A DST Model of Multilingualism andthe Role of Metalinguistic AwarenessULRIKE JESSNERUniversity of InnsbruckEnglish DepartmentInnrain 52/IIIA-6020 InnsbruckAustriaEmail: ulrike.jessner@uibk.ac.atThis paper suggests that a dynamic systems theory (DST) provides an adequate conceptualmetaphor for discussing multilingual development. Multilingual acquisition is a nonlinear andcomplex dynamic process depending on a number of interacting factors. Variability plays acrucial role in the multilingual system as it changes over time (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). Anumber of studies on multilingualism have shown that there are qualitative differences betweensecond and third language learning and that these can be related to an increased level ofmetalinguistic awareness. From a DST-perspective, metalinguistic knowledge and awareness ofthis knowledge play a crucial role in the development of individual multilingualism.Language development is a complex and dynamicprocess. Although this statement can beregarded as common knowledge for many researchersin the field of applied linguistics, moststudies on language acquisition are neverthelessstill placed within a theoretical framework workingwith static or linear presuppositions. With anincrease in the number of languages involved inmultilingual development, the dynamics, that is,the changes and the complexity of language learning,become even more evident. Consequently, anumber of researchers have argued that languagedevelopment only can be adequately researchedby applying a multilingual norm to linguistic research;in other words, it is only by investigatingmultilingual development that we can evaluatelanguage 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 methodologicaltool 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 $1.50/0C_2008 The Modern Language Journalrology, mathematics, neurology, and psychologyfor some time, but was not applied to second languageacquisition (SLA) until the 1990s (Bleyhl,1997; Karpf, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Meara,1999). Over the last decade, interest in the applicationof DST to SLA has grown considerably (deBot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; de Bot & Makoni,2005; Dewaele, 2002; Kramsch, 2002; Larsen-Freeman, 2002; van Lier, 2004), and is also shown

by this Special Issue of The Modern LanguageJournal.The Dynamic Model of Multilingualism(DMM), which applies DST to multilingual acquisition(Herdina & Jessner, 2002), can be regardedas a first step toward the exploitation ofthe method in research on multilingualism. In theDMM, metalinguistic knowledge and awarenessof that knowledge have been detected as crucialfactors contributing to the catalytic effects thatbilingualism can show on third language (L3)learning (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). This paperwill discuss the advantages that the applicationof DST to multilingualism can offer, by focusingspecifically on the changing role of metalinguisticawareness in the use and learning of several languages.I will start with the exploration of the characteristicsof multilingual development as “ideal”prerequisites for the application of DST to languageacquisition research. How DST is appliedUlrike Jessner 271to multilingualism research in the DMM will bedescribed in the next section. The role ofmetalinguisticknowledge and awareness of this knowledgein multilingual learning and processing willbe studied with a special focus on a recent studycarried out with trilingual learners. Finally, futureavenues of research on multilingualism will bediscussed.CHARACTERISTICS OF MULTILINGUALDEVELOPMENTOver the last few years, research on L3 acquisitionor multilingualism has been increasingly intensified(see, e.g., Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Cenoz,Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a, 2001b, 2003a) withthe main goal of describing multilingual phenomenain order to investigate differences and similaritiesbetween second (L2) and L3 acquisition.Most studies have been carried out in the fields ofcrosslinguistic lexical transfer, the effects of bilingualismon L3 learning, child trilingualism, andtertiary education (see Jessner, 2006).One of the most important questions in thefield is related to the status of the L2 in L3 use andacquisition. In various studies of multilingualism,it turned out that the speakers did not rely ontheir first language (L1) as expected, but on theirL2. In several studies of learning an L3 of Indo-European origin, it could be shown that L3 learnerswhose L1 is typologically unrelated to the L2and/or L3 tend to transfer knowledge from theirL2, or in the case of bilinguals, from the related L1(e.g., Ahukanna, Lund, & Gentile, 1981; Bartelt,1989; Cenoz, 2001; Chandrasekhar, 1978). Theseresults also have been supported by studies focusingonly on Indo-European languages (e.g.,De Angelis, 2005a, 2005b; De Angelis & Selinker,2001; Dewaele, 1998). The activation of languagesother than the target language is influenced byfactors such as psychotypology (perceived linguisticdistance 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 activatean earlier L2 in L3 performance; Meisel, 1983),and the learner’s perception of correctness of atarget word (De Angelis & Selinker, 2001) (fora list of influential factors, see also Hall & Ecke,2003).Crosslinguistic influence in a multilingual systemnot only takes place from the L1 to the L2and vice versa. Further influence has been detectedfrom the L1 to the L3 and from the L2 tothe L3 and vice versa. This expansion of transferpossibilities demonstrates that multilingual acquisitionis a far more complex process than SLA,where the role of the L1 in the developmentof the L2 has been researched extensively. Thisdiscussion also makes evident that learning anotherlanguage (e.g., an L3) can counteract themaintenance of an L2 or L1. In other words,language attrition or loss appears more often inmultilingual than in bilingual contexts. In thiscase, the L3 will become more dominant thanthe L2 owing to the limitation of resources forlanguages, as defined in Zipf’s law of least effort(Zipf, 1968). Consequently, using an L1 as indicatorfor “permanent” language dominance overthe lifespan will turn out to be problematic ina multilingual context (see also Jessner, 2003a).Language attrition processes also point to the factthat language learning consists of nonlinear andreversible processes (i.e., development refers toboth acquisition and attrition) (Cook, 2003; deBot & Clyne, 1989; de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor,2007; Jessner, 2003a). Even if parts of the multilingualsystem can become fossilized (i.e., will invery general terms stop growing), they will stillbe able to exert influence on other parts of thesystem.In contrast to SLA, in third language acquisition(TLA), the routes of learning or order ofacquisition show greater diversity, as can be seenin the following:SLA versus TLA1 L1→L2 1 L1→L2→L32 Lx/Ly 2 Lx/Ly/Lz3 Lx/Ly→L34 L1→Lx/LyIn contrast to SLA, where we have to deal with twopossible acquisition orders, in TLA there may beat 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 beforelearning the L3.4. L2 and L3 are learned simultaneously afterthe acquisition of the L1 (see also Cenoz, 2000).Studies on multilingual development also havemade clear that the use of terminology in multilingualismresearch is problematic. For instance,L1, the term that in SLA studies is used to referto the dominant language of the bilingual

system, cannot easily be applied to a multiple272 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)learning context since dominance (breadth or frequencyof use) does not necessarily correspond tochronological order of acquisition and is subjectto change. This issue becomes most relevant whenwe think about processes of interruption, that is,when learning or using a particular language isgiven up for a while due to changes in needsor 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 descriptionof individual multilingual development(i.e., contact with more than two languages overthe lifespan) has to take changes in multilingualproficiency into account. Figure 1 (based onHerdina & Jessner, 2002, p.123) models the developmentof a multilingual system. It demonstrateshow the speaker develops language proficiency inmore than two languages over a certain period oftime. Whereas the primary language system(s) ofthe speaker remain(s) dominant during this time,the secondary or incipient system undergoes development.The development of the third systemis dependent on the acquisition of the first two systems,which in certain cases may take place at thesame time, in the same way as simultaneous bilingualism.A closer look at the figure shows thattransitional bilingualism forms an integral partFIGURE 1Development of Learner Multilingualismof the development of learner multilingualism(Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 125).For modeling purposes, the authors use anideal learning curve, although this seems to suggestthat the level of proficiency of the primarylanguage system remains constant, whereas, infact, “the level at which a language system stabilisesis not fixed and invariable [. . .] but subjectto constant variation” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002,p. 113), as already mentioned. The graphs used intheDMM“simply relate language learning to timeneeded and predict the modifications in expectedlanguage growth due to the effect of certain factorsassumed to affect multilinguals and ignorethe fact that the level of achievement is heterogeneouseven in monolinguals let alone multilinguals”(Herdina & Jessner, 2002, pp. 88–89).To summarize, it can be stated that the developmentof a multilingual repertoire or multilingualdevelopment: changes over time; is nonlinear; isreversible, resulting in language attrition and/orloss; and is complex.Variation in multilingual development and useis strongly linked to the dependence of the systemon social, psycholinguistic, and individualfactors (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), not to mentionthe mode of language learning in the formof either natural or instructional learning, butUlrike Jessner 273

also various combinations of both (see Cenoz &Genesee, 1998).A DST approach, which uses dynamic modelingto investigate properties of the dynamic adaptationto contexts in change, is able to take allthe relevant characteristics of multilingual learningand use into account. In the following section,the application of the DMM to current multilingualismresearch will be presented in moredetail.APPLYING DST TO MULTILINGUALISMThe DMM was conceptualized to:(a) serve as a bridge between SLA and multilingualismresearch(b) indicate that future language acquisitionstudies should go beyond studies of the contactbetween two languages, turning their attentiontoward trilingualism and other forms of multilingualism(c) overcome the implicit and explicit monolingualbias of multilingualism research throughthe development of an autonomous model of multilingualism(d) provide a scientific means of predictingmultilingual development on the basis of factorsfound to be involved (Herdina & Jessner, 2002,pp. 86–87)Consequently, multilingualism research shouldavail itself of an autonomous theoretical basis, notmerely relying on the findings of L1 and/or L2learning research since both the results and predictionsof research will always be distorted bythe assumptions of individual language acquisitionstudies, which are often cross-sectional.In DST, the call for studies of individual languageacquisition is more pronounced than thatfor group studies. Thus far, developmental aspectshave not been a prime object of investigation inthe sense of longitudinal studies. However, if ourgoal is to find out about the differences and similaritiesbetween various forms of language development,in particular between SLA and TLA, weneed to change our focus of attention and ourconceptual approach.MAIN FEATURES OF THE DMMIn this part of the discussion, the main characteristicsof the DMM will be presented in orderto distinguish it from other, more common, approachesto language acquisition research.(a) In the DMM, the discussion focuses not on languages(L1/L2/L3/Ln) but on the development of individuallanguage systems (LS1/LS2/LS3/LS4 , etc.)forming part of the psycholinguistic system.According to the DMM, the multilingual systemis dynamic and adaptive. The multilingualsystem is accordingly characterized by continuouschange and nonlinear growth. As an adaptive system,it possesses the property of elasticity, the abilityto adapt to temporary changes in the systemsenvironment, and plasticity, the ability to developnew 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 asa set of variables that mutually affect each other’schanges over time” (p. 50; see also Briggs & Peat,1989, p. 11).(b) In the DMM, psycholinguistic systems are definedas open systems depending on psychological andsocial factors.Linguistic aspects of individual multilingualismare shaped by the sociolinguistic settings in whichthe multilingual’s life takes place. O´ Laoire andAronin (2004) present an ecological model ofmultilinguality. They state that multilinguality isintertwined with many, if not all, aspects of identityand that the social and cultural environmentplays a decisive role in the structure and specificationsof multilinguality. In other words, languageneeds change according to the personalsituation or even changes in identity, as sometimesfound in the lives of immigrants. Larsen-Freemanand Cameron (2006) refer to the dynamic interactionbetween psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic,and situational aspects as “intrinsic dynamics ofthe learner,” that is, the interaction between thesocial context, the physical environment, and thecognitive context (task). They also point out thatlearning and change is at once individual and social(see also de Bot, 2000).(c) In the DMM, language choice or use depends onthe perceived communicative needs of the multilingualspeaker.In the model, perceived communicative needs,which are psychologically and sociologically determined,are identified as the driving force oflanguage learning and use. The speaker decideswhich language to use with whom and in whichsituation, and also when and why another languageshould 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 andinteracting set of factors” (p. 13).Several factors have been said to influencethe decision to speak a particular language to274 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)a particular person at a particular moment.Grosjean (2001) suggests including the following:. . . the participant(s) . . . (this includes such factorsas language proficiency, language mixing habitsand attitudes, usual mode of interaction, kinshiprelation, socioeconomic status, etc.), the situation(physical location, presence of monolinguals, degreeof formality and of intimacy), the form and contentof the message being uttered or listened to(language used, topic, type of vocabulary needed,amount of mixed language), the function of thelanguage act . . . and specific research factors (theaims of the study taking place . . . , the type andorganization 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 multilingualspeech situations and the psychologicaland sociological conditions of change in that

choice. According to Grosjean (2001), a trilingualperson can function in a monolingual, bilingual,or trilingual mode with various levels of activation,in relation to her or his position on thelanguage mode continuum. Activation of the variouslanguages is strongly influenced, among otherfactors, by the speaker’s usual language mixinghabits, language proficiency, socioeconomic status,the presence of mono- and bilinguals, andthe degree of formality (see also de Bot, 2004, onthe concept of the language node).(d) In the DMM, systems stability is related to languagemaintenance.In the DMM, it is argued that the learner’sresources are limited; that is, the learner has acertain amount of time and energy available tospend on learning and maintaining a language.Consequently, in a psycholinguistic context, thelearner will gradually lose access to knowledge ifnot enough time and energy is spent on refreshingthe knowledge of an L2 or L3 so that positivegrowth can counteract the negative growth thateventually results in language attrition or graduallanguage loss. Thus, maintenance of a languagesystem results in an adaptive process in which thelevel of language proficiency is adjusted to theperceived communicative needs. The stability ofa psycholinguistic system is dependent on the requirementsof language maintenance; that is, thesystem will erode if not enough energy and timeis invested in maintaining the system. Other factorsinfluencing systems stability are the numberof languages involved, the maturational age atwhich a language is learned and relative stabilityestablished, the level of proficiency at whichthis takes place, and the time span over which thelanguage system is maintained (see also Jessner,2003a).A well-known example of the stabilizing effectof a language system is fossilization, a very commonphenomenon in multilingual learning. Thereasons for fossilization are complex and interrelatedover time; in many cases, they are related todomain specificity in bi- or multilingual contexts(see Larsen-Freeman, 2006, for a critical study ofresearch on fossilization).(e) In the DMM, language systems are seen as interdependent(rather than autonomous systems, as theyare perceived in mainstream SLA research).The behavior of each individual language systemin a multilingual system largely dependson the behavior of previous and subsequent systems,and it would therefore not make sense tolook at the systems in isolation (see also Bates &Carnevale, 1992, p. 11, on nonlinear behavior).Furthermore, the DMM establishes a bridge betweenSLA (process) and bilingualism (product)because it provides a tool that can be used to viewlearner systems and stable systems as variants ofmultilingual systems obeying the same fundamentalprinciples. By researching the dynamics of TLA

or multiple language acquisition, the link betweenbilingualism as product and SLA as process can beunderstood as TLA can result from different approachesto language learning.(f) In the DMM, the holistic approach is a necessaryprerequisite for understanding the dynamic interactionbetween complex systems in multilingualism.The complexity and variability, as a measureof stability (see van Geert, 2006) of the multilingualsystem are influenced by individual cognitivefactors such as motivation, anxiety, language aptitude,and self-esteem as well as social factors,which can influence linguistic aspects of the multilingualsystem. As Briggs and Peat (1989) describe,“every complex system is a changing partof a greater whole, a nesting of larger and largerwholes” (p. 148).The DMM can be used to take a holistic viewof multilingualism; that is, a multilingual systemshould be modeled according to holistic principles(Philips, 1992). Such a holistic view is a necessarypresupposition of a dynamic view; a dynamicview of multilingualism assumes that thepresence of one or more language systems influencesthe development not only of the L2, butalso the development of the overall multilingualsystem.In other holistic approaches, the relationshipbetween the dynamics of language developmentUlrike Jessner 275and holism has not specifically been discussed.Since the publication of the DMM in 2002, theterm multicompetence, created by Cook (e.g., 1991;based on Grosjean, e.g., 1985, 2001), has establisheditself as the most widely used term forbilingual and multilingual competence in appliedlinguistics. Recently, Cook himself has given upon using “bilingual” since he considers it biased.Instead, he has introduced the L2 use as a betterconcept. Although he has shown interest inthe role of the L2 in the L1 (Cook, 2003), in contrastto the DMM, he has not focused on aspects ofchange in language development in his definitionof language competence in bilinguals.According to Cook (2002), L2 users are characterizedas follows:1. The L2 user has other uses for language thanthe monolingual.2. The L2 user’s knowledge of the second languageis typically not identical to that of a nativespeaker.3. The L2 user’s knowledge of his or her languageis in some respects not the same as that ofa monolingual.4. L2 users have different minds from those ofmonolinguals. (pp. 4–8)Cook’s ideas about the integration continuum,which captures different relationships betweentwo language systems in the same mind from separationto 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 betweenseparate language components” (Cook, 2003, p.11). This also implies that the relationship betweenthe L1 and the interlanguage within onemind is different from that between the interlanguagein one mind and the L2 when the L2 hasthe status of an L1 in anothermind (Cook, 2006).Cook himself pointed out in his plenary lecturegiven at the European Second Language AssociationConference in 2006, that in order to capturethe multilingual learner’s mind, we need a holisticapproach such as that taken by Herdina andJessner (2002) (Cook, 2006).A DST PERSPECTIVE OF MULTILINGUALPROFICIENCYIn the DMM, multilingual proficiency is definedas the dynamic interaction among the variouspsycholinguistic systems (LS1, LS2, LS3, LSn)in which the individual languages (L1, L2, L3,Ln) are embedded, crosslinguistic interaction,and what is called the M(ultilingualism) factor.The latter refers to all the effects in multilingualsystems that distinguish a multilingual from amonolingual system, that is, all those qualities thatdevelop in a multilingual speaker/learner dueto the increase in language contact(s). As mentionedabove, language contacts depend on theperceived communicative needs of the individual.In other words, the psycholinguistic systems ofthe multilingual individual, which are in constantchange, interact with each other in a nonadditivebut cumulative way.Crosslinguistic interaction in multilinguals,seen as a wider concept than Kellerman and SharwoodSmith’s (1986) crosslinguistic influence, isdescribed as an umbrella term, including not onlytransfer and interference, but also codeswitchingand borrowing. Furthermore, it is also meantto cover another set of phenomena, includingthe cognitive effects of multilingual development.These are nonpredictable dynamic effects that determinethe development of the systems themselves(Jessner, 2003b; Kellerman, 1995). Such aview is also related, but not identical, to Cummins’sCommon Underlying Proficiency (e.g.,1991) and Kecskes and Papp’s Common UnderlyingConceptualBase (2000) (see, e.g.,Cook, 1991,2002). According to the DMM, seemingly identicalphenomena of transfer can lead to divergentresults in different multilingual systems, even ifthey are transitionally commanded by the samespeaker, as shown in Figure 1 or 2.The M(ultilingualism) factor is an emergentproperty that can contribute to the catalytic oraccelerating effects in TLA. Emergent propertiesare the result of autocatalytic effects, theyare only to be found in open systems, and theyare a function of the interaction between systems.Yet, they are not systems properties per se(Strohner, 1995). The key factor of theMeffect—as it might also be referred to since it is difficult

to decide whether it constitutes a preconditionor a result of multilingualism—is metalinguisticawareness. It is made up of a set of skillsor abilities that the multilingual user developsowing to her/his prior linguistic and metacognitiveknowledge. The knowledge and metalinguisticawareness influence further language learningor learning a second foreign language (see Kemp,2001).The multilingual system is not only in constantchange, but the multilingual learner also developscertain skills and abilities that the monolingualspeaker lacks. These are language-specificand nonlanguage-specific skills used in languagelearning, language management, and maintenance.Language management skills refer to theintegration and separation of language resources276 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)FIGURE 2Multilingual Proficiencyand the act of balancing communicative requirementswith language resources. In the DMM, themultilingual learner or user is assumed to developand make use of an enhanced multilingualmonitor, wheremonitoring goes beyond error detectionand self-repair and fulfills a separator andcross-checker function, for instance, by drawingon common resources in the use ofmore than onelanguage system (see also de Bot & Jessner, 2002).Language maintenance skills are a necessary prerequisitefor the maintenance and increase of acertain level of language proficiency. Languagemaintenance effort, which is considered a crucialpart of individual multilingualism, mainly dependson two factors, that is, language use and languageawareness. Whereas language use is seen ashaving a refresher or activating function that contributesto the maintenance of a language, languageawareness refers to the conscious manipulationof and reflection on the rules of a language(Herdina & Jessner, 2000).What these skills and abilities have in commonis their relationship with a heightened level ofmetalinguistic awareness in multilingual learnersand users (see, e.g., Lightbown & Spada, 1990).In particular, in the case of typologically relatedlanguages, a catalytic effect, that is, a qualitativechange in further language learning, has beendetected in experienced language learners.These new skills contribute to a metasystem inmultilinguals, which is the result of a bilingualnorm; in contrast, in SLA the learner refers toa monolingual norm (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).Additionally, the learner of a second foreign languagecan profit from prior language learningexperience, as emphasized by Hufeisen in herFactor model (e.g., 1998). Thus, multilingual systemscontain components that monolingual systemslack, and even those components that themultilingual system shares with the monolingualsystem have a different significance within the

system. This stands in clear contrast to commonapproaches to defining language proficiency insecond language learning theory, including mostrecent attempts to define native language proficiencyas the goal of second language learning,such as Hulstijn’s (2006) definition of coreproficiency as an alternative concept to nativespeakerproficiency. Such an approach neglectsthe cognitive skills that nonnative speakers of alanguage acquire on top of all of their linguisticskills, such as an enhanced level of metalinguisticawareness; these skills are part of the Mfactor in the DMM. Belief in the native speakerUlrike Jessner 277standard is also one reason why the effects of theL2 on the L1 have been so little studied, as emphasizedby Cook (2003): “If the L1 of the L2user were different from that of monolingual nativespeakers, SLA research that used the nativespeaker as the target would be based on shiftingsand” (p. 5).As already noted in Herdina and Jessner(2002), metalinguistic abilities still lack the necessaryoperationalization to be immediately verifiable.But it is important to realize that metalinguisticabilities, if a function of multilingualacquisition, obviously presuppose the existenceof this phenomenon and are, therefore, difficultto observe in primary language acquisition, be itmonolingual or multilingual. Nevertheless, theyare expected to have a catalytic effect on furtherlanguage learning processes, as explicatedbelow in more detail. In other words, even if itmight appear to be impossible at the momentto determine the effect of initial conditions onL2 development (apart from phonological awareness,which is related to reading acquisition inthe native language), as pointed out by de Botet al. (2007), researching the role of metalinguisticknowledge and awareness of this knowledgecan help to shed light on the differences betweenSLA and TLA. Following meteorology (Lorenz,1972), which uses the “butterfly effect” or sensitivedependence on initial conditions to refer tothe predictability of dynamic systems, an M effectmight be assumed to exist in multilingual systemswhere development is influenced by the acceleratingeffect that the development of metalinguisticawareness can have on further or L3 learning inparticular.THE KEY ROLE OF METALINGUISTICAWARENESS IN TLADefining Metalinguistic AwarenessMetalinguistic awareness encompasses the linguisticskills that develop at the higher levelof creativity and reorganization of information(Hamers & Blanc, 1989). It can be defined as theability to focus on linguistic form and to switch focusbetween form and meaning. Individuals whoare metalinguistically aware are able to categorizewords into parts of speech; switch focus between

form, function, and meaning; and explain why aword has a particular function (see also Jessner,2007a; Kemp, 2006).Since Peal and Lambert in their influentialstudy, which was published in 1962, ascribed acrucial role to the higher level of metalinguisticawareness as contributing to the success oftheir bilingual subjects over their monolingualcounterparts, interest in the nature of this skillhas grown considerably. Although monolingualspeakers also develop metalinguistic awareness—mainly those groups of professionals workingwith language on a daily basis such as journalistsand authors—the nature of awareness cannotbe compared in both degree and qualityto awareness as developed in bi- and multilingualusers or nonprofessionals. Vygotsky (1986)pointed out that contact with a foreign languagehelps children sharpen their knowledge of theL1.Metalinguistic awareness developing in individualsliving with two or three languages is seento develop with regard to (a) divergent and creativethinking (e.g., wider variety of associations,original ideas); (b) interactional and/or pragmaticcompetence (cultural theorems of greeting,thanking, etc.); (c) communicative sensitivity andflexibility (language mode); and (d) translationskills that are considered a natural trait in the majorityof multilinguals (Jessner, 2006). Translationalso 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 andmetalinguistic skills—skills that are ‘translinguistic,’in the sense that they are not particular to anyone language” (p. 142).Whereas cognitive style was investigated inearlier studies on bilingualism, recent researchhas shown more interest in the process ofbilingual thinking (Baker, 2006). Research intometalinguistic awareness in studies of multilingualismhas so far mainly been done toexplore the effects of bilingualism on L3learning and conditions for artificial languagelearning.Studies of Metalinguistic Awareness in TLAEffects of Bilingualism on TLA. Based on anextensive overview of research on bilingualismand additional language learning, Cenoz (2003)presents a detailed critical review of the studies onthe effects of bilingualism on cognitive development.She concludes that most studies on generalproficiency indicate a positive effect of bilingualismon TLA and that this effect can be explainedas related to learning strategies, metalinguisticawareness, and communicative ability, in particularif the languages in contact are typologically278 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)close (see also Jessner, 1999). In a number ofstudies, mainly carried out in Scandinavia and

in the Basque Country, such an additive effectof 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 andMcLaughlin (1986); Nayak, Hansen, Krueger, &McLaughlin (1990); and McLaughlin and Nayak(1989) studied the learning of artificial miniaturelinguistic systems. The first study showed a positivetransfer of learning strategies only for thedomain of implicit learning. In the second, therewas no clear evidence for a general superiorityof multilinguals in language learning abilities, althoughthey were found to adapt their learningstrategies more easily to task requirements. Thethird study suggested a learning advantage for expertlearners over less experienced foreign languagelearners. Kemp (2001) found that the performanceof multilingual adults on all six tests ofgrammatical awareness, including one using artificialgrammars, increased with the number oflanguages they knew.Exploring Metalinguistic Awareness in Multilinguals.An increasing number of studies ofcrosslexical consultation, that is, how bi- andmultilinguals search for words in their otherlanguages when they meet linguistic problemsin the target language, have been carried outin various linguistic settings over the last 20years (e.g., Cenoz, 2003; Faerch & Kasper, 1986;Herwig, 2001; M¨ohle, 1989; M¨uller-Lanc´e, 2003;Singleton, 1999).An introspective study by Jessner(2006) will be presented here in more detail as itis one of very few studies on multilingual adultsaimed at exploring different aspects of awarenessof metalinguistic knowledge in multilingual production.The theoretical background of the studywas provided by the DMM.The sample consisted of 17 bilingual students(L1–2: Italian–German) from South Tyrol(Italy) studying English (B2 on the CommonEuropean Frame of Reference, describingan intermediate proficiency level) at InnsbruckUniversity (Tyrol, Austria). The relatively smallnumber of subjects is not surprising when it istaken into account that members for the multilingualtesting group not only had to study Englishas a subject at Innsbruck University, but alsolive with families who use both Italian and German,to ensure high proficiency levels in bothlanguages.The goal of the study was to investigate whetherthere was evidence for increased metalinguisticawareness in the production of English as theL3 of the students. In particular, there was afocus on the relationship between crosslinguisticinteraction and metalinguistic awareness inthe use of compensatory strategies, as definedby Poulisse, Bongaerts, and Kellerman (1997).Faerch and Kasper (1983) defined strategies as

potentially conscious and, therefore, differentfacets of metalinguistic awareness were chosenfor investigation: (a) how students think in a(third) language and (b) how students think aboutlanguage(s).Think-aloud protocols were chosen as methodologicaltools to provide evidence of languagechoice during the production of writing tasks(based on Cumming’s Ph.D. dissertation, 1988).The analysis concentrated on (a) how students resortedto other languages during a lexical searcheither before or after the L3 item and (b) theidentification of different forms and functions ofcodeswitching. Based on Zimmermann’s index oflexical insecurity (1992), lack of knowledge andthe search for alternatives were identified as themain functions of (or causes for) compensatorystrategies.Analysis of the strategies that the students usedto overcome their linguistic deficits shows thatthey resorted to both Italian and German, eitherbefore or after the target language item. Theyproduced German-based, Italian-based, and combinedstrategies. Most strikingly:(a) Before the L3 item, they produced a largernumber of switches to German (. . . Steven Pinker. . . added, (G) hinzugef¨ugt, some, (G) eigene, somepersonal evidence . . .).(b) After the L3 item, they produced a largernumber of switches to Italian (OK, this is proved,no this is sustained, (I) sostenere, sustained by thetheory that. . .).(c) German was clearly dominant in replacementsfor L3 items.The results of the study point to several issues,which certainly need more attention in future researchinto multilingualism. They concern (a) theuse of supporter languages in L3 production, and(b) the use of metalanguage (ML), the most explicitexpression of metalinguistic awareness.Judging by the position of switching within asentence, German and Italian were assigned differentroles in the production of English. WhereasGerman was described as the main supporterUlrike Jessner 279language functioning as a springboard in case oflexical problems because of its dominant activationin initial position, Italian was used as a confirmerof the lexical choice as students used it aftera successful search, that is, after finding the Englishtarget lexical item. This supports Hammarberg(2001), who also found differences betweenthe roles of supporter languages and suggestedthat they should be integrated into future modelsof multilingual production.Furthermore, a relationship between the use ofML and the use of compensatory strategies wasdetected. Analysis of the use of ML showed that:(a) ML can precede switches and exerta control function in production (E→Gwie sagt man da? [how do you say this?] →I

come quelli [like those]→G Plural→E).(b) The language of the ML can be consideredan indicator of language dominance; in this case,German ML was used most often.(c) The number of ML-related switches appearsto be related to the number of languagesinvolved in a compensatory strategy; that is, mostML-related switches were found in combinedstrategies (see also Jessner, 2005, on multilingualML).Relationship Between Crosslinguistic Interactionand Metalinguistic Awareness. The relationship betweencrosslinguistic interaction, that is, the activationof languages other than the target languageduring L3 production, and metalinguistic awarenesswas the main focus of Jessner (2006). Thisdynamic interplay between crosslinguistic interactionand metalinguistic awareness sheds lighton key variables that form part of the M factor.James (1996) defines crosslinguistic awareness asknowledge held at the explicit (declarative) levelof metacognition. In his crosslinguistic approachto language awareness, he points out that the “languagetransfer issue of classical Contrastive Analysisbecomes 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 bymaking use of supporter languages. This processis marked by the search for similarities, which ispart of metalinguistic thinking during multilingualproduction processes (see also Cumming,1988, on bilingual writing). Crosslinguistic awarenessin multilingual production is described as(a) tacit awareness shown by the use of cognatesin the supporter languages (mainly in the use ofcombined strategies) and (b) explicit awarenessin the case of switches that are introduced by metalanguage.It is argued that the use of cognatesor the search for crosslinguistic similarities formsan important part of compensatory strategy use inmultilingual production and hints at the problematicusage of the implicit/explicit dichotomy, asshown, for instance, by B¨orner (1997). He testedN. Ellis’s (1994) claim that knowledge concerningformal aspects of vocabulary is stored as implicitknowledge while aspects of lexical meaningare stored as explicit knowledge and foundonly partial support for the claim. B¨orner pointsout that the formal characteristics of cognatesare learned implicitly, whereas their syntacticand morphological features are stored as explicitknowledge, that is, resulting from conscious analysis.More recently, N. Ellis (2005) discussed dynamicinteractions between explicit and implicitknowledge.Although the findings of the study have tobe seen as rather limited considering the smalldatabase, produced by a very distinct population,

it can be concluded from the results that a definitionof multilingual proficiency would have toinclude at least two types of awareness, whichare crosslinguistic awareness and metalinguisticawareness. Crosslinguistic awareness in L3 productioncan be defined as the awareness (tacit andexplicit) of the interaction between the languagesin a multilingual’s mind; metalinguistic awarenessadds to this by making objectification possible.Differentiation and selectivity in multilingual productionseem to be governed by different levels ofawareness that should clearly lead us to questiona bipolar discussion of multilingual phenomena(see also Cenoz, 2003).FUTURE RESEARCH ON MULTILINGUALAWARENESSSeveral questions concerning the force of metalinguisticawareness in multilinguals or multilingualawareness in multilingual systems have arisenfrom Jessner (2006). They concern, for instance:1. The integration of different roles for supporterlanguages in (dynamic) models of multilingualprocessing.2. The relationship between a heightened levelof attention and a heightened level of awarenessin multilingual production.3. The implicit/explicit dichotomy in researchon language acquisition.4. Approaches to multilingual awareness in theclassroom.5. How TLA might be modeled.280 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)For further insight into the nature of metalinguisticknowledge in multilinguals, and the effectsof raising awareness of that knowledge in multilinguallearners, future studies of multilingualismshould consider applying a DST approach to languagedevelopment to be able to explore and understandthe complex interrelationships amongvariables involved in multiple language learningover time (see Larsen-Freeman & Cameron,2006).Future tests of language proficiency for multilinguallearners or users might take a DST approachto multilingual proficiency into considerationby using a holistic approach. That is, apartfrom testing linguistic knowledge, tests of multilingualproficiency also should include tests ofmetalinguistic knowledge, which clearly goes beyondgrammatical knowledge because it also includesknowledge of crosslinguistic interaction inmultilingual learners (Jessner, 2006; Jessner, inpress a, b). The challenging enterprise for thefuture will be to model the role of metalinguisticawareness as a force or emergent property in multilingualsystems since it is itself affected by othervariables, is capable of affecting other variables,and changes in terms of its magnitude and effecton other variables over time.A NEW WAY OF THINKING FORMULTILINGUALISM RESEARCH

This article presents DST as a useful conceptualtool for researching multilingualism. For example,DST helps to explain that there are qualitativedifferences between L2 and L3 learningand that a holistic approach to multilingual proficiencyis necessary to understand and set up goalsfor multilingual teaching. It makes clear that amultilingual norm ought to be used in linguisticresearch, whether research into L1, L2, L3,and so on, since research into multilingualism includesall types of acquisition research. Such anapproach implies that multilingual competenceis not an exceptional form of linguistic competence,but that monolingual language acquisitionpresents an exceptional model that cannot be appliedto multilingualism. In addition, it impliesthat multilingualism cannot be interpreted as additivemonolingualism, but that a multilingual systemmust be interpreted as a different system withdifferent rules.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author would like to thank Jasone Cenoz, Paulvan Geert, Charlotte Kemp, Kees de Bot, the editor ofthis Special Issue, and four anonymous reviewers fortheir valuable comments and various discussions on thisissue.REFERENCESAbunawara, E. (1992). The structure of the trilinguallexicon. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4,311–322.Ahukanna, J., Lund, N., & Gentile, R. (1981). Interandintra-lingual interference effects in learning athird language. Modern Language Journal, 65, 281–287.Aronin, L., & ´O Laoire, M. (2003). Exploring multilingualismin cultural contexts: Towards a notion ofmultilinguality. 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 bilingualeducation (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingualism and bilingualeducation (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.Bartelt, G. (1989). The interaction of multilingual constraints.InH.W.Dechert&M. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingualprocesses (pp. 151–177). T¨ubingen, Germany:Narr.Bates, E., & Carnevale, G. (1992). Developmental psychologyin the 1990s: Language development. Project inCognitive Neurodevelopment. (CRL Tech. Rep.No. 9204). University of California, San Diego:Center for Research in Language.Bleyhl, W. (1997). Fremdsprachenlernen als dynamischerund nichtlinearer Prozeß oder: weshalb dieBilanz des traditionellenUnterrichts und auch derFremdsprachenforschung “nicht schmeichelhaft”szein kann [Foreign language learning as a dynamicand non-linear process or: Why the outcomeof both traditional teaching and research offoreign language learning cannot be “flattering”].Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 219–238.B¨orner, W. (1997). Implizites und explizites Wissen imfremdsprachlichen Wortschatz [Implicit and explicitknowledge in the foreign language vocabulary].Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 44–67.

Briggs, J., & Peat, F. (1989). Turbulent mirror. An illustratedguide 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, L2status and age on cross-linguistic influence in L3acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner(Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in third languageacquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8–20).Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Ulrike Jessner 281Cenoz, J. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence in thirdlanguage acquisition: Implications of the organizationof the multilingual lexicon. BulletinVALS/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. Studiesin tri- and multilingualism. T¨ubingen, 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 investigatethe multilingual lexicon. In J. Cenoz, B.Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilinguallexicon (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 argumentand 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 onthe first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Cook, V. (2006, September). The nature of theL2 user . Plenary paper presented at theEUROSLA conference, Antalya, Turkey. RetrievedSeptember 2007 from http://homepage.nt1world.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/EURO-2006.htmCumming, A. (1988). Writing expertise and second languageproficiency in ESL writing performance. Unpublisheddoctoral thesis, University of Toronto,Canada.Cummins, J. (1991). Language learning and bilingualism.Sophia Linguistica, 29, 1–194.De Angelis, G. (2005a). Multilingualism and non-nativelexical transfer: An identification problem. InternationalJournal 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). Interlanguagetransfer and competing linguistic systems. In J.Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). Crosslinguisticinfluence in third language acquisition:Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 42–58). Clevedon,UK: Multilingual Matters.de Bot, K. (2000). Sociolinguistics and language processingmechanisms. Sociolinguistica, 14, 345–361.de Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: Modelingselection 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 thelanguage node in multilingual processing . Paper presentedat the Second Language Vocabulary AcquisitionColloquium, Leiden, The Netherlands.de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamicsystems theory to second language acquisition.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10,7–21.de Bot, K., & Makoni, S. (Eds.). (2005). Language andaging in multilingual societies. Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.Dewaele, J.-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguageas L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19,471–490.Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Variation, chaos et syst`eme en interlanguefranc¸aise [Variation, chaos and systemin the French interlanguage]. In J.-M. Dewaele &R. Mougeon (Eds.), L’appropriation de la variationen franc¸ais langue ´etrang`ere. AILE (Acquisitionet interaction en langue ´etrang`ere), 17, 143–167.Ellis, N. (1994). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit insand outs of explicit cognitivemediation. InN. Ellis(Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.211–282). London: Academic Press.Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactionsof explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 27, 143–188.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies inforeign language communication. In C. Faerch &G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication(pp. 20–60). London: Longman.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). One learner-twolanguages: Investigating types of interlanguageknowledge. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.),Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourseand cognition in translation and second languageacquisition studies (pp. 211–227). T¨ubingen,Germany: Narr.Faingold, E. (1999). The re-emergence of Spanish andHebrew in a multilingual adolescent. InternationalJournal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2,283–295.Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). Thecumulative-enhancement model for language acquisitioncomparing adults’ and children’s patternsof development in first, second and thirdlanguage acquisition of relative clauses. InternationalJournal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–16.Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York:Viking.282 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but

specific speaker-hearer. Journal ofMultilingual andMulticultural Development, 6, 467–477.Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. InJ. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilinguallanguage processing (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Blackwell.Hall, C., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanismin L3 vocabulary acquisition. In J. Cenoz,B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). The multilinguallexicon (pp. 71–86).Dorchrecht, TheNetherlands:Kluwer.Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 productionand acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen,& U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence inthird language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives(pp. 21–41). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2000). Multilingualism as anecological system: The case for language maintenance.In B. Kettemann & H. Penz (Eds.), ECOnstructinglanguage, nature and society: The ecolinguisticproject revisited (pp. 131–144). T¨ubingen, Germany:Stauffenburg.Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model ofmultilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic perspective.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Herwig, A. (2001). Plurilingual lexical organisation: Evidencefrom lexical processing in L1–L2–L3–L4translation. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner(Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third languageacquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 115–137). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Hufeisen, B. (1998). L3-Stand der Forschung—Wasbleibt zu tun? [L3-State of the art—what needs tobe done?]. In B.Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.),L2-L3 und ihre zwischensprachliche Interaktion: Zuindividueller mehrsprachigkeit und gesteuertem lernen[L2-L3 and their crosslinguistic interaction: Aboutindividual multilingualism and instructed learning(pp. 169–183)]. T¨ubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.Hulstijn, J. (2006, June). Defining and measuring theconstruct of second-language proficiency. Plenarypaper presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference,Montreal, Canada.James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to languageawareness. Language Awareness, 4, 138–148.Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals:Cognitive aspects of third languagelearning. Language Awareness, 3 & 4, 201–209.Jessner, U. (2003a). A dynamic approach to languageattrition 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 crosslinguisticinteraction in multilinguals. In J. Cenoz, B.Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilinguallexicon (pp. 45–55). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer.Jessner, U. (2005). Multilingual metalanguage, or theway multilinguals talk about their languages. LanguageAwareness, 14, 56–68.Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals:English as a third language. Edinburgh, UK: EdinburghUniversity Press.Jessner, U. (2007a). Language awareness in multilinguals.In N. Hornberger (Series Ed.) & J. Cenoz(Vol. Ed.), Knowledge about language: Vol. V. Handbookof language and education (pp. 35–369). New

York: Springer.Jessner, U. (2007b). Multicompetence approaches tothe development of language proficiency in multilingualeducation. 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 sprachlichenOntogenese: Erst- und Fremdsprache(n) [Selforganizationin linguistic ontogenesis: First- andforeign language(s)]. T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr.Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language andmother tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transferto 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 awarenessand its relationship with language experience andlanguage attainment. Unpublished doctoral thesis,University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.Kemp, C. (2006, July). Implicit and explicit knowledge ofgrammatical form and function in learners using threeor more languages. Paper presented at the conferenceof the Association for Language Awareness,Le Mans, France.Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and languageuse: An ecological perspective. New York: Continuum.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity scienceand second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,18, 141–165.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition andlanguage use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective.In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisitionand language socialization: Ecological perspectives(pp. 33–46). London: Continuum.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Second language acquisitionand 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 developmentfrom a complex systems theory perspective. Paperpresented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal,Canada.Ulrike Jessner 283Lasagabaster, D. (1997). Creatividad y concienca metaling¨u´ıstica: incidencia en el aprendizaje del ingl´es comoL3 [Creativity and metalinguistic awareness: Effectson learning English as L3]. Doctoral thesis,University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz,Spain.Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form andcorrective feedback in communicative languageteaching: Effects on second language learning.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 429–448.Lorenz, E. (1972). Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’swing in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?Paper presented at the American Association ofthe Advancement of Sciences, Washington, DC.Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill andmetalinguistic 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 newlanguage: Does knowing other languages make adifference? In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.),Interlingual processes (pp. 5–14). T¨ubingen, Germany:Narr.Meara, P. (1999). Self organization in bilingual lexicons.In P. Broeder & J. Muure (Eds.), Language andthought 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 foreignlanguage production. In H. Dechert & M.Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 179–194). T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr.M¨uller-Lanc´e, J. (2003). Der Wortschatz romanischerSprachen im Terti¨arspracherwerb [The vocabularyof Romance languages in third language acquisition].T¨ubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Experts andnovices: An information-processing approach tothe “good language learner” problem. Applied Psycholinguistics,7, 51–56.Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B.(1990). Language-learning strategies in monolingualand multilingual adults. Language Learning,40(2), 221–244.´OLaoire, M., & Aronin, L. (2004). Exploring multilingualismin cultural contexts: Towards a notion ofmultilinguality. 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 bilingualismto intelligence. Psychological Monographs,76, 1–23.Phillips, D. (1992). The social scientist’s bestiary: A guideto fabled threats to, and defenses of, Naturalistic SocialScience. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1987). Theuse of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis ofcompensatory 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 foreignlanguage learning . Clevedon, UK:MultilingualMatters.Safont Jord`a, M. (2003). Metapragmatic awareness andpragmatic production of third language learnersof English: A focus on request acts realisations.International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 43–69.Schmid, S. (1993). Learning strategies for closely relatedlanguages: On the Italian spoken by Spanishimmigrants in Switzerland. In B. Kettemann & W.Wieden (Eds.), Current issues in European secondacquisition research (pp. 405–419). T¨ubingen, Germany:Narr.Schweers, W. (1996, July). Metalinguistic awareness andlanguage transfer: One thing leads to another. Paperpresented at the conference of the Association forLanguage Awareness, Dublin, Ireland.Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mentallexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Strohner, H. (1995). Kognitive Systeme. Eine Einf¨uhrungin 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. NewYork:HarvesterWheatsheaf.van Geert, P. (2006, June). Modelling L1 and L2 developmentas an iterative process. Paper presented at theAAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal, Canada.van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of languagelearning. A sociocultural perspective.NewYork:Kluwer Academic Publishers.Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin,Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Zimmermann, R. (1992). Lexical knowledge: Evidencefrom L1 and L2 narratives and L1–L2 translations.In C. Mair & M. Markus (Eds.), Neue Ans¨atze in derKontrastiven Linguistik [New departures in contrastivelinguistics] (pp. 301–311). Innsbruck, Austria:Verlag des Instituts f ¨ur Sprachwissenschaft.Zipf, G. (1968). The Psycho-Biology of language: An introductionto Dynamic Philology (2nd ed.). Cambridge,MA: Cambridge University Press.