meant to cover another set of phenomena, including the cognitive effects of multilingual development. These are nonpredictable dynamic effects that determine the development of the systems themselves (Jessner, 2003b; Kellerman, 1995). Such a view is also related, but not identical, to Cummins’s Common Underlying Proficiency (e.g., 1991) and Kecskes and Papp’s Common Underlying Conceptual Base (2000) (see, e.g., Cook, 1991, 2002). According to the DMM, seemingly identical phenomena of transfer can lead to divergent results in different multilingual systems, even if they are transitionally commanded by the same speaker, as shown in Figure 1 or 2. The M(ultilingualism) factor is an emergent property that can contribute to the catalytic or accelerating effects in TLA. Emergent properties are the result of autocatalytic effects, they are only to be found in open systems, and they are a function of the interaction between systems. Yet, they are not systems properties per se (Strohner, 1995). The key factor of the M effect— as it might also be referred to since it is difficult to decide whether it constitutes a precondition or a result of multilingualism—is metalinguistic awareness. It is made up of a set of skills or abilities that the multilingual user develops owing to her/his prior linguistic and metacognitive knowledge. The knowledge and metalinguistic awareness influence further language learning or learning a second foreign language (see Kemp, 2001). The multilingual system is not only in constant change, but the multilingual learner also develops certain skills and abilities that the monolingual speaker lacks. These are language-specific and nonlanguage-specific skills used in language learning, language management, and maintenance. Language management skills refer to the integration and separation of language resources
276
The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
FIGURE 2 Multilingual Proficiency
and the act of balancing communicative requirements with language resources. In the DMM, the multilingual learner or user is assumed to develop and make use of an enhanced multilingual monitor, where monitoring goes beyond error detection and self-repair and fulfills a separator and cross-checker function, for instance, by drawing on common resources in the use of more than one language system (see also de Bot & Jessner, 2002). Language maintenance skills are a necessary prerequisite for the maintenance and increase of a certain level of language proficiency. Language maintenance effort, which is considered a crucial part of individual multilingualism, mainly depends on two factors, that is, language use and language awareness. Whereas language use is seen as having a refresher or activating function that contributes to the maintenance of a language, language awareness refers to the conscious manipulation of and reflection on the rules of a language (Herdina & Jessner, 2000). What these skills and abilities have in common is their relationship with a heightened level of metalinguistic awareness in multilingual learners and users (see, e.g., Lightbown & Spada, 1990). In particular, in the case of typologically related languages, a catalytic effect, that is, a qualitative
change in further language learning, has been detected in experienced language learners. These new skills contribute to a metasystem in multilinguals, which is the result of a bilingual norm; in contrast, in SLA the learner refers to a monolingual norm (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). Additionally, the learner of a second foreign language can profit from prior language learning experience, as emphasized by Hufeisen in her Factor model (e.g., 1998). Thus, multilingual systems contain components that monolingual systems lack, and even those components that the multilingual system shares with the monolingual system have a different significance within the system. This stands in clear contrast to common approaches to defining language proficiency in second language learning theory, including most recent attempts to define native language proficiency as the goal of second language learning, such as Hulstijn’s (2006) definition of core proficiency as an alternative concept to nativespeaker proficiency. Such an approach neglects the cognitive skills that nonnative speakers of a language acquire on top of all of their linguistic skills, such as an enhanced level of metalinguistic awareness; these skills are part of the M factor in the DMM. Belief in the native speaker
277
Ulrike Jessner standard is also one reason why the effects of the L2 on the L1 have been so little studied, as emphasized by Cook (2003): “If the L1 of the L2 user were different from that of monolingual native speakers, SLA research that used the native speaker as the target would be based on shifting sand” (p. 5). As already noted in Herdina and Jessner (2002), metalinguistic abilities still lack the necessary operationalization to be immediately verifiable. But it is important to realize that metalinguistic abilities, if a function of multilingual acquisition, obviously presuppose the existence of this phenomenon and are, therefore, difficult to observe in primary language acquisition, be it monolingual or multilingual. Nevertheless, they are expected to have a catalytic effect on further language learning processes, as explicated below in more detail. In other words, even if it might appear to be impossible at the moment to determine the effect of initial conditions on L2 development (apart from phonological awareness, which is related to reading acquisition in the native language), as pointed out by de Bot et al. (2007), researching the role of metalinguistic knowledge and awareness of this knowledge can help to shed light on the differences between SLA and TLA. Following meteorology (Lorenz, 1972), which uses the “butterfly effect” or sensitive dependence on initial conditions to refer to the predictability of dynamic systems, an M effect might be assumed to exist in multilingual systems where development is influenced by the accelerating effect that the development of metalinguistic awareness can have on further or L3 learning in particular. THE KEY ROLE OF METALINGUISTIC AWARENESS IN TLA Defining Metalinguistic Awareness Metalinguistic awareness encompasses the linguistic skills that develop at the higher level of creativity and reorganization of information (Hamers & Blanc, 1989). It can be defined as the ability to focus on linguistic form and to switch focus between form and meaning. Individuals who are metalinguistically aware are able to categorize words into parts of speech; switch focus between form, function, and meaning; and explain why a word has a particular function (see also Jessner, 2007a; Kemp, 2006). Since Peal and Lambert in their influential study, which was published in 1962, ascribed a
crucial role to the higher level of metalinguistic awareness as contributing to the success of their bilingual subjects over their monolingual counterparts, interest in the nature of this skill has grown considerably. Although monolingual speakers also develop metalinguistic awareness— mainly those groups of professionals working with language on a daily basis such as journalists and authors—the nature of awareness cannot be compared in both degree and quality to awareness as developed in bi- and multilingual users or nonprofessionals. Vygotsky (1986) pointed out that contact with a foreign language helps children sharpen their knowledge of the L1. Metalinguistic awareness developing in individuals living with two or three languages is seen to develop with regard to (a) divergent and creative thinking (e.g., wider variety of associations, original ideas); (b) interactional and/or pragmatic competence (cultural theorems of greeting, thanking, etc.); (c) communicative sensitivity and flexibility (language mode); and (d) translation skills that are considered a natural trait in the majority of multilinguals (Jessner, 2006). Translation also should be included in a comprehensive listing, as it is a natural characteristic of bi- and multilingualism, which Malakoff and Hakuta (1991) describe as a “composite of communicative and metalinguistic skills—skills that are ‘translinguistic,’ in the sense that they are not particular to any one language” (p. 142). Whereas cognitive style was investigated in earlier studies on bilingualism, recent research has shown more interest in the process of bilingual thinking (Baker, 2006). Research into metalinguistic awareness in studies of multilingualism has so far mainly been done to explore the effects of bilingualism on L3 learning and conditions for artificial language learning. Studies of Metalinguistic Awareness in TLA Effects of Bilingualism on TLA. Based on an extensive overview of research on bilingualism and additional language learning, Cenoz (2003) presents a detailed critical review of the studies on the effects of bilingualism on cognitive development. She concludes that most studies on general proficiency indicate a positive effect of bilingualism on TLA and that this effect can be explained as related to learning strategies, metalinguistic awareness, and communicative ability, in particular if the languages in contact are typologically
278 close (see also Jessner, 1999). In a number of studies, mainly carried out in Scandinavia and in the Basque Country, such an additive effect of bilingualism on L3 learning, in both cases English, was found (Ringbom, 1987; Thomas, 1992; Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Lasagabaster, 1997; Safont, 2003). Artificial Language Learning. Nation and McLaughlin (1986); Nayak, Hansen, Krueger, & McLaughlin (1990); and McLaughlin and Nayak (1989) studied the learning of artificial miniature linguistic systems. The first study showed a positive transfer of learning strategies only for the domain of implicit learning. In the second, there was no clear evidence for a general superiority of multilinguals in language learning abilities, although they were found to adapt their learning strategies more easily to task requirements. The third study suggested a learning advantage for expert learners over less experienced foreign language learners. Kemp (2001) found that the performance of multilingual adults on all six tests of grammatical awareness, including one using artificial grammars, increased with the number of languages they knew. Exploring Metalinguistic Awareness in Multilinguals. An increasing number of studies of crosslexical consultation, that is, how bi- and multilinguals search for words in their other languages when they meet linguistic problems in the target language, have been carried out in various linguistic settings over the last 20 years (e.g., Cenoz, 2003; Faerch & Kasper, 1986; ¨ Herwig, 2001; M¨ohle, 1989; Muller-Lanc´ e, 2003; Singleton, 1999). An introspective study by Jessner (2006) will be presented here in more detail as it is one of very few studies on multilingual adults aimed at exploring different aspects of awareness of metalinguistic knowledge in multilingual production. The theoretical background of the study was provided by the DMM. The sample consisted of 17 bilingual students (L1–2: Italian–German) from South Tyrol (Italy) studying English (B2 on the Common European Frame of Reference, describing an intermediate proficiency level) at Innsbruck University (Tyrol, Austria). The relatively small number of subjects is not surprising when it is taken into account that members for the multilingual testing group not only had to study English as a subject at Innsbruck University, but also live with families who use both Italian and German, to ensure high proficiency levels in both languages.
The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) The goal of the study was to investigate whether there was evidence for increased metalinguistic awareness in the production of English as the L3 of the students. In particular, there was a focus on the relationship between crosslinguistic interaction and metalinguistic awareness in the use of compensatory strategies, as defined by Poulisse, Bongaerts, and Kellerman (1997). Faerch and Kasper (1983) defined strategies as potentially conscious and, therefore, different facets of metalinguistic awareness were chosen for investigation: (a) how students think in a (third) language and (b) how students think about language(s). Think-aloud protocols were chosen as methodological tools to provide evidence of language choice during the production of writing tasks (based on Cumming’s Ph.D. dissertation, 1988). The analysis concentrated on (a) how students resorted to other languages during a lexical search either before or after the L3 item and (b) the identification of different forms and functions of codeswitching. Based on Zimmermann’s index of lexical insecurity (1992), lack of knowledge and the search for alternatives were identified as the main functions of (or causes for) compensatory strategies. Analysis of the strategies that the students used to overcome their linguistic deficits shows that they resorted to both Italian and German, either before or after the target language item. They produced German-based, Italian-based, and combined strategies. Most strikingly: (a) Before the L3 item, they produced a larger number of switches to German (. . . Steven Pinker ¨ some, (G) eigene, some . . . added, (G) hinzugefugt, personal evidence . . .). (b) After the L3 item, they produced a larger number of switches to Italian (OK, this is proved, no this is sustained, (I) sostenere, sustained by the theory that. . .). (c) German was clearly dominant in replacements for L3 items. The results of the study point to several issues, which certainly need more attention in future research into multilingualism. They concern (a) the use of supporter languages in L3 production, and (b) the use of metalanguage (ML), the most explicit expression of metalinguistic awareness. Judging by the position of switching within a sentence, German and Italian were assigned different roles in the production of English. Whereas German was described as the main supporter
279
Ulrike Jessner language functioning as a springboard in case of lexical problems because of its dominant activation in initial position, Italian was used as a confirmer of the lexical choice as students used it after a successful search, that is, after finding the English target lexical item. This supports Hammarberg (2001), who also found differences between the roles of supporter languages and suggested that they should be integrated into future models of multilingual production. Furthermore, a relationship between the use of ML and the use of compensatory strategies was detected. Analysis of the use of ML showed that: (a) ML can precede switches and exert a control function in production (E→G wie sagt man da? [how do you say this?] →I come quelli [like those] →G Plural →E). (b) The language of the ML can be considered an indicator of language dominance; in this case, German ML was used most often. (c) The number of ML-related switches appears to be related to the number of languages involved in a compensatory strategy; that is, most ML-related switches were found in combined strategies (see also Jessner, 2005, on multilingual ML). Relationship Between Crosslinguistic Interaction and Metalinguistic Awareness. The relationship between crosslinguistic interaction, that is, the activation of languages other than the target language during L3 production, and metalinguistic awareness was the main focus of Jessner (2006). This dynamic interplay between crosslinguistic interaction and metalinguistic awareness sheds light on key variables that form part of the M factor. James (1996) defines crosslinguistic awareness as knowledge held at the explicit (declarative) level of metacognition. In his crosslinguistic approach to language awareness, he points out that the “language transfer issue of classical Contrastive Analysis becomes a new issue of metalinguistic transfer — and its relationship to cross-linguistic awareness” (p. 143; emphasis in original; see also Schmid, 1993; Schweers, 1996). According to the results of Jessner (2006), learners express their crosslinguistic awareness by making use of supporter languages. This process is marked by the search for similarities, which is part of metalinguistic thinking during multilingual production processes (see also Cumming, 1988, on bilingual writing). Crosslinguistic awareness in multilingual production is described as (a) tacit awareness shown by the use of cognates in the supporter languages (mainly in the use of combined strategies) and (b) explicit awareness
in the case of switches that are introduced by metalanguage. It is argued that the use of cognates or the search for crosslinguistic similarities forms an important part of compensatory strategy use in multilingual production and hints at the problematic usage of the implicit/explicit dichotomy, as shown, for instance, by B¨orner (1997). He tested N. Ellis’s (1994) claim that knowledge concerning formal aspects of vocabulary is stored as implicit knowledge while aspects of lexical meaning are stored as explicit knowledge and found only partial support for the claim. B¨orner points out that the formal characteristics of cognates are learned implicitly, whereas their syntactic and morphological features are stored as explicit knowledge, that is, resulting from conscious analysis. More recently, N. Ellis (2005) discussed dynamic interactions between explicit and implicit knowledge. Although the findings of the study have to be seen as rather limited considering the small database, produced by a very distinct population, it can be concluded from the results that a definition of multilingual proficiency would have to include at least two types of awareness, which are crosslinguistic awareness and metalinguistic awareness. Crosslinguistic awareness in L3 production can be defined as the awareness (tacit and explicit) of the interaction between the languages in a multilingual’s mind; metalinguistic awareness adds to this by making objectification possible. Differentiation and selectivity in multilingual production seem to be governed by different levels of awareness that should clearly lead us to question a bipolar discussion of multilingual phenomena (see also Cenoz, 2003). FUTURE RESEARCH ON MULTILINGUAL AWARENESS Several questions concerning the force of metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals or multilingual awareness in multilingual systems have arisen from Jessner (2006). They concern, for instance: 1. The integration of different roles for supporter languages in (dynamic) models of multilingual processing. 2. The relationship between a heightened level of attention and a heightened level of awareness in multilingual production. 3. The implicit/explicit dichotomy in research on language acquisition. 4. Approaches to multilingual awareness in the classroom. 5. How TLA might be modeled.
280 For further insight into the nature of metalinguistic knowledge in multilinguals, and the effects of raising awareness of that knowledge in multilingual learners, future studies of multilingualism should consider applying a DST approach to language development to be able to explore and understand the complex interrelationships among variables involved in multiple language learning over time (see Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2006). Future tests of language proficiency for multilingual learners or users might take a DST approach to multilingual proficiency into consideration by using a holistic approach. That is, apart from testing linguistic knowledge, tests of multilingual proficiency also should include tests of metalinguistic knowledge, which clearly goes beyond grammatical knowledge because it also includes knowledge of crosslinguistic interaction in multilingual learners (Jessner, 2006; Jessner, in press a, b). The challenging enterprise for the future will be to model the role of metalinguistic awareness as a force or emergent property in multilingual systems since it is itself affected by other variables, is capable of affecting other variables, and changes in terms of its magnitude and effect on other variables over time. A NEW WAY OF THINKING FOR MULTILINGUALISM RESEARCH This article presents DST as a useful conceptual tool for researching multilingualism. For example, DST helps to explain that there are qualitative differences between L2 and L3 learning and that a holistic approach to multilingual proficiency is necessary to understand and set up goals for multilingual teaching. It makes clear that a multilingual norm ought to be used in linguistic research, whether research into L1, L2, L3, and so on, since research into multilingualism includes all types of acquisition research. Such an approach implies that multilingual competence is not an exceptional form of linguistic competence, but that monolingual language acquisition presents an exceptional model that cannot be applied to multilingualism. In addition, it implies that multilingualism cannot be interpreted as additive monolingualism, but that a multilingual system must be interpreted as a different system with different rules.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank Jasone Cenoz, Paul van Geert, Charlotte Kemp, Kees de Bot, the editor of
The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) this Special Issue, and four anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and various discussions on this issue.
REFERENCES Abunawara, E. (1992). The structure of the trilingual lexicon. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 311–322. Ahukanna, J., Lund, N., & Gentile, R. (1981). Interand intra-lingual interference effects in learning a third language. Modern Language Journal, 65, 281– 287. ´ Laoire, M. (2003). Exploring multilinAronin, L., & O gualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of multilinguality. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (Eds.), Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp. 11–29). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingualism and bilingual education (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingualism and bilingual education (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bartelt, G. (1989). The interaction of multilingual constraints. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 151–177). T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr. Bates, E., & Carnevale, G. (1992). Developmental psychology in the 1990s: Language development. Project in Cognitive Neurodevelopment. (CRL Tech. Rep. No. 9204). University of California, San Diego: Center for Research in Language. Bleyhl, W. (1997). Fremdsprachenlernen als dynamischer und nichtlinearer Prozeß oder: weshalb die Bilanz des traditionellen Unterrichts und auch der Fremdsprachenforschung “nicht schmeichelhaft” szein kann [Foreign language learning as a dynamic and non-linear process or: Why the outcome of both traditional teaching and research of foreign language learning cannot be “flattering”]. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 219–238. B¨orner, W. (1997). Implizites und explizites Wissen im fremdsprachlichen Wortschatz [Implicit and explicit knowledge in the foreign language vocabulary]. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 44–67. Briggs, J., & Peat, F. (1989). Turbulent mirror. An illustrated guide to chaos theory and the science of wholeness. New York: Harper & Row. Cenoz, J. (2000). Research on multilingual acquisition. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 39–53). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in L3 acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8–20). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ulrike Jessner Cenoz, J. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Implications of the organization of the multilingual lexicon. Bulletin VALS/ASLA, 78, 1–11. Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001a). Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001b). Looking beyond second language acquisition. Studies ¨ in tri- and multilingualism. Tubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2003a). The multilingual lexicon. Dorchrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2003b). Why investigate the multilingual lexicon. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 1–10). Dorchrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 197–209. Chandrasekhar, A. (1978). Base language, IRAL, XVI, 1, 62–65. Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research, 7, 103–117. Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–28). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (2006, September). The nature of the L2 user . Plenary paper presented at the EUROSLA conference, Antalya, Turkey. Retrieved September 2007 from http://homepage. nt1world.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/EURO2006.htm Cumming, A. (1988). Writing expertise and second language proficiency in ESL writing performance. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Canada. Cummins, J. (1991). Language learning and bilingualism. Sophia Linguistica, 29, 1–194. De Angelis, G. (2005a). Multilingualism and non-native lexical transfer: An identification problem. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2, 1–25. De Angelis, G. (2005b). Interlanguage influence of function words. Language Learning 55(3), 379– 414. De Angelis, G., & Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition:
281 Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 42–58). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. de Bot, K. (2000). Sociolinguistics and language processing mechanisms. Sociolinguistica, 14, 345–361. de Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: Modeling selection and control. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 17–32. de Bot, K., & Clyne, M. (1989). Language reversion revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 167–177. de Bot, K., & Jessner, U. (2002, March). The role of the language node in multilingual processing . Paper presented at the Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition Colloquium, Leiden, The Netherlands. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21. de Bot, K., & Makoni, S. (Eds.). (2005). Language and aging in multilingual societies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dewaele, J.-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19, 471–490. Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Variation, chaos et syst`eme en interlangue franc¸aise [Variation, chaos and system in the French interlanguage]. In J.-M. Dewaele & R. Mougeon (Eds.), L’appropriation de la variation en franc¸ais langue e´ trang`ere. AILE (Acquisition et interaction en langue e´ trang`ere), 17, 143– 167. Ellis, N. (1994). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive mediation. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 211–282). London: Academic Press. Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 143–188. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). One learner-two languages: Investigating types of interlanguage knowledge. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 211–227). T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr. Faingold, E. (1999). The re-emergence of Spanish and Hebrew in a multilingual adolescent. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2, 283–295. Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–16. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
282 Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 467–477. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Blackwell. Hall, C., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). The multilingual lexicon (pp. 71–86). Dorchrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 21–41). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2000). Multilingualism as an ecological system: The case for language maintenance. In B. Kettemann & H. Penz (Eds.), ECOnstructing language, nature and society: The ecolinguistic project revisited (pp. 131–144). T¨ubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Herwig, A. (2001). Plurilingual lexical organisation: Evidence from lexical processing in L1–L2–L3–L4 translation. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 115– 137). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hufeisen, B. (1998). L3-Stand der Forschung—Was bleibt zu tun? [L3-State of the art—what needs to be done?]. In B. Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.), L2-L3 und ihre zwischensprachliche Interaktion: Zu individueller mehrsprachigkeit und gesteuertem lernen [L2-L3 and their crosslinguistic interaction: About individual multilingualism and instructed learning (pp. 169–183)]. T¨ubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Hulstijn, J. (2006, June). Defining and measuring the construct of second-language proficiency. Plenary paper presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal, Canada. James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. Language Awareness, 4, 138–148. Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language learning. Language Awareness, 3 & 4, 201– 209. Jessner, U. (2003a). A dynamic approach to language attrition in multilingual systems. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 234– 247). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Jessner, U. (2003b). On the nature of crosslinguistic interaction in multilinguals. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 45–55). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) Jessner, U. (2005). Multilingual metalanguage, or the way multilinguals talk about their languages. Language Awareness, 14, 56–68. Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Jessner, U. (2007a). Language awareness in multilinguals. In N. Hornberger (Series Ed.) & J. Cenoz (Vol. Ed.), Knowledge about language: Vol. V. Handbook of language and education (pp. 35–369). New York: Springer. Jessner, U. (2007b). Multicompetence approaches to the development of language proficiency in multilingual education. In N. Hornberger (Series Ed.) & J. Cummins (Vol. Ed.), Bilingual education: Vol. VI. Handbook of language and education (pp. 91– 103). New York: Springer. Karpf, A. (1990). Selbstorganisationsprozesse in der sprachlichen Ontogenese: Erst- und Fremdsprache(n) [Selforganization in linguistic ontogenesis: First- and foreign language(s)]. T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr. Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125–150. Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Kemp, C. (2001). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Implicit and explicit grammatical awareness and its relationship with language experience and language attainment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. Kemp, C. (2006, July). Implicit and explicit knowledge of grammatical form and function in learners using three or more languages. Paper presented at the conference of the Association for Language Awareness, Le Mans, France. Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language use: An ecological perspective. New York: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There is no end, and there is no state. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 189–200). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2006, June). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems theory perspective. Paper presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal, Canada.
Ulrike Jessner Lasagabaster, D. (1997). Creatividad y concienca metaling¨u´ıstica: incidencia en el aprendizaje del ingl´es como L3 [Creativity and metalinguistic awareness: Effects on learning English as L3]. Doctoral thesis, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 429– 448. Lorenz, E. (1972). Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wing in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? Paper presented at the American Association of the Advancement of Sciences, Washington, DC. Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 141–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, B., & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new language: Does knowing other languages make a difference? In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), ¨ Interlingual processes (pp. 5–14). Tubingen, Germany: Narr. Meara, P. (1999). Self organization in bilingual lexicons. In P. Broeder & J. Muure (Eds.), Language and thought in development (pp. 127–144). T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr. Meisel, J. (1983). Transfer as a second language strategy. Language and Communication, 3, 11–46. M¨ohle, D. (1989). Multilingual interaction in foreign language production. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 179– ¨ 194). Tubingen, Germany: Narr. ¨ Muller-Lanc´ e, J. (2003). Der Wortschatz romanischer Sprachen im Terti¨arspracherwerb [The vocabulary of Romance languages in third language acquisition]. T¨ubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Experts and novices: An information-processing approach to the “good language learner” problem. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 51–56. Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language-learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, 40(2), 221–244. ´ Laoire, M., & Aronin, L. (2004). Exploring multilinO gualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of multilinguality. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (Eds.), Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp. 11–29). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Peal, E., & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1–23.
283 Phillips, D. (1992). The social scientist’s bestiary: A guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, Naturalistic Social Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1987). The use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 213–229). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of first language in foreign language learning . Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Safont Jord`a, M. (2003). Metapragmatic awareness and pragmatic production of third language learners of English: A focus on request acts realisations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 43–69. Schmid, S. (1993). Learning strategies for closely related languages: On the Italian spoken by Spanish immigrants in Switzerland. In B. Kettemann & W. Wieden (Eds.), Current issues in European second acquisition research (pp. 405–419). T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr. Schweers, W. (1996, July). Metalinguistic awareness and language transfer: One thing leads to another . Paper presented at the conference of the Association for Language Awareness, Dublin, Ireland. Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strohner, H. (1995). Kognitive Systeme. Eine Einf¨uhrung in die Kognitionswissenschaft [Cognitive systems: An introduction to the science of cognition]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Thomas, J. (1992). Metalinguistic awareness in secondand third-language learning. In R. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 531–545). Amsterdam: Elsevier. van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. van Geert, P. (2006, June). Modelling L1 and L2 development as an iterative process. Paper presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal, Canada. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zimmermann, R. (1992). Lexical knowledge: Evidence from L1 and L2 narratives and L1–L2 translations. In C. Mair & M. Markus (Eds.), Neue Ans¨atze in der Kontrastiven Linguistik [New departures in contrastive linguistics] (pp. 301–311). Innsbruck, Aus¨ Sprachwissenschaft. tria: Verlag des Instituts fur Zipf, G. (1968). The Psycho-Biology of language: An introduction to Dynamic Philology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
