the exploration of multilingualism - npu.edu.uanpu.edu.ua/!e-book/book/djvu/a/iif_kgpm_aronin l. the...

The Exploration of Multilingualism

Volume 6

The Exploration of Multilingualism. Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisitionEdited by Larissa Aronin and Britta Hufeisen

AILA Applied Linguistics Series (AALS)The AILA Applied Linguistics Series (AALS) provides a forum for scholars in any area of Applied Linguistics. The series aims at representing the field in its diversity. It covers different topics in applied linguistics from a multidisciplinary approach and it aims at including different theoretical and methodological perspectives. As an official publication of AILA the series will include contributors from different geographical and linguistic backgrounds. The volumes in the series should be of high quality; they should break new ground and stimulate further research in Applied Linguistics.

Editor

Susanne NiemeierUniversity of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Editorial Board Jean-Marc DewaeleUniversity of London

Nancy HornbergerUniversity of Pennsylvania, US

Folkert KuikenUniversity of Amsterdam

Rosa ManchónUniversity of Murcia, Spain

Anne PakirNational University of Singapore

The Exploration of MultilingualismDevelopment of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition

Edited by

Larissa AroninUniversity of Haifa

Britta HufeisenTechnical University of Darmstadt

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam / Philadelphia

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The exploration of multilingualism : development of research on L3, multilingualism, and multiple language acquisition / edited by Larissa Aronin, Britta Hufeisen.

p. cm. (AILA Applied Linguistics Series, issn 1875-1113 ; v. 6)Includes bibliographical references and index.1. Multilingualism. 2. Language acquisition. I. Aronin, Larissa. II. Hufeisen, Britta, 1960- P115.E87 2009404’.2--dc22 2009033361isbn 978 90 272 0522 3 (Hb ; alk. paper)isbn 978 90 272 8897 4 (Eb)

© 2009 – John Benjamins B.V.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

8 TM

Table of contents

Acknowledgements vii

1. Introduction:OnthegenesisanddevelopmentofL3research,multilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisition:Aboutthisbook 1Larissa Aronin and Britta Hufeisen

2. Definingmultilingualism 11Charlotte Kemp

3. Thegenesisanddevelopmentofresearchinmultilingualism:Perspectivesforfutureresearch 27Rita Franceschini

4. Thedevelopmentofpsycholinguisticresearchoncrosslinguisticinfluence 63Gessica De Angelis and Jean-Marc Dewaele

5. TheroleofpriorknowledgeinL3learninganduse:Furtherevidenceofpsychotypologicaldimensions 79Muiris Ó Laoire and David Singleton

6. Methodsofresearchinmultilingualismstudies:Reachingacomprehensiveperspective 103Larissa Aronin and Britta Hufeisen

7. Thestudyofmultilingualismineducationalcontexts 121Jasone Cenoz and Ulrike Jessner

8. Multilingualismresources:Associations,journals,bookseries,bibliographiesandconferencelists 139Peter Ecke

9. Crossingthesecondthreshold 155Larissa Aronin and Britta Hufeisen

Nameindex 161 Subjectindex 165

Acknowledgements

Weverymuchappreciatetheworkthatthecontributorstothisvolumehaveputinto theirchaptersaswellas theirvariouspracticalactivities insupportof theInternationalAssociationofMultilingualism.

Wewouldliketowarmlythankthereviewersofthechaptersfortheirtimeandeffortandfortheirusefulandinsightfulcomments.Wewouldalsoliketoex-pressourgratitudetoJasoneCenoz,UniversityoftheBasqueCountry,toUlrikeJessner,UniversityofInnsbruck,andtoDavidSingleton,TrinityCollege,Dublin,fortheirvaluableadviceandsupportduringthepreparationofthisvolumeforpublication.

Veryspecial thanksonthepartofoneof theeditors,LarissaAronin,areowedtothePresidentoftheUniversityofHaifa,ProfessorAaronBenZe’ev,forhiscontinuingsupportandencouragementofherresearchactivitiesandofherparticipation in IAM conferences, which made it possible for her to interactwiththecontributorsandtobecomeinvolvedintheplanningandrealizationofthisbook.

WewouldliketothankFainaFurman,UniversityofHaifa,forhertirelessandmeticulousproofreadingandformattingofthemanuscript.OurgratitudegoesalsotoKeesVaes,JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,forhispatienceandforhistrustinourundertaking.

chapter1. introduction

On the genesis and development of L3 research, multilingualism and multiple language acquisitionAboutthisbook

LarissaAroninandBrittaHufeisenUniversityofHaifa/TechnicalUniversityofDarmstadt

Althoughtheregionswherepeopleusedmultiple languageswereknownfromtheearliestyearsofhumankind,inrecenttimesmultilingualismtranspiresasaphenomenonwhosenatureistobeinvestigatedafreshandonitsownterms.

Unlike thenumerousplurilingual locations,populations,and individuals inthepast,thosecumulativelyfeaturingcurrentmultilingualismcameintothespot-lightasadistinctive linguisticdispensation.Compared to thepreviouspatternsof use and acquisition of two and more languages, it is manifested in differentmanner, to a different extent, and more importantly, is crucially integral to theconstructionofthecontemporaryglobalizedreality(AroninandSingleton2008).

This book is manifestly about multilingualismrather than bilingualism al-thoughthelatterisveryoftenincludedintheconceptofmultilingualismasitsspecificcase.Ourstandisthatmultilingualismsubsumesbilingualism.Theissueofdistinctionbetweenbilingualismandmultilingualismisgivenconsiderableat-tentioninthisvolume.

Inrecent timesboththeawarenessofmultilingualismandresearch in thisareahavebecomeincreasinglyconspicuous.Asignificantamountofbooksthatlook deeper into various aspects of contemporary multilingualism and thirdlanguage acquisition have appeared. De Angelis (2007) on third or additionallanguageacquisition,Jessner(2006)onlanguageawareness,Ringbom(2007)oncross-linguisticsimilarityinforeignlanguagelearning,Cenoz(2009)onmulti-lingualeducation,LasagabasterandHuguet(2006)onlanguageattitudesanduseofmultiplelanguagesinEuropeancontextandtheHandbookofMultilingualismand Multilingual Communication by Auer and Li Wei (2007) are some of therecentandthemoreprominentones.

2 LarissaAroninandBrittaHufeisen

Thisbookadoptsamoresynthesizedviewonthetopic.Theneedforsuchaperspectiveiswarrantedbywhatcanbecalledthe‘comingofage’oftrilingualismresearch.Indeedthefieldhasreachedapointwherebyitstandsinneedofarriv-ingatanoverarchingframework.Thedistinctivefeatureofthisbookisitson-togeneticperspectiveonresearchonL3,multilingualismandmultiplelanguagesacquisition.Alongwithfactualandhistoricalmaterialfrompreviousandcurrentdecadesofresearch,itincludesmaintheories,prominentresearchersandimpor-tantresearchtrends,intoitspurview.

The reader will not find the contents arranged in a neat chronology, butratherispresentedwithstate-of-the-artaccountsofseveralprominentaspectsofmultilingualism.Takentogether,thecontributionsbyprominentandcommittedscholarsinthefield,eachfromadifferentangle,allowthereadertoidentifythemilestonesinthedevelopmentofmultilingualismandL3research.

Inthefollowingsectionofthischapter,wearegoingtolookverybrieflyintothegenesisanddevelopmentofL3research,multilingualismandmultiple lan-guageacquisition(foracomprehensivediscussionseeJessner2008)whicheven-tuallyledtotheestablishmentoftheInternationalAssociationofMultilingualism(2003)and“TheInternationalJournalofMultilingualism”(2004).

EarlyresearchersofmultilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisitionsuchasBraun(1937)orVildomec(1963)didnotyetstudythephenomenonsystem-aticallybuttheyidentifieditasafieldofstudyinitsownright.Theywerealsotheonlyoneswhodidnotconcentrateonlyon thenegative sideof theexist-enceofmultiplelanguagesinthelearners’repertoires,butemphasisedtheposi-tiveeffectsofbeingmultilingual,suchasenjoyingabroaderknowledgeaboutcultures.Wandruszkapublishedmanybooksandarticles(oneoftheearliestin1979)abouttheinherentmultilingualismineachlearnerandreferredtovari-antssuchasdialects,variantsindifferentsituationsandwithdifferentcommu-nicationpartners(hedidnotyetcallthesevarietiesideolectsorsociolects).Heconcentratedonthemetaphoroflanguagesincontactreferringtothecontactoflanguageswithineachlearner.

ResearcherssuchasOksaar(1977)werethefirstonestodescribe–almostinpassing–theirownchildren’sprogressinacquiringthreelanguagessimultane-ously.OtherssuchasHoffmann(1985),Hélot(1998),Barron-Hauwaert(2000),Dewaele(2000),Gatto(2000)orBarnes(2006)followedmuchlater.

Consolidation of research began in the late 80s and early 90s of thetwentieth century when there was further concentration on studies whichinvolvedmorethanthetraditionaltwolanguagesinoneperson.Researchersin-sistedthatbilingualismismorethanthesumoftwomonolingualisms,andthattri-andmultilingualismismorethanL2plusyetanother language.TheytriedtobringtogetherresearchresultsofbilingualismstudiesandSLAstudiesonthe

Chapter1. Introduction 3

onehand,andtoapplytheseresultstoquestionsofmultilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisitionandlearningontheother.

AsL3-researchersseldomreallyfeltathomeatSLA-meetingswhereresearchinmultilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisitionandlearningwasregardedasameresub-formofSLA,theystartedtoorganizetheirownmeetingsandor-ganisations.IntheframeworkoftheGermanAssociationofAppliedLinguistics,Britta Hufeisen organized L3-workshops on a regular basis between 1992 and1997(Hufeisen1993,1995,1996,1997,1998).In1998,UlrikeJessnerhappenedtoparticipateintheworkshop,andtogetherwithJasoneCenoztheydecidedtoorganizeaconferenceonaninternationalscale.ThistookplaceinInnsbruckinAustriawithasmanyas120participantsatthefirstL3-conference.MoreL3-con-ferencesweretofollow,namely

2001 inLeuwaarden,Netherlands,organizedbyJehannesYtsma, 2003 inTralee,Ireland,organizedbyMuirisÓLaoire, 2005 inFreiburg,Switzerland,organizedbyClaudineBrohy

andChristineLePapeRacine, 2007 inStirling,Scotland,organizedbyCharlotteKemp.

Paralleltothefoundingofaconferencetradition,successfulattemptswereunder-takentoestablishanassociationforinterestedresearchersinallfieldsconnectedtomultilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisitionandlearning.Consequent-ly,in2003theInternational Association of Multilingualismwasfounded(http://www.daf.tu-darmstadt.de/l3.).ThefoundingmembersareBrittaHufeisen,JasoneCenoz,UlrikeJessner,MuirisÓLaoire,LarissaAronin,PatriciaBayona,GessicaDeAngelis,Jean-MarcDewaele,PeterEcke.

In 2004, Jasone Cenoz and Ulrike Jessner launched the International Jour-nal of Multilingualism,publishedwithMultilingualMatters,Avon,UK.Reviewedpublications in this journal are about multilingualism, however the publica-tion language is exclusively English. Therefore, in 2005, through the launch ofMultilingualism and Multiple Language Learningamultilingualbookseries,withSchneiderpublishingcompany, situated inHohengehren,Germany,wasestab-lished. In 2008 the first quadrolingual publication – selected papers from the2005conferenceinFreiburg,Switzerland–waspublished(Gibson,HufeisenandPersonne2008).

Themainstrandsinmultilingualismseemtobesituatedintheframeworkofthefollowingresearchdomains:

– sociolinguistics(cf.CenozandGenesee1998,CenozandJessner2000,HoffmannandYtsma2004)withsubgroupsinsocietalareas(cf.AroninandÒLaoire2004,Cenoz2005)andindividualmultilingualism(cf.Dewaele2004),

� LarissaAroninandBrittaHufeisen

– psycholinguistics(cf.HerdinaandJessner2002,Jessner2006,Hammarberg2001,Ringbom2007),

– neurolinguistics(cf.Franceschini1996;Franceschini,Zappatore,andNitsch2003),

– pragmalinguistics(cf.Franceschini2000,SafontJordà2005),– appliedlinguistics(cf.HufeisenandMarx2007,Meißner2004),– teaching/instructing/learning(cf.Cenoz,HufeisenandJessner2001,

ÓLaoire2006),– applicationstotheconcretelearningeventswithinitiativessuchasCLIL,

immersion,andthecommoncurriculum(cf.Hufeisen2007,HufeisenandLutjeharms2005).

Futurechallengesentailquestionsabouthowtodealadequatelywiththenumberofvariables, thecomplexityof sciencesand therelevance for life ineducation,morals,religion,politics,interpersonalrelations,globalisation,andbusiness.Thusitseemsconsequentialtothinkaboutthecurrentsituationanddescribeitalong-sidetheabove-mentioneddevelopments.Itseemslogicalthatresearchinsocietalandindividualmultilingualismtakesplacemainlyincountrieswithmorethanoneofficiallanguageand/orincountrieswhichhaveheavyimmigrationrates.Re-searchinmultiplelanguageacquisitionandlearninghappensincountrieswhichhaveestablishedthelearningoflanguagesintheirschoolcurricula.Thearticlesofthisvolumealsodrawonthedatacollectedfromvariouspartsoftheglobeandthereforetheimplicationsarewide.

Chapter2,Defining multilingualism, writtenbyCharlotteKemp,isdevotedtomethodicalexaminationoftermsanddefinitionsreferringtomultilingualismandrelatedconcepts.Astheamountofdata,bothofpracticalandtheoreticalkind,isapproachingthecriticallevel,elevatingmultilingualismtoafully-fledgedfieldofitsown,researchintomultilingualismstandsinneedofagreementontheuseofitsmajortermsandconcepts.InherarticleKempexploresthediversityofdefinitionsoriginatingfromdifferentresearchtraditions,ideologies,purposesandcontextsofinvestigatingmultilingualism.Currentdebatesheldwiththepurposeofenhancingunderstandingbydelineatingtheterms‘bilingualism’,‘multilingualism’and‘bilin-gual’,‘multilingual’individuals.Thequestionssuchas‘Whatisalanguage?’‘Howmaylanguagesbecounted?’,andalsowhatdegreeofproficiencyandoffunctionalcapabilityisrequiredforanindividualtobeconsideredbilingualormultilingual,arecentral.Kempconcludesthatasmoredifferencesbetweenbilingualsandmul-tilingualsareuncoveredbyresearch, there is lessbasis toconsiderbilingualismandmultilingualismdifferingsolelyinthenumberoflanguages.Accordinglymostresearchersrefertoindividualswhousetwolanguagesas‘bilinguals’andtothosewhousethreeandmorelanguagesas‘multilinguals’.


InChapter3,Genesis and development of research in multilingualism: perspec-tives for future research, RitaFranceschiniunfoldsthediscussiononthegenesisanddevelopmentof research inmultilingualism.Herargumentsareorganisedaroundthekeyconceptsofdiversity, thehistorical foundation of multilingualismandcultural sensitivity. Franceschiniadvocatesachange in theperspectiveonmultilingualism,thegroundsforwhicharelaidbyareinterpretationoflinguisticdiversity, a differentiated approach and development of awareness of the com-plexityofmultilingualsocialandlearningenvironments.Thechangeisparticu-larlyperceptibleinthefieldoflanguagelearningwheresystemiccomprehensiveapproaches, which consider family, cultural and learning contexts jointly, tookoverthe‘monocausal’treatmentsofthemultilingualsituations.

The author suggests several perspectives for future studies in areas whichhavealreadybeenresearched,aswellasinotherswhichneedfurtherresearch.Amongthemarereceptivemultilingualism,multilingualismontheInternet,‘lan-guageandpower’,thestaticbasisandlegalstatusofmultilingualism.

In Chapter 4, The development of psycholinguistic research in crosslinguistic influence, GessicadeAngelisandJean-MarcDewaeletracethedevelopmentofpsycholinguisticresearchoncross-linguisticinfluencefromthe1950stothepres-entday.Theauthorsshowthegradualbreakingofffromthetraditionofseeinglanguagetransferasaphenomenonmostlyconcernedwithtwolanguages.Overtheyearsthefocusofinterestinthedomainofcross-linguisticinfluence(CLI)shiftedfromthetransferphenomenafromtheL1totheL2tothenon-nativelan-guagestransfer.Whileinthe1950sand1960sstudiesonlanguagetransferfromnon-nativelanguageswerepracticallynil,thebeginningofthepresentcenturyismarkedbytheintensedebateontheuniquenessofthetrilingualismresearchandaremarkableincreaseinthenumberofstudiesonmultilingualismandCLI.Thepsycholinguistic research on crosslinguistic influence is clearly no longer con-finedtotraditionalperspectivesinitiallydevelopedforsecondlanguages.

Thebranchingoutofthisnewfieldofinvestigation–non-nativecross-lin-guistic influence – was accompanied by emergence of novel additional issuesspecifictomultilingual,butnotbilingualphenomena.Theissuesofpriorknowl-edgeofbilingualsintheprocessoflearningsubsequentlanguageshavebeguntobeinvestigatedfromvariousanglesanditseemstheywillremaincentraltofutureresearchtoo.

Chapter5,writtenbyMuirisÓLaoireandDavidSingleton,dealswithThe role of prior knowledge in L3 learning and use: further evidence of psychotypological dimensions. Recentresearchpointstotheagefactor,thelevelofproficiency,levelofmetalinguisticawarenessandthedegreeofformalityofthecontextoflanguageuse as to relevant determinants of the success in learning the third language.ÓLaoireandSingletondiscussthetwocriticalfactorsofcrosslinguisticinfluence


whichstandinurgentneedofexploration–psychotypology,thatis,theperceiveddistancebetweenthelanguages,andthe“L2factor”i.e.perceivingalanguageas‘foreign’non-nativetothelearner.Theauthorsdirecttheattentionofthereadertotheconditionsandwaysinwhichpriorexperienceandknowledgeofanad-ditionallanguagemightinfluencesubsequentacquisitionprocesses.MakinguseoftheempiricaldatafromtheirownresearchinIreland,ÓLaoireandSingletonlookintothenatureofcross-linguisticinfluenceinthespeakers/learnersofthirdlanguagesbyanalysingtwostudieswhichinvolvedseveralgroupsof third lan-guage learners.ThefindingsonIrish-EnglishbilingualsandAnglophoneswithIrish,whowerelearningFrenchandGermanastheirtertiarylanguageallowedtheauthorstosuggestthatthelearnerstendtodrawfromthelanguagetheyper-ceiveastypologicallyclosertothetargetlanguage.

OneoftheaimsofChapter6,Methods of research in multilingualism stud-ies: reaching a comprehensive perspective,writtenbyLarissaAroninandBrittaHufeisen,istodemonstratethewidevarietyofmethodsandapproachesavail-abletostudentsofmultilingualism.Thenewlinguisticdispensation,thecurrentmultilingualism,callsforreconsiderationoftheuseofmethodsinmultilingual-ismstudies.Thecontribution includesadiscussionof the inherentpropertiesof contemporary multilingualism identified as complexity, liminality and suf-fusiveness. These necessitate additional apposite methods for multilingualismresearch.Specialattentionisgiventoemergingandpromisingmethodsofre-searchwhichespeciallyfitthespecificnatureofmultilingualismstudies.Amongthemaremethodsof complexity science, aswell as theuseofmetaphorsandconceptualizationservingasmethodsofresearch.Theauthorsargueinfavourof introducing a full range of contemporary scientific research methods fromotherscientificdomains,combiningthemwithexistingtheoriesandmethodsoflinguisticandsociolinguisticinvestigation.

In Chapter 7, The study of multilingualism in educational contexts, JasoneCenozandUlrikeJessnerprovideasystematicoverviewofinternationalresearchonmultilingualeducation,asdistinctfromtheresearchintobilingualeducation.Multilingual education “is defined by the use of languages other than the L1sasmediaof instruction(despite the languageswhichare taughtasschoolsub-jects)withtheaimforcommunicativeproficiencyinmorethantwolanguages”.Althoughthirdlanguageacquisition(TLA)intheformalcontextsharesanum-berofessentialcharacteristicswithsecondlanguagelearninginschool,TLAisgroundedinsecondlanguagelearningasitdependsonthedegreeofbilingualismofthethirdlanguagelearner.Theauthorsconcentratetheirattentiononsocio-andpsycholinguisticaspectsofmultilinguallearning.

Aspecialfocusisplacedontheissueoftheoptimalageforstartingofsecond/foreignlanguagelearning.Inparticular,thedatafromthenewresearchproject


ontheeffectofageonthirdlanguageacquisitioncarriedoutintheBasquecoun-trydonotsupporttheassumptionthattheprovisionofafewhoursofEnglishclassforthepre-primaryagechildrenleadstoahigherlevelofproficiencyinthislanguage.TheresultsofthisandotherstudiescarriedoutintheschoolsofCata-loniaandBasqueCountryprovideaninsightfordealingwithapredicamentindecisionmakingonthebestagetostartlearningasecondorforeignlanguage.

PeterEcke,authorofChapter8,Multilingualism resources: associations, jour-nals, book series, bibliographies and conference lists, supplieshelpfulinformationfor thecollaborationandconsolidationofpartnershipsbetween researchersofrelateddisciplinesandbetweenresearchersandpractitionersdevotedtobi/mul-tilingualismworldwide.Hiscontributionincludesreviewsofresourcesformul-tilingualismresearchandpracticewiththeaimofassistingresearchersworkinginthefieldofbi/multilingualismtocopewithanimmenseincreaseinresearchandpublicationinthefield.Eckeprovidesdataonseveralkindsofresources:as-sociations,organizationsandnetworksinvolvedinthestudyandpromotionofmultilingualism;professionaljournalsandmagazinesfocusingon,orincludingmultilingualismandthirdlanguageacquisitionasanareaofinterest;bibliogra-phiesonmultilingualismresearchandlistingsofconferenceswhichincludetheissuesofmultilingualismandthirdlanguageacquisitionintheirpurview.

Finally,theupdatedre-conceptualizationofvariousaspectsofmultilingual-ismissummarizedinChapter9byBrittaHufeisenandLarissaAronin.

References

(acomprehensivebibliographycanbefoundunderhttp://www.daf.tu-darmstadt.de/l3)

Aronin,L.&ÓLaoireM.2004.Exploringmultilingualisminculturalcontexts:towardsano-tionofmultilinguality.InTrilingualism in Family, School and Community, C.Hoffmann&J.Ytsma(eds),11–29.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008.MultilingualismasanewlinguisticDispensation. Interna-tional Journal of Multilingualism 5(1):1–16.

Auer,P.&LiWei(eds).2007.Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Barnes,J.2006.Early Trilingualism.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Barron-Hauwaert,S.2000.Issuessurroundingtrilingualfamilies:Childrenwithsimultaneaous

exposuretothreelanguages.Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht[On-line] 5:1. <http://www.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/projekt_ejournal/jg_05_1/beitrag/barron.htm>(May1,2000).

Braun,M.1937.BeobachtungenzurFragederMehrsprachigkeit.Göttingische Gelehrte Anzei-gen 4:115–130.

Cenoz,J.2005.EnglishinbilingualprogramsintheBasqueCountry.The International Journal of the Sociology of Language 171:41–50.

� LarissaAroninandBrittaHufeisen

Cenoz,J.2009.Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational Research in International Perspective.Bristol:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz, J. & Genesee, F. (eds). 1998. Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.,Hufeisen,B.&Jessner,U.(eds).2001.Trilingualismintheschoolcontext.SpecialIssueofThe Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism4:1.

Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds). 2000. English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

DeAngelis,G.2007.Third or Additional language Acquisition.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Dewaele, J.-M. 2000. Three years old and three first languages. Bilingual Family Newsletter

17(2):4–5.Dewaele,J.-M.2004.Blisteringbarnacles!Whatlanguagedomultilingualsswearin?!Special

issueofEstudios de Sociolingüística5:83–106.Franceschini, R. 1996. Die Reaktivierung von latenten Kompetenzen bei Gelegenheitsspre-

chern.InSémantique et cognition. Sciences cognitives, Linguistique et Intelligence Artifici-elle,M.Riegel(ed.),Scolia9:85–109.

Franceschini,R.2000.Amultilingualnetworkinthere-activationofItalianasthethirdlan-guageamongGermanspeakers:Evidencefrominteractions.Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 5(1) <http://www.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/projekt_ejournal/jg_05_1/beitrag/frances3.htm>(May1,2000).

Franceschini,R.,Zappatore,D.&Nitsch,C.2003.Lexiconinthebrain:Whatneurobiologyhastosayaboutlanguages.InThe multilingual lexicon,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),153–166.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Gatto, D. 2000. Language proficiency and narrative proficiency of a trilingual child. In Ter-tiär- und Drittsprachen: Projekte und empirische Untersuchungen, S.Dentler,B.Hufeisen&B.Lindemann(eds),117–142.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.

Gibson,M.,Hufeisen,B.&Personne,C.(eds).2008.Selected Papers from the Fribourg Confer-ence on Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition.Baltmannsweiler:SchneiderHohengehren.

Hammarberg,B.2001.RolesofL1andL2inL3productionandacquisition.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),21–41.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hélot,C.1998.BringingupchildreninEnglish,FrenchandIrish:Twocasestudies.Language, Culture and Curriculum1(3):281–287.

Herdina,P.&Jessner,U.2002.A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hoffmann,C.1985.Languageacquisitionintwotrilingualchildren.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development6:281–287.

Hoffmann,C.&Ytsma,J.(eds).2004.Trilingualism in Family, School and Community.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hufeisen,B.1993.L3-Spezifika.GAL-Bulletin19:14–20(Berichtdes1.Arbeitskreises).Hufeisen,B.1995.L3-Spezifika.GAL-Bulletin22:31–36(Berichtdes2.Arbeitskreises).Hufeisen,B.1996.L3-Spezifika.Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik24:81–86(Berichtdes3.

Arbeitskreises).Hufeisen,B.1997.L3-Spezifika.Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik26:83–87(Berichtdes4.

Arbeitskreises).


Hufeisen,B.1998.L3-Spezifika.Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik28:99–107(KurzberichtundBibliografiedes5.Arbeitskreises).

Hufeisen,B.2007.Multilingualism(plurilingualism)inEuropeandmultiplelanguageacquisi-tion.InDiverse Contexts – Converging Goals. CLIL in Europe,D.Marsh&D.Wolff(eds),115–129.Frankfurt:PeterLang.

Hufeisen,B.&Lutjeharms,M.(eds).2005.Gesamtsprachencurriculum – Integrierte Sprachen-didaktik – Common Curriculum. Theoretische Überlegungen und Beispiele der Umsetzung [GiessenerBeiträgezurFremdsprachenforschung].Tübingen:Narr.

Hufeisen,B.&Marx,N.2007.HowcanDaFnEandEuroComGermcontributetotheconceptofreceptivemultilingualism?InReceptive Multilingualism. Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts,J.tenThije&L.Zeevaert(eds),307–321.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Jessner,U.2006.Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Jessner,U.2008.Teachingthirdlanguages:Findings,trendsandchallenges.Language Teaching41(1):15–56.

Lasagabaster,D.&Huguet,A.(eds).2006.Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts: Lan-guage Use and Attitudes.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Meißner, F.-J. 2004. Transfer und Transferieren. Anleitungen zum Interkomprehensions-unterricht. In Neuere Forschungen zur Europäischen Interkomprehension, H. Klein &D.Rutke(eds),39–66.Aachen:Shaker.

Oksaar,E.1977.Onbecomingtrilingual.InDeutsch im Kontakt mit anderen Sprachen, C. Mol-ony,H.Zobl&W.Stölting(eds),296–307.Kronberg:Scriptor.

ÓLaoire,M.(ed).2006.Multilingualism in Educational Settings.Baltmannsweiler:SchneiderHohengehren.

Ringbom,H.2007.Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning.Clevedon:Multi-lingualMatters.

SafontJordà2005.Third Language Learners. Pragmatic Production and Awareness.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Vildomec,V.1963.Multilingualism. Leyden:A.W.Sythoff.Wandruszka,M.1979.Die Mehrsprachigkeit des Menschen. München:Piper.

chapter2

Defining multilingualism

CharlotteKempCardiffUniversity

Differingdefinitionsofmultilingualismariseonaccountoftworelatedgroupsofreasons:thosederivingfromparticipants’complexsituationwithregardtothenatureoftheiruseofvariouslanguages,andthosederivingfromresearch-ers’differingbackgrounds,ideologiesandpurposes.Mostpsycholinguisticresearchersdefinemultilingualismastheuseofthreeormorelanguages,butthisentailsdefiningwhatalanguageis,whichcanbeproblematic.Researchersneedtodecideonthedegreeofproficiencyandfunctionalcapabil-itymultilingualsarerequiredtohaveforalanguagetocountintheirstudy,andweighuptheimplicationsofpsycholinguistic(e.g.,mutualintelligibilityandpsychotypologicalperception),cultural,political,andaffectivecriteria,togetherwithliteracy.Researchersshouldspecifywhattheymeanby‘multilingual’.

I would like to thank Ajit Mohanty for setting me to think about this issue in a conversation on the impossibility of counting languages in countries with continua of variation that we had at the L3 conference in Stirling in 2007.

Keywords: definitionsofmultilingualism,bilingual,multilingual

Introduction

Multilingualism has long been of interest to researchers (e.g., Weinreich 1953;Vildomec1963)butforthemostpartresearchhasbeenfocusedonsociolinguis-tic studies and few learner or psycholinguistic studies have been carried out intheareauntillately(cf.Ramsay1980;NationandMcLaughlin1986;Klein1995).However, therecentgrowthofresearchintomultilingualismhasexpandedintomanynewareasinthelasttenyears(seethisvolume,passim)andacriticalmassofinformationandexperienceinresearchtechniquesisbeginningtobebuiltacrossthiscomplexfield.Thegrowthappearstobeleadingtochangesconsistentwiththefieldbecominganewdiscipline.Oneofthecharacteristicsofemergingdisciplinesis that termsanddefinitionsundergoaprocessofspecification,refinementand

12 CharlotteKemp

agreementresultinginaconvergenceofusageofterms.Researchintomultilin-gualismnowappearstobeundergoingthisprocess,whichisnecessaryasdefini-tionsarefundamentalfortheoryandhaveimplicationsforchoiceofparticipants,researchmethodology,andconsequently,researchfindings.

Theproblemofresearchersworkingondifferenttopicsandwithindifferenttraditionsofmultilingualresearchusingdifferentdefinitionsofmultilingualismislong-standing.Asfarbackas1953,Weinreich(1953:113)concludesthatthisisaproblemfortheoryandformethodologyinmultilingualresearchas“notwostudiesarethoroughlycomparable,becausethe linguistictechniquesemployedandthesociologicalorientations, ifany,onwhichtheyarebasedhavebeensodifferentfromonecasetothenext”(Weinreich1953:115).Thepurposeofthischapter is toexploredifferentdefinitionsofmultilingualismandrelatedterms,and the implications of these differing definitions for multilingual research, inordertopromotediscussionofdefinitionoftermswithintheemergingdiscipline.Thediscussionisrelevantforbothqualitativeandquantitativeresearch,withtheissueofhowtocountlanguagesparticularlyimportantforquantitativemethod-ologieswheremultilinguals’numberoflanguagesisavariable.

Origins ofdivergenceindefiningmultilingualism

Theunifyingfocusinresearchintomultilingualismisaninterestinindividualsandcommunitiesthatuseanumberoflanguages–whichappearstobeasimplepointof convergencearoundwhich thefieldcancohere.However, researchersdiverge in their definitions of multilingualism, and there appear to be two re-latedgroupsofreasonsunderlyingthis:firstly,reasonsderivingfromparticipants’complexsituationwithregardtothenatureoftheiruseofvariouslanguages;andsecondly, reasons deriving from researchers’ differing backgrounds, ideologies,andpurposes.Thesetwoareasofdivergenceinteracttoformacomplexmeshofsimilarityanddifferenceacrossdefinitions.

Aboveall,complexityisacharacteristicofthenatureofmultilingualpartici-pants’useof their languages,whichisoftenincontextsshowing linguisticandculturalpluralism(forpsycholinguisticcomplexityseeCenoz2000andHerdinaandJessner2002;forsociolinguisticcomplexityseeAroninandSingleton2008;AroninandHufeisenthisvolume).Multilingualsmayuseanumberoflanguagesonaccountofmanydifferent social, culturalandeconomicreasons.Theymayliveinamultilingualcommunity,oroverlappingbilingualcommunities,orbeincontactwithseveralmonolingualcommunities.Theirproficiencyineachoftheirlanguages is likely to differ, and may fluctuate over time (Herdina and Jessner2002).Theirlanguagesmayhavedifferentrolesandfunctions,theymayusethem

Chapter2. Definingmultilingualism 13

separatelyorcodeswitch,andtheyarestilldescribedasmultilingualwhethertheyknowthreeorsevenlanguages.Theextenttowhichresearchersattempttocapturethiscomplexityinthedefinitionofmultilingualismtheyusefortheirresearchortosimplifyitinordertoinvestigateaparticularaspectaffectstheirmethodologyandresearchfindings.

Inaddition,researchersare informedbyhavingdifferentbackgroundsanddifferentviewsfromvariousresearchtraditionssuchaslinguistic,sociolinguis-tic,psycholinguistic,sociopsychological,andeducationaltraditions.Underpost-structuralistinterpretationsnotonlyparticipantsbutalsoresearchersareaffectedbytheirowndevelopingandchangingideologiesofmultilingualismastheyin-teract with the social and cultural contexts relevant to them. These ideologiesinfluenceparticipantsinhowtheyrespondtoresearchers,andresearchersinhowtheychooseparticipantsandmethodologies,andinterpretthedata.Researchers’differingpurposesinstudyingmultilingualismmeanthattheyinvestigatediffer-entresearchquestionsorhypothesesandusedifferentmethodologiestoanalysethedata.Discussionofdefinitionsofmultilingualismisthereforealsocomplex.Thecomplexityofmultilinguals’sociolinguisticsituationandthereforepsycho-linguisticdevelopment,researchers’andparticipants’ideologies,andthedifferentpurposesofresearcharereflectedinthediscussionhereandultimatelymeanthatnosimpledefinitiveanswersarepossible.

Defining terms relevant to multilingualism

To date, researchers have used each of the terms ‘monolingual’, ‘bilingual’ and‘multilingual’inanumberofways,asdescribedbelow.Twonoticeabledivergenc-es are how many languages they refer to for ‘bilingual’ and ‘multilingual’; andwhethereachtermreferstothelanguageuseofboththeindividualandofcom-munitiesofindividualsinsociety,orsocietalusealone.

Defining ‘monolingual’

Monolinguals are individualswhouseone languageandmaybeproficientatusing a number of different varieties of the language together with differentregisters inthevarietyorvarietiestheyknow,andofswitchingbetweenvari-etiesandbetweenregistersintheappropriatecontext(butseethediscussionofthedifficultiesindifferentiatinglanguagesandvarietiesbelow).Analternativetermoccasionallyusedis‘monoglot’.Theterm‘unilingual’isoftenusedinthecontextoflanguageplanning(e.g.,Tchoungui2000),buthasalsobeenusedto

1� CharlotteKemp

describeparticipants inpsycholinguisticand language learningresearch(e.g.,Ianco-Worrall1972;Ramsay1980).

E.Ellis(2006:175)alsopresentstheterm‘monolinguality’,thepsycholinguis-tic stateof an individualknowingone language,basedonHamersandBlanc’s(1989/2000)separationofanindividual’s‘bilinguality’andsocietal‘bilingualism’.ManyresearchersintheFrench-speakingtraditionmakethisdistinction,whereasmanyresearchersintheEnglish-speakingtraditiondonot.Monolingualism(andmonolinguality)isoftenseenbypeopleinwesternnation-statesastheunmarkedcase towhichbilingualismandmultilingualismare compared (Romaine1989;E.Ellis2006),eventhoughitisoftennotedthatmostpeopleacrosstheworldaremultilingual(Edwards1994).

Defining ‘bilingual’

‘Bilinguals’ areoftendescribedaspersonswhouse two languages, andbilin-gualismis ‘theabilitytospeaktwolanguages’or ‘thehabitualuseoftwolan-guages colloquially’ (Oxford English Dictionary; Fabbro 1999; R. Ellis 1994,andmanyothers).

Althoughmanysociolinguistsnowuse the term ‘bilingualism’ forboth in-dividual and societal use of two languages (Nik Coupland, personal commu-nication), thedesiretodifferentiatebetweenindividualandsocietaluseoftwolanguageshasgivenrisetodifferenttermsatdifferenttimes:HamersandBlanc(1989:6)areknownfordistinguishingbetween the term ‘bilingualism’ torefertosocietieswhosecommunitiesusetwolanguages,and‘bilinguality’toreferto‘thepsychologicalstateofanindividual’whoknowstwolanguages,thoughtheterm ‘bilinguality’hadalreadybeenused in this sensebyWeinreich(1953:67)and Lambert et al. (1968:484). Fishman (1967:34) makes a distinction where“…bilingualismisessentiallyacharacterizationofindividuallinguisticbehaviourwhereasdiglossiaisacharacterizationoflinguisticorganizationatthesocio-cul-turallevel”.Inotherwords,diglossiareferstocommunitieswhere“…twoormorevarietiesofthesamelanguageareusedbysomespeakersunderdifferentcondi-tions”usuallywhereonehashighprestigeandtheotherlowprestige(Ferguson1959:325).Althoughdiglossiawasoriginallyusedtorefertowhatwereunder-stoodtobedifferentvarietiesofthesamelanguage(loc.cit.),ithasalsobeenusedforunrelatedlanguages.Fishman(1967)indicatesthatheconsiderslanguagedif-ferences toberegardedasacontinuum,anduses the term ‘extendeddiglossia’where languagesareunrelated,wheremorerecentlyHudson(2002:2)uses theterm‘societalbilingualism’.Asthedistinctionbetweenlanguageandvarietyisof-tenpoliticalorcultural,theterm‘diglossia’isnowoftenusedtorefertosituations


wherespeakersuselanguagesdifferentiallyandthereisaparticularrelationshipbetweentheserelatedorunrelatedlanguageswithregardtotheiruse.

Mostresearchersinlanguageresearchusetheterm‘bilingual’forusersoftwolanguages,and ‘multilingual’ for threeormore,but this isnotuniversal.Somedefinitionsofmultilingualismdonotuseanumericscalebutmakeabinarydis-tinctionbetweenmonolinguals,whoknowonelanguage,andmultilinguals,whoknowmorethanonelanguage(e.g.,Saville-Troike2006).Occasionallythissamebinary distinction is drawn using the terms ‘monolingual’ and ‘bilingual’ withbilingual defined as knowing two or more languages (Mackey 1962:27). Thesedefinitionsassumethatthereisnomeaningfuldifferencebetweenuserswhocanusetwocommunicativecodeswithtwospeechcommunitiesanduserswhocancommunicate with three or more communities (in circumstances where thesecommunitiesalsoexistseparately).Thereissomeresearchevidencethattherearequalitativeandquantitativedifferencesbetweenindividualswhousetwolanguag-esandindividualswhousethreelanguages(e.g.,AlbertandObler1978;NationandMcLaughlin1986)sothisusagemaybeproblematicforsomeresearchers.

Theterms‘bilinguist’and‘bilingualist’,referringtoaspeakeroftwolanguag-es,appearintheOxfordEnglishDictionarybutarerarelyusednow.

Defining ‘multilingual’

Amultilingualisapersonwhohas“theabilitytousethreeormorelanguages,either separatelyor invariousdegreesof code-mixing.Different languagesareusedfordifferentpurposes,competenceineachvaryingaccordingtosuchfactorsas register, occupation, and education” (McArthur 1992:673; see also Edwards1994;Vildomec1963).Multilingualsmaynothaveequalproficiencyinorcontroloverallthelanguagestheyknow.Theterm‘polyglot’isalsosometimesusedtodescribemultilingualindividuals.

The term ‘plurilingual’ is used by some researchers, including the Franco-phone tradition, to indicate individual as opposed to societal multilingualism,and the term ‘multilinguality’ isused to indicate the stateofknowing threeormorelanguages(e.g.,AroninandÓLaoire2004).

Polyglossia(orsometimesmultiglossia,e.g.Hary1992)isusuallyusedinso-ciolinguisticstorefertocommunitieswhereanumberoflanguagesorvarietiesareusedbysomeorall individualswithinaspecifiedcommunity,where theyhavedifferentroles:morespecificreferencemaybegivenasdiglossia,triglossia,tetraglossia(e.g.,Kaye1994).Thesetermsarelessfrequentlyusedinpsycholin-guisticresearch.

16 CharlotteKemp

Current debates

Recent emerging research from scientists following educational or psycholin-guistictraditionstendstoagreethatmultilingualismistheabilitytousethreeormorelanguagestosomeextent,whethertheseareinthesameordifferentdo-mains.However,definingtheterm‘multilingual’foranycontextisproblematic,in thateachdefinition isbasedon theresolutionof some interrelateddebateswhicharestillactive,whereresearchers’decisionsmaynotbemadeexplicit,andwherethedecisionsaffecthowthedefinitionisappliedtoindividuals’situation.Themostimportantoftheseare‘Whatisalanguage’,and‘Howmaylanguagesbecounted?’

What isalanguage?

Inorder tobeable todecide ifan individual ismultilingual,weneedtoknowwhatalanguageis.Linguistscandefine‘language’,butdefiningwhat‘alanguage’is,ismoreproblematic(Gupta2002).Fromapsycholinguisticperspective,ifweviewmultilinguals’ languagesasbeingrepresentedwithintheindividualwherecross-linguisticinfluenceisanimportantpartofthedynamicandcatalyticsys-tem, we see that they are not separable into individual languages. A commonalternativeapproachistoseeeachlanguageasagroupofbehaviourswhichresultinutterancesproducedandreceivedbyacommunityofspeakers(thisapproachonlyworkswheretherearealsomonolingualspeakersorcommunitiesofeachlanguage,suchasinaEuropeancontext).People,includingresearchers,abstractthissocialconstruct,reifyit,andunderstandalanguageasexistinginfact,notjustasutterances.The‘fact’ ismucheasiertounderstandandrefertothanthecomplexityofthereality.

There is further complexity, with regard to these utterances, and Strevens(1982:23)pointsoutthatthe‘facts’resideelsewhere:

Acentralproblemoflinguisticstudyishowtoreconcileaconvenientandneces-saryfictionwithagreatmassofinconvenientfacts.Thefictionisthenotionofa“language”–English,Chinese,Navajo,Kashmiri.Thefactsresideinthemassofdiversityexhibitedintheactualperformanceofindividualswhentheyuseagivenlanguage.

Iftheexistenceof‘alanguage’isfiction,researchersneedtobeclearandexplicitaboutwheretheyaredrawingtheboundariesbetweenonelanguageandanotherinorderthatotherscanrecognisethefictionasmeaningfulforthepurposeofthestudy.Inpractice,forbothpsycholinguisticandsociolinguisticresearch,thisisoftendonebyspecifyingboundariesinsocialorculturalusage.Itisworthciting


Ethnologue,whichgivesinformationonalltheknownlanguagesoftheworld,atlength(Gordon2005,paragraphs1–4):

Sincelanguagesdonothaveself-identifyingfeatures,whatactuallyconstitutesalanguagemustbeoperationallydefined.Thatis,thedefinitionoflanguageonechoosesdependsonthepurposeonehasinidentifyingalanguage.Somebasetheirdefinitiononpurelylinguisticgrounds.Othersrecognizethatsocial,cul-tural,orpoliticalfactorsmustalsobetakenintoaccount. Increasingly, scholars are recognizing that languages are not always easilytreatedasdiscreteisolatableunitswithclearlydefinedboundariesbetweenthem.Rather, languages are more often continua of features that extend across bothgeographicandsocialspace.Inaddition,thereisgrowingattentionbeinggiventotherolesorfunctionsthatlanguagevarietiesplaywithinthelinguisticecologyofaregionoraspeechcommunity. TheEthnologueapproachtolistingandcountinglanguagesasthoughtheywerediscrete,countableunits,doesnotprecludeamoredynamicunderstandingof the linguisticmakeupof thecountriesandregions inwhichclearlydistinctvarietiescanbedistinguishedwhileatthesametimerecognizingthatthoselan-guagesandtheir“dialects”existinacomplexsetofrelationshipstoeachother.Everylanguageischaracterizedbyvariationwithinthespeechcommunitythatuses it. Those varieties, in turn, are more or less divergent from one another.Thesedivergentvarietiesareoftenreferredtoasdialects.Theymaybedistinctenoughtobeconsideredseparatelanguagesorsufficientlysimilarastobecon-sideredmerelycharacteristicofaparticulargeographicregionorsocialgroupingwithinthespeechcommunity. Notall scholars share the same setof criteria forwhat constitutes a “lan-guage”andwhatfeaturesdefinea“dialect.”TheEthnologueappliesthefollowingbasiccriteria:

Tworelatedvarietiesarenormallyconsideredvarietiesofthesamelan-guageifspeakersofeachvarietyhaveinherentunderstandingoftheothervarietyatafunctionallevel(thatis,canunderstandbasedonknowledgeoftheirownvarietywithoutneedingtolearntheothervariety). Wherespokenintelligibilitybetweenvarietiesismarginal,theexistenceofacommonliteratureorofacommonethnolinguisticidentitywithacen-tralvarietythatbothunderstandcanbeastrongindicatorthattheyshouldneverthelessbeconsideredvarietiesofthesamelanguage. Wherethereisenoughintelligibilitybetweenvarietiestoenablecom-munication,theexistenceofwell-establisheddistinctethnolinguisticidenti-tiescanbeastrongindicatorthattheyshouldneverthelessbeconsideredtobedifferentlanguages.

Thereareanumberofreasonswhythesecriteriaareusedinpsycholinguisticaswellassociolinguisticresearch.Itispresumedthatperceivedboundariesinsocial

1� CharlotteKemp

orculturalusagehavepsycholinguisticconsequences.(Itisbetteriftheboundariesare perceived by the participant rather than the researcher in psycholinguisticresearch, but it is notable that it is often the psycholinguist who decides whatcountsasalanguage).Then,forpracticalreasonsitiseasiertouseanexternaliseddefinitionof a languagewith reference to linguistic featuresor socialuse thanan internaliseddefinitionwithreference tomentalprocessing. Inotherwords,evenifresearcherslayasidethetheorythatamultilingual’slanguagesfunctionasaholisticandintegratedsystemorrepertoire,andviewthesystemasseparableinto individual languages, it isdifficult toassess foreachparticipantwherethementalboundariesliebetweenthelanguagesused.Forexample,itisoftennotedthatmultilingualsmayseerelatedlanguagesaseffectivelythesamelanguage.Ifpsychotypologicalperceptionaffectshowmultilingualsprocessrelatedlanguages,itispossiblethattheymayprocessrelatedlanguagesasdifferentvarietiesofthesamelanguage,andthatprocessingmaydifferfromindividualtoindividualinthisregard.Thelastcriterionusedtodefinealanguage,mutualintelligibility,islessproblematic forpsycholinguistic researchas itcanbeunderstoodas inter-nalisedaswellaspsycholinguistic(butseethediscussionbelow).

Thesecriteriacaninformresearchersstudyingmultilingualsindefiningwhatalanguageisfortheirspecificpurposes.Thisisafirststepinbeingabletospecifywhatwemeanby‘anumberoflanguages’inordertogiveadefinitionofmultilin-gualismwhichisrelevanttotheresearchbeingcarriedout.

How maylanguagesbecounted?

Ifweregardmultilingualismastheuseofthreeormorelanguagesthenresearch-ersneedtobeabletocountanindividual’slanguagesinordertoknowwhetherthepotentialparticipantisamemberofthecategoryofmultilingualindividuals.Counting languages isproblematiconaccountof thepsycholinguisticproblemoutlinedabove;measurementdifficulties,particularlywithregardtothenon-cat-egoricalnatureoflanguageproficiencyandlanguageuse;andbecausethecriteriaformembershipinaspeechcommunityarealsonon-categorical.Someoftheseproblemsaredescribedinmoredetailbelow(forsomeofthesameissues,withregardtobilingualism,seeSkutnabb-Kangas1984:80–94).

1. What degree of proficiency is required?Researchersintomultilingualismneedtoconsidertowhatextentanindividualshouldbeabletospeakoruseeachoftheirlanguagesinordertobeconsideredmultilingualforthepurposesofthestudy,andhowthisistobemeasured.Overthe lastcentury, theextent towhichaspeaker is required tobeproficient ina


language in order for researchers to count it as one of their languages has di-minished (e.g., see Mackey 1962). If we turn to bilingualism, we can compareBloomfield’s(1933:56)understandingofbilingualismas“thenative-likecontroloftwolanguages”withHaugen’sasbeginning“atthepointwherethespeakerofonelanguagecanproducecomplete,meaningfulutterancesintheotherlanguage”(Haugen1953:7)andDiebold’sasany“contactwithpossiblemodelsinasecondlanguage,andtheabilitytousetheseintheenvironmentofthenativelanguage”(Diebold1961:111).Mackey(1962:27)pointsoutthatthisisbecauseresearchershaverealisedthatitis“eitherarbitraryorimpossibletodetermine”atwhatstageanindividualbecomesbilingual.

Recentdefinitionsofmultilingualismalsodonot require individuals tobeproficient to native speaker level, not least because nativeness appears to be afunctionofageofacquisitionformanylearners,andbecauseresearchersworkingwithinthemorerecentmultilingualparadigmtendtotakeaholisticviewofallthelanguageswithintheindividual’ssystem.Inotherwords,eachlanguageinthemultilingualintegratedsystemisapartofthecompletesystemandnotequiva-lent in representationorprocessing to the languageof amonolingual speaker.Furthermore,becausemultilinguals’proficienciesinthesecommunicativecodesdevelopandattriteoverthecourseoftheir lifetimes,testingthematonepointintimegivesaviewoftheircapabilitiesatthattimeonly.Self-reportassessmentforlanguagesshouldindicatewhethercurrentproficiencyorgeneralproficiencyuptothatpointintimeisrequired.Otherconsiderationswithregardtopartici-pants’proficiencyinclude:knowledgeoflexicalitems,grammaticalproficiency,pragmaticandstylisticproficiency,pronunciation,andproficiencyacrosseachofthefourskills:listening,speaking,reading,andwriting.Researchersmaywishtoincludeorexcludeindividualswhohaveonlyreceptiveskillsorproductiveskillsina language,or thosewithonlyoralproficiency,or thosewhoknowclassicallanguagesbutcanonlyreadandwritethem.

2. What degree of functional capability is required?Considerationswithregardtofunctionalcapabilityincludehowextensivelypar-ticipantsareabletocommunicateusingalanguageacrossanumberofdomains,whichparticulardomainstheycancommunicatein,andwhethertheyareabletocodeswitchappropriatelyforthecommunitytheyinteractwith.Code-switchingbetweendifferentlanguagesordifferentvarietiesofthesamelanguagebymulti-lingualindividualsinamultilingualcommunityalsomakescountinglanguagesdifficultfortheresearcher,andcallingitcode-switching“presuppose[s]thatwecanascribelinguisticfeaturestooneexternalcodeoranother”whichisnotal-ways the case (Le Page 1998:71). Multilinguals living in multilingual societieswhere code-switching is frequently used across their community and who are

20 CharlotteKemp

functionallycapableinanumberoflanguagesmaynothavedevelopedtheex-plicitawarenessthatotherindividualsmightperceivethemtobecode-switchingbetweenmultiplecodes,particularlyifthecodesarerelatedvarietiesandthemul-tilingualsarenotincontactwithmonolingualcommunities.

Bothproficiencyandfunctionalcapabilityarerelativelyeasytotestifstan-dard languages are being assessed, bearing in mind that tests are usually con-structedusingmonolingualratherthanmultilingualnormsandsocareisneededtoensuretheyareappropriate.Testingproficiencyinanon-standardlanguageismoredifficultastestsdonotusuallyexistifitisnotanofficiallanguageorame-diumofinstruction,andmustthereforebecreated:testspresupposethatacom-monlyknownstandardvarietyisinuse.Additionally,thereistheissueofwhetheranynon-standardvarietybeingassessedisthesamelanguageorvarietyasoneoftheindividual’sotherlanguages,i.e.,theextenttowhichrelatedvarietiesdivergefunctionallyinthemindofthemultilingualisimportantincountinglanguages.AsGordon’s(2005)Ethnologue,citedabove,indicates,theusualcriterionismu-tualintelligibilitybetweenspeakers.

3. The linguistic criterion of mutual intelligibilityConventionally,peoplespeakthesamelanguageiftheyunderstandeachother.However, in countries where a large number of languages are spoken but nottaughtorusedaswrittenlanguages,suchasIndia,varietiesmaymergeoneintoanother over geographical space and it may not be meaningful to draw artifi-ciallinesbetweenthemandcallthemdifferentnames.Comrie(1987:3)referstothissituationasa‘dialectchain’,wherecontiguousvarietiesaremutuallyintelli-gible,butnotthosefurtherapart.Lynch(1998:30),referringtotheTrukicspeechcommunities of Micronesia, describes how “[d]ifferent linguists have dividedthiscomplexcontinuumintothree,seven,andelevendistinctlanguages,whichmakestheexerciseofcountinglanguagesdifficultandprobablyfutile.”DirvenandVerspoor(1998)suggestthattheremaybeaEuropeandialectcontinuumfromNorwegianbytheNorthSeatoBavarianinTyrol.Attemptshavebeenmadetocountvarietiesincontinuausingmathematicalmeans,e.g.,Hammarström(2008)whofindsitmathematicallypossibletocountanindividual’slanguages,butnottospecifywhatthecountedlanguagesareinthedialectchain.Thedialectchainisasociolinguisticphenomenon,butthereisarelatedpsycholinguisticphenomenonin individualmultilinguals, as thefluidityofboundariesbetween languagesorvarieties,andthereforethewaysmultilingualscategorisethemmaychangeovertime(AjitMohanty,personalcommunication).

Formultilingualparticipantsthereisanotherprobleminusingmutualintel-ligibilityasacriterionforcountingalanguageastheycanoftenusecrosslinguistictransfer to understand related languages to some extent. Use of crosslinguistic


transfermaymeanthatindividuals’functionalcomprehensionofinputmaynotmatchsociolinguisticlanguageorvarietyboundaries.

Thelinguisticcriterionofmutualintelligibilityisfurthercomplicatedbyasym-metricintelligibilitywhereoneindividualorcommunitycanunderstandanother,butitisnotreciprocated.Thismayoccur,forexample,whennon-standardlan-guageusersunderstandand/orusethestandardlanguage(througheducationandexposurethroughmediaandthewrittenlanguage)whereasthestandardlanguagespeakersarelesslikelytounderstandthenon-standardvariety(astheyhavelessexposure,andarelessmotivatedtoacquireitastheyconsiderithaslessprestige).Complicatingthisfurther,mutualintelligibilityisamatterofdegreeratherthanastateofeithercomprehensionorincomprehension(Hammarström2008).

Thoughtisrequiredbyresearchersinevaluatingwhethermutualintelligibilityisrelevanttotheirresearchcontext:all individualsusenon-standardvarietiesiftheirmothertongueoroneoftheirlanguagesisnotastandardlanguage,andthismayhaveconsequencesforhowresearcherscountthelanguagesparticipantsuse.

�. Cultural and political criteriaMoving from psycholinguistic to cultural criteria for membership of a speechcommunity,peoplegenerallyviewothersaspartoftheirspeechcommunityonaccountofcommonsocialorpoliticalcharacteristics,forexample,iftheyareper-ceivedtosharesomeexperiencewiththem,suchasasharedculture,worldview,orwritingsystem(Smeets2005).Groupmembershipmayfluctuateovertimeassocialidentityisshiftingandcomplex.Individualsnegotiatetheiridentitywithinthemselvesandwiththecommunitiestheyinteractwithandwithin,andthisin-cludestowhatextentandinwhatwaystheyidentifywithindividualsandcom-munities who speak their languages. Multilinguals may see being multilingualitselfaspartoftheiridentity,andmayidentifywithothermultilingualswhodonotshareallthesamelanguages.

Evaluatingwhetherindividualshaveacommonlanguageismademorediffi-cultwhenspeakersofthesamelanguagecallitbydifferentnames,e.g.,Dzongkha,Bhutanese,Lhoke,andBhotiaareusedforthesamelanguagespokeninBhutan(Edwards1994:22).Speakersmaynotknowthenameofoneoftheirlanguages,orthelanguagemaychangenamesaccordingtogeographicallocation.Whattheymayconsidertobethesamelanguageasanotherspeakermaynotbeconsideredby theother tobe thesame language,as individuals’psychotypologicalpercep-tionsmaydiffer.Anunderstandingofwhetherinterlocutorsarespeakingthesamelanguageisoftenbasedonethnicorculturalcommonalitiesratherthanlinguisticones:individualsandgroupsofspeakersmayeachusetheirownvarietyandbeunderstoodbytheothersinthegroupusingdifferentvarietieswithlittlepercep-tualdifferenceifitisnotpertinenttotheinterlocutors.Baker(2006:133,referring

22 CharlotteKemp

toPavlenko2002)pointsoutthatthisisbecause“thepsychologicalismergedintothepolitical”.Potentialparticipantsmaybepoliticallymotivated in theirbeliefsoveridentityandethnicityandlanguageastowhichlanguagetheyareusingandwhichculturetheyconsiderthistobepartof.Wedonotknowwhetherindividu-als’psychotypologicalorpoliticalperceptionsoftheirlanguagesaffecttheirorgan-isationalrepresentationsoftheselanguagesintheirminds,andiftheydo,how.

5. Other affective criteriaWithregardtoaffect,researchersshouldalsobecarefulcountingmultilinguals’languagesunderconditionsofself-reportasvariabilityinmeasurementmayalsoresult fromspeakersbeingmodestorpessimistic,oralternativelyoptimisticorshowingwishfulthinkingabouttheircapabilities.

6. LiteracyCountinglanguagesisdifficultwhereparticipantsvaryastotheirknowledgeandabilitytoreadandwrite.Insomesocietiesandcommunities,literacyisthenorm,whereasinothersitmaybeconfinedtoaneliteoronlyusedforspecificlimitedfunctions,andinothers,thewrittenlanguageisnotusedatall.Ifmultilingualsareliterate,theymaybeliterate,tosomedegree,inoneoftheirlanguages,intwolanguages(biliterate),orinanumberoftheirlanguages(multiliterate).EveninWesternliteratesocieties,wheresomelanguages inadditiontotheofficial lan-guagearetaughtorsupportedatschoolwithregardtoliteracy,itisunusualformultilingualstobeliterateinalltheirlanguages.Multilingualsmayalsobeliterateinalanguageorlanguagestheydonothavespokenproficiencyin.Thisislikelytobethecasewherewrittencompetenceisrequiredwithregardtoskillsforwork,butnocontact isheldwith target languagecommunities (oralternativelywiththestudyofclassicallanguages).Researchhasfoundthatmultilingualswhodif-ferinwhethertheyarenon-literate,monoliterate,biliterateormultiliteratemayperform differently on tests (e.g., Scribner and Cole 1981). Depending on thepurpose of the research, it may therefore not be meaningful to mix groups ofmultilingualparticipantswhodifferintheirliteracyabilities.

Theproblemsinoperationalisingadefinitionofmultilingualismdescribedabovealsohaveconsequenceswithregardtohowresearchersviewthelanguageback-ground data they collect from participants and what methods of analysis theythenconsidertheycanuseonthedata,whetherqualitativeorquantitative.Thecomplexityofthelinguisticrealityofmultilingualismmakesanalysisdifficult.Forquantitativeresearchparadigms,researchersneedtobeabletosplitparticipantsintogroupsonthebasisofachosenattribute,characteristic,ormeasureoftheir


languageexperienceinordertobeabletocomparethem.Thesecomplexitiesmeanthatresearchersintomultilingualismneedtoselecttheirparticipantswithcare.

Definitions beyond the generic ‘multilingual’

The extent to which it is meaningful to lump together all individuals who areabletousethreeormorelanguagesisnowalsoupfordebate.Wearediscoveringthatthedifferencesbetweenmultilingualsareasgreatasthedifferencesbetweenmonolinguals and bilinguals. There appear to be as many differences betweenthemastherearedifferencesbetweenmonolingualsandbilinguals,orbilingualsandtrilinguals.Someresearchersarecarefultoseparatemultilingualsonthebasisofhowmanylanguagestheyknow(e.g.,Dewaele2004,2008).

Ratherthandescribingallindividualswhospeakorusethreeormorelan-guages as ‘multilingual’, some researchers specify, according to the definitionused,howmanylanguagesparticipantsspeakoruse.SomeconsistentlyuseeitherLatinorGreekprefixestospecifythenumberoflanguages,butmostmixthem.IfthetermsweremorphologicallyconsistentinLatintheywouldbe:unilingual,bi-lingual,trilingual,quadrilingual,quinquelingual(orquintilingual),sextilingual,septilingual,octilingual,nonilingual,anddecilingual.IfGreekprefixeswereaf-fixedtotheLatinstem-lingualthetermswouldbe:monolingual,dilingual,tri-lingual,tetralingual,pentalingual,hexalingual,heptalingual,octolingual,nonal-ingual(orennealingual),decalingual.However,itseemssimplerjusttodescribehowmanylanguagesamultilingualuses,accordingtothedefinitioninuse.

Conclusion

Naturally,differentresearchersandresearchgroupsworkingindifferentresearchtraditionsusedifferentdefinitionsofmultilingualismaccordingtotheirpurposes.Definingaphenomenonascomplexasmultilingualism isproblematic inmanyways, and necessitates defining what a language is and how languages can becountedwithregardtoindividuals’proficiency,functionalcapability,andidentity.Includingadefinitionofmultilingualismineachstudybenefitsresearchersinthefieldbecauseitincreasesclaritywithregardtowhoisunderresearchinthestudy,andconsequentlyunderstandingofhowstudiesarecomparable,andinquantita-tiveresearch,whetherastudyisgeneralisabletoaspecifiedpopulation.Adefini-tionmayalsobeusedbyresearchersthemselvestoselectorscreenparticipants.

Asresearchintomultilingualismhasbeenundertakenbyresearcherswork-ing indifferent research traditions, anumberof termsareused to refer to the

2� CharlotteKemp

same(anddifferent)phenomenawithinthefield.Thefieldwouldbenefitfromsomecommonterms.Mostresearchersnowusetheterm‘bilingual’torefertoindividualswhousetwolanguages,and‘multilingual’torefertoindividualswhousethreeormorelanguages(ratherthanusingthetermbilingualtomeanmorethan two languages, or multilingual for users of just two languages). Evidencefromresearchnowappearstoindicatethattheargumentthatbilingualismandmultilingualismarethesameability,butwithdifferentnumbersoflanguages,isnotnecessarilythecase.Asresearchproceedsinmoredepth,substantialdiffer-encesbetweenbilingualsandmultilingualsappeartobeemerging,justasdiffer-encesbetweenmultilingualsareemerging.

Intheend,itwouldbeusefulifresearchersweretogiveadetaileddefinitionofmultilingualismaspartofeachstudy.Explicitdefinitionswouldallowotherstounderstandtheprinciplesbehindthestudy,andhoweachstudyrelatestotheexistingliterature.

References

Albert,M.L.&Obler,L.K.1978.The Bilingual Brain: Neuropsychological and Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism.NewYorkNY:AcademicPress.

Aronin,L.&ÓLaoire,M.2004.Exploringmultilingualisminculturalcontexts:Towardsano-tionofmultilinguality.InTrilingualism in Family,School and Community, C.Hoffmann&J.Ytsma(eds),11–29.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008.Thecomplexityofmultilingualcontactandlanguageuseintimesofglobalization.Conversarii. Studi Linguistici2:33–47.

Baker,C.2006.Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,4thedn.Clevedon:Mul-tilingualMatters.

Bloomfield,L.1933.Language.NewYorkNY:Holt,RinehartandWinston.Cenoz,J.2000.Researchonmultilingualacquisition.InEnglish in Europe: The Acquisition of a

Third Language, J.Cenoz&U.Jessner(eds),39–53.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Comrie,B.(ed).1987.The World’s Major Languages.London:CroomHelm.Dewaele,J.-M.2004.Theemotionalforceofswearwordsandtaboowordsinthespeechofmul-

tilinguals.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development25:204–222.Dewaele,J.-M.2008.TheemotionalweightofI love youinmultilinguals’languages. Journal of

Pragmatics 40(10):1753–1780.Diebold,A.R.1961.Incipientbilingualism.Language37:97–112.Dirven,R.&Verspoor,M.1998.Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics.Amster-

dam:JohnBenjamins.Edwards,J.1994.Multilingualism. London:Routledge.Ellis,E.2006.Monolingualism:Theunmarkedcase.Estudios de Sociolingüística 7(2):173–196.Ellis,R.1994.The Study of Second Language Acquisition.Oxford:OUP.Fabbro,F.1999.The Neurolinguistics of Bilingualism: An Introduction.Hove:PsychologyPress.Ferguson,C.A.1959.Diglossia.Word 15:325–340.


Fishman,J.A.1967.Bilingualismwithandwithoutdiglossia:diglossiawithandwithoutbilin-gualism.Journal of Social Issues23:29–38.

Gordon, R. G. Jr (ed). 2005 (15th ed). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas TX: SILInternational.<http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/introduction.asp#language_id/>(29January2009).

Gupta,A.F.2002.Privilegingindigeneity.InLanguage Planning and Education: Linguistic Issues in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland, J.M.Kirk&DónallO.ÓBaioll(eds),290–299.Belfast:ClóOllscoilnaBanríona.

Hamers,J.F.&Blanc,M.H.A.1989.Bilinguality and Bilingualism.Cambridge:CUP.Hamers,J.F.&Blanc,M.H.A.2000.Bilinguality and Bilingualism,2ndedn.Cambridge:CUP.Hammarström,H.2008.Countinglanguagesindialectcontinuausingthecriterionofmutual

intelligibility.Journal of Quantitative Linguistics15(1):34–45.Hary,B.H.1992.Multiglossia in Judeo-Arabic: With an Edition, Translation and Grammatical

Study of the Cairene Purim Scroll.Leiden:BRILL.Haugen,E.1953.The Norwegian Language in America: A study in Bilingual Behaviour. Philadel-

phiaPA:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Herdina,P.&Jessner,U.2002.A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in

Psycholinguistics. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Hudson,A.2002.Outlineofatheoryofdiglossia.International Journal of the Sociology of Lan-

guage157:1–48.Ianco-Worrall, A. D. 1972. Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development 43:

1390–1400.KayeA.S.1994.Formalvs.informalinArabic:Diglossia,triglossia,tetraglossia,etc.,polyglos-

sia-multiglossiaviewedasacontinuum.Zeitschrift fur arabische Linguistik27:47–66.Klein,E.1995.Secondversusthirdlanguageacquisition:Isthereadifference?Language Learn-

ing45:419–465.Lambert,W.E.,Gardner,R.C.,Olton,R.&TunstallK.1968.Astudyoftherolesofattitudes

and motivation in second language learning. In Readings in the Sociology of Language,J.A.Fishman(ed),473–491.TheHague:Mouton.

LePage,R.B.1998.Youcannevertellwhereawordcomesfrom:Languagecontactinadiffusesetting.InThe Sociolinguistics Reader, Vol. 1: Multilingualism and Variation, P.Trudgill&J.Cheshire(eds),66–89.London:Arnold.

Lynch,J.1998.Pacific Languages: An Introduction.HonoluluHI:UniversityofHawaiiPress.Mackey,W.F.1962.Thedescriptionofbilingualism.Canadian Journal of Linguistics7:51–85.

(AlsoinThe Bilingualism Reader, LiWei(ed),26–56.London:Routledge).McArthur,T.(ed).1992.The Oxford Companion to the English Language.Oxford:OUP.Nation,R.&McLaughlin,B.1986.Expertsandnovices:Aninformation-processingapproach

tothe“goodlanguagelearner”problem.Applied Psycholinguistics7:41–56.Oxford English Dictionary.Oxford:OUP.Ramsay,R.1980.Language-learningapproachstylesofadultmultilingualsandsuccessfullan-

guage learners. In Studies in Child Language and Multilingualism, V. Teller & S. White(eds),73–96.NewYorkNY:NewYorkAcademyofSciences.

Romaine,S.1989.Bilingualism.Oxford:Blackwell.Saville-Troike,M.2006.Introducing Second Language Acquisition.Cambridge:CUP.Scribner,S.&Cole,M.1981.The Psychology of Literacy.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversity

Press.

26 CharlotteKemp

Skutnabb-Kangas,T.1984.Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities.Clevedon:Multi-lingualMatters.

Smeets,R.2005.Multilingualismforculturaldiversityandparticipation forall incyberspace.Presentation.UNESCOActivitiesfortheSafeguardingofEndangeredLanguages.<http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/19200/11170987131Rieks_Smeets.doc/Rieks%2BSmeets.doc>(20November2008).

Strevens,P.1982.ThelocalizedformsofEnglish.InThe Other Tongue: English across Cultures, B.B.Kachru(ed),23–30.UrbanaIL:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Tchoungui, G. 2000. Unilingual past, multilingual present, uncertain future: The case ofYaounde.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development21:113–128.

Vildomec,V.1963.Multilingualism.Leyden:A.W.Sythoff.Weinreich,U.1953.Languages in Contact.TheHague:Mouton.

chapter3

The genesis and development of research in multilingualismPerspectivesforfutureresearch

RitaFranceschiniFreeUniversityofBozen-Bolzano

Thiscontributionfocusesoncurrentmultilingualismresearchinitiatives,inparticularonissuesofculturalandlinguisticdiversitywhichinfluenceresearchperspectivesandchoices.Inaddition,anewcomprehensivedefinitionofmultilingualismisposited,onewhichincorporatesthefactorofinfluenceatthediscursivelevelandalsooutlinesperspectivesoffutureresearch.Theresearchdesiderataincludethehistoricaldimensionofmultilingualism,comparativestudiesoflinguisticphenomenaamongminoritylanguageusers,theexplora-tionof“emergentvarieties”especiallyinyoungpeople,“linguaefrancae”,anddialectborderareasfor“agrammaroflanguagecontact”.Thetopicsof“recep-tivemultilingualism”and“unintentional,unfocussedlearning”arereferredto.Thechaptercallsforintensifyingthestatisticalbasisformultilingualismstudiesandhighlightsanimportantrolefortherepresentativesofsecondandthirdgenerationmigrantsinmanysociolinguisticareas.Researchfieldsfortheanalysisofmultilingualismininstitutions,themediaandtheeconomyarealsosuggested.Inconclusion,theneedtodeveloptheoreticalfoundationsofmultilingualismandsystematicandcontinuousreviewisunderlined,sothatindependentresearchcandevelop.

Keywords: definitionofmultilingualism,researchonmultilingualism,languageacquisition,minoritylanguages,culturaldiversity

Commitment todiversity inEuropean society isnowbeing recognizedasoneofthekeyrequirementsforitssuccessfulfuturedevelopment.Thiscommitmentcomesatatimeofincreasingacknowledgementthatdiversityisthekeytoactivat-ingthepotentialforEuropeangrowth.Ithasbecomeobviousthatthecomplex,heterogeneoussocietiesofEuropetodaycannolongerfunctioninlinguisticallyhomogenousterms.Itisthemultilingualcompetenciesofcitizens,theembracingofvariedcommunicativeskillsandabilitieswhichserveasthemostappropriate

2� RitaFranceschini

means of engaging with the new challenges facing Europe’s linguistically andculturally complex societies. Current European culture(s) is/are the product/sofalonginteractiveprocessofaverbal(andthereforenaturallyfleeting)naturepassed down throughout history. It is also naturally comprised of longer-termculturalphenomena,suchaswrittentexts,variousmedia,institutions,talksanddiscoursesheld,amongothers.GeorgeSteiner’s(Steiner2005)perspectivesun-derlinethisprocessverywell.HeclaimsthatEuropecanberegardedasaper-sonalised, accessible area, where the emphasis is placed upon communication,creativityandautonomy.

Inlinewithsuchacharacterization,whichembodiesthelinguisticandcul-tural potential of Europe as a multilingually-functioning society, we make thefollowingclaims:

1. Diversity isacharacteristic featureofmultilingualsocieties: Inotherwords,multilingualism in Europe is a potentiality which crucially requires furtherdevelopment,onewhichwilldefinetheareabothculturallyandeconomically.Withitshighleveloflinguisticandculturaldiversity,Europeisabletodemon-strateaveryspecialandspecificexpertiseinthisarea.

2. Thehistorical foundationsofmultilingualismareconcreteandmeasurable.TheEuropeanculturalarenahasbeenmultilingualforcenturiesinmanyandvar-iedways;multilingualismhasnotsimplyorsuddenlydevelopedjustbecausetheresearchworldandpublicdiscoursehaverecentlytakenaninterestinthisphenomenon.

3. Cultural sensitivityplaysakeyroleinthedevelopmentandmaintenanceofamultilingualEurope.Althoughbeingandbecomingmultilingualisanaturalphenomenonattheindividuallevel,giventhecapacityforanyspeakertobe-comemultilinguallyproficient,thepotentialmustbedevelopedandenhancedwithinandbymeansofsocialcontext,byexposuretorealspeech.Acrucialfactor in thedevelopmentof societalmultilingualism is thereforeanatural,culturalone,inotherwords,contactwithotherlanguages.

The first section of the paper briefly outlines the development of social andscientificinterestinmultilingualismandcloseswithadefinitionofmultilingual-ism.Thesecondsectionnotessomeresearchgaps,andoutlinessuggestionsforfutureresearch.

Chapter3. Thegenesisanddevelopmentofresearchinmultilingualism 29

1. Multilingualism in language studies and in social discourse: A change in perspective

Thestudyofmultilingualphenomenahasestablisheditselfasanareaofresearchinlanguageandlinguisticstudiesoverthelasttwodecades(see,forexample,in-troductionstothefield,includingAuerandWei2007orMüller,Kupisch,SchmitzandCantone2006,whichrefernotonlyto“bilingualism”,butexplicitlyto“mul-tilingualism”).Thetermmultilingualismasitisusedtodaydenotesvariousformsofsocial,institutionalandindividualusageaswellasindividualandgroupcom-petence,plusvariouscontextsofcontactand involvementwithmore thanonelanguage.Thestudyofmultilingualphenomenaincludesnotjustacountry’sorregion’s official (national) languages but also regional languages, minority lan-guages,migrationlanguagesand–inthebroadestsense–languagevarietiessuchasdialects.

Thus,theterm‘multilingualism’isbeingusedincreasinglyasablankettermin thepublicdiscoursearena. It isconsidered todenotevarioussortsof socialandindividualformsoflanguageacquisitionthroughoutanindividual’slifetime(learningwithinthefamily,atschool,etc.),aswellasthepracticaluseoflanguagevarieties ineveryday life,atwork, in institutions,etc. It isusedasanumbrellaterminlinguisticsandcoversresearchonbilingualismandtrilingualism,aswellasacquisitionoffurtherforeignlanguages.

Therefore,inmanyrespects,“multilingualism”isnotsomuchacompletelynewareaofresearchasanefforttoextendandtoembracemultilingualresearchquestionswhicharebeingpursuedusingarangeofempiricalmethodologies.Inthefieldoflinguistics,thisembracehasledtoachangeinperspectiveinthefieldoflanguageandlinguisticstoincludemultilingualism.Thisinclusionofamulti-lingualperspectivehasbeenundertakenbyvarious linguisticdisciplines–pri-marily sociolinguistics, language acquisition, psycholinguistics and translationtheory–allofwhichinturnfeedbackintowritingon(foreign)languagegram-marsandintolanguageteachingtheoryandpractice.

Themaindrivingforcesbehindthisbroadermultilingualperspectiveinlan-guage,linguisticandpedagogicalfieldsinclude:

– increasedsensitivitytowardssocio-culturaldiversity(andthereforeamove-mentawayfromtraditionalassumptionsofhomogeneityinsocietyandclass-rooms);

– thegreatvarietyof(socio-)linguistically-basedissuesandproblemsattheso-cietallevelwhichhavearisenfromincreasedmigratorymovements(through-outEuropeoverthelastfiftyyears).

30 RitaFranceschini

Bothoftheseforceshaveledlinguistsandpractitionerstoreinterpretthephe-nomenonandrephrasetheterm‘languagediversity’inmorepositive,beneficialterms.Therehasalsobeenasofteningofthetraditionalviewofhistoricalminor-itylanguages.Culturalissuesandproblemsarenowconsiderednotascompletelydifferentinnaturefromthoseofmigrants.Newcombinationsoflanguagecontactandlearningenvironmentsarenowregardedandinvestigatedusingsystematic,replicablescientificmethods.

Thischangeinperspectivetowardsthevaluecontainedinmultilingualismattheindividualandsocietallevelhasbeenslowinemerging.However,therearehopeful signs within the fields of linguistics, pedagogy and educational policythat monocausal explanations and arguments about minority language growthand contact, and the politics of migrant languages are being relegated to thebackground.Thisisparticularlyapparentinthefieldofforeign/secondlanguagelearningandteaching,wherecomprehensive,systemicapproachesnowprevail.Wecanobserveanincreasingtendencyoftheoristsandresearcherstomoveawayfromanarrowfocusontheindividualandhis/hercompetenciesalone,movinginsteadtowardsaconsiderationoflanguagesasoccurringduringinterpersonalinteractionincommunicativeenvironments.Languagesarebeingseenasnatu-rallyaffectedbyacomplex,variableconstellationofinfluenceincludingculturalcontext,familycontext,learningandteachingenvironment.Inlinguisticterms,therehasbeenamajorshiftinfocusfromthestudyofonelanguageinartificialisolationtoonewhichreflectstheEuropeanlinguisticrealityoftheexistenceandinterrelationshipsofmanylanguagesatthesametime.

Thisbroadeningoffocustoencompassmultilingualismshouldnotmakeusforgetthat,inhistoricalterms,theuseofseverallanguageshasalwaysbeenadis-tinctivecharacteristicofvarioussocietiesseekingcontactwitheachother.Itwouldnothavebeenpossibleinthepasttoconducttrade,carryoutculturalexchanges,conquerrivalgroups,ormanagemajorinstitutionswithoutamodicumofmul-tilingualpractices.Evidenceforsuchmultilingualexchangesisprovided,forin-stance,bytheSumeriandocumentsonlanguagelearningpracticeswherelearnersusedclaytablets(seee.g.Titone1986).Wenowhaveaccesstoafirstcorpusofstudieswhichdocumentmultilingualuseinthepast(seeforexamplethebroadreceptionofAdams2003).Assumptionsofculturalhomogeneityandmonolin-gualisminEuropeasthenormarenowseenasareductionistapproach,onewhichdoesnottakeintoconsiderationthecomplexityofthemultilingualworld.

Fromtheoutsetofresearchintothelearningandteachingofalanguage,i.e.,from the 1960s onwards, multilingualism was treated primarily as a phenom-enonofwhatwere thennew-stylemigratorymovements (fromSouth toNorthinEurope),beforethegeneralabilityofmembersofsocietiestocommunicatein


morethanonelanguagewasputinthescientificspotlight.Thiswasprecededbysporadiccasestudiesonlanguagedevelopmentinchildrenraisedbilingually(con-ductedonresearchers’ownchildren,asfarbackas1913byRonjat,subsequentlybyLeopoldin1949andTaeschnerin1983),aswellastheground-breakingstudyLanguages in ContactbyUrielWeinreichin1953.Evenso,fordecadesbilingualspeakerswerelargelyregardedaslinguisticexceptionsratherthanastherule.Em-phasis in the language laband in theclassroomwasplacedonseekingoutandeliminatingthedamagingcognitiveinfluencesofbeingbilingual.ThesuccessofGrosjean’sbookLife with Two Languages(1982)broughtaboutafundamentalshiftinthisdiscussion’spolarity,byillustratingthatapproximatelyonehalfoftheearth’spopulationcanbedescribedasbilingual.Hisdefinitionofbilingualismwasfunc-tionallybased.Inthisregard,EuropeisfarfrombeingthemostmultilingualareaoftheworldincomparisonwiththeIndiansub-continentorAfrica,forexample.

Atthesametimeintereststartedtoblossomandhascontinuedtoflourishinhistoricalminoritylanguagesandlinguisticenclaves,theircontactandinterac-tionwitheachotherandthedominantlanguagesofthearea,andtheeffectsofsuchcontact.Thisstandsincontrasttoearlierresearchwhichfocussedprimarilyontheretentionandlossofthemothertongueorlanguageoforigininisolation(see,e.g.,Faseetal.1992;Fishman2000).Theincreasinginterestinminorityandregionallanguages,invariousformsoflanguagecontact,andinmodernformsofminoritylanguages,hasledtonewconceptual,theoreticaldistinctionsandre-fineddescriptionsoflanguagecontactphenomena.Newtermshavebeenintro-duced,suchas(a)extraterritorial languages:languagesspokenoutsidetheirorigi-nalregion,suchasLadinoinBulgariaorRhaeto-RomanceinZurich,TurkishinDüsseldorf,etc.,(b)heteroglossy:anumbrellatermforalllanguageswhicharenotmajoritylanguagesinarearegion(forexample,allofthe“heteroglosses”intheterritoryoftheItalianstate:Albanian,French,German,Slovenian,etc.andlan-guagesspokenbymigrants),and(c)pluricentric languages,referringtoascenarioinwhichnationallanguageshavemorethanonenormativecentre(forexample,UKandUSEnglishandall“Englishesintheworld”;SpanishandFrencharealsopluricentric languages). Ammon et al. (2006) and Goebl et al. (1997) provideimportantreferencematerialwhichillustratesthecanonisationofsuchconceptsandtheresultingterminology.Itisimportanttonoteheretheneedtosystemati-callyclassifythehighlycomplexlandscapeoflanguagegroupsaccordingtobothavertical(historical)perspectiveandahorizontal(area-territorial)perspectiveinordertodojusticetothemanyandvariedcombinationsofmultilingualismatthesocietalandindividuallevel.

Furthermore,itismoreimportantnowthanevertotakeintoaccountre-centlanguagegroupmigrationsandever-increasingprofessionalmobilityinaworldwhichisbecomingmoreinternationalised(AroninandSingleton2008).

32 RitaFranceschini

Childrengrowingupinthesecontextsexhibitextremelyinterestingcombina-tionsofmultilingualskills,whichenablethesemultilingualspeakerstoforgefurtherpersonalcontactsallovertheworldandtocontributeinthiswaytotheintegrationofalloglotts.

Today,thepotentialofmultilingualabilitiesisalsobeingrecognisedoutsideof linguistics,not leastbecause it isapparent thatbeingmultilingual results inmorethanjusteconomicbenefits tothe individualspeaker;multilingualshavebeenshowntoexhibitenhancedlevelsofmanycognitiveskills(e.g.changesinperspective,empathy,creativethinking;seeLambert’searlystudiesinCanadainthe1970s(Lambert,Tuckerandd’Anglejan1973)).

Theprocessofembracinglinguisticdiversitycanprovidethemeansforhis-torical language minorities and modern migration groups to embrace a morepositiveviewofthemselvesandoutlookforthefuture,oneinwhichindividualmultilingualabilitiesaresociallyappreciatedandintegratedaspartofeverydaylife.Thecreativepotentialofmultilingualspeakersandgroupscanbeadvanta-geousforallofsociety.Suchgroupsarenecessarilyaccustomedtotreatingtheirdiversitysensiblyandsensitively–incultural,religiousandcommunicativeterms.Researchershaveobservedthatitispreciselytheperipheralgroupsofasocietywhichoftenhavethemosttocontributeintermsofcreativepotential(see,e.g.,Moscovici, Mugny and Van Avermaet 1985; or, in sociolinguistics, Milroy andMilroy1985;seealsoFlorida2002).

Aparadigmshiftinhowmultilingualismisviewedandtreatedisalsobecom-ingapparentindiscourseattheEuropeanlevel;inconcreteterms,forexample,intheActionPlan2004–2006:Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Di-versity (COM 2003, 449) and in the document A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism(COM2005,596)oftheEuropeanUnionEuropeanUnion(foracriticalreviewseeNelde2001).1Atthislevel,thediscourseiscurrentlymoving

1. FurtherinterestingdocumentsonthepolicyoftheCommissionandtheEUare:– CouncilResolutionof31March1995onimprovinganddiversifyinglanguagelearningand

teachingwithintheeducationsystemsoftheEuropeanUnion(Document395Y0812(01));– CouncilResolutionof16December1997onearlyteachingofEuropeanUnionLanguages;– WhitePaperonEducationandTraining–TeachingandLearning(1995,EuropeanCom-

mission);– RecommendationsoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilonkeycompetencesfor

lifelonglearning(2006/962/EC).For moredetailsseefootnote2of theFinal Report of the High Level Group on Multilingual-ism (cit.inthebibliographysub:CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities2007).Theagen-da formultilingualismcanbe foundonCommissionerOrban’swebsite:http://europa.eu80/languages//en/document/99.TheauthorofthispaperwasmemberoftheHighLevelGroupandresponsiblefortheoverviewandtherecommendationsonresearchonmultilingualism.


awayfromtheconceptofamonolingual,homogenoussocietytowardsasocietyunderstoodandassumedtobemultilingual.

Beingconsideredamultilingualspeakerisbecomingmoreandpopular,espe-ciallyamongyoungpeople.Societyiscomingtoregardthebilingualandmultilin-gualcompetenciesofindividualsinamoredifferentiatedandmorepositivelightthanusedtobethecase.Inpublicdiscourseaswell,thedemandfor‘perfect’or‘ideal’productionandcomprehensionbybilinguals,trilingualsormultilingualsisincreasinglybeingrelativisedtoreflectadefinitionbaseduponfunctional,prac-tical levelsofproductionandcomprehension,geared toappliedabilities, skillsandlanguageuseinsteadoftowardstheoretical“knowledge”, i.e. theawarenessofmorpho-syntacticrules,forexample(seetheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceandtheportfoliomovementforcurriculummaterialsreflectingthisappliedapproach:http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp).

Notwithstanding the increasinglypredominantlypositiveattitudes towardsmultilingualism today, critical viewpoints of the concepts and terms and theirplaceandusefulnessasdescriptorsinsocietyandresearchneedtobeadequatelyaddressed.Forinstance,noteverysocietywhichclaimstobemultilingualneces-sarilyproducesmultilingualindividuals.InthecasesofBelgiumandSwitzerland,becauseoftheterritorialprinciplewhichisbasedmainlyonaseparationofthepopulation, the official bi- or multilingual status of the country does not leadautomaticallytoamultilingualrepertoireoftheirinhabitants,asonemayhaveas-sumed.Themanyeffortsmadeoverthelastcenturytocomprehensivelyoverhaul,andsystematize,foreignlanguageteachingmethodologyareimpressive.Onestepthathasbeentakenistostartteachingthe“second”and“third”languageatanearlystageinschool,side-by-sidewiththefirstlanguage(s).Herewehavecon-creteevidenceofattemptstocapturethepotentialofbothbecomingmultilingualandformultilingualismtobecomeastandardcommunicativetoolforpupilsinEuropeanschools.

2. A definition of multilingualism

Whatfollowsisadefinitionofmultilingualism,intendedtobedynamicinnatureandtoreflectaculturalfoundation.Itmaybeexpressedasfollows:

The term/concept of multilingualism is to be understood as the capacity of soci-eties, institutions, groups and individuals to engage on a regular basis in space and time with more than one language in everyday life.


Multilingualism is a product of the fundamental human ability to communicate in a number of languages. Operational distinctions may then be drawn between social, institutional, discursive and individual multilingualism.

The term multilingualism is used to designate a phenomenon embedded in the cultural habits of a specific group, which are characterised by significant inter- and intra-cultural sensitivity.

Afewcommentsarenecessaryhere.Thetermlanguageisusedhereinaneutralsenseasalanguagevarietywhichagroupallocatestoitselfforuseasahabitualandtime-stablecodeofcommunication.Theterm‘multilingualism’canrefertoseverallanguagevarieties,aswellasto(regional)languagesanddialectsandsignlanguages.Inthissense,theconceptoflanguageiscloselytiedtodefinitionsofselfandgroupidentity.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatagroup(oraninstitution,asociety)canassignmorethanonelanguagevarietytoitself.

Theestablishmentandadditionof theconceptand therefore the termdis-cursive multilingualismtothetraditionallistingofsocial,institutional,andindi-viduallevelsofanalysisstemsfromtherecentgrowingemphasisontheanalysisofinteractiondata.Forexample,anyanalysisofhowseverallanguagesarebeingemployedineverydayinteractionscannottreatthetwointerlocutorsastwoin-dividual,separatespeakersatthelevelofdiscourse.Inordertodojusticetothemutualconstructionofmeaningandunderstandingineverydayspeech,interac-tionalphenomenasuchasthesemustreceivespecificconsiderationandscientifictreatmentassuch.

Thetermcultural sensitivityisanumbrellaexpressionwhichpertainstothehigh degree of dependence that multilingualism has on cultural circumstanc-es. Besides the socio-historical and individual-biographical background of thespeakers involved, this termalsoencompasses theexistingpowerrelationshipswithinagivensociety.

Another requirement foranadequate scientificanalysisofmultilingualismistomakeclearhowitdiffersfrombilingualism.Ontheonehand,manyprevi-ousstudiesconductedundertheheadingofmultilingualismactuallydealwithbilingualism.Ontheotherhand,manyolderstudiesneedrevisitingtoestablishwhethertheywere,infact,concernedwithtrilingualspeakers,whileemployingthetermbilingualism.Therehavebeenmanycasesinwhichresearchersfocusedonthetwolanguagesinquestionandsimplydidnotaskthestudyparticipantsabout the possible existence of other languages in their individual repertoires.Neitherhasthesignificantroleofdialects(notinanAnglo-Saxonsociolinguisticsense,butneutrallyaslanguagevarieties)alwaysbeentakenintoconsiderationaspartofthemultilingualrepertoireofanindividual.


Unfortunately, an awareness and understanding that multilingualism is aseparatephenomenoninitsownrightandnotequivalenttobilingualismisnotyetverywidelydisseminated.Onepromisingandproductiveexceptiontothislackofawarenesscomes fromspecificresearch in thefieldof third languagesandtertiarylanguages,whichhasbecomeanestablishedresearcharea(seee.g.CenozandGenesee2001;CenozandGorter2005;Cenoz,HufeisenandJessner2001;DeAngelis2007;Dentler,HufeisenandLindemann2000;HufeisenandLindemann1998;HoffmanandYtsma2004andtherecentlylaunchedInterna-tional Journal of Multilingualism).

Ifscientificjusticeistobedonetothetermmultilingualism,itmustbebackedupwithspecific,systematicempiricalandtheoreticalevidence;otherwise,itisindangerofdwindlingintolittlemorethanatrendyshellofaword,understoodormisunderstooddifferentlybyanyoneandeveryone.

3. Perspectives for future research

In this section, I would like to discuss various avenues of investigation whicharecurrentlywell-placedtobeexpandeduponto includethisnewperspectiveonmultilingualism.Giventhisfuture-orientedperspective,thefollowingsectionwillnotconcentrateonlistingpastresearch,oranykindofgeneraloverviewofthefield.Myintentionthereforeistoindicateandencouragepotentialfuturere-searchpaths,howeveralsokeepinginmindthatanumberofsuchinvestigationsarealreadyunderway.2

Thefollowinglistincludesfields,sub-fieldsandissueswhichremaincurrentlyunderexplored:

– thehistoricaldimensionandrootsofmultilingualism,investigatingandre-visitinglinguisticsituations/constellationsinvestigatedinthepast;

2. Inotherwords:itisimpossibletodojusticetoallworkdonesofar;thus,thereferencesareselectiveandexclusivelypointtothepast.Itisevidentthatinthemajorityofcasesinwhichfurtherinvestigationshouldbeencouraged,asproposedhere,precursoryworkhasbeendone,butisperhapsnotyetfullyvisible.Thepioneersinthesenewfieldsshouldfeelsupportedbythisexposition.Iamgrateful fordiscussionsandcommentsto:JubinAbutalebi,PeterAuer,Gaetano Berruto, Michel Clyne, Silvia Dal Negro, Jeroen Darquennes, Konrad Ehlich, IvanKecskes,WolfgangKlein,GeorgesLüdi,WolfgangMackiewicz,RolandMarti,NataschaMül-ler,JürgenM.Meisel,PeterNelde,VincenzoOrioles,ErichSteiner,RosemarieTracy,DanielaVeronesi,GudrunZiegler.Allfailuresinthis‘lookatthefutureofreseachonmultilingualism’areonlyattributable tomy incapacity,personal interpretation, andweighting. Ipresentedafirstconciseversionasmemberofthe“HighLevelGrouponMultilingualism”oftheEuropeanCommission.

36 RitaFranceschini

– the interplay between learning and acquisition, linking together factorssuch as neurobiological bases, cognitive development and interaction invarious settings, includingguided instruction insecondand foreign lan-guagelearning;

– unfocussedacquisition,i.e.,acquisitionthroughexposure,withoutanexplic-itlychosenlearningfocus,aformofspontaneousacquisitionthroughcon-tact,learning“en passant”, i.e.incidentallearning;

– the development of multilingual competencies in the age range between 7and14inthecontextsoffamilyandschool;

– thelong-termeffectivenessofearlyacquisitionprogramsofL2,L3,Ln…inprimaryschools.

3.1 Thehistoryofactivemultilingualismandmultilingualgrammars

Historicalknowledgeofengagementwithmultilingualisminvariouspastsociet-iesisavailable–albeitsomewhatdifficulttofind.InEurope,thisrediscoveryofmultilingualisminformersocietiesispreciselywhatseemstohaveoccurredre-cently,inthedriveinEuropetoembracediversity,includinglinguisticdiversity.

3.1.1 It must of course be assumed that linguistic diversity existed in previouscenturies. We do not, however, know very much about the concrete approachtosuchdiversityinthepast.Studiesonancientsocieties(e.g.Adamsetal.2002;Adams 2003) illustrate how historic multilingualism may be approached andinvestigated.Forinstance,thereiscurrentlyanupwardtrendinthenumberofprojectsonmultilingualismintheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance(seee.g.theinterdisciplinarywun-projectwww.wun.ac.uk/multilingualism/index.html).Wealsohavesomeknowledge,forexample,ofhowmanylanguageswereinuseintheHabsburgEmpire(seee.g.Goebl1997;Rinaldietal.1997).Schlieben-Lange1983andLüdi1989havedonepreliminaryworkinthisarea.Thefieldisexpand-ing inmanydimensions, considering territories aswell as individuals (seee.g.BraunmüllerandFerraresi2003;Petersilka2005onFredericktheGreat).Overandabovetheirinterestinlinguisticissues,studiessuchastheseareinspirationalintheirillustratingcompletelydifferentattitudestowardstheuseofseverallan-guages,andinhighlightingthecloserelationshipbetweenlanguage,nation(oncealsoknownas“patria”and“gens”)andpersonalorsocialidentity.Tryingtoshedlightonandunearthancientlayersofforgottenorhiddenhistoryofmultilingualpracticesisafascinatingresearchtopicper se,becauseoftherichnessofthemanydifferentsocio-politicallinguisticandideologiessurroundingtheuseofmultiplelanguages in the past (also pointed out by Aronin and Singleton 2008). It is a


usefultopicaswell,becausesuchresearchcanservetofosterabroaderpositiveawarenessofthenaturalnessofmultilingualphenomena,asshownbylocallayersoflanguageuseinthepast.

Studieswhichexaminelinguisticborderareas,requiringdifferentiated,andspecificstructuralknowledge,whichisalsorelevantinanyeffortstoovercomeconflictinlinguisticcontactzones,wouldbeparticularlyproductivehere.

Possibleresearchquestionstobroadentheresearchscopeinthisareamightbe:Whichconfigurationsofmultilingualismcanwedetectinthepast?Whatcanwesayaboutsocial,culturalandindividualattitudestowardthemultipleuseoflanguagesinspecificpastsocieties?Howwerebusinessnegotiationsconducted?Howwerefamilytiescreatedacrosslanguageboundaries?Howdidpeopleinter-actwithoneanotherintermsoflanguageandhowdidpeoplelearnthesemultiplelanguages?Whatwasthedegreeof“awareness”,ifany,ofbeingmultilingual?

Anothergenerallackofresearchexistsonformsofwriting,speakingandus-ingseverallanguagesineverydaylifeandininstitutionsinthepast.Multilingualpracticesadoptedinpreviouscenturiescanbedeterminedbyanalysingarchivaldocumentssuchasprotocolsordiaries.Biographieswhichhavealreadybeenin-vestigated(seeJ.W.vonGoethe,orFredericktheGreat,etc.)couldbeconsultedandexploredinanewlight–i.e.intermsofthemultilingualexpertiseofpromi-nentmembersofsociety.

ThemajorissueofThe History of Multilingualismconstitutesaclearresearchdesideratum. Developing awareness of those concrete multilingual skills thatexisted in the past and the study of their history and development would alsoprovideasoundacademic,empiricalfoundationforconstructinganimageofamultilingual territory inEuropewithextendedsocio-politicalperspectivesandhistoricallinks.

3.1.2 Anotherpossibleapproachwithamultilingualfocusbasedoncontactphe-nomena–aspresented,forexample,inThomasonandKaufman1988–mightconsistofnewtypesofhistorical grammatology.Weknow,forexample,thatEu-ropehasalwaysexperiencedmigrations,whichhave left their linguisticmarks(e.g.theNormansinBritain,theLangobardsinItaly,theMoorsontheIberianPeninsula, etc.). Contact phenomena between the resident population and thenewcomersoccurredinbothdirections.Suchanapproachwouldleadtoconsid-eringthe“historyoflanguageXas ahistoryoflanguagecontact”.Thisperspectivewouldentailtheexaminationofalanguage’sdevelopmentonthebasisofthoseheteroglosseswhichexistedataspecificpointintimeinthepast,alongwiththelinguisticphenomenaassociatedwiththematthattime.


Finally, initial research in “migration linguistics” is presently proceeding(seeKrefeld2004);however,thisareahasnotyetbeenexaminedusingasocio-historicallens.

3.1.3 Whileresearchintonationallanguagesandtheirgrammarshasfirmlyes-tablisheditselfasaresearcharea,theregionsofcontactandthetranslinguisticregions between dialects and regional languages, neighbouring languages andtheirvarietieshavenotyetbeen investigatedsystematicallyorexhaustivelyus-ingamultilingualismframework.ApartfromearlystudiesonSprachbund issues,there is a dearth of systematic work on the linguistic territory in terms of thegradualtransitionoflinguisticfeaturesfromlinguisticvarietytovarietyfromonelinguisticareatotheother.Itwouldnowbeappositetoexaminetheissueofthecontinuum of varieties,ratherthanthedistinctions.Thiswouldmeanconsideringspecifically the shifts in, andbundlingof, isoglosses inborder regions (for ex-ample,theGermany-Luxembourg-Lothringia-Franceborderarea,thedistrictofSavoy-Aosta-Piedmont,ortheRumanian-WestSlaviccontactarea).Suchdetailedinter-regionaldatawouldallowustobetterunderstandapolylectalgrammaraswellasthehistoryofmultilingualvarietyinEurope.

3.1.� Scantresearchhasbeenconductedonthelinkbetweenthelong-termef-fects of multilingual practices and changes in the structures of languages. Al-thoughmuchisknownaboutcross-linguisticinfluenceatalexicallevel,i.e.theadoptionofloanwords,loaninventions,etc.,littleresearchhasbeenconductedinto cross-linguistic influences at other levels of language (from phraseologiesthroughmorphologicalformstosyntacticstructures).

3.1.5 Furtherresearchcouldalsobeconductedintothemutualintelligibilityoflexicons of speakers in neighbouring geographical regions with a view to howthey could be of use for intercomprehension and receptive multilingualism (e.g.tenThijeandZeevaert2003).RecentstudiesonEuropeanismsareofparticularinterestinthiscontext(see,e.g.,Fusco,OriolesandParmeggiani2000)andcouldeasilybefurtherexplored.

3.1.6 Thesocialphenomenonoflanguagecontactregionsandtheinternalgram-maticalphenomenon of Sprachbundissuestogetherformadynamicrelationship,oneIbelieveisworthyofinvestigation.Languagevarietiesactuallyspokenandusedin languagecontactregionsofferanidealopportunityfor investigationatthemicro-level. In thiswaythe linguistic formof languagecontinua–equiva-lenttoaformof“linguisticquantumphysics”–becomesthecentreofattention,


therebyrelativizinglanguagedifferencesatthemacro-level(seemodelsproposedbyHerdinaandJessner2002;Wildgen1999).

Furtherinterestingresearchquestionsmightinclude:Whatlanguagesareaf-fectedtoagreaterorlesserextentbylanguagecontactandatwhichstructurallevels?Whichelementsofalanguagearemoreexposedtolanguagecontact?Doesthepro-portionofmultilingualspeakersinfluencetherateofspecificlanguagechanges?

3.2 Languageborders,minoritiesandnewopportunitiesforperipheries

Inthelightoftoday’sincreasingglobalmobility,itismoreimportantthanevertoensurethatminorityandregionallanguagesareguaranteedprotectiontoensuretheircontinuedsurvivalandfurtherdevelopment(see,e.g.,theEuropeanLan-guageCharter).Sensitivitytoandawarenessofthisproblemisatanall-timehigh:Tenyearsaftertheimportantpublicationon“Reversinglanguageshift”(Fishman1991),thereconsiderationofthisissueinFishman2000illustratesitstopicality.

In these timesof increasingsensitivity towardscultural/linguisticdiversity,variousmultilingual individualsandgroups,onceregardedasperipheral,mar-ginalorminoritygroupsorexceptions,aremovingtothecentreofthepoliticalspotlight.Theyarebecomingsymbolsofmultilingualcommunicationinsocietyandbridge-buildersforafuturepluralculturalidentity.

Agreatdealofscopefornewresearchexistsinthisdirection,especiallyinviewofthefactthatthedocumentationbaseofregionallanguagesandminoritylanguagesisquitelarge(cf.ExtraandGorter2001orExtraandYağmur2004).

3.2.1 There is still a lack of comparative studies between various regions, evi-dencewhichcouldservetoconnectthecurrentsituationsintheageofglobali-sationandassociatedglobalisation(i.e. in thesense thatAroninandSingleton2008pointout).Theaimofsuchresearchwouldbetoemphasiseanddescribemultiple language use occurring in various language border areas and to dis-seminate information on creative multilingual interaction in everyday life andininstitutionalsettings.3The ethnography of multilingual communication in lan-guage border regions, withparticularemphasisonthosepracticesembeddedintherespectivecommunicationstructuresofeverydaylife,isaresearchdeficiencywhichmustberemedied,bycomparingvarioussolutionswithoneanother.Onecouldinvestigatehowspeakersdealwithseverallanguagesatonceandhowtheycopewiththedifficultiestheselanguagechoicesandprioritiessometimescause

3. SomeresearchtopicsinthetwolargeresearchconsortiaLINEEandDylan(inthe6thEUFrameworkProgram,form2006on),aredealingwiththischallenge.Seehttp://www.linee.infoandhttp://www.dylan-project.org/Dylan_en/forfurtherinformationonthecurrentwork.

�0 RitaFranceschini

inlanguageborderareas.Thesearejustthelocationsatwhichoptimum practicesmustbedeveloped.Animportantstepnowistodevelopthesepracticevariantsandinvariantsfromevidenceofborderlanguagerealities.Iwouldliketoexploretheseideasinmoredetailinthenextsection.

3.2.2 Thenegativeside-effectsofmultilingualismforminoritiesmustnotbedis-missed:Theissueofwhichstepscanorshouldbetakentopreventminor lan-guagesbeingmarginalisedstillawaitsresolution.Forminoritylanguagespeakers,theprocessofaccommodatingtothedominantlanguageintheareaisachallenge,ofteninvokinganxietiesaboutlanguageloss.Anxietiesofthisnatureshouldbedealtwith in the frameworkof languageacquisitionstudies,unlessonewishestocreateanattitudeofresistancetowardsotherlanguages.Thetopicoflanguage and emotionmightthereforebeafruitfulresearcharea.EarlyresultsinthisareaareprovidedbytheearlyworkofSchumann(1997),morerecentlyresearchedbyPavlenko(2005,2006)andDewaele(seetheoverviewinDewaele2007).Thenextstepistoplacespecialemphasisonminoritylanguages,includingtheinvestiga-tion of the link to neurobiological correlates, which may help explain the linkbetweenlanguageandemotion.

3.2.3 Itisalsonecessarytodaythatminoritiesmoveawayfromamerelydefensiveattitudetowardsaconscientious,liberalattitude.Itisclearthatalanguagewhichispracticedopenlywillsurvive,whereassealingalanguageofffromexternalinflu-encesdetachesthelanguagefrommoderndevelopmentsandrendersitunattract-ive,abovealltotheyoungerpopulation.Theapparentlyparadoxicalformulation“vitalizationbyopenness”mustbeinstilledinthespeakerpopulation,if,forexam-ple,eventhemostminoroflanguagesistobeprotectedagainstlanguagedeath.

Allinall,varied input isafundamentalrequirementbothforlanguageacqui-sitioningeneralandforanyformoflanguagemaintenance.Withregardtomi-noritylanguages,inparticularhistoricalones,andminorlanguages,thismeans:

– continuingtoassisttheautochthonouspopulation’sacquisitionoflanguagecompetencies(atnurseryschoolandprimaryschool,etc.),and,whereneces-sary,toanextentbeyondthenorm,sothatvariedinputismaintainedatalllevels(i.e.family,circlesoffriends,leisure,school,work,religion,literature,artsanduseofmediaingeneral);

– attheattitudinallevel,enhancingexperiencesoflanguageawarenessandfeel-ingsofpositiveself-esteemwithregardtotheuseoflanguages(e.g.byprovid-ingexampleswithrealpeoplewhomaypossiblyhavealsomadetheircareersabroadbuthavecontinuedtousetheirfirstlanguage,inliteraryproduction,inmusic,inthemedia,insport,etc.);

Chapter3. Thegenesisanddevelopmentofresearchinmultilingualism �1

– gainingnewspeakers fromother languages,with theobjectiveofensuringthatthenon-autochthonouspopulationcanbeexposedtoavariedinputoftheminoritylanguageinordertoattainreceptiveskillsinthislanguageandtobecomepartofacommoncultureofcommunication.

Aparticularexampleofhowaminority languagecangainnewspeakersisthesituationwithCatalan,aregionallanguageinSpain.Duetoaparticularlanguagepolicy,according towhichallnew immigrants,aswellaspeoplecoming fromotherpartsoftheSpanishterritory,mustlearnCatalan,thelanguageisspokennowbyanincreasingnumberofnon-nativespeakers.

3.2.� The above-mentioned measures must be applied in order to ensure that“bordersontheground”donotbecome“bordersinthemind”(Gumperz,per-sonalcommunication).Itisimportant,aboveall,toundertakeactivitieslinkinga number of languages together in order to win over the young generation asthetargetpopulationforthemaintenanceofminoritylanguages.Maintainingre-gionalidentitydoesnotprecludetransnationalopenness;infact,theprincipleof“regionallocation,internationalorientation”mustbedemonstrated(asacorre-latehereto:firstlanguagestoserveasmarkersofcoreidentity,secondandforeignlanguagestoservetoexpandcultural,social,linguistics,political,etc.horizons).

3.2.5 Theaimherewouldbetoensurethat,inadditiontotheirnativespeakers,minoritylanguagesacquireadditionalspeakersasL2speakerswhohaveafunc-tionalcommandofthelanguage,eveniftheydonotbecomeabsolutelybilingual.Inthelongrun,thiswill,forexample,eliminatetheconstantneedforminorityspeakerstomakeaunidirectionallinguisticadaptationtothemajoritylanguagewheneveraspeakerofthemajoritylanguageispresent.Inordertoensureunder-standinginsuchscenarios,emphasismustbeplacednotuponbalancedlanguagecompetenciesforthetwocommunicationpartners,butratherupontheindividu-al’scapacitytounderstandseverallanguagesreceptively,althoughactiveproduc-tioncapacitiesneednotnecessarilybehigh.Thisreceptive multilingualismneedstobeinvestigatedfurtherasapossiblecommunicationstrategy.TheScandinavianregionoffers favourableconditions for research intoreceptivemultilingualism,for instance. This kind of communication is also possible among the speakersofRomancelanguages,and–inadifferentway–amongthespeakersofSlaviclanguagesorbetweenthespeakersoflanguagesofdifferentorigins(e.g.HufeisenandMarx2004,foranoverviewseetenThijeandZeevaert2003).

3.2.6 Thereareanumberofcurrent investigationsonmultilingualismon theinternet; this research also includes minority languages. New technological


developments, inparticular,maycreatenewoptionsforthepromotionofmi-noritylanguages,byincreasingtheirglobalvisibilityinmedia.

3.2.7 Toclosethisdiscussion,itisimportanttoaddthattheissueof“languageandpower”shouldnotbeexcludedfromthesestudieseither,eventhoughitisapoliticallydelicatetopic.Althoughthisareaisnotessentiallyalinguisticoneinthenarrowersense,itisnotpossibletoavoidquestionsrelatingtolanguage equal-ity.Non-interventionistapproachesmayultimatelyleadtoaparadox,thatis,theymayactuallyhelp themorepowerful force toexercise itsadvantage tomakeabreakthrough.Howcanmoreethicalprinciplesbeimplemented?Thisisanareawheremoreevidenceisneeded(seealsobelow3.3.3).

Fruitful research questions in this broad field could include: Which formsofmultilingualismarepresentindifferentlanguageborderregionsatthesocial,institutional,discursiveorindividuallevel?Whichsolutionsarepreferredforset-tings involving multilingual communication? Which communicative practicesaretypicallyinuse?Howaretheysimilar;howdotheydiffer?Whichfactorsaf-fectcommunicationacrossanumberoflanguagesineverydayuse(inbusiness,by neighbours, in school playgrounds, etc.)? Which practices serve as identitymarkersandareused,forexample,toreflectintegrationordistancefromotherlanguagegroups,andwhichofthemarefreeofemotionalandidentityelements?

Asmentionedpreviously, it is importantthatacomparativeperspectivebeadoptedasastartingpointforinvestigationsinthisfield.

3.3 Multilingualism:itsstatisticalbasisandlegalstatus

3.3.1 Thereisashortageofcomparativelanguagestatisticsassessingthecompe-tenciesof those speakerswhousevarious languagevarieties foreverydaypur-poses.Westillknowverylittleaboutwhatamapofregionsbaseduponprinciplesofmultilingualismwouldlooklike.Onthebasisofnationalstatistics,itshouldbepossibleinthefuturetotracethecharacteristicsofvarious,specifictypesofmultilingualismaccordingtogeographicalarea.A“mapofmultilingualism”withvarious“linguistic-tectonicplates”and layerscould illustrate thecomplexityofthe linguistic composition of a particular “language area”. My focus here is onthestatisticalpointofviewonmultilingualism,whichisfairlyunderdeveloped(whereasethnographicstudiesareontheincrease,aswellaslinguisticlandscapestudies,cf.Gorter2006;Backhaus2007;Franceschini2007).

One of the prime objectives for language statistics should therefore be toobtainreliable,detailedandcomparablefine-grainedlanguagedata,tobroadentheperspectiveleftbythe“Eurobarometer”initiative,forexample.Theaimhere


wouldbetocompilestatisticswhichrecordthe‘multilingualpotential’intermsoflanguageusers’abilitiesandskills,throughquestionsaboutpracticesinfamilies,withfriends,ineverydayprofessionaluses.Multipleentriesaboutthelanguagevarieties(includingdialects)wouldconstituteameasuretoidentifyandtoquan-tifyconfigurationsofmultiplelanguagesinuse.

Inthisway,wewouldbeabletodrawakindofmap of multilingualismforanycountryorregionandtomonitoritsdevelopmentovertime.Citiesarecertainlyareas in which multilingualism is present to a large and differentiated extent,withveryspecificlanguagerepertoiresaffectedstronglybyimmigration(seeforexampleExtraandYağmur2004).Particularattentionwouldalsohavetobepaidto peripheral regions which are “emerging” in terms of multilingualism (e.g.,urbanbelts,languageborderregions,touristareas,technologyparks,etc.).Notonlymajoritylanguageswouldcometothefore;infact,theentireheteroglosswouldberecorded.Amultilingualism indexcouldbeusedtodisplaypeaksandtroughsof“linguisticgeological”compositions,whichwouldregisterthelevelsofmultilingualisminanarea(cf.theSwissCensus1990and2000:Lüdi,Werlenetal.1997,2005).

Fruitfulsubjectsforresearchwouldinclude:theuseofseverallanguagesinfamilieswithandwithoutamigrationbackground,therelationshipbetweenmul-tilingualuseandsocialstratification,groupshistoricallanguageminoritiesandtheiruseof several languages,profession-relatedmultilingualuse, comprehen-sionskills,etc. Itwouldbenecessary, then, toassess thedynamicsofdevelop-mentsandchangesovertime.

A dynamic digital map of the linguistic landscape constitutes a suggestionforresearchwhichcould,ifportrayedinadigitalvisualform,pavethewayforanewformofsocialconsciousness.Itmayleadtoamapshowinga“population’slanguageuseinyearX”.

3.3.2 Atthenationallevel,itisimportanttoincreaseawarenessofheteroglossesbythepopulationasawayofexpandingtheirculturalheritage,ratherthantreat-ingmultilingualcommunicativecompetencesasasideissue.Studiesshouldex-amine if and how media participation is possible for minority languages, howthedisseminationofknowledgeabouttheheteroglossyisavailableininstitutionsandinurbanandruralcontexts.Appliedareasofresearch,suchasthetrainingof‘languagepilots’,peoplewhohaveamediatoryfunction(seeValdes2003)anddomediawork,mayleadtotheemergenceofnewprofessionsrelatingtointegrationworkofaculturallysensitivenature.Second and third generation immigrantsinparticularmayofferprofessionalpotentialinthisrespect,withthebenefitofgo-ingfarbeyondlow-paidpublicsectorworkandincludingworkinthemedia.Asfarasworkontheinterpretationofcomplexsocialenvironmentsisconcerned,

�� RitaFranceschini

secondandthirdgenerationimmigrantsmaybeabletoprovideinsightsforim-portantstudiesonintegrationinEurope.

3.3.3 Itisimportanttoinvestigatethelegal basisforlanguagesinacountrywithrespecttohistoricalminoritylanguages,andalsoforregionalandmigrantlan-guages.Nationalconstitutionsdiffersubstantiallyinthisregardandtheresearchconductedthusfarhasbeeninadequateinitsconsiderationofthelegalbasisofmultilingualism. There is no shortage of emotionalised studies; it would nowseemappropriatetoproduceanobjectivecomparisonofcountries,toanalysethelegalfootingofthelanguagesinaculturallysensitivemannerandtoconsiderthebest practiceofhandlingmultilingualism.Theobjectiveistoaddressthequestionof“languageandlaw”andtolookathowtherelationshipbetweenhistoricalmi-noritylanguagesandmigrantlanguagescanbedefinedinlegalterms,sothattheyarerecognisedinaculturallyappropriatemanner.Thequestionoflanguageandpower,again,relatessignificantlytothisissue.

3.� Multilingualismininstitutions

3.�.1 Institutionsseemnottobefullyawareofthelanguagepotentialtheyhousewhen considering their personnel. In an age where knowledge-based societiesareatthemidpointofeconomicdevelopment,thispotentialshoulddefinitelybeattractingmoreattention.Someenterprisesarebeginningtodrawup“balancesheetsforknowledgeassets”whichcouldpotentiallybeenlargedtoembracelan-guagetopics.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthesuccessofacompanyoraninstitutioninaglobalisedworlddependslargelyonemployeeswithparticularmultilingualcompetencies.Modelswhichuseincentivesofdifferentnaturestoenhancemulti-lingualcompetenciescouldbehighlightedas“goodpractice”.

3.�.2 There is little reliable information available, however, on the manner inwhichemployees’languagecompetenciescanbeincludedinsuchabalancesheetof knowledge, nor of how these are recorded and used. Since communicationskillsareacknowledgedaskeyqualifications, thebenefitacompanyshouldbeabletoderivefromimprovementoftheseskillswouldbesignificant.Thereare,indeed,alargenumberofstudieson“languageintheworkplace”–oftenincor-poratinganinterculturalviewpointandrelatingtoaspecialistgroup–butexpan-sionofresearchintothefieldofmultilingualismisstillinitsinfancy.Theworkenvironmentrepresentsoneofthemostprominentareasinwhichlanguagescanbeacquiredinapracticalcontext.


Thereisalsoalackofresearchintothecompetenciesofhighlyqualifiedspe-cialistgroups,andalsointothepracticalperformanceofdailytasks.Theentirelanguageproductionchainshouldbescrutinized,fromwritinglettersandmediatexts,toproofreading,translations,interpretingactivities,tointernationalnego-tiationprocedures, etc. Inmultinational companiesand in institutions suchashospitals,schools,governmentoffices,Non-GovernmentalOrganizations,High-erEducationOrganisations,andsoon,theaimnow,overandabovediscourseoninterculturalism,istostudythoseselectedlanguagepracticeswhichareusedwhencommunicatinginadailyworkingenvironment,andwhichareincreasinglysubjecttotheinfluenceofdifferentlanguagesandcodes.Inadditiontostudyingtranslationandinterpretingtechnology,furtherstudiesshouldbedoneonotherverbalandwrittensub-formsofcommunication.

Research on “multilingualism in business” should therefore be expanded,incorporating a perspective on multilingualism which goes above and beyondimmediateeconomicbenefit(as is theaimofsomeworkinggroupsinthetwoEuropeanresearchconsortiaLINEEandDylan mentionedabove).Thisperspec-tiveshouldbemuchmorecloselyassociatedwiththeprinciplesofacommunityofknowledge.

3.�.3 Inthiscontext,thereisstilltoolittleawarenessofthefactthatmultilingualpeoplewhohavegrownupusinganon-Europeanlanguagehaveinternationalnet-works at their disposal and are therefore able to establish many contacts easily.ThesepeoplecanactasEurope’sambassadorsintheworld,becausetheyareabletoplayaculturallysensitiveroleinotherareasoftheworld.Suchpeopledefinitelyrepresentapotentialforbusinesscontacts.Thevalueattachedtothesecompeten-ciesprovidessecondandthirdgenerationimmigrantswithanadditionalopportu-nitytointegratethemselvesproactivelyandconstructivelyintoEurope.Forexam-ple,insteadoflongandlaboriousattemptsbymonolingualpeoplewhohavegrownupusingEnglishtolearnArabicorMandarinChinese,forexample,investmentintrainingforso-called“Bildungsinländer”(educationalresidents),thechildrenofimmigrantswhogrowupinfamilywiththeselanguages,couldbemoreeffective.

Abetterconsiderationofmultilingualcompetenciesofsecondandthirdgen-erationscanhavealsotheside-effectofapositiveintegrationintosociety.

Questionsforanexplorative,initialinvestigationcouldinclude:Aremultilin-gualcompetenciesselectedaccordingtospecialconsiderationsandaretheyap-pliedsystematicallyininstitutions?Areemployees’languageskillspromotedaboveandbeyondlanguagecoursesandlanguageholidays?Arecompaniesawareofthenetworkingandmediatingpotentialofsecondandthirdgenerationimmigrants?Isthereanyculturalcommongroundinhandlingwithin-companymultilingualpractices?Docompaniesexplaintheirlanguagepolicyinofficialdocumentation?


3.5 Multilingualismindiscourse

Overthelastfortyyears,spontaneous,bilingualcommunicationhasbecomeaverywell-researchedfield.Studiesoncode-switchinghavemadeasignificantcontribu-tiontotheunderstandingofhowbilingualexpertiseisusedcreativelyalongsidethestandardusesofnormativegrammars(seeAuer1999;MilroyandMuysken1995;Muysken2000;MyersScotton1993,amongmanyothers).Code-switchingbehaviour,anditssub-forms,isspreadacrosstheworldandisusedwidelyasanexpansionofmodesofexpressionbymultilinguals,moretypicallyusedininfor-malcontexts.Inaddition,code-switchingisgenerallyusedincontextswherethereisnomajorpotentialforsocialconflictbetweenthetwolanguages.

Inadditiontobilingualpractices–whichwerecentraltoresearchintocode-switching–itisanopportunetimeforpracticeswithmorethantwolanguages(or dialects) to now form the focus of research. There is a need to investigateother,perhapsnew forms of multilingual interaction,formswhichmaydevelopbetweenpeoplewithdifferentconstellationsofmultilingualcompetence.Atthispoint,theconceptofmajorityandminoritylanguagescanbeseenasseparatefromtheirtypicalattributionsanddefinitionalscope,suchthatinterlocutorre-lationshipsarereversedorbecomeinsignificant.Rampton,forexample,usesthetermcrossingtodescribetheuseofaminoritylanguagebymajorityyouthsinschool playgrounds, where English speakers have learnt Punjabi “en passant”fromtheirschoolmates(Rampton1995).ThesameprocesscanbeobservedinGermany,whereacertainamountofTurkishhasbeenintegratedintothelan-guageofGermanspeakers(seeDirimandAuer2004).AsimilarphenomenonwasnotedinSwitzerland,wheretheterm“languageadoption”wasintroduced:themajority ‘picksup’a languageofaminority throughtheprocessofunfo-cussedacquisition(Franceschini1999,2003).

Theuseofdifferentethnolectsispartandparcelofalandscapeoflinguisticbehaviour,andinitialresearchsuggeststhattheseformsoflanguageusearenotrestricted to immigrants alone (see Cornips and Nortier 2008, among others).Researchintothesetypesof“reverse”languagecontactphenomenainEuropeisstillinitsinfancy.Ingeneralterms,thesearephenomenaoflanguage adoption,thatis,majoritylanguagespeakersadoptthelanguagesofminoritiesandincor-porate some vocabulary items or entire chunks and parts of speech into theirownpractice.Thesephenomenaareexhibitedprimarilyinsocietieswithalargenumberofmultilingualspeakers.Inmultilingualsocieties,wheremakingcontactismorestraightforward,theseformsofcommunicationarewidespread,andarenowinneedofin-depthinvestigationandanalysis.Thetermunfocussed language acquisition(Franceschini2003)isusedtodescribeacquisitionincontextswherepeopleconstructcommunicativecompetencieswithoutmakinganyovert,con-


sciousefforttolearnalanguage.Thistypeofacquisitionevidentlyreflectsapro-cessof‘learning’throughdirectcontactwiththoselanguagesineverydayuse.

Undreamt-oflinguisticscenariosmustthusbeinvestigatedinordertoobtainanoverviewofthevarietyofcurrent,possiblelanguageforms,particularlyamongyouth(Androutsopoulos2003),whoseemtohaveamorerelaxedattitudethanoldergenerations towards thesimultaneoususeof several languages (consider,forexample, themanyformsofmultilingualrapmusic).Thefollowingsectionofferssomepossiblescenarios:

3.5.1 Evenifcreativeprofessionsinthefieldsofgraphics,webandproductdesign,film, music, multimedia, cultural tourism etc. (“creative class” in Florida 2002,2005,2008)continuetogrow,itisnotclearhowformsofcommunicationinthesefieldsmightaffectformsofmultilingualism.Ingeneral,wedonotknowverymuchaboutthepurelyfunctionaluseoflanguagesusedonlyinprofessionalcontexts.

Possible researchareas include:Whichgrammatical characteristicsdo lan-guageshavewhichareusedinprofessionalcontexts?Doesthefactthatalanguageisusedbynon-nativespeakershaveaneffectintheuseandstructureofthatlan-guage?Doonlytrendstowardslinguisticsimplificationexistordoconvergencephenomenaexistordevelopaswell?Howcansimplifiedformsofthewrittenlan-guage(as,forinstance,ine-mails)bedescribedwhenproducedbylessproficientwritersintheireverydaylivesandatwork?

3.5.2 Formsof“unconscious”orincidentallearning(Wode1999)–Iprefertheterm‘unfocussedlanguageacquisition’,asmentionedabove–willbecomeevermoreprobableandcommon.Thisisaconsequenceofmediabombardmentandtheextensionof‘covertexposure’tolanguagesinmultilingualeverydaycontexts(incities,forexample,orsimplythroughmediaexposure).Thus,somereceptivecompetenciescanbeattributedtounfocussedlanguageacquisition.Furtherre-searchisrequiredtoexplainthesedevelopmentalconnectionsandtomakethemusefulinaneverydaymultilingualenvironment.Networksinthebrainalsoap-peartodevelopbymeansof“covertexposure”.Itwillthenbepossibleforanin-dividualtoactivatethesenetworkstofacilitatelanguageacquisitionatalaterage(Bloch2006;Blochetal.2009).

3.5.3 AnothercurrentdevelopmentistheincreasedexchangeofstudentsinEu-rope,whichhasledtoavarietyoflanguagescenarioswhichhavebeeninvesti-gatedundertheterm“exolingualcommunication”(i.e.conversationsbetweennon-nativespeakersandnativespeakers).Thisisnottheonlyformofcommu-nicationwhichiscurrentlygaininginsignificance.Infact,formsofconversa-tionofadifferentcharacterhaverecentlybeeninvestigatedunderthetermof

�� RitaFranceschini

“interalloglottalcommunication”(Behrent2007).Thatis,itisnotonlyEnglishthat isusedasameansofcommunicationbetweenthosewhospeakdifferentlanguages.Oneoftheestablishedlocallanguagescanalsobeusedinthesecases,evenifnonative speakersarepresent.Today,discussionrelatingtolinguae fran-caeandprofessionallanguagesinEuropehastypicallycenteredaroundEnglish(Seidlhofer 2006; Jenkins, Modiano and Seidlhofer 2003; Jenkins 2007). Ourknowledgeofhowotherlanguagesareusedaslinguae francae and emerging va-rieties isthereforestilllimited(seeCornipsandNortier2008;Jenkins,ModianoandSeidlhofer2006).

With communication becoming increasingly multilingual, some of theabove-mentionedvarietiesaresometimesdescribedinnegativeterms,as“brokenlanguages”.However,thepracticeofincompletemultilingualcompetenciessub-servingcommunicationdefinitelydoesnotconflictwithanormativeapproach.Onthecontrary,itillustrateshowitispossibletosucceed,forexampleinaprofes-sionalenvironment,evenwithrelativelylowskilllevels.

Documentationoftheabovephenomenaremainssporadic,butitcanbeas-sumedthatpracticessuchasthesewerewidespreadinpreviouscenturiesaswell.This ishowpidginsand linguae francaewereconsistentlydisseminatedas lan-guagesofcommunicationaroundtheworld.

Evidenceofwhatatfirstglancelookslikeincompletelanguagemasteryhasgenerallybeenrecordedintheformofamusinganecdotes.Byusingstudiesonpidgin languagesasa startingpoint,possible research topicsemerge, suchas:How do tourists communicate? What are the features of communication be-tweenlong-distancedriversinEurope(atservicestationsonthemotorway,atcustomsposts,etc.)?Howdotheplayersofdifferentnationalitiescommunicateonafootballteam?

3.5.� The establishment ofmedia discourse, operating across a number of lan-guages, is open to applied research. Research questions in this regard mightinclude:DoesaEuropeancommunicationcultureexist;can itbeaccessedandtransmitted? Are there any specific linguistic features of European journalism,andwhichformsdotheytake?Howcanamultilingualidentitybecreated,andhowcoulditbecommunicatedbymediaandadvertising?

3.5.5 The field of CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) must also beconsideredaspartof themultilingualism framework:Given that,according totheCyberAtlas(cyberatlas.internet.com),Englishisnotthefirstlanguageforap-proximatelytwothirdsofInternetusers,wecanassumethatthiswouldaffecttheformEnglishtakes.


Promisingandinterestingareasofinvestigationinthisfieldmightencompassquestionsabouthowindividualswithnotfully-developedcompetenciescarryoutcommunicativetasks:Howdotheyovercomeproblemsinexpressingthemselves?Inwhichwaysdomakeshiftsoftwareandtranslationsoftwarecontributetothedegreeofcommunicationsuccess?Howcanknowledgeofathirdand/orfourthlanguageimproveamultilingual’sexpertiseinunderstanding,andalsoassistinlanguageproduction(writingandspeaking)oftheotherlanguages,respectively?

3.5.6 Similarquestionscanberaisedwithregardtoissuessuchasmultilingual practices on the Internet.Thisresearchorientationhasevolvedoverrecentyearsinconnectionwiththedevelopmentoflanguagetechnology.Thenextstepistoincorporateculturally,politicallyand linguistically sensitive issues into this re-searchfield.

VariousformsofCMC,aswellasotherthemeswhichdealwith“TheMulti-lingualInternet”cannowbefurtherinvestigated(seeforexampletheinitiativesofDanetandHerring2007).

Inthisregard,possibleresearchquestionscouldbeformulated,forexample,asfollows:PeoplewhohaveacquiredEnglishastheirfirstlanguagearenolongerthemajorityamongInternetusers.Giventhesecircumstances,whichmethodsofcommunicationareusedandhowarelanguagecodes–whoseaimistobecom-prehensibleworldwide–developedfromthese?

Inadditiontotheabove-mentionedquestions,sofarlittleresearchattentionhasbeenpaidtothelanguagedesignofwebpagesinmultilingualsocioculturalcontexts.ThesameistruefortheconnectionbetweensuperlingualsymbolsontheInternetandsymbolsandlanguages.Anotheressentialsurveywouldincludetypeface systems and an investigation of how linguistic norms develop on themultilingualInternet.Forexample,towhatdegreeistheInternetformatUnicode(www.unicode.org) appropriate for handling multilingualism and multilingualusers,sinceitcanbeusedtorepresentdifferenttypefaces(e.g.Cyrillic,Arabic,etc.)moreeasilythanASCIIcode?Whichspecificpracticeshavebeendevelopingover time to establish a culturally appropriate representation of other typefacesystemsandtomakethemlegibleforotherusers?

Avenuesofresearchquestionsinthisareacouldinclude:Aresymbols(suchasemoticons)usedtobridgegapsinlanguageskillsofwritersandreaders?Howare misunderstandings neutralised by a reader who might be reading a site inoneofthelanguageswhichs/hehasnotmasteredparticularlywell?Howaretheinternetskillsofwebusersenhancedbytheirmultilingualism?Domultilingualwebuserscontributetoapluriculturalweb?Wherearetheboundariesbetweeninvariantsandculturallysensitivevariantsofwebdesign?

50 RitaFranceschini

3.5.7 A greater interest in the research and development of communication iscurrentlybeing initiated inEurope.Newpossibilitieshavebeencreatedby theemergenceofauxiliarysoftwareforcommunicationintechnicalmedia.Informa-tionisgatheredfromvariouslanguagesourcesandnotviatranslation.Multilin-gual data mining is thereforeaviableresearchsuggestion,andsuchresearchisatpresentbeingconductedintothefeasibilityoftechnicalontologiesinordertoenableanindividualnon-language-specificsearchonthe“multilingualweb”.

3.6 Multilingualismintheindividual

Individualmultilingualismisthemostfrequentlyinvestigatedlanguagephenom-enoninthefieldofbilingualism;popularareasof investigationincludetheac-quisitionoflanguagesinanaturalcontext(e.g.inthefamily,oratalaterperiodindirectcontact,etc.)andformallearning(atschool,inlanguagecourses,withaprivateteacher).Thesetwoforms–languageacquisitionandlanguagelearn-ing–oftenoccursidebysideoraremingledtogethertovariousdegreesinthebiographyofspeakers.

Anindividual’sfirstlanguage,atleast,isacquiredimplicitly,althoughadultscanalsomakeuseof thenatural languageacquisitionroute.Thephenomenonof spontaneous acquisition of a language in non-formal contexts by adults bymeansofdirectexposuretoalanguagehasbeeninvestigatedthoroughlyinrela-tiontomigrants(asitwas,forexample,inthe“HeidelbergResearchProjectonPidginGerman”andthe“ImmigrantLanguageAcquisition”ESF-projectonadultlanguageacquisition,conductedovermanyyearssincethe1990sbyKleinandPerdue,seeKleinandPerdue1992).

Bilingualdevelopmentinearlychildhood(age0–3)andstudiesonthelearn-ing environment for youths and students are also among the issues on whichagooddealof researchhasalreadybeendone. ImportantprecursoryworkonearlyparallelbilingualacquisitionwasdoneattheUniversityofHamburgbytheresearchgroup“Mehrsprachigkeit” (Sonderforschungsbereich538)), fundedbytheGermanResearchFoundation(DFG)anddirectedJürgenMeisel(seeMeisel1990,2004).Now,itistimetodrawattentiontootheragegroups.

Itisimportantto:

1. investigate bilingual and multilingual development at the ages which havebeenlessresearched,i.e.fromtheageoffourtoapproximatelyfourteen,andlearningataconsiderablyadvancedage;

2. studynon-academiclearningenvironmentsfortheirsuccesspotential(thisincludesanemphasisonimplicitlearning);


3. conductsystematicresearchintothelong-termconsequencesofearlyforeignlanguagelearningatschooland–ifpossible–tomeasurethese.

3.6.1 Whiletheareaofresearchrelatingtoearlysimultaneousbilinguallanguageacquisition(age1–3) iswelladvanced(seeMeisel1990asastartingpoint,andthensomechaptersinMülleretal.2006,andMeisel2009),researchonmultiple language acquisition in early childhood(agesapprox.4to7)isstill lacking.Thisrelatesnotonlytobilingualfamiliesofmigrantswhoareinternationalspecialists,butinfacttopopulationsnotheavilyorsufficientlyinvolvedinformaleducation.

Researchquestionscouldbe formulatedas follows:Whatare theeffectsofsuccessiveacquisitionoftwoormorelanguagesbyachildof4–7yearsofage?Whatistheinfluenceofthemodeofacquisitionasthechildgrowsolder?Whichlanguageaspect (phonology,morphology, syntaxorvocabulary)displaysmoreapparentinfluences?Whataretheeffectsof“exposure”toalanguageotherthanthefamily’sfromearlychildhoodonwardsandarethesedetectableinlaterlife?

3.6.2 EffortsarebeingmadeacrossEuropetoteachchildrenasecondandthirdlanguageinadditiontotheirfirstlanguage(s)innurseryschoolsandinprimaryschools.Thereislittleempirically-basedresearchavailablewhichcouldserveasimpartialdocumentationofhowthelanguageacquisitionprocessworksinnurs-eryschoolandprimaryschool,andhow“acquisition”and“learning”coincideatanageinwhichplasticityishigh(seeMechellietal.2004).

Since initiatives for theacquisitionof foreign languagesatanearlyagearespreading,considerationshouldbegiven,evennow,astohowthe long-term ef-fects ofearlylanguageacquisition canbestudied,bycomparingvariousteachingmodels.However,thereisalackofparameterswhichcanbeusedasabasisforcomparison.Onesuggestionistousedataobtainedfromdocumentingacquisi-tion processes in teaching. Another suggestion is to develop criteria by whichsuccessfulacquisitioncanbemeasured.Thelong-termeffectsofearlyacquisitionatschoolformanexplosivetopicintermsofeducationpolicyand,therefore,re-quireprocessingfromascientificviewpoint.

Takingintoconsiderationthecontroversiesabouttheagefactorinacquisition(Singleton and Lengyel 1995; Birdsong 1999; Hyltenstam and Obler 1999), wemayposethefollowingquestions:Howdoesstartingtolearnaforeignlanguageearlieratschool(attheageof7or9or11)influencethelanguagecompetencyofthelearnerlaterinlife?Arethedifferencesbetweenthelearnerswhostartedacquiringmultiplelanguagesatdifferentearlyagesmeasurable?

3.6.3 Theseandotherquestions–suchasthoseaboutmatchingdidacticmethodstotheageofthelearner–mustberesolvedwithanopenmind.Thecontinuityin

52 RitaFranceschini

learningalanguageatschoolhasaparttoplayinthisdebate.Sometimesadiscon-tinuityinthelanguagecurriculumcanbenoticed,whichalsosuggeststhatthereisaneedforresearchintohowlanguageisforgottenduringchildhoodandhowskillscanbereactivatedatalaterstageinlife. Hardlyanystudieshavebeenconductedontheseissues.

3.6.� There is also a need for specific investigation of how the acquisition of athird language (orfourthlanguage)affectsthelanguagesalreadymasteredbyanindividual.Initialresultsofresearchonthirdlanguages(seeabove)indicatethatthereare,inter alia,acceleratingfeedbackeffects.Itwasobserved,forexample,thatwhennewlanguages(third,fourth,etc.)areacquired,oneofthelanguagesservesasanauxiliary language,promoting intercomprehension.Little isknownaboutthelinguisticresourcesmadeavailablebyanindividual’smultilingualrepertoire.

Ontheotherhand,neurobiologicalresearchdemonstrates that,dependingupon the age at which the second language is acquired, the basis of the thirdlanguageisdrawnupon,ifthesecondlanguagewasacquiredbeforetheageofthree.Ifasecondandthirdlanguageareacquiredlater(afterage9),theyformtheirownnetworkstogether,separatefromthatofthefirstlanguage(Wattendorfetal.2001).

More extensive research with triangulation of several methodologies is re-quiredhere.

3.6.5 Thereisamajordeficit inresearchattheotherendoftheagerange.Weknowlittleaboutlanguage learning at an advanced age: still, wecanalreadybuildonthepioneeringstudiesbyPavlenko1998,FiehlerandThimm1998,andalsoDewaele’swork,whichaddressesthemultilingualexperienceinadulthood(seee.g.Dewaele2007).TaddeiGheiler(2005)isinterestedinthelanguageofelder-lypeople,asareSchrauf(2000),Thimm(2000),deBotandMakoni(2005)andFiehler (2008).Thecontributionofolder sectorsof thepopulation inassuringthequalityofcommunicationinasocietyisstillaccordedtoolittlerespect.Itispreciselyelderlypeople,withtheirwiderangeofexperience,whocaneffectivelyassistlanguageacquisitionbyyoungchildren.

Howarelanguagesmaintainedwhenapersonreachesretirementage?Howcan these language skills be retained, promoted and supported? Are languagecoursesthemostappropriatemethodforthis?Issocialinteraction,actingas‘lan-guagepilots’(e.g.tutorsforalloglottchildren),conducivetomaintainingagoodleveloflanguageskills?

3.6.6 Thereisinsufficientcooperationbetweenteachersandresearchersofvari-ous disciplines (linguistics, applied linguistics, psycho- and neurolinguistics,


ethnography etc.). More interdisciplinary co-operation with teachers is needed.Especiallywithrespect toCLILteaching,ahugeamountofcollaborativeworkbetween teachers and researchers is awaiting more in-depth research. Alongwiththis,thefirststepshavealreadybeentakentowardsmeasuringtheeffectsofCLILorenhancedbilingualprogramsonschoolchildren’sgeneralandlinguisticknowledge.Theaimnowshouldbe tobringeducational scienceand languageacquisitionresearchclosertogether,inordertousethemostproductivemeanspossibletoinvestigatethecasesofinsufficientlinguisticandgeneralknowledgeandtodevelopteachingmodelswhichcouldfillthesegaps.Thesuggestionhereistobringresearchandteachingclosertogether.

3.6.7 Muchattentionhasbeenpaidinrecentdecadestotheinstitutionallearn-ingoflanguages.Schoolis,afterall,regardedasoneoftheprivilegedvenuesoflearning.Languagelearningdiffersfromotherareasofcognitiveactivitiesinthat,likemusic, itrequirestheacquisitionofskillsobtainedbypracticalexercises inadditiontostudyingstructures,rulesandfacts.It takesmorethantherecogni-tionofnotestosingasong.Consequently,anactivecommandofalanguagemusttoalargeextentbeacquiredbypractice.Schools,particularlythoseimplement-ingCLILconcepts,areawareofthisandincreasinglyemphasiseapplicationsandpracticalusesoflanguages.In“tasklearning”–intowhichagooddealofresearchhasbeenconducted–languageacquisitionisstimulatedbytheneedtoattainaspecific objective (for example, building a den, making a tool, learning how toclimb,andsoon,withachildwhospeaksadifferentlanguage).Thepatternsoftheotherlanguagerequiredforperformingapracticaltaskarelearnedinthisway.

Intheacademicsector,inthe1980s,muchresearchwasconductedon“learn-ingstrategies”employedbychildrenwhilelearningforeignlanguagesatschool(seethepioneeringworkofO’Malley,Chamot,andOxfordinthe1990sandalsoKemp 2007). Some 50 strategies were distinguished, from metacognitive andcognitivetoaffective.Littleisknown,however,about“acquisitionstrategies”ap-pliedoutsideofschool(e.g.viathemedia),notjustbychildren,butalsobyadultsintheireverydaylives.Thiswouldbeausefulareaofappliedresearchonteach-ingmethods(theconceptof“collectivescaffolding”,Donato1994,canbeusefulinthiscontext).

Ifthisapproachweredeveloped,itwouldbenecessarytoassignasignificantplacetothoseactivitiesduringwhichlanguagelearningoccurs“indirectly”.Lei-sureactivitiescouldbeexploitedtoanevengreaterextentthanbeforeforthissortof“indirect”languagelearning.Fromanacademicpointofview,itisimportantto keep track of the effectiveness of the learning process and to develop someconceptofthedegreeofefficiency.


3.6.� Inthepast,thediscussionofexceptionalabilitieswasusedasthebasisforresearchofthe“talentedspeaker”.Therearefewstudiesavailablewhichthrowlight on the biographical circumstances of particularly gifted language learn-ers,includingtheirrelevantneurobiologicalcharacteristics.Accesstolanguagebiographies by means of in-depth interviews has proven fruitful in this area(FranceschiniandMiecznikowski2004).Studiesofthiskind,carriedoutinsuchawayastoprovide“languageportraits”ofmultilingualpeopleexplaininghowtheylearnttheirlanguages(seee.g.Pavlenko1998),mayalsobeusefulinpro-motingawarenessofthevarietiesofmultilingualismexistentinEurope.

Inmethodologicalterms,studiesofmultilingualspeakerswhohaveachieved“near-native”skills(vonStutterheim1993;Byrnesetal.2006;MaikandGrommes2008)mayalsobeausefulwayofhighlightingthosefactorswhichmakepeopleespeciallycompetentspeakers.

3.6.9 Thereislittle–otherthansomeevidenceofaneurobiologicalnature(seethestudiesconductedbythegroupledbyFriedericiattheMaxPlanckInstituteofCognitiveNeuroscience,Leipzig,e.g.Maessetal.2001)–tosuggestanylinkbe-tweenmusicality and language competence.Certainaspectsofbothoftheseabili-tiesaresupportedbysimilarneuronalnetworks,whichmeansthatwecanassumethattheteachingofmusicalskillswillincreasetheeffectivenessoflanguagelearn-ingwithrespecttofurtherlanguages,particularlysincetheabilitytodiscriminatesoundsisoffundamentalsignificanceforlanguagelearning.Inlightofthesefacts,itwouldbeimportanttoinvestigatewhetherthepromotionofmusicteachingatanearlyagewouldbebeneficialfortheacquisitionofmultilingualism.

3.6.10 Eventhoughmanypublicationsappearingundertheheadingofmulti-lingualismseemtostart(sometimesuncritically)fromanemphaticallypositivebasic assumption, it should not be forgotten, once again, that there are casesinwhichindividualsdonotsucceedinlearningmultiplelanguages.Theques-tionmustbeaddressedastowhysomegroupsofchildren,aboveallteenagersandsomesub-groupsofmigrantchildren,donottakeadvantageofmultilingualsituationsanddonotmanagetogainpositivesocialcapital.There ismuchtosuggestthatasystemicapproachwhichincludesthefamily,aboveallthemother,mightbesuccessful.

Theeffectsofunfavourablelivingconditionsinasocietymustbeaddressedwithanopenmind.Forexample,migration,socially-exclusionaryhousingsitu-ations,culturalalienationandsociallydisadvantagedcircumstances,negativeat-titudestowardsalanguagegroupetc.expressedindisinterestincommunicativeandsocialactivitiesmayallbefactorstobeovercome.Inordertocounteractthepreviouslyheldhypothesisofbi-andmultilinguals’ socialdeficiencies, current


approachestakeninsociologicalstudiesofenvironments,ecolinguistics(seee.g.Mühlhäusler2003)andethnographicanalysesarerequiredinordertoproperlyunderstandtheheterogeneityofthediscoursesinvolvedandtotakeappropriateaction.Interdisciplinarycollaboration(sociology,urbanstudies, linguisticsandcommunicationstudies,educationalstudiesandpsychology,etc.)willprovein-strumentalinconductingsuccessfulresearchintowhetherornotlanguagecon-tactinurbanandruralenvironmentsarebeneficialforsocialharmony.

3.6.11 Ontheotherhand,casestudiesonlanguageresilienceinmilieuswithlittlecontacttoformaleducation–asaformofcounter-evidence–canprovideinfor-mationonimportantlinguistic,socialandculturalfactors,andingeneral,pro-videpositiveinsightswhichwouldneedtobeconvertedintoactions.Thistopic,too,goesbeyondlinguistics;itisthereforeappropriatetostriveforinterdisciplin-arystudies,asdescribedabove.

�. Final remarks

Whataretheadvances,strengthsandlacunaeinthefieldofmultilingualismre-search?

Withoutadoubt,thedevelopmentofthefieldispromisingandpositive,withincreasingdynamisminthelasttenyears.Inthiswaveofintensiveinvestigation,variousareasofresearchsuchasbilingualteaching,secondlanguageacquisitionandcontactlinguisticshavebeensubsumedtostudiesonmultilingualism.Unlikeinthepast,whendifferencesbetweenlearningandacquisitionwereatthecentreofattention,currentresearchinterestfocusesonhowtheacquisitionandlearn-ingoflanguagesinteractindifferentcontextsintheprocessofbecomingbi-andmultilingual.

Afteralongperiodofintenseworkoncode-switchingandcodemixingallovertheworld,thestudyofemerginglanguagevarietiesbothamongyoungpeo-pleandinotheragegroupsmaynowbeseenasapromisingfield.Wecanexpectfurtherinsightsintotheuseoflanguagesincontactsituations.Advancesinthisdirectionarebeingfacilitatedbyrepresentativesofthesecondandthirdgenera-tionsoflinguisticminoritygroups,whoarejoiningtheacademiccommunityofresearchers into multilingualism. These researchers can provide an additionalunique‘insider’-pointofviewonthenewformsofmultiplelanguageuse,aper-spectivewhichshouldbetakenintoaccounttoalargerextentthanitistoday.

Anavenueofresearchonmultilingualismisemergingfromtheexplorationoftheuseoflanguagesinahistoricalperspective.Historicalstudiesmakeitpos-sibletorefineresearchandexperimentalconceptsandmethodsofresearchandto

56 RitaFranceschini

pinpointgeneralisationsovertime.Asolidfoundationofwell-establishedphilo-logical and historical methodology will facilitate the development of historicalstudiesinmultilingualism.

Thescopeof theconceptofmultilingualismandrelevant terminologywillcontinuetobeamatterofdebateinfuture.Asmultilingualismhasnotyetgainedthestatusofanindependentfieldofscientificinquiry,morereflexionisneededtoestablishacoherentmethodologicalandtheoreticalframeworksothattheseis-suesmaybeaddressedexplicitlyandsystematically.Inthisway,wemayhopethatconvergentandmature theoreticalandempiricalparadigmsandmethodologi-calprocedureswillprovideasoundbasisforfurtherdevelopmentofanautono-mousresearchfield(seeforexample,Cook1992,2005;HerdinaandJessner2002;deBot1992,2008;Green1998;Larsen-Freeman1997).

Therefore,inthefuture,emphasisshouldbegiventofosteringtheoreticalandmethodologicalreflexion,basedongoodempiricalgroundwork.Theincreasingneed to develop multifactorial approaches, including triangulation, presents aspecialchallenge.Furthermore,itisnecessarytoaddresstheissueofformaliza-tionandoperationalisationinthoseareasofmultilingualresearchwhichemployadynamicsystemsapproach.

Amongthemanychallengesforthefuture,thereisthenecessitytoreviewtheentirefieldofresearchonmultilingualismwithaspecificfocusonitsapplica-tion.Educationcanbenefitfromexploringmultilingualisminabroadsense.Thequestionsworthposingare:Whichfindingsandconceptsofmultilingualismarehelpfulatschoolandoutsideformaleducation?Whichimplicationsofresearchonmultilingualismareimportanttoconveytoparents, topolicyanddecisionmakersand tobusinesspeople?Andwhatkindof contactdoes theemerging‘language industry’–asaculturalandeconomic factor–haveonresearch inmultilingualism?

References

Adams,J.N.,Janse,M.&Swain,S.(eds).2005[2002].Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word.Oxford:OUP.

Adams,J.N.2003.Bilingualism and the Latin Language.Cambridge:CUP.Ammon,U.,Dittmar,N.&MattheierK.J. (eds).2005–2006.Sociolinguistics. Soziolinguistik.

An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft,Vols.1–2.Berlin:deGruyter.

Androutsopoulos, J. K. (ed.). 2003. Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008.Multilingualismasanewlinguisticdispensation.International Journal of Multilingualism5(1):1–16.


Auer,P.(ed.).1999[1998].Code-switching in Conversation. Language, Interaction and Identity.London:Routledge.

Auer,P.&Wei,L.(eds).2007.Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Backhaus, P. 2007. Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Behrent, S. 2007. La communication interalloglotte: Communiquer dans la langue cible com-mune.Paris:L’Harmattan.

Birdsong,D.(ed).1999.Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis.Hills-daleNJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Bloch,C.2006.OntheImpactoftheAgeofSecondLanguageAcquisitionandLanguageRelat-ednessontheRegionalCerebralActivationinMultilinguals–AVoxel-basedfMRIStudy.MDthesis,UniversityofBasel.

Bloch,C.,Kaiser,A.,Kuenzli,E.,Zappatore,D.,Haller,S.,Franceschini,R.,Luedi,G.,Radue,E.-W.&Nitsch,C.2009.Theageofsecondlanguageacquisitiondeterminesthevariabil-ity inactivationelicitedbynarration in three languages inBroca’sandWernicke’sarea.Neuropsychologia47:625–633.

DeAngelis,G.2007.Third or Additional Language Acquisition.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.de Bot, K. 1992. A bilingual production model: Levelt‘s ‘Speaking Model’ adapted. Applied

Linguistics1(13):1–24.deBot,K.2008.Introduction:Secondlanguagedevelopmentasadynamicprocess.The Modern

Language Journal 92(2):166–178.deBot,K.&Makoni,S.2005.Language and Aging in Multilingual Contexts.Clevedon:Multi-

lingualMatters.Braunmüller,K.&Ferraresi,G.2003.Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History.

Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Byrnes,H.,Weger-Guntharp,H.&Sprang,K.A.(eds).2006.Educating for Advanced Foreign

Language Capacities: Constucts, Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment. Washington DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.

Cenoz,J.&Genesee,F.(eds).2001.Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Tri- and Multilingualism.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.

Cenoz,J.,Hufeisen,B.&Jessner,U.(eds).2001.Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition. Psycholinguistic Perspectives.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.&Gorter,D.(eds).2005.TrilingualEducationinEurope.The International Journal of the Sociology of Language 171.

COM 2003, 449: Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity (COM2003, 449)<http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/languages_en.html>.

COM 2005, 596: A new framework strategy for multilingualism (COM2005, 596) <http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/languages_en.html>.

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities.2007.Final Report, High Level Group on Multilingual-ism.Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities(ISBN978-92-79-06902-4).<http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf>.

Cook,V.1992.Evidenceformulticompetence.Language Learning42(4):557–92.Cook,V.2005.Multicompetence:Blackholeorwormhole?<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/

vivian.c/Writings/Papaers/SLRF.htm>.(24.09.2007).Council of Europe. 1992. European charter for regional or minority languages. Strasbourg,

EuropeanTreatySeries148.


Cornips,L.&Nortier,J.(eds).2008.Ethnolects?Theemergenceofnewvarietiesamongadoles-cents.International Journal of Bilingualism,spec.issue 12(1–2).

CyberAtlas.internet.com: <http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,1323,5901_150171,00.html>(08/2008)in:<http://viadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~sk/diges/divide_the.html>(05/2009).

Danet,B.&Herring,S.C.(eds).2007.The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Com-munication Online.Oxford:OUP.

Dentler,S.,Hufeisen,B.&Lindemann,B.(eds).2000.:Tertiär- und Drittsprachen: Projekte und empirische Untersuchungen.Tübingen:Narr.

Dewaele,J.-M.2007.Becomingbi-ormultilinguallaterinlife.InHandbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, P. Auer & L. Wei (eds), 101–130. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Dirim,I.&Auer,P.2004.Türkisch sprechen nicht nur die Türken: über die Unschärfebeziehungen zwischen Sprache und Ethnie in Deutschland.Berlin:deGruyter.

Donato,R.1994.Collectivescaffoldinginsecondlanguagelearning.InVygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research,J.P.Lantolf&G.Appel(eds),33–56.NorwoodNJ:Ablex.

Extra,G.&Gorter,D.(eds).2001.The Other Languages of Europe. Demographic, Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Extra,G.&Yağmur,K.(eds).2004.Urban Multilingualism in Europe. Immigrant Minoriy Lan-guages at Home and School.Clevedon:Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Fase,W., Jaspaert,K.&Kroon,S. (eds).1992.Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Fiehler,R.2008.Altern, Kommunikation und Identitätsarbeit.Mannheim:InstitutfürDeutscheSprache.

Fiehler,R.&Thimm,C. (eds).1998.Sprache und Kommunikation im Alter.Opladen:West-deutscherVerlag.

Fishman,J.A.1991.Reversing Language Shift,Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Fishman,J.A.2000.Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Reversing Language Shift Revisited –

A 21st Century Perspective.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Florida,R.L.2006[2002].The Rise of the Creative Class and how it’s Transforming Work, Leisure,

Community and Everyday Life.NewYorkNY:BasicBooks.Florida,R.L.2005.Cities and the Creative Class.London:Routledge.Florida,R.L.2008.Who’s your City? How the Creative Economy is Making where to Live the Most

Important Decision of your Life.NewYorkNY:BasicBooks.Franceschini,R.1999.Sprachadoption:derEinflussvonMinderheitensprachenaufdieMeh-

rheit,oder:WelcheKompetenzenderMinderheitensprachenhabenMehrheitssprecher?InLes langues minoritaires en contexte. Minderheitensprachen im Kontext,Vol.2: Minorités en mouvement: mobilité et changement linguistique. Minderheitensprachen in Bewegung: Mobilität und Sprachwandel, Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, A. Dazzi Gross &L.Mondada(eds),69(2):137–153.

Franceschini,R.2003.Unfocussed languageacquisition?Thepresentationof linguistic situ-ations inbiographicalnarration(62paragraphs).Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Fo-rum: Qualitative Social Research 4(3) September. <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-03/3-03franceschini-e.htm>.

Franceschini,R.(ed).2007.Im Dickicht der Städte I: Sprache und Semiotik.LiLi – Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 37(148):5–182(specialissue).


Franceschini,R.&Miecznikowski,J.(eds).2004.Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Vivre avec plu-sieurs langues. Sprachbiographien – Biographies langagières. Bern:Lang.

Fusco,F.,Orioles,V.&Parmeggiani,A.(eds).2000.Processi di convergenza e differenziazione nelle lingue dell‘Europa medievale e moderna, Processes of convergence and differentiation in the languages of Mediaeval and Modern Europe.Udine:Forum.

Goebl,H.1997.Lerappeldel’histoire:Leplurilinguismedanslavieillemonarchiehabsbour-geoise.Sociolinguistica11:109–122.

Goebl, H., Nelde, P. N., Stary, Z. & Wölck, W. (eds). 1996/1997. Kontaktlinguistik, Contact Linguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 2 Vols., Berlin: deGruyter.

Green,D.1998.Mentalcontrolofthebilinguallexico-semanticsystem.Bilingualism, Language and Cognition1:67–81.

Grosjean,F.1982.Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Gorter,D.(ed.).2006.Linguisticlandscape:Anewapproachtomultilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism3(1):1–80.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Herdina,P.&Jessner,U.2002.A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hoffman,C.&Ytsma,J.(eds).2004.Trilingualism in Family, School, and Community.Cleve-don:MultilingualMatters.

Hufeisen, B. & Lindemann, B. (eds). 1998. Tertiärsprachen. Theorien, Modelle, Methoden.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.

Hufeisen,B.&Marx,N.(eds).2004.Beim Schwedischlernen sind Englisch und Deutsch ganz hilfsvoll: Untersuchungen zum multiplen Sprachenlernen.Frankfurt:Lang.

Hyltenstam,K.&Obler,L.K.(eds).1999.Bilingualism Across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisi-tion, Maturity and Loss.Cambridge:CUP.

Jenkins,J.2007.English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity.Oxford:OUP.Jenkins, J., Modiano, M. & Seidlhofer, B. 2006. Euro-English: Perspectives on an emerging

varietyonthemainlandofEurope,fromcommentatorsinSweden,AustriaandEngland.English Today 17:13–19.

Kemp,C.2007.Strategicprocessingingrammarlearning:Domultilingualsusemorestrate-gies?International Journal of Multilingualism4(4):241–262.

Klein,W.&Perdue,C.1992.Utterance Structures (Developing Grammars Again).Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Krefeld,T.2004.Einführung in die Migrationslinguistik.Tübingen:Narr.Lambert,W.E.,Tucker,G.R.&d’Anglejan,A.(1973).Cognitiveandattitudinalconsequences

ofbilingualschooling.Journal of Educational Psychology85(2):141–159.Larsen-Freeman,D.1997.Chaos/complexityscienceinsecondlanguageacquisition.Applied

Linguistics18:141–165.Leopold,W.F.1949.Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist’s Record[Humanities

Series18].EvanstonIL:NorthwesternUniversity.Lüdi, G. 1989. Ein historisches Beispiel für Polyglossie: Stadtsprachen in Fribourg/Freiburg

i.Ue.imXIV./XV.Jahrhundert.InHistorische Sprachkonflikte,Nelde,P.H.(ed.),37–55.Bonn:Dümmler.

Lüdi,G.,Werlen,I.,Franceschini,R.,Antonini,F.,Bianconi,S.,Furer,J.-J.,Quiroga-Blaser,C.&Wymann,A.1997.Die Sprachenlandschaft Schweiz.Bern:BundesamtfürStatistik.(Vers.française:Le paysage linguistique de la Suisse).

60 RitaFranceschini

Lüdi, G., Werlen, I. & Colombo, S. 2005.Die Sprachenlandschaft in der Schweiz. Neuchâtel:OfficeFédéraldelaStatistique.[Grüne Reihe10].(Vers.française:Le paysage linguistique de la Suisse).

Maess,B.,Koelsch,S.,Gunter,T.C.&Friederici,A.D.2001.Musical syntax isprocessed inBroca‘sarea:anMEGstudy. Nature Neuroscience4:540–545.

vonMaik,W.&Grommes,P. (eds).2008.Fortgeschrittene Lernervarietäten: Korpuslinguistik und Zweitspracherwerbsforschung.Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Mechelli, A., Crinion, J. T., Noppeney, U., O‘Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. &Price,C.J.2004.Structuralplasticityinthebilingualbrain.Nature431:757.

Meisel,J.(ed).1990.Two First Languages – Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Chil-dren.Dordrecht:Foris.

Meisel,J.2004.Thebilingualchild.InThe Handbook of Bilingualism,T.K.Bhatia&W.C.Ritchie(eds),91–113.Oxford:Blackwell.

Meisel,J.(ed.).2009.Earlysecondlanguageacquisition/FrüherZweitspracherwerb.Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft28(1):1–120.

Milroy,J.&Milroy,L.1985.Linguisticchange,socialnetworkandspeakerinnovation. Journal of Linguistics21:339–384.

Milroy,L.&Muysken,P.(eds).1995.One Speaker, Two Languages. Cross-Disciplinary Perspec-tives on Code-Switching.Cambridge:CUP.

Moscovici,S.,Mugny,G.&VanAvermaet,E.(eds).1985.Perspectives on Minority Influence.Cambridge:CUP.

Mühlhäusler,P.2003.Language of Environment, Environment of Language: A Course in Ecolin-guistics.London:Battlebridge.

Müller,N.,Kupisch,T.,Schmitz,K.&Cantone,K.2006.Einführung in die Mehrsprachigkeits-forschung: Deutsch, Französisch, Italienisch.Tübingen:Narr.

Muysken,P.C.2000.Bilingual Speech. A Typology of Code-mixing.Cambridge:CUP.MyersScotton,C.1993.Duelling Languages. Grammatical Structures in Code-switching.Oxford:

ClarendonPress.Nicol, J. L. (ed.). 2001. One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing. Oxford:

Blackwell.Nelde,P.H.2001.PerspectivesforaEuropeanlanguagepolicy.Applied Linguistics for the 21st

Century,AILA Review14:34–48.Pavlenko,A.1998.Secondlanguagelearningbyadults:Testimoniesofbilingualwriters.Issues

in Applied Linguistics9(1):3–19.Pavlenko,A.2005.Emotions and Multilingualism.Cambridge:CUP.Pavlenko,A.(ed.).2006.Bilingual Minds: Emotional Experience, Expression, and Representa-

tion.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Petersilka, C. 2005. Die Zweisprachigkeit Friedrichs des Grossen: Ein linguistisches Porträt.

Tübingen:Niemeyer.Rampton,B.1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents.London:Longman.Rinaldi,U.,RindlerSchjerve,R.&Metzeltin,M.(eds)1997.Lingua e politica. La politica lingui-

stica della duplice monarchia e la sua attualità.Wien:IstitutodiCultura.Ronjat,J.1913.Le développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue.Paris:Champion.Schlieben-Lange,B.1983.Traditionen des Sprechens: Elemente einer pragmatischen Sprachge-

schichtsschreibung.Stuttgart:W.Kohlhammer.Schrauf, R. W. 2000. Bilingual autobiographical memory: Experimental studies and clinical

cases.Culture and Psychology6:387–417.


Schumann,J.H.1997.The Neurobiology of Affect in Language.London:Blackwell.Seidlhofer,B.2006.Englishasalinguafrancaintheexpandingcircle:whatitisn’t.InEnglish

in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles, R.Rubdy&M.Saraceni(eds),40–50.London:Continuum.

Singleton,D.&Lengyel,Z.(eds).1995.The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition.Cleve-don:MultilingualMatters.

Steiner,G.2005.Une certaine idée de l’Europe (trad.parChristineLeBoeuf).Arles:ActesduSud.

vonStutterheim,C.1993.Linguisticstructureandinformationorganisation:Thecaseofveryadvancedlearners.EUROSLA Yearbook3:183–206..

TaddeiGheiler,F.2005.La lingua degli anziani. Stereotipi sociali e competenze linguistiche in un gruppo di anziani ticinesi.Bellinzona:OsservatoriolinguisticodellaSvizzeraitaliana.

Taeschner,T.1983.The Sun is Feminine: A Study on Language Acquisition in Bilingual Children.Berlin:Heidelberg.

tenThije,J.&Zeevaert,L.(eds).2003.Receptive Multilingualism. Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies and Didactic Concepts.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Thimm,C.2008.Alter – Sprache – Geschlecht: Sprach- und kommunikationswissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf das höhere Lebensalter.Frankfurt:Campus-Verlag.

Thomason,S.G.&Kaufman,T.1988.Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Titone,R.1986.Cinque millenni di insegnamento delle lingue.Brescia:LaScuola.Valdés,G.2003.Expanding Definitions of Giftedness: The Case of Young Interpreters of Immi-

grant Communities.MahwahNJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Wattendorf, E., Westermann, B., Zappatore, D., Franceschini, R., Lüdi, G., Radü, E.-W. &

Nitsch,C.2001.DifferentlanguagesactivatedifferentsubfieldsinBroca’sarea.Neuroim-age13(6):624.

Weinreich,U.1953.Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems[PublicationsoftheLinguis-ticCircleofNewYork1].NewYorkNY:LinguisticCircleofNewYork.

Wildgen,W.1999.De la grammaire au discours: une approche morphodynamique. Bern:Lang.Wode,H.1999.Incidentalvocabularylearningintheforeignlanguageclassroom.Studies in

Second Language Acquisition21:243–258.

chapter4

The development of psycholinguistic research on crosslinguistic influence

GessicaDeAngelisandJean-MarcDewaeleFreeUniversityofBozen-Bolzano/UniversityofLondon

Thepresentchapterdescribesthedevelopmentofpsycholinguisticresearchoncrosslinguisticinfluence.Itfocusesmorespecificallyonkeytopicscoveredinthelastdecennia,howandwhenthedisciplineeffectivelybranchedouttoframeworksnotpreviouslyexaminedinCLIresearch,andthecrucialrolethattheL3networkshashadinthesedevelopmentssincetheFirstInternationalConferenceonThirdLanguageAcquisitionandMultilingualismorganizedin1999attheUniversityofInnsbruck.

Keywords: crosslinguisticinfluence,transfer,trilingualism

Thestudyofnon-nativelanguageinfluenceandmultilingualismisayoungareaofresearchwhichcombinestraditionalandwell-establishedhypothesesaboutcross-linguisticinfluence(CLI)andsecondlanguageswiththeoriesandframeworksthatcanaccommodatetheexistenceofmorethantwolanguagesinthemind.

WhilequestionsaboutCLIandmultilingualismhavebeenraisedforalongtime,theydidnotimpactmainstreamtheoryrightaway.Researchers’effortswereinitiallydirectedtowardsdefiningtransferphenomenafromtheL1totheL2andunderstandwhy,howandwhenlearnersusedpriorknowledgeinthesecondlan-guagelearningprocess.Induecourse,questionsaboutmultilingualismbegantoemerge,andthisledtoanimportantgrowthinresearchoutputwithinarelativelyshorttime.Theincreaseininterestalso ledtotheestablishmentofaninterna-tionalnetworkofscholarssharingsimilarinterests,andtothefoundationoftheInternationalAssociationofMultilingualism,asweshallexplainbelow.

InordertounderstandcurrentresearchonCLIandmultilingualismandtoappreciatetherolethattheL3internationalnetworkhashadinshapingthisnewareaofinquiry,itisusefultogobackintimeandexaminesomeofthemostin-fluentialworkspublishedovertheyears.Afocusontheelementsofnoveltythesestudiesproposedcanhelpusseehowchangeswereprogressivelyintroduced.Tothisend,thepresentpaperexaminesthekeytopicscoveredinthelastdecennia,

6� GessicaDeAngelisandJean-MarcDewaele

howandwhenthedisciplineeffectivelybranchedouttoframeworksnotprevi-ouslyexaminedinCLIresearch,andthecrucialrolethattheL3networkshashadinthesedevelopmentsfromthe1990stothepresentday.

The field in the 1950s and 1960s

Duringthe1950sand1960s,hardlyanystudiesonlanguagetransferfromnon-native languages were produced. There are, however, at least three significantpublicationsthatoughttobementioned.TheseareWeinreich(1953),Vildomec(1963)andPealandLambert(1962).

Weinreich’s(1953)bookLanguages in Contactfocusedonbilingualismratherthanmultilingualism,buthis theories formthebaseof laterproposalsof rele-vancetomultilingualismandtolanguagetransferresearch.Forinstance,weowetohimthecoordinate,compoundandsubordinatedistinction,whichinformedinfluentialhypothesessuchasthewordassociationandconceptmediationhy-potheses(Potteretal.1984)initiallyproposedforbilingualsbutlatertestedwithmultilingualsaswell.Wealsoowetohimtheintuitionthattransfersometimes“doesnotinvolvetheoutrighttransferofelementsatall”(Weinreich1953:7),aviewthatwastakenupagaininthe1970swhenerroranalysishadalreadybegantobeamplycriticizedwithintheacademiccommunity.

Vildomec’s (1963) work had perhaps less of an impact than Weinreich’s(1953),eventhoughhisbookentitledMultilingualismremainsoneofthemostcomprehensive accounts of multilingual phenomena ever collected to date. Toourknowledge,Vildomecwas thefirst todiscussnon-native language transferinasystematicmanneraswellastoarguethatsomeinstancesofnon-nativelan-guagetransfercanbeinformedbytheemotionalvalueconnectedtothem.More-over,Vildomec(1963)wasthefirsttopointoutthatmorethanonelanguagecansimultaneouslyinfluenceatargetlanguage,asthefollowingstatementsuggests:“iftwoormoretongueswhichasubjecthasmasteredaresimilar(bothlinguisti-callyandpsychologically)theymay‘co-operate’ininterferingwithothertongues”(1963:212).Whilehis ideaswereundoubtedly revolutionaryat the time–andwere in fact mostly ignored – less than half a century later they proved to behighlyinnovative,original,andmostlyaccurate.Somelimitationslieperhapsinthe meticulously descriptive nature of his work, which somewhat clashes withcurrentapproachesmoreconcernedwithdefiningunderlyingcognitiveprocessesratherthanfocusingexclusivelyonendproducts.Nonetheless,Vildomec’s(1963)work remains a goldmine of ideas for those interested in multilingualism andlanguagetransfer.

Chapter4. Thedevelopmentofresearchoncrosslinguisticinfluence 65

Thethirdstudy,PealandLambert(1962),wasnotdirectlylinkedtomultilin-gualism,butitismentionedherebecauseofthecrucialroleithadinfightingtheviewthatpriorlanguageknowledge,andbilingualisminparticular,wasdetrimen-taltothehumanmind.Inthe1960s,itwasdifficulttospeakaboutbilingualismormultilingualisminaconstructivemanner,asmostresearcherswereconvincedthattheknowledgeofnon-nativelanguageswasahindranceratherthananassetfortheindividual.PealandLambert(1962)helpedchangetheseviewsbyshow-ingthatinfactbilingualshadsomedefiniteadvantagesintermsofcognitiveflex-ibilityincomparisontomonolinguals.Thankstotheirwork,researchersbegantoviewbilingualsunderadifferentlightandthisledtoagradualshiftinresearchfocus.Moreover,PealandLambert’s(1962)amplecriticismofsubjectselectionproceduresusedinpreviousstudiesonbilingualismgenerallycontributedtotheintroductionofmorerigorouspracticesinexperimentalresearch.

The field in the 1970s

The1970swerecrucialandexcitingtimesforthedevelopmentoflanguagetrans-ferresearch.Firstly,thiswasthetimewhenseveralscholarsbegantoarguethatnon-native languages had properties of their own and could not be viewed asimperfectversionsofanativelanguage.Toreflecttheuniquenatureofnon-nativelanguages,Nemser(1971)referred to themas“approximativesystems”,Corder(1971) as “transitional idiosyncratic dialects” and Selinker (1972) as “interlan-guages.”Aroundthesametime,Schachter(1974)alsoputforwardtheimportantargumentthattransferdoesnotnecessarilyneedtobeovert,butcanalsobeco-vert.Transferthenbegantobeconceivedasaphenomenonwhichwasnotalwaysclearlydetectableinproduction.

Most studies on language transfer published during the 1970s were high-lydescriptive innatureandoftenusederroranalysisas theirmain frameworkof discussion. Some examples of these are Rivers (1979), Chamot (1973) andChandrasekhar (1978). This last study, however, also showed some substantialelementsofinnovationforthosetimes.Theauthordiscussedinstancesoftransferfrommultiplesourcesofknowledgeandalsoproposedthe“baselanguage”hy-potheses,accordingtowhichlearnersrelyonthelanguagethatmostresemblesthetargetlanguageinproduction,regardlessofwhetherthisistheL1oranL2.AtaroundthesametimeKellerman(1977,1978,1979)alsoputforwardtheno-tionofperceivedlanguagedistance,andintroducedtheterm‘psychotypology’inKellerman(1983).

Otherstudiesinthisdecadeintroducedmoreofamoderncognitivetwisttotheirresearchfocus.SinghandCarroll(1979),forinstance,discussedovergeneralization

66 GessicaDeAngelisandJean-MarcDewaele

strategiesinrelationtonon-nativelanguagetransfer.Stedje(1977)identifiedlengthofresidenceasakeyfactorfornon-nativetransferandalsofoundsomedifferencesintheuseofcontentwordsfromtheL1andtheL2inproduction.Therewerealsoattempts to explain transfer phenomena through psycholinguistic research. Onthebasisoffindingsinmemoryresearch,forinstance,TulvingandColotla(1970)claimedthattheactofrememberinglanguagemembershipinformationwasanad-ditionaldemandonthehumanmindandthisconsequentlysloweddownthepro-ductionprocessinmultilingualspeakers.Mägiste(1979)insteadarguedthatlan-guagesystemscancompetewithoneanotherandthattheamountofstorageheldinthemindcanbedirectlyassociatedwiththeamountoftransferlikelytooccur.

Lastbutnotleast,oneclassicbookshouldbeincludedamongthemostinflu-entialworksofthisdecade:The Bilingual BrainbyAlbertandObler(1978).Thebookreportsontherecoverypatternsofaphasicpatients.Itdrawssomeessentialdividinglinesbetweenbilingualsandmultilingualsidentifyingdifferentrecoverypatterns for the twospeakergroups.For instance,multilingualswere found torecoverfirstthelanguagestheyusedmostfrequentlypriortobraininjury,ratherthanthelanguagestheyacquiredfirstinorderoftime.Inthefollowingdecade,frequencyofusewouldalsoemergeasakeyfactorforcrosslinguisticinfluenceinmultilinguals.

The field in the 1980s

Researchonnon-nativelanguageinfluencesawarapidgrowthinthe1980s.Inthisdecade,researchersbegantofocusonthecognitiveandpsycholinguisticas-pectsofCLIandresearchbecameclearlyconcernedwithprocessesratherthanproducts.Thenumberofstudiesonnon-nativelanguageinfluenceremainedrela-tivelysmallincomparisontothoseontransferfromtheL1totheL2,buttheywerealsonoticeablyontheincrease.

Amuchdebatedtopic in thisdecadewas thatof languagedistanceand itsroleintriggeringinstancesoftransferfromnon-nativelanguages.Asdiscussedwithreferencetothepreviousdecade,languagedistancehadalreadystartedtobeassociatedwithlanguagetransfer,andthislineofresearchcontinuedtoevolvethroughoutthe1980s.Severalstudies,infact,dealtwiththesespecifictopics,add-ingmuchtothebodyofknowledgeofthosetimesduetothenumberofdifferentlanguagecombinationsthatwereexamined.Forinstance,researchwaspublishedonIgbo,EnglishandFrench(Ahukannaetal.1981),German,FrenchandSpan-ish(Möhle1989),Finnish,SwedishandEnglish(Ringbom1986;Ringbom1987),Portuguese,EnglishandArabic(SchmidtandFrota1986),English,Spanishand


French(Singleton1987),Dutch,EnglishandGerman(Voorwinde1981).Whilemostofthesestudiesidentifiedlanguagesimilarityasatriggeringfactorforlan-guagetransfer,theyalsoprovidedsomeevidencethattransfercouldcomefromlanguagesdistantfromthetargetlanguage,evenwhenalanguageclosertothetargetwasinthespeaker’smind(see,forinstance,SchmidtandFrota1986).InthisdecadeRingbom(1987)alsopublishedoneofthemostdetailedaccountsofnon-nativelanguagetransferavailabletodate,whichwasthefirstsignificantat-tempttoapplyhypothesesaboutCLItoathirdlanguage.

OtherkeytopicsofrelevancetoCLIresearchwhichbegantobediscussedduringthe1980sincludetheroleofmetalinguisticawarenessinlanguagelearn-ingandthatofpassiveoractiveknowledgeinthemind.Amongtheclassicstud-iesintheseareasareThomas(1988)andMägiste(1984,1986).Thegeneralclaimatthetimewasthatmetalinguisticawarenesspositivelyaffectedlanguagelearn-ing, but prior knowledge had to be actively used by the speaker. While muchwouldbe saidon these initial conclusions in the followingdecade, this lineofworkwasessentialtobringingtotheforetheinteractingeffectsofinstructionandpriorknowledge inthe language learningprocess.Somestudieswhichseemedtoruncountertothesegeneralpositiveclaimsappearingintheliteraturecamefrominformationprocessingresearch(McLaughlinandNayak1989;NationandMcLaughlin1986).Thesestudies,whichaddressedthequestionofwhethermul-tilingualsarebetteratlearninglanguagesthanmonolingualsorbilinguals,gen-erallymaintainedthatmultilingualsdonotdisplayanysuperiority in languagelearninginthecaseofexplicitlearning,whiletheyshowanadvantageinthecaseofimplicitlearning.Thelanguagesusedtocometotheseconclusions,however,wereartificialones.

Duringthe1980s,psycholinguisticresearchwasalsomakinghugeprogress.Severaloftheproductionmodelsproposedinthisdecadebecamecentralfordis-cussionsonmultilingualismwithinafewyears.Amongthemostinfluentialpro-ductionmodels,forinstance,wefindDell(1986)andLevelt(1989).Dell(1986)proposedthatspeechisproducedbywaysofamechanismofactivationspreadingfromnode tonodebetween levelsofencoding. Incontrast,Levelt (1989)pro-posedthatspeechiselaboratedatthreedifferentlevelsofencoding(Conceptual-izer,FormulatorandArticulator)andisessentiallyincrementalandparallel,i.e.acomponentcanstartworkingassoonasinformationisreceivedandcandosowhileothercomponentsareworkingatthesametime.

OneotherinfluentialmodelwhichappearedinthisdecadeisGreen(1986).Thiswasabilingualmodelwhichexplainedtheproductionprocessthroughamechanism of activation and inhibition. The model proposed that languagescouldbeactivatedtodifferentlevels:theycouldbeselected(used),active(playsome influence on ongoing processing) and dormant (not used). It became


particularly appealing for those working on multilingualism because it effec-tively proposed a framework which allowed one to account for the processesunderlyingspeechproductioninbilingualspeakers,asolutionthatnoneofthepreviousmodelshadoffered.

The rapid increase of CLI research in the 1990s

Researchonnon-nativelanguageinfluenceandmultilingualismsawarapidde-velopment throughout the1990s.The trendhas continuedup thepresentday.Therearetwopossiblereasonsforthissignificantincreaseinresearchoutput.Ontheonehand,ageneralinterestinthetopicemergedasmoreandmorestudiesbegantoappearintheliterature.Ontheotherhand,scholarswhosharedsimilarinterestswereformallyabletomeetattheFirstInternationalConferenceonThirdLanguageAcquisitionandMultilingualismorganizedin1999attheUniversityofInnsbruck.Theeventmarkedthebeginningofmanylaterdevelopments,asshallbeexplainedbelow.

Among the favoured topics of the 1990s, language distance continued toemergeasoneofthemostinvestigated(seeClyne1997;ClyneandCassia1999;DeAngelis1999;Dewaele1998;SelinkerandBaumgartner-Cohen1995).Adis-tinctiveelementofnoveltyinsomeofthesestudiesistheattempttoexplainnon-nativelanguageinfluencenotonlyinrelationtotraditionalCLItheorybutalsoinrelationtothespeechproductionprocess.When,howandwhyisnon-nativelanguageinformationselectedandretrievedduringspeechproduction?

Grosjean(1997)introducedanimportantnotionrelatedtothisquestion:thelanguagemodehypothesis.Itreplacedhisearlierproposalofaspeechmodein1994.Thelanguagemoderefers tothestateofactivationof thebilingual’s lan-guagesandlanguageprocessingmechanismsatagivenpointintime.Theactiva-tionofalanguageentailsthatitcanbemoreeasilyselectedduringtheproductionprocess.Grosjean(2001)alsodevelopedhismodelfurthertoincludeathirdlan-guage.AheateddebatedevelopedinthefieldonthemeritsofGrosjean’smodel(DewaeleandEdwards2001;DijkstraandVanHell2003).Thecrucialissuewaswhetherselectionandde-selectioncorrespondtoproactiveactivationanddeac-tivationoflanguagesinthemindofthebilingual.Green(1998)questionedtheconceptoflanguagemodesandproposedanalternativeapproach,basedontheprincipleofinhibitionatdifferentlevels,i.e.,acombinationofproactiveandret-roactiveregulationoftheoutputofthebilingual’slexico-semanticsystem.

Inthe1990s,severalauthorsattemptedtoexplainCLIphenomenainrela-tiontothespeechproductionprocess,includingtheauthorsofthepresentpaper.Duringthisdecade, itbecameincreasinglyapparenttoresearchersworkingon


multilingualism that the patterns they uncovered could not be adequately ex-plainedwithintraditionalframeworks.Astrongneedwasfeltforboththeoreticalandmethodologicalinnovation.Thequestionsaskeduntilthattimeinrelationtosecondlanguagesbegantobeposedinrelationtothirdoradditionallanguages,andtheresultwasasubstantialproliferationofworkinthemostvariedareasofinquiry.Togiveasenseofthevarietyandbreadthoftopics,wemaypointoutthatwefindpublicationsonthestructureofthetrilinguallexiconandtherelationshipbetweenthe levelof independenceamongthespeaker’s languages(Abunuwara1992);wealsofindresearchonmultilingualmemory(DeGrootandHoeks1995),additive trilingualism and education (Cenoz and Valencia 1994; Leman 1990;SandersandMeijers1995;ValenciaandCenoz1992),therelationshipbetweennon-native transfer and speech production (Dewaele 1998; De Angelis 1999;WilliamsandHammarberg1998)andtheroleofliteracyormetalinguisticaware-ness in language learning (Galambos and Goldin-Meadow 1990; Jessner 1999;Kemp1999;Swain,Lapkin,RowenandHart1990;Thomas1992).Severalstudiesalsofocusedspecificallyontransferphenomenainphonology(HammarbergandHammarberg1993),morphology(DeAngelis1999;ClyneandCassia1999)andsyntax(Klein1995;Zobl1992).Moreover,severalmodelsandhypothesesofbi-lingualandmultilingualproduction(seedeBot1992;Grosjean1992,1997,1998)becamemoreandmorecentraltodiscussionsaboutmultilingualismandCLI.

In1999researchersinterestedinmultilingualismalsometforthefirsttimeattheFirstInternationalConferenceonThirdLanguageAcquisitionandMultilin-gualisminInnsbruck,Austria(seeEcke,thisvolume).Theeventmarkedthebe-ginningoftheestablishmentofaninternationalnetworkofscholarswhosharedsimilarinterestsandsimilargoalsinresearch.

Onthewhole,itcanbesaidthatbytheendofthe1990s,researchonmul-tilingualismandtheuseofpriorknowledgeincomprehensionandproductionhadtoalleffectsbecomeasignificantareaof inquirywithinapplied languagestudies.FollowingtheFirstInternationalConferenceonThirdLanguageAcqui-sitionandMultilingualismjustmentioned,thefieldhascontinuedtogrowatanimpressivespeed.

CLI research in the new millennium

Thebeginningofthecurrentdecadecanbedescribedasaperiodofintensere-searchactivity.Therewasan intensedebateontheuniquenessof trilingualismresearch(Hoffman2000,2001a,2001b).Severaleditedvolumesappearedintheliterature,withCenoz,HufeisenandJessnerleadingothersinthesedevelopments.Amongtheeditedvolumespublished,wefindCenozandJessner(2000)English


in Europe: the acquisition of a third language;Cenoz,HufeisenandJessner(2001a)Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspec-tives; Cenoz,HufeisenandJessner(2003)The Multilingual Lexicon.

TheL3networkestablishedinthe1990sgrewinstrengthandformallybe-cametheInternationalAssociationofMultilingualismin2003.ItalsobecameanofficialResearchNetworkwithinAILAin2006.Inthemeantime,internationalconferencesonThirdLanguageAcquisitionandMultilingualismhavecontinuedtobeorganizedevery twoyears, and thenumberofattendeeshasgrownwitheachevent.Havingreachedthispoint,researchonCLIandmultilingualismwasclearlynolongerconfinedtotraditionalperspectivesaboutCLI initiallydevel-opedforsecondlanguages.Non-nativelanguageinfluencehadbeguntobeexam-inedfromvariousanglesthroughanumberoffreshquestionsspecificallytailoredtomultilingual,andnotbilingual,phenomena.Amongtheworkthatspecificallydealtwithinstancesofnon-nativetransferwefindAlcantarini(2005);BardelandLindqvist (toappear);Bouvy (2000);Cenoz (2001);DeAngelis (2005a;2005b;2005c); De Angelis and Selinker (2001); Fouser (2001); Gibson and Hufeisen(2003); Gibson, Hufeisen and Libben (2001); Hammarberg (2001); Odlin andJarvis(2004);Ringbom(2001,2002,2003).

Inthefirsthalfofthecurrentdecade,wealsofindasubstantialamountofre-searchonthemultilinguallexicon,wordselectionproblemsandtipofthetonguestates,wherequestionsontheuseofpriorknowledgeincomprehensionandpro-ductionprocessesremainedcentral(Cenoz,HufeisenandJessner2003;Dewaele2001;Dijkstra2003;Ecke2001,2003;Festman2004,2005;Herwig2001;Jessner2003;Schönpflug2000,2003;Singleton2003;VanHellandDijkstra2002;Wei2003a,2003b).

Other linesor inquiryofrelevancetomultilingualismandtheuseofpriorknowledge in the learning process include studies on immersion programmesandeducation(AroninandToubkin2002;Cenoz,HufeisenandJessner2001b;Clyne,RossiHuntand Isaakidis2004;Cummins,2001), researchon theaddi-tive effectsofbilingualism inplurilingual situations (Brohy2001;Cenoz2003;CenozandHoffmann2003;KeshavarzandAstaneh2004;SagastaErrasti2003;Sanz 2000), research on metalinguistic development (Charkova 2004; Jessner2005;Kemp2001;Lasagabaster2000;Lasagabaster2001)andearlytrilingualism(Barnes2006;Dewaele2000,2007;EdwardsandDewaele2007;Hoffmann1985;Quay2001).Lastbutnotleastisresearchonnon-nativelanguageswithinthedo-mainofsyntax(Flynn,FoleyandVinnitskaya2004;Leung2005)andpragmatics(SafontJordà2005a,2005b).

Thenewmillenniumhasjuststarted,andthenumberofstudiesonmulti-lingualismandCLI isalreadyconsiderable incomparisonto thosepublishedinthepreviousdecades.Whileitishardtopredictfutureresearchdirections,


oneconclusionseemswarranted:itishighlyimprobablethatCLIresearchwillstop focusing on multilingual phenomena in the years to come. Research onnon-native language influence has become central to future developments inthefieldandhassubstantiallychangedtheviewthatlanguagetransferisaphe-nomenonmostlyconcernedwithtwolanguages(seeDeAngelis2007).Aswehaveseen,thesedevelopmentsdidnothappenovernight.Ittooktheeffortsofseveral researchers to reach thecurrent stateofknowledgeaboutandaware-ness of multilingual phenomena and CLI. The L3 network in particular hasbeeninstrumentalinbringingtogetherpeople,ideasandresearchprojectsovertheyears.Whileprogress,advancementandinnovationaretheresultofmanypeople’sefforts,onethingissure:withouttheL3network,progresswouldhavebeenmuchslowertoappear.

References

Abunuwara, E. 1992. The structure of the trilingual lexicon. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 4(4):311–322.

Ahukanna,J.G.W.,Lund,N.J.&Gentile,R.J.1981.Inter-andintra-lingualinterferenceeffectsinlearningathirdlanguage.Modern Language Journal65:281–287.

Albert,M.L.&Obler,L.K.1978.The Bilingual Brain.NewYorkNY:AcademicPress.Alcantarini,E.2005.L’ingleseL3.PhDdissertation,UniversitàdegliStudidiBologna.Aronin,L.&Toubkin,L.2002.Languageinterferenceandlanguagelearningtechniquestrans-

ferinL2andL3immersionprogrammes.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism5(5):267–278.

Bardel, C. & Lindqvist, C. To appear. The role of proficiency and psychotypology in lexicalcross-linguistic influence.Astudyofamultilingual learnerof ItalianL3. InAtti del VI Congresso di Studi dell’Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, Napoli,9–10febbraio2006,M.Chini,P.Desideri,M.E.Favilla&G.Pallotti(eds).Perugia:GuerraEditore.

Barnes,J.2006.Early Trilingualism. A Focus on Questions.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Bouvy,C.2000.Towards theconstructionofa theoryofcross-linguistic transfer. InEnglish

in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language, J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (eds), 143–156. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Brohy,C.2001.Genericand/orspecificadvantagesofbilingualisminadynamicplurilingualsituation:ThecaseofFrenchasofficialL3intheschoolofSamedan(Switzerland).Inter-national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism4(1):38–49.

Cenoz,J.2001.Theeffectoflinguisticdistance,L2statusandageoncross-linguisticinfluenceinthirdlanguageacquisition.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds), 8–20. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.2003.Theadditiveeffectofbilingualisminthirdlanguageacquisition:areview.Inter-national Journal of Bilingualism7(1):71–87.

Cenoz,J.&Hoffmann,C.2003.Acquiringathirdlanguage:Whatroledoesbilingualismplay?International Journal of Bilingualism7(1):1–6.


Cenoz,J.,Hufeisen,B.&Jessner,U.(eds).2001a.Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.,HufeisenB.&JessnerU.2001b.Towardstrilingualeducation.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1):1–10.

Cenoz,J.,Hufeisen,B.&Jessner,U.(eds).2003.The Multilingual Lexicon. Dordrecht:Kluwer.Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds). 2000. English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language.

Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Cenoz, J.&Valencia, J.F.1994.Additive trilingualism:Evidence from theBasqueCountry.

Applied Psycholinguistics15:195–207.Chamot,A.U.1973.PhonologicalproblemsinlearningEnglishasathirdlanguage.Interna-

tional Review of Applied LinguisticsXI(3):243–250.Chandrasekhar, A. 1978. Base language. International Review of Applied Linguistics XVI(1):

62–65.Charkova, K. D. 2004. Early foreign language education and metalinguistic development:

A study of monolingual, bilingual and trilingual children on noun definition tasks. InAnnual Review of Language Acquisition, L.Santelmann,M.Verrips,F.Wijnen&C.Levelt(eds),3(1):51–88.

Clyne,M.1997.Someof the things trilingualsdo. The International Journal of Bilingualism 1(2):95–116.

Clyne, M. & Cassia, P. 1999. Trilingualism, immigration and relatedness of languages. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics123-124:57–74.

Clyne, M., Rossi Hunt, C. & Isaakidis, T. 2004. Learning a community language as a thirdlanguage.The International Journal of Multilingualism1(1):33–52.

Corder, S. 1971. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics9:149–159.

Cummins,J.2001.Instructionalconditionsfortrilingualdevelopment.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism4(1):61–75.

DeAngelis,G.1999.Interlanguagetransferandmultiplelanguageacquisition:Acasestudy.PaperpresentedatTESOL1999,NewYorkNY.

DeAngelis,G.2005a. Interlanguage transferof functionwords.Language Learning 55(3):379–414.

DeAngelis,G.2005b.Multilingualismandnon-nativelexicaltransfer:Anidentificationprob-lem.International Journal of Multilingualism2(1):1–25.

DeAngelis,G.2005c.TheacquisitionoflanguagesbeyondtheL2:psycholinguisticperspec-tives.Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata2–3:397–409.

DeAngelis,G.2007.Third or Additional Language Acquisition.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.DeAngelis,G.&Selinker,L.2001.Interlanguagetransferandcompetinglinguisticsystems

in the multilingual mind. In Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen,&U.Jessner(eds), 42–58.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

DeBot,K.1992.Abilingualproductionmodel:Levelt’s‘speaking’modeladapted.Applied Lin-guistics 13(1):1–24.

DeGroot,A.&Hoeks,J.1995.Thedevelopmentofbilingualmemory:evidencefromwordtranslationbytrilinguals.Language Learning45(4):683–724.

Dell,G.S.1986.Aspreading-activationtheoryofretrievalinsentenceproduction.Psychologi-cal Review93:283–321.


Dewaele,J.-M.1998.Lexicalinventions:FrenchInterlanguageasL2versusL3.Applied Linguis-tics19(4):471–490.

Dewaele, J.-M. 2000. Three years old and three first languages. Bilingual Family Newsletter17(2):4–5.

Dewaele,J.-M.2001.Activationorinhibition?TheinteractionofL1,L2andL3onthelanguagemodecontinuum.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholin-guistic Perspectives,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),69–89.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Dewaele,J.-M.2007.Stilltrilingualatten:Livia’smultilingualjourney.Multilingual Living Mag-azineMarch,66–70<www.biculturalfamily.org>

Dewaele,J.-M.&Edwards,M.2001.Conversationstrilingues(arabe,français,anglais)entremèreetfille:Unsaute-moutonréférentiel?InCommunications réferentielles et processus réferentiels,C.Charnet(ed.),193–214.Montpellier:PublicationsdePraxiling-UniversitéPaul-Valéry.

Dijkstra,T.2003.Lexicalprocessinginbilingualsandmultilinguals:Thewordselectionprob-lem.InThe Multilingual Lexicon,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),11–26.Dordre-cht:Kluwer.

Dijkstra,T.&vanHell,J.V.2003.Testingthelanguagemodehypothesisusingtrilinguals.Inter-national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6:2–16.

Ecke,P.2001.Lexicalretrievalinathirdlanguage:Evidencefromerrorsandtip-of-the-tonguestates.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspec-tives,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds), 90–114.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Ecke,P.2003.Tip-of-the-tonguestatesinapolyglot:Alongitudinalcasestudy.Paperpresent-edattheConferenceonThirdLanguageAcquisitionandTrilingualism,Tralee,Ireland,September3–5.

Edwards, M. & Dewaele, J.-M. 2007. Trilingual conversations: A window into multicompe-tence?The International Journal of Bilingualism11(2):221–241.

Festman, J. 2004. Lexical Production as Evidence for Activation and Control Processes inTrilingualLexicalRetrieval.PhDdissertation,Bar-IlanUniversity.

Festman,J.2005.Cross-languageinterferenceduringtrilingualpicturenaminginsingleandmixed language conditions. Paper presented at the International Conference on ThirdLanguageAcquisitionandMultilingualism,Fribourg,Switzerland,8–10September2005.

Flynn,S.,Foley,C.&Vinnitskaya,I.2004.Thecumulative-enhancementmodeloflanguageac-quisition:Comparingadults’andchildren’spattersofdevelopmentinfirst,secondandthirdlanguageacquisitionofrelativeclauses.International Journal of Multilingualism1(1):3–16.

Fouser,R.J.2001.Toocloseforcomfort?SociolinguistictransferfromJapaneseintoKoreanasanL3.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspec-tives,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),149–169.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Galambos,J.S.&Goldin-Meadow,S.1990.Theeffectsoflearningtwolanguagesonlevelsofmetalinguisticawareness.Cognition34:1–56.

Gibson,M.&Hufeisen,B.2003.Investigatingtheroleofpriorforeignlanguageknowledge:translatingfromanunknownlanguageintoaknownforeignlanguage.InThe Multilingual Lexicon,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),87–102.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Gibson,M.,Hufeisen,B.&Libben,G.2001.LearnersofGermanasanL3andtheirproductionofGermanprepositionalverbs.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),138–148.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.


Green,D.W.1986.Control,activationandresource:Aframeworkandamodelforthecontrolofspeechinbilinguals.Brain and Language 27:210–223.

Green,D.W.1998.Mentalcontrolofthebilinguallexico-semanticsystem.Bilingualism: Lan-guage and Cognition1:67–81.

Grosjean,F.1992.Anotherviewofbilingualism.InCognitive Processing in Bilinguals,R.J.Harris(ed),51–62.Amsterdam:NorthHolland.

Grosjean,F.1994. Individualbilingualism. InThe Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,1656–1660.Oxford:PergamonPress.

Grosjean,F.1997.Processingmixedlanguage:Issues,findingsandmodels.InTutorials in Bilin-gualism. Psycholinguistic Perspectives,A.M.B.deGroot&J.Kroll(eds), 225–254. MahwahNJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Grosjean, F. 1998. Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition1(2):131–149.

Grosjean,F.2001.Thebilingual’slanguagemodes.InOne Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Lan-guage Processing,J.Nicol(ed),1–22.Oxford:Blackwell.

Hammarberg,B.2001.RolesofL1andL2inL3productionandacquisition.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),21–41. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hammarberg,B.&Hammarberg,B.1993.Articulatoryre-settingintheacquisitionofnewlan-guages.ReportsfromtheDepartmentofPhonetics,UniversityofUmeå.Phonum2:61–67.

Herwig,A.2001.Plurilingual lexicalorganisation.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Lan-guage Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),115–137. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hoffman,C.1985.Languageacquisitionintwotrilingualchildren.Journal for Multilingual and Multicultural Development6:479–495.

Hoffman,C.2000.Bilingualandtrilingualcompetence:Problemsofdescriptionanddifferen-tiation.Estudios de Sociolingüística1:83–92.

Hoffman,C.2001a.Towardsadescriptionof trilingualcompetence.International Journal of Bilingualism5:1–17.

Hoffman, C. 2001b. The status of trilingualism in bilingualism studies. In Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Tri- and Multilingualism,J.Cenoz,U.Jessner&B.Hufeisen(eds),13–25.Tübingen:StauffenburgVerlag.

Jessner,U.1999.Metalinguisticawarenessinmultilinguals:Cognitiveaspectsofthirdlanguagelearning.Language Awareness 8(3–4):201–209.

Jessner,U.2003.Thenatureofcross-linguisticinteractioninthemultilingualsystem.InThe Multilingual Lexicon,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),45–55.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Jessner,U.2005.Multilingualmetalanguage,orthewaymultilingualstalkabouttheirlanguages.Language Awareness14(1):56–68.

Kellerman,E.1977.Towardsacharacterizationofthestrategyoftransferinsecondlanguagelearning.Interlanguage Studies Bulletin2:58–145.

Kellerman,E.1978.Givinglearnersabreak:Nativelanguageintuitionsasasourceofpredictionabouttransferability.Working papers on bilingualism15:59–92.

Kellerman,E.1979.Transferandnon-transfer:wherearewenow? Studies in Second Language Acquisition2:37–57.

Kellerman,E.1983.Nowyouseeit,nowyoudon’t.InLanguage Transfer in Language Learning,S.Gass&L.Selinker(eds),112–134.RowleyMA:NewburyHouse.


Kemp,C.1999.Multilinguals’performanceonagrammaticalityjudgmenttask:dootherlan-guagesmakeadifference?PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonThirdLan-guageAcquisitionandTrilingualism,September16–18,Innsbruck,Austria.

Kemp,C.2001.MetalinguisticAwarenessinMultilinguals:ImplicitandExplicitGrammaticalAwarenessanditsRelationshipwithLanguageExperienceandLanguageAttainment.PhDdissertation,UniversityofEdinburgh.

Keshavarz, M. H. & Astaneh, H. 2004. The impact of bilinguality on the learning of Englishvocabularyasaforeignlanguage(L3).Bilingual Education and Bilingualism7(4):295–303.

Klein, E.C. 1995. Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a difference? Language Learning45(3):419–465.

Lasagabaster,D.2000.Language learningand thedevelopmentofmetalinguisticawareness.Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata1:103–116.

Lasagabaster, D. 2001. The effect of knowledge about the L1 on foreign language skills andgrammar.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism4(5):310–331.

Leman,J.1990.Multilingualismasnorm,monolingualismasexception:TheFoyerModelinBrussels. InBicultural Education and Trilingual Education: The Foyer Model in Brussels,M.Byram&J.Leman(eds),7–15.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Leung,Y.2005.L2vs.L3initialstate:AcomparativestudyoftheacquisitionofFrenchDPsbyVietnamesemonolingualsandCantonese-Englishbilinguals.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition8(1):39–61.

Levelt,W.J.M.1989.Speaking: From Intention to Articulation.CambridgeMA:TheMITPress.Mägiste,E.1979.Thecompetinglanguagesystemsofthemultilingual:Adevelopmentalstudy

ofdecodingandencodingprocesses.Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior18:79–89.Mägiste,E.1984.Learningathirdlanguage. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop-

ment5(5):415–421.Mägiste,E.1986.Selectedissuesinsecondandthirdlanguagelearning.InLanguage Process-

ing in Bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and Neuropsychological Perspectives, J.Vaid(ed),97–122.HillsdaleNJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

McLaughlin,B.&Nayak,N.1989.Processinganewlanguage:Doesknowingotherlanguagesmake a difference? In Interlingual Processes, W.H. Dechert & M. Raupach (eds), 5–16. Tübingen:Narr.

Möhle,D.1989.Multilingualinteractioninforeignlanguageproduction.InInterlingual Pro-cesses,W.H.Dechert&M.Raupach(eds), 179–194.Tübingen:Narr.

Nation,R.&McLaughlin,B.1986.Expertsandnovices:Aninformation-processingapproachtothe“goodlanguagelearner”problem.Applied Psycholinguistics7:51–56.

Nemser,W.1971.Approximativesystemsofforeignlanguagelearners.International Review of Applied Linguistics9:115–123.

Odlin,T.&Jarvis,S.2004.Samesource,differentoutcomes:AstudyofSwedishinfluenceontheacquisitionofEnglishinFinland. International Journal of Multilingualism1(2):123–140.

Peal,E.&Lambert,W.E.1962.Therelationofbilingualismtointelligence.Psychological Mono-graphs 76(27):1–23.

Potter,M.C.,So,K.F.,vonEckardt,B.&Feldman,L.B.1984.Lexicalandconceptualrepre-sentation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour23:23–38.

Quay, S. 2001. Managing linguistic boundaries in early trilingual development. In Trends in Bilingual Acquisition, J.Cenoz&F.Genesee(eds),149–199.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.


Ringbom, H. 1986. Crosslinguistic influence and the foreign language learning process. InCrosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition, E. Kellerman & M. SharwoodSmith(eds),150–162.Oxford:PergamonPress.

Ringbom, H. 1987. The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Ringbom,H.2001.LexicaltransferinL3-production.In Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Lan-guage Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),59–68.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Ringbom,H.2002.LevelsoftransferfromL1andL2inL3-acquisition.InProceedings of the Second International Conference on Trilingualism, J. Ytsma & M. Hooghiemstra (eds).Leeuwarden:FryskeAkademie(CDRom).

Ringbom,H.2003.IfyouknowFinnishasL2,therewillbenomajorproblemlearningSwahili.Paper presented at the International Conference on Trilingualism and Third LanguageAcquisition,Tralee,Ireland,September4–6.

Rivers,W.M.1979.Learningasixth language:Anadult learner’sdailydiary. The Canadian Modern Language Review 36(1):67–82.

SafontJordà,M.P.2005a.PragmaticproductionofthirdlanguagelearnersofEnglish:afocusonrequestactsmodifiers.International Journal of Multilingualism 2(2):84–104.

Safont Jordà, M. P. 2005b. Third Language Learners. Pragmatic Production and Awareness.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

SagastaErrasti,M.P.2003.Acquiringwritingskillsinathirdlanguage:Thepositiveeffectsofbilingualism.International Journal of Bilingualism7(1):27–42.

Sanders,M.&Meijers,G.1995.EnglishasL3intheelementaryschool.ITL Review of Applied Linguistics107–8:59–78.

Sanz,C.2000.Bilingualeducationenhancesthirdlanguageacquisition:EvidencefromCatalo-nia.Applied Psycholinguistics21:23–44.

Schachter,J.1974.Anerrorinerroranalysis.Language Learning24(2):205–214.Schmidt,R.W.&Frota,S.N.1986.Developingbasicconversationabilityinasecondlanguage:

acasestudyofanadultlearnerofPortuguese.InTalking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition,R.Day(ed), 237–326.RowleyMA:NewburyHouse.

Schönpflug,U.2000.Wordfragmentcompletionsinthesecondandthirdlanguage.InEng-lish in Europe. The Acquisition of a Third Language,J.Cenoz&U.Jessner(eds),121–142.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Schönpflug,U.2003.Thetransfer-appropriate-processingapproachandthetrilingual’sorgani-zationofthelexicon.InThe Multilingual Lexicon, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),27–43.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.

Selinker,L.1972.Interlanguage.International Review of Applied Linguistics10(3):209–231.Selinker, L. & Baumgartner-Cohen, B. 1995. Multiple Language Acquisition: ‘Damn it, why

can’tIkeepthesetwolanguagesapart?’Language, Culture and Curriculum8(2):115–121.Singh,R.&Carroll,S.1979.L1,L2andL3.Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5:51–63.Singleton,D.1987.MotherandothertongueinfluenceonlearnerFrench:Acasestudy.Studies

in Second Language Acquisition9:327–346.Singleton,D.2003.Perspectivesonthemultilinguallexicon:Acriticalsynthesis.InThe Multi-

lingual Lexicon, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),167–176.Dordrecht:Kluwer.Stedje,A.1977.Tredjespråksinterferensifritttal-enjämförandestudie. InPapers from the Con-

ference on Contrastive Linguistics and Error Analysis. Stockholm and Åbo, 7–8 February 1977,R.Palmberg&H.Ringbom(eds).Åbo:ÅboAkademi.


Swain,M.,Lapkin,S.,Rowen,N.&Hart,D.1990.Theroleofmothertongueliteracyinthirdlanguagelearning.Language, Culture and Curriculum3(1):65–81.

Thomas, J. 1988. The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third languagelearning.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development9(3):235–246.

Thomas,J.1992.MetalinguisticAwarenessinsecond-andthird-languagelearning.InCogni-tive Processing in Bilinguals, R.J.Harris(ed),531–545.Amsterdam:North-Holland.

Tulving,E.&Colotla,V.1970.Freerecallintrilinguallists.Cognitive Psychology1:86–98.Valencia,J.F.&Cenoz,J.1992.Theroleofbilingualisminforeignlanguageacquisition.Journal

of Multilingual and Multicultural Development13(5):433–449.VanHell,J.G.&Dijkstra,T.2002.Foreignlanguageknowledgecaninfluencenativelanguage

performanceinexclusivelynativecontexts.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9(4):780–789.Vildomec,V.1963.Multilingualism.Leiden:A.W.Sythoff.Voorwinde,S.1981.AlexicalandgrammaticalstudyinDutch-English-Germantrilingualism.

ITL Review of Applied Linguistics52:3–30.Wei,L.2003a.Activationoflemmasinthemultilingualmentallexiconandtransferinthird

languagelearning.InThe Multilingual Lexicon, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),57–70.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Wei,L.2003b.Themultilingualmentallexiconandlemmatransferinthirdlanguagelearning.Paper presented at the International Conference on Trilingualism and Third LanguageAcquisition,Tralee,Ireland,September4–6.

Weinreich,U.1953.Languagesincontact.Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York 1.Williams,S.&Hammarberg,B.1998.LanguageswitchesinL3production:Implicationsfora

polyglotspeakingmodel.Applied Linguistics19(3):295–333.Zobl, H. 1992. Prior linguistic knowledge and the conservatism of the learning procedure:

Grammaticalityjudgmentsofunilingualandmultilinguallearners.InLanguage Transfer in Language Learning,S.Gass&L.Selinker(eds),176–196. RowleyMA:NewburyHouse.

chapter5

The role of prior knowledge in L3 learning and useFurtherevidenceofpsychotypologicaldimensions

MuirisÓLaoireandDavidSingletonWilliamEvansFellow,SchoolofMaori,PacificandIndigenousStudies,UniversityofOtago,NewZealand;InstituteofTechnology,Tralee,Ireland/ FellowofTrinityCollege,Dublin,Ireland

Thischapterreportsontwostudies.ThefirststudyexaminesthelearningofFrenchasanL3byAnglophonestudentsofFrenchwhoseL2wasIrishandbybalancedbilinguals.ThesecondstudyinvestigatesGermanasL3withreferencetotwogroupsofEnglish-speakingparticipantswhohaveIrishasalongstandingL2.Thestudiesshowthepsychotypologicalfactortobeanim-portantcomponentofparticipants’cross-linguisticconsultationwhenfacedwithchallengesintheirL3.

Keywords: crosslinguisticinfluence,psychotypology,L2factor,trilingualism,Irishlanguage

1. Introduction

Irelandhasalongtraditionofbilingualeducation.Overtheyears,studiesofbi-lingualismintheIrishcontexthavecontributedtothegeneralinternationalde-bate and research agenda on bilingualism. By contrast, the research output ontrilingualismandmultilingualisminIrelandtodateisrelativelysmall.OnemightmentioninthisconnectionsomeearlyworkonL2→L3transfer(Singleton1987;SingletonandLittle1984/2005),Hélot’s(1988)casestudyofearlytrilinguallan-guageacquisitioninchildren,HarrisandConway’s(2002)studyontherelativelyrecentinitiativeofteachinganL3inIrishprimaryschools,andanumberofstud-iesfocusingonthecontributionofbilingualismtolanguageawarenessandstrate-gydeploymentinL3learning(Griffin2001;NíGhréacháin2006;ÓLaoire2001).However, by and large, while researchers elsewhere directed their attention to

�0 MuirisÓLaoireandDavidSingleton

uncoveringunderwhatconditionsandinwhatwaypriorexperienceandknowl-edgeofanadditionallanguagemightinfluencesubsequentacquisitionprocesses;littleresearchinIrelandhasuntilrecentlyexploredthisquestion.

The Third International Conference on Trilingualism and Third LanguageAcquisitionwasheldinTralee,Irelandin2003;itwasduringthisconferencethattheInternationalAssociationofMultilingualismwas founded.Thetwostudiesreportedinthispaperwereconductedasadirectconsequenceoftheestablish-mentofacollaborativeconnectioninthecourseofpreparingtheTraleeconfer-ence(ÓLaoireandSingleton2006;SingletonandÓLaoire2006a,2006b).TheypointtoandrepresenttheemergenceofresearchinIrelandintotheinfluenceofknowledgeoftheIrishlanguageinmultilinguallearningcontexts.

2. Bilingualism and third language education in Ireland

InsecondaryschoolsinIreland,wheretheresearchreportedherewasconducted,thecurriculumprovides for thestudyofEnglish(typicallyL1), Irish(typicallyL2)andgenerallyoneor twoothermodern languages foraperiodof three tofiveyears.AllstudentsarealsorequiredtostudyEnglishandIrishthroughoutthe period of their primary schooling. Research conducted elsewhere tendingto show that learning a minority language may have a positive effect on thirdlanguage learning ineducational settings (e.g.Brohy2001;Klein1995;SagastaErrasti2001)couldbeconsideredtobeofparticularinterestintheIrishcontext;thesituationofIrish,inspiteofitsofficiallybeingtheRepublicofIreland’sfirstnationallanguage,hasmuchincommonwithminoritylanguagesituationselse-where,sinceIrishistheL1ofnomorethan3%ofthepopulationofthestate.Inothersuchcontexts,studentswithacompetenceintwolanguages(includingaminoritylanguage)whohavepassedbeyondacertainthreshold,andarethusinapositiontobenefitfromtheirbilingualism(Cummins1979),oftenachieveverygoodresultsinathirdlanguage(e.g.Lasagabaster1998;Muñoz2000).

Englishisthemediumofinstructionforallsubjects(exceptIrish)throughoutIrishsecond-leveleducation,exceptinarelativelysmallnumberofIrish-mediumschools(Gaelcholáistí).Typically,studentsstudyacontinentallanguage(French,German,SpanishorItalian)asanL3,havingalreadyreceived instructionoveratleasteightyearsinEnglishasL1andIrishasL2.Thusonewouldexpectsomecross-linguisticinfluencefromEnglishandalsofromIrishaslearnersengageinthe learningof theirL3.Thewell-foundednessof this expectationwas investi-gatedinthestudiesreportedbelow.

Chapter5. TheroleofpriorknowledgeinL3learninganduse �1

3. Crosslinguistic influence: Psychotypology and the ‘L2 factor’

Muchrecentresearchhaslookedattheoperationofcross-linguisticinfluenceinsituations,likeIreland,wheremorethantwolanguagesareatthelanguageuser’sdisposalastheyapproachthestudyofathirdlanguage(e.g.CenozandGenesee1998;CenozandJessner2001;Cenoz,HufeisenandJessner2001;Hufeisen2000).Some variables which have been claimed to be relevant in such situations are:levelofproficiency,levelofmetalinguisticawareness,theagefactorandthede-greeofformalityofthecontextoflanguageuse.

One dimension of this kind of research is the debate on the question ofwhetherthecriticalfactorintheresortingtolanguageywhenusinglanguagezis(a)thatthelanguageuserperceiveslanguageyastypologicallyclosertolanguagez thananyotheravailable languageor (b) that languagey is, incommonwithlanguagez,anon-nativelanguage.Wecanlabeltheformeroftheseperspectives(seee.g.Kellerman1983;Ringbom1987;Singleton1999) thepsychotypological perspectiveandthelatter(seee.g.Hammarberg2001;WilliamsandHammarberg1998)the‘L2 factor’ perspective.

Withrespect topsychotypology,Sjöholm, forexample (1976,1979), foundthatFinnswhosenativelanguagewasSwedishtendedtomakeerrorsinEnglishwhichhad theirorigins inSwedish,but thatFinnish-speakingFinns’ errors inEnglishalsoreflectedSwedish–inthiscasetheirL2.InbothcaseslearnershadrecoursetothelanguagetheyperceivedastypologicallylessdistantfromEnglish,evenifthislanguagewasnottheirL1.Similarkindsofresultswereobtainedinotherstudies(seee.g.Singleton1987;SingletonandLittle1984/2005).

As regards the L2 factor perspective, Hammarberg claims that L2 statusis an important conditioning factor in respect of transfer into L3. Accordingtothisview,“thereappearstobeageneraltendencytoactivateanearliersec-ondary language inL3performancerather thanL1”(Hammarberg2001:23).Hammarbergofferstwopossibleexplanationsforthepurportedimportanceofthisfactor:

– AdifferentacquisitionmechanismforL2sasopposedtoL1s,andhenceareactivationoftheL2typemechanisminL3acquisition.

– AdesiretosuppressL1asbeing‘non-foreign’andtorelyratheronanorien-tationtowardsapriorL2asastrategytoapproachtheL3.

(Hammarberg2001:36–37)


�. The two studies

Wereport in thispaperon two studieswhichwerecarriedoutwithaview tosheddinglightontheaboveissues.Thefirststudy,Study A,lookedatthelearningofFrenchasanL3by(i)AnglophonestudentsofFrenchwhoseL2wasIrishand(ii) balanced bilinguals in English and Irish. Our starting hypothesis was that,given the greater lexical proximity (and perceived proximity) between EnglishandFrenchasopposedtothatbetweenIrishandFrench,cross-lexicalinfluencefromEnglishwouldfaroutstripanysuchinfluencefromIrish.

Thesecondstudy,Study B,isastudyoflearnerGermaninvolvingtwogroupsofEnglish-speakingparticipantswhohaveGermanastheirL3andwhohaveIrishasalongstandingL2.ThefocusofthestudyinthisinstanceisontwoareaswhereIrishmorphosyntaxisclosertoGermanthantoEnglish,namely,wordorderinnon-finitepurposeclausesandmorphologicalinflectioninnounphrasesfollow-ingprepositions.ThesecondstudyaimedtoexplorewhetherIrishisfacilitativeintheseareaswithrespecttoGermanL3productionandwhether learnersareawareofsuchfacilitationandcanconsciouslyexploitit.ItwashypothesizedinthisconnectionthattherewouldbemoreevidenceofIrish-basedtransferinthiscasethaninStudyA.Suchanoutcomewouldbeexplicableispsychotypologicalterms–i.e.intermsofperceivedsimilaritiesbetweenIrishandGerman–but,ofcourse,sinceIrishisformostsubjectstheL2–wouldnotruleoutthepossibilityofaroleforthe‘L2factor.’

5. Study A

5.1 Thetypologicalbackground

ThelanguagesunderscrutinyinStudyA,English,IrishandFrench,allbelongtodifferentlanguagefamilies.EnglishisaGermaniclanguage,IrishaCelticlan-guageandFrenchaRomancelanguage.However,thelanguagesarenotequidis-tantfromeachother.ThelexicalconsequencesoftheNormaninvasionofEnglandin theeleventhcenturyandof thecontinuingcloserelationsbetweenEnglandandFranceduringtheMiddleAges,plusthefactthatEnglish,likeFrench,bor-rowedaconsiderablenumberofwordsdirectlyfromLatin(andalsofromGreek)meanthat“lesvocabulairesfrançaisetanglaiscomptentdesmilliersde«motscommuns»”(VanRoey,GrangerandSwallow1988:ix).Pei(1967:92),referringtoRobertson(1954)notesthatofthe20,000wordsin“fulluse”inEnglishthree-fifthsareofLatin,GreekandFrenchorigin.Claiborne(1990:104–105), forhispart,estimatesthat“between1100and1500A.D.morethantenthousandFrench


wordspassedintotheEnglishvocabulary”andthatofthese“75percentarestillinuse.”SuchistheextentoflexicalcommonalitybetweenEnglishandFrenchthatsomecommentatorshavegonesofarastocallEnglisha“semi-Romance” lan-guageoreven(facetiously)“Frenchbadlypronounced”(Barfield1962:59;citedbyMcArthurandGachelin1992:873).

TheRomancecomponentoftheIrishlexiconissignificantlymorerestricted.SomeloanwordsfromecclesiasticalLatinwereborrowedbyIrishfollowingtheChristianizationofIreland.Itshouldbenoted,though,that,apartfrombeingfewinnumber,thesewordsbecameassimilatedtothepointwheretheirresem-blancetoformsincontemporaryRomancelanguagesisbarelydiscernible–e.g.:beannacht(‘blessing’<Latinbenedictio),coisreacan(‘consecration’<Latincon-secratio),sagart (‘priest’<Latinsacerdos). WithregardtoFrenchinfluence,afterthearrivaloftheAnglo-NormansinIrelandinthetwelfthcentury,Frenchbe-cameoneofthemajorlanguagesofmedievalIrelandtogetherwithIrish,EnglishandLatin(cf.Picard2003),andFrenchinfluencecanbeseeninthephonologyofsomeformsincertainvarietiesofIrish(seee.g.ÓRahilly1952).InthelexicaldomainhundredsofIrishlexicalborrowingsfromFrenchhavebeenidentified(seee.g.Risk1969).However,preciselythepointisthatFrenchloanwordsinIrisharecountedinhundreds,whereasinEnglishtheyarecountedinthousands.

On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear that in lexical terms the distancebetween English and French is considerably less than that between Irish andFrench.Moreover,itisalsoobviousfromtheexperienceofgenerationsofteach-ers of French working with English speakers and teachers of English workingwithFrenchspeakersthatthecognatessharedbyEnglishandFrencharerapidlynoticedbyL2learners–hencetheperceivedneedfordictionariesofFrench-Eng-lish‘falsefriends’(seee.g.Kirk-Greene1981;ThodyandEvans1985;VanRoey,GrangerandSwallow1988).

5.2 Generaloverviewofthestudy

Thestudywasconductedintwoparts.Inthefirstpart(firstreportedinSingletonand Ó Laoire 2006a) influence from English was found to be overwhelminglypredominant.Ourviewwasthatthisfindingwasexplicableinpsychotypologi-cal terms,giventhefactsoutlinedintheprevioussection.However,wehadtoacknowledgethatitmightrelatetothefactthatEnglish,asoursubjects’L1,wasmoreentrenchedthanIrish.Accordingly,itseemedtousthatasupplementalin-vestigationwasrequiredinvolvinginformantswhowerebalancedbilinguals(inIrishandEnglish),inordertoneutralizethepossibleroleofanL1factor.

�� MuirisÓLaoireandDavidSingleton

Thesecondpartofthestudy(firstreportedinSingletonandÓLaoire2006b)essentiallyreplicatedthefirst.Ourreasoningwasthat if thebalancedbilingualsubjectsalsoprivilegedEnglishasasourceofcross-lexicalborrowinginsolvinglexicalproblemsinFrench,thenourpsychotypologicalexplanationofourfirstsetofresultswouldbeonfirmerground;if,ontheotherhand,ittranspiredthatourbilingualsubjectsresortedasmuchtoIrishastoEnglish–orindeedmoreso–ourpsychotypologicalexplanationwouldbethrownintodisarray.

5.3 Participants

ThefirstpartofthestudywasconductedinJanuary2004inclasses(labelledhereClassA,ClassBandClassC)of three secondary schools in the south-westofIreland, involving 42 learners in all. All informants were in the final year of astreamedhighercourseinFrenchandhadbeenstudyingthelanguageforfourandahalfyearsatleast.Thetestandintrospectiontaskwerecompletedinoneclassperiodineachcase.

Thefollowingisaprofileoftheschoolsinvolved:

Class A [N=13]wasinamixedEnglish-mediumcomprehensiveschoolwithapopulationofc.500locatedinasmallvillage.Eachstudenthadbeenstudy-ingFrenchforfourandahalfyearsat leastandat thatpointhadoptedtostudyFrenchinahigher-levelstream.EachstudenthadbeenstudyingIrishforatleasttwelveandahalfyears. Class B[N=15]wasinalargemixedEnglish-mediumsecondaryschoolwithapopulationof1,200locatedinalargetown[30,000+].Inotherrespectsthelearners’profilewassimilartothatoutlinedinrespectofClassA. Class C[N=14]wasinasmallsecondaryschoolforgirlslocatedinasmalltown [12,000+]. These students were part of an Irish immersion stream,studyingallsubjects,includingFrench,throughthemediumofIrish.

Thesecondpartofthefirststudytookplaceapproximatelyayearlaterandwasconductedwith24pupilsfromclassesintwoseparatesecondaryschools(labelledhereClassDandClassErespectively).AllparticipantswereintheirlateteensandwereinthefinalyearofastreamedhighercourseinFrench,whichtheyhadallbeenstudyingforatleastfourandahalfyears.Thetwoclassesinquestionmaybecharacterizedasfollows:

Class D[N=11]wasbasedinanIrish-mediumschoollocatedinthesouth-west Gaeltacht region (Corca Dhuibhne). All the pupils in the group hadbeenstudyingFrenchforfourandahalfyearsatleastandhadoptedtostudy


Frenchinahigher-levelstream.Allwereidentifiedbytheclassteacherasbal-ancedbilingualsandasinhabitantsoftheGaeltachtregioninquestion. Class E [N=13] was based in a small Irish-medium secondary school inConnemara.Thepupils’profileinrelationtoexperienceofFrenchresembledthatofthepupilsinClassD.Again,allwereidentifiedbytheclassteacherasbalancedbilingualsandasinhabitantsoftheGaeltachtregioninquestion.

5.� Methodologyandinstrumentation

Thesameresearchinstrumentswereusedinbothstudiesandsettwotasks.ThefirstoftheserequiredparticipantstoreadtwentyFrenchsentencesandtosupplyasynonymousandanantonymousexpressionforanunderlinedwordineachofthe sentences inquestion.Ashortextract fromthe relevant instrument isdis-playedbelow.

1. Mamanaperdusesclés.EXPRESSIONSYNONYME:EXPRESSIONANTONYME:

2. Quandilavulapersonnequiarrivait,ilacriédejoie.

EXPRESSIONSYNONYME:EXPRESSIONANTONYME:

3. Lesvoituresroulentassezvitedanscequartier.

EXPRESSIONSYNONYME:EXPRESSIONANTONYME:

Thelanguagelevelofthetextwasdesignedtobebroadlyinlinewithourpartici-pants’proficiencyinFrench.However,itwasexpectedthattheywouldfindtherequirementtoproducesynonymsandantonymsfairlychallengingandthatthiswouldtriggeraconsciouslexicalsearchinwhichtheresourcesofotherlanguagesattheirdisposalwouldalsobeconsulted.

An introspection instrument was also used. Having completed the task ofproviding synonyms and antonyms, participants were invited to introspect ontheirlexicalsearches.Theywerefirstaskedtotranslatetheunderlinedtargetlexi-cal itemintoIrishorEnglish, inorderthatwemightbeabletogaugewhetherthelanguageoftheearliertaskwasindeedbroadlyattheirlevel.Theywereaskedsubsequentlytostateforeachstimuluswordwhethertheyhadfoundthetaskofsupplyingasynonymand/oranantonymdifficultoreasy,andtosaysomething


abouthowtheyhadgoneabouttherelevantlexicalsearch.Inthecaseofthesec-ondstudy,instructionsandresponsesweregivenentirelyinIrish.Thefollowingextractfromtheintrospectioninstrumentillustratestheprocedure.

Belowyouwillfindacompletelistoftheexpressionsforwhichyouwereaskedtoprovidesynonymousandantonymousexpressions.Ineachcaseplease(i)translatetheexpressioninquestionintoEnglishorIrish,(ii)indicatewhetherornotyoufoundthetaskofsupplyingasynonymand/oranantonymdifficultbyringingthedescriptionthatapplies,and(iii)saysomething(inEnglishorIrish)abouthowyouwentaboutsearchinginyourmindforanappropriateexpression.

1.perdu

TRANSLATION:

SYNONYM:difficult/notdifficult

Commentsonsearch:

5.5 Results

Thedataanalysisfocused(i)onelementselicitedbythetaskrequiringtheprovi-sionofFrenchsynonymsandantonymswhichshowedsomeinfluencefromei-therEnglishorIrishand(ii)onelementselicitedbytheintrospectiontaskwhichcontainedmentionofEnglishorIrish.Illustrativeexamplesofthedifferentkindsofelementsinquestionaregivenbelow.

Examples of indications of English influence in data from the French synonym/antonym provision task in the first part of Study Aexpensif:offeredassynonymforcher(‘dear’),non-existentinFrench;cf.Englishexpensivedespisé:offeredassynonymfordéteste(‘detest’),non-existentinFrench;cf.Englishdespise

Examples of indications of English influence in data from the French synonym/antonym provision task in the second part of Study Adisre specte:offeredasantonymforrespecte(‘(I)respect’),non-existentinFrench;

cf.Englishdisrespectfailûre:offeredasantonymforsuccès(‘success’),non-existentinFrench;cf.Englishfailure

Examples of indications of Irish influence in data from the French synonym/antonym provision task in the first part of Study Aconr aifne:offeredassynonymforperdu(‘lost’),non-existentinFrench;cf.Irish

ní chuimhnigh(‘didnotremember’)trob lod:offeredassynonymforguerre(‘war’),non-existentinFrench;cf.Irish

triobloid(‘troubles’)


Examples of indications of Irish influence in data from the French synonym/antonym provision task in the second part of Study Acrua :offeredassynonymforcomplexe(‘complex’),non-existentinFrench;cf.Irish

crua(‘difficult’)log:offeredasantonymfordurs(‘harsh’),non-existentinFrench;cf.Irishlag(‘weak’)

Examples of references to English in introspection data elicited in the first part of Study A‘Itsoundsliketheenglishsothat’swhatIwentby’‘thoughtofitinenglishandtranslated’

Examples of references to English in introspection data elicited in the second part of Study A‘cosúillefocalBéarla’(‘liketheEnglishword’)‘SmaoineamhasBéarla’(‘ThinkinginEnglish’)

Examples of references to Irish in introspection data elicited in the first part of Study A‘Icouldn’tthinkofanyword.IthoughtaboutwordsinenglishIrishandfrench’‘IkeptthinkingoftheIrishword’

Examples of references to Irish in introspection data elicited in the secondpart of Study A‘smaoinighméaranGaeilge’(‘IthoughtoftheIrish’)‘SmaoinighméasGaeilgeardtús’(‘IthoughtinIrishatfirst’)

Whentheaboveelementswerequantifiedinbothstudies,itemergedthatEnglishpredominatedmassivelyoverIrishintermsbothofpercentagesofindicationsofcross-linguisticinfluenceinthesynonym/antonymprovisiontaskandintermsofpercentagesofreferencestotherespectivelanguagesintheintrospectiontask.Theoverallfiguresaresetoutbelow.

ELEMENTSINDICATINGENGLISH/IRISHINFLUENCEINFRENCHSYNONYM/ANTONYMPROVISION

Study A, Part I Study A, Part II

English: 46(93.9%) 15(79%)Irish: 3(6.1%) 4(21%)

REFERENCESTOENGLISH/IRISHININTROSPECTIONTASK

Study A, Part I Study A, Part II

English: 359(98.9%) 48(92%)Irish: 4(1.1%) 4(8%)

�� MuirisÓLaoireandDavidSingleton

Theaboveresultssuggestthat,inrelationtothefirstpartofthestudy,theL2fac-tor was a fairly minor component of participants’ cross-linguistic consultationwhenfacedwithchallengesintheirL3.DespitethefactthatallparticipantsinthefirstpartofthestudyhadlongexperienceofIrishandthatsomewereindeedinanIrishimmersionsituationatschool,Irishelementsfigurein totoasjustover6%of indicationsofcross-lexicalconsultation in thesynonym/antonymprovi-siontaskandmentionsofIrishconstituteoverallonlyabout1%ofreferencestoEnglish/Irishintheintrospectiontask.

Theresultsofthesecondpartofthestudyarenotdissimilar.Theyshowthatofthebilinguals’twoL1s,EnglishwasdrawnuponverymarkedlymoreoftenthanIrishinresourceexpansionprocessestriggeredbychallengeswithrespectto use of their L3, French. Irish elements figure in total as only about a fifthofindicationsofcross-lexicalconsultationinrespectofthesynonym/antonymprovisiontaskandaslessthanatenthofreferencestoEnglish/Irishintheintro-spectiontask.ItisworthrecallingthattheseparticipantsarebalancedbilingualsinIrishandEnglishandthatthesefindingswereelicitedinIrish-speakingre-gions,inIrish-mediumschoolsandinacontextwheretheinstructionsforthetaskweregiveninIrish.

6. Study B

6.1 Thetypologicalbackground

StudyB(firstreportedinÓLaoireandSingleton2006),itwillberecalled,in-volvedparticipantswithaknowledgeofEnglish,IrishandGerman.Inbroadterms,GermanisconsiderablyclosertoEnglishthantoIrish,since,ofcourse,GermanandEnglisharebothmembersof theGermanicgroupof languages.However, this general comment should not be over-interpreted. As we haveseen,inlexicaltermsEnglishisactuallymoreRomancethanGermanic.Katzner(2002:42f.)notesthattheGermaniclexicalcoreofEnglish–i.e.,wordscom-ingdowntousfromOldEnglish–iscomposedoffewerthan5,000items.Hepointsoutthattheseconstitute“thebasicbuildingblocks’ofEnglishbutalsonotesthe‘wealthofcontributionsfrom…othersources”(seeabove,previoussection).Moreover,GermanicelementsofEnglishvocabularyoftenlookverydifferent from their German cognates because of the effects of various pho-nologicalchanges.HowmanyEnglish-speaking learnersofGerman immedi-atelyrecognizetheformalconnectionbetween,forexample,dochandthough,(er)zählen andtellorZeichenandtoken?


Withregardtomorphosyntax,Englishis inanumberofrespectsverydif-ferentfromGerman.UnlikeGerman,itsverbformsaremostlynotinflectedforperson(withthesingleexceptionofthethirdpersonsingular-s inthepresenttense);itisdevoidofgrammaticalcaseinflectionsinnounphrases(withthesin-gleexceptionofthegenitivecaseinflection’s/s’);anditswordorderisingeneralnotaffectedbythecategoryofclauseinquestion.InallofthesedimensionsIrish,despitebeingaCelticratherthanaGermaniclanguage,infactresemblesGermanmorethanEnglishdoes.Weshallseethisillustratedinsomedetailinwhatfol-lows,wherewefocusonnon-finiteclausesofpurposeandmorphologicalinflec-tioninnounphrasesafterprepositions.

Innon-finiteclausesofpurposeinEnglishthewordorderwithrespecttothemainverbanddirectobjectremainsinlinewiththattobefoundinsimplede-clarativesentences.Thatistosay,thedirectobjectfollowsthemainverb.Thus:

I’m buying books. I’m here to buy books.

InIrishontheotherhand,innon-finitepurposeclauses,unlikeinsimpledeclara-tivesentences,thedirectobjectprecedesthemainverb.Forexample:

Tá mé ag ceannach leabhar. (Lit.‘AmIatbuyingbooks’=‘I’mbuyingbooks’) Tá mé anseo chun leabhair a cheannach. (Lit.‘AmIherein.orderbooksforbuying’=‘I’mheretobuybooks’)

InGerman,thewordorderinnon-finitepurposeclauseslikewisedoesnotfollowthatofsimpledeclarativeclauses,wherethemainverbprecedesthedirectobject,but instead echoes the Irish pattern whereby the main verb is placed after thedirectobject.Forinstance:

Ich kaufe Bücher. (Lit.‘Ibuybooks’=‘I’mbuyingbooks’) Ich bin hier, umBücher zu kaufen. (Lit.‘Iamherein.orderbookstobuy’=‘I’mheretobuybooks’)

Concerningmorphologicalinflectioninnounphrasesafterprepositions,inEng-lish this simply does not happen. The noun phrase has the same form after aprepositionasintheroleofsubjectofasentence.Thus:

The stone is beautiful. The lizard is on the stone. The box is empty. Put the book in the box.

90 MuirisÓLaoireandDavidSingleton

InIrishinflectionpatternsofthenounarequitecomplex.Dependingonthedia-lect (thereare threemaindialects:Munster,ConnaughtandUlster), theusageandtheparticularnouninquestion,thespectrumofinflectionpossibilitiesrangefromastraightforwardsystemwithonecaseinthesingularandpluraltomorecomplexsysteminvolvingthefivecases:nominative,accusative,vocative,genitiveanddative.Basically, thereare threemorphologicaldevicesorvarious interac-tionsofthesedevicestoformcases,includinginitialandendmutations,slender-ingorbroadeningandconsonantalextension(ÓSiadhail1989:148–159).Casesarealsomarkedbyinflectionsofthenoun,definitearticle(thereisnoindefinitearticleinIrish),asisdemonstratedinthefollowing:

cathair(n.)=city mór(adj)=big an chathair mhóir=thebigcity(Nominative/Accusative=initial

mutation>lenition) i gcathair mhór=inabigcity(Dative=initialmutation>eclipsis) glór na cathrach mói re=thedinofthebigcity(Genitive=endmutationinn.

+adjandmutationofdefinitivearticlean>na)

Nounphrasesareoftenformallydifferentafterprepositions,ascomparedwiththeirforminsubjectrole,inthesensethatthenounmayundergoinitialmuta-tion.Thissometimestakestheshapeofeclipsis,the‘hiding’oftheinitialconso-nantwithanother,asisillustratedbelow.

Tá an chloch go hálainn. (Theinitialconsonantofchlochis/y/). (Lit.‘Isthestonebeautiful’=‘Thestoneisbeautiful’) Tá an laghairt ar an gcloch. (Theinitialconsonantofgclochis/:/). (Lit.‘Isthelizardonthestone’=‘Thelizardisonthestone’)

Inotherinstancesthemutationtakestheformoflenition,orthe‘softening’ofthequalityoftheinitialconsonant,asin:

Tá an bosca folamh.(Theinitialconsonantofboscais/'/). (Lit.‘Istheboxempty’=‘Theboxisempty’) Cuir an leabhar sa bhosca. (Theinitialconsonantofbhoscais/‚/). (Lit.‘Putthebookin.thebox’=‘Putthebookinthebox’).

WithregardtoGermanprepositions,theseoftenoccasionchangesincase–i.e.,changesintheformofaccompanyingarticlesandadjectivesascomparedwiththesubjectform(nominativecase)andinsomeinstanceschangesintheformofthenounitself.Germanhasthreegenders(masculine,feminineandneuter)andfourcases(nominative,accusative,dativeandgenitive).Thedifferentcases

Chapter5. TheroleofpriorknowledgeinL3learninganduse 91

areassociatedwithdifferentsententialroles(subject–nominative,directob-ject–accusative,indirectobject–dative,modifierofanothernoun–genitive)but alsobyprepositionalgovernance.Casesaremarkedbya rangeof inflec-tionsofthearticlesandalsoofadjectives(e.g.ein guter Mann–‘agoodman’,nominative;einen guten Mann–‘agoodman’,accusative).Sometimesthenounitselfmaybeinflected:genitiveformsofmasculineandneuternounsarealwaysinflectedforthiscase(e.g.der Vater–‘thefather’,nominative;des Vaters–‘thefather’s’,genitive),anddativeformsofmasculineandneuternounsmaybein-flectedforthiscase(e.g.das Kind–‘thechild’,nominative;dem Kind–‘tothechild’,dative).Toreturntoprepositionalgovernance,someprepositionsalwaystriggertheaccusativecase(e.g.durch–‘through’),othersalwaystriggertheda-tive(e.g.aus–‘outof ’),andstillothersmaytriggertheaccusativeorthedative,dependingonthecontext(e.g. in mein Haus – ‘intomyhouse’,accusative; in meinem Haus–‘(with)inmyhouse’,dative).

Somefurtherexamplesofprepositional triggeringofdativeandaccusativeinflectionfollow.

Der Stein (nominative) ist schön. (‘Thestoneisbeautiful’) Die Echse sitzt auf dem Stein (dative). (Lit.‘Thelizardsitsonthestone’=‘Thelizardisonthestone’) Der Kasten (nominative) ist leer. (‘Theboxisempty’) Steck das Buch in den Kasten (accustaive). (‘Putthebookinthebox’)

Given theclearsimilaritiesbetweenIrishandGermanand theircommondis-tancefromEnglishinrespectoftheabove-outlineddomains,wespeculatedthatlearners of German might consciously or unconsciously perceive Irish to be apossiblesupportintheseinstances,andwefurtherspeculatedthatthisperceptionmightbemorefirmlyestablishedinlearnerswithmoreexposuretoandexperi-enceofIrish.

6.2 Generaloverviewofthestudy

StudyBlookedattwogroupsofEnglish-speakingparticipantsforwhomGer-manistheirL3andwhoagainhaveIrishastheirL2or(inafewinstances)asasecondL1.ThefocusofStudyBwasonthetwoabove-discussedareaswhereIrishmorphosyntax iscloser toGermanthantoEnglish:wordorder innon-finitepurposeclausesandmorphologicalinflectioninnounphrasesfollowing


prepositions.Wehypothesizedthatthoseofoursubjectswhowerebeingim-mersedinIrishatschooland/orhadIrishasasecondL1wouldbebetterthanlearnersofIrishasanL2inEnglish-mediumeducationalsettingatdealingwiththewordorderofGermannon-finitepurposeclausesandthemorphologyofGermannounphrasesfollowingprepositions.

Such an outcome would be explicable is psychotypological terms – i.e. intermsofperceivedsimilaritiesbetweenIrishandGerman.However,giventhatIrishistheL2inmostcaseshere,ourdesigninthisinstancedidnotstrictlyallowustoaddressthespecificissueofwhetherthepsychotypologicalfactorisstrongerthantheL2factor.

6.3 Participants

Theparticipantsinthisstudywere32nativespeakersofEnglishwhowerelearn-ing German as L3. They fell into two groups (labelled Group A and Group Bbelow),whichcanbecharacterizedasfollows:

Group A[N=22]wascomprisedofstudentswhowerestudyingGermanasanL3throughthemediumofEnglishandwhoseL2wasIrish. Group B [N=10] was comprised of participants in an Irish-medium pro-gramme,beingtaughtmostsubjects,includingGerman,throughthemedi-umofIrish;formostofthesesubjectsIrishwastheL2,butforfourofthemitwasasecondL1.

ApartfromsignificantlyincreasedexposuretotheIrishlanguageinthecaseoftheGroupB,thelearners’profilewasbroadlysimilaracrossthetwogroups.Allweremale,attendingthesameschool,(alargeboys’secondaryschoolwithapop-ulationof1100studentsinalargecityinthesouth-westofIreland)andhadthesameteacherofGerman.AllhadbeenstudyingGermanforatleastfouryears.WhileallstudentswerenativespeakersofEnglish,fourstudentsinGroupBwerefrom English-Irish bilingual families. All pupils except one had been studyingIrishforaroundelevenyears.

6.� Methodologyandinstrumentation

TheparticipantsinStudyBwerepresentedwithtwotasks.Thefirsttaskrequiredthemtosupplyanounorpronounwithaverb(providedinparenthesis)incorrectwordorderinfivenon-finitepurposeclausesinGerman,asindicatedbelow.


1. WillihatkeinBrot.Ermussspäterausgehenum_____________(kaufen)2. AngelikawillEnglischlernen.SiewirdinzweiMonatennachIrlandfahren,um

_______(studieren).3. HanshatseineBüchervergessen.ErmusswiedernachHauselaufen,um________

(holen).4. IchhabemeinenHundverloren.Ichwürdeallesmachen___________(finden).5. SiewillihrefranzösischenFreundesehen.NächsteWochewirdsienachParis

fahren,um______________(besuchen).

Itwashypothesizedthatparticipantsmightfindtheresourceofknowingnon-finiteclausesofpurpose inIrish–wherewordorder is similar to theGermanversionthereof–facilitativeinrelationtoproducingtherequiredwordorderinGerman.

Thesecondtaskagainpresentedparticipantswithfiveincompletesentencesandrequiredthemineachinstancetosupplytheappropriatelyinflectedformofthedefinitearticlefollowingagivenprepositiontoexpressthenotionindicatedin thedrawingaccompanyingeach test sentence.This task is illustratedbelow,usingtestsentence3.

3. DieDamekommt_______Kirche(aus)

Itwasspeculatedthatthistaskmighttriggercross-linguisticconsultation–speci-ficallyofIrish,wherebroadlyparallelmorphologicalinflectionexists.

An introspection instrument was also used. Having completed the abovetasks,theparticipantswereaskedtosupplyashortprofileofthemselvesaslearn-ersandwereinvitedtointrospectontheirproduction.Theywerefirstaskedtotranslateeachsentence intoIrishorEnglish, inorderthatwemightbeable togaugewhetherthelanguageofthetaskwasbroadlyattheirlevel.Theywereaskedsubsequentlytostateforeachofthesentenceswhethertheyhadfoundthetaskdifficultoreasy.Theywereequallyinvitedtoreflectonwhichlanguage(EnglishorIrish)helpedthemincompletingthesentences.Thefollowingextractfromtheintrospectioninstrumentillustratestheprocedure.

9� MuirisÓLaoireandDavidSingleton

How did you get on?

Thank you for agreeing to do these short exercises.

Now we would like to ask you to answer the questions in Section A and B honestly and fully.

Section A

Male_____ Female______

1. HowlonghaveyoubeenlearningGerman __________2. HowdoyourateyourselfasalearnerofGerman? __________3. HowlonghaveyoubeenlearningIrish? __________4. HowdoyourateyourselfasalearnerofIrish? __________5. Languagesspokenathome? __________ __________6. Howdidyoufindthisshortexercise? __________7. Howlongdidittakeyoutocompleteit? __________

Section B

For each sentence you have just completed:

a. translatethesentenceintoEnglishorIrishb. statewhetheryoufoundtheexercisedifficultoreasyc. statewhichofthelanguagesyoustudyhelpedyoumost

inmakingthechangesandwhy

1. WillihatkeinBrot.Ermussspäterausgehenum_____________(kaufen)

Translation:

Easy/Difficult(pleasecircle)

Comment:

6.5 Results

Thedataanalysisfocusedonbothgroups’productionofwordorderinnon-fi-niteclausesofpurposeandontheirproductionofpost-prepositional formsofthe definite article. In the case of the non-finite clauses of purpose, a distinc-tionwasmadebetweeninformants’productionofcorrectwordorderandtheirproductionofallorotherlexico-grammaticalelementsinthetargetclauses.Forexample,aninformant’sproductionofWilli hat kein Brot. Er muss später ausgehen um Brot kaufen wasassignedascoreof1forcorrectwordorderandascoreof0


fordetail(omissionofzu).Asimilardistinctionwasdrawninrelationtolearn-ers’productionof inflected formsof thedefinitearticle. In this latter instance,appropriatecasewasscoredascorrectforanygenderofthenoun.Thus,aus re-quiresthedativecase,sothattherequiredsolutiontotheexampleaboveisDie Dame kommt aus der Kirche, Kirche beingfeminine.However, thesolutionaus dem Kirche,whichwouldbetheformrequiredifKircheweremasculineorneuter,wasalsodeemedacceptableforthepurposesofthispartoftheanalysis.ThoseelementselicitedbytheintrospectiontaskwhichcontainedmentionofEnglishorIrish,werealsorecordedandanalysed.Illustrativeexamplesoflearners’com-mentsunderthisheadingaregivenlater.

Word Order (WO)The English-medium students (N=22) supplied 95 examples of non-finitepurposeclausesexhibitingcorrectwordorderoutofapossible110(22x5sentences),whichconstitutesanaccuracyrateof86.36%,theaveragescorebeing 4.31 out of 5.0. This finding is remarkable, especially in view of thefact thatscores foroverall lexico-grammaticalaccuracy(spelling,punctua-tion,pronounsetc)wereverylow.Informantssuppliedonly34fullyaccurateproductionsoutofapossible110,whichconstitutesalevelofabsoluteaccu-racyof30.9%.Toillustratethisfurther,itisworthyofnotethatthreelearnersscored5.0forWOand0fordetail,withafurtherfiveinformantsscoring5.0forwordorderand1.0fordetail.ThescoresforWOproducedbystudentsin the Irish-medium stream (N=10) were slightly higher. Here informantsproduceda100%rateofaccuracyasopposedto16 fullyaccurateproduc-tions,whichconstitutesalevelofabsoluteaccuracyof32%(16/50),withthemeanscorebeing2.90.Thevastmajorityofbothsetsofinformantsrenderedanaccuratetranslationforallthesentencesandreportedthetaskgenerallyasbeingeasy,whichindicatesthatthelanguageofthetaskwasatleastperceivedasbroadlyattheirlevel.

Whenat-testwasconductedtotestforsignificanceofdifferencebetweenthemean scores forbothgroups, the resulting t-value indicatedno significantdifferencebetweenthetwogroups(p=0.1166).Accordingly,ournotionthatthe Irish-stream participants might do better in this domain was not con-firmed.Theimportantfindinghere,however,isthatbothgroupsscoredverywellinWO,eventhoughtheirabilitytoproducefullyaccurateclauseswaslimited.Thissuggests,perhaps,thatthisparticulartask,deliberatelydesignedtoprobecrosslinguisticinfluencefromtheL2totheL3inWOordernon-fi-niteclausesofpurpose,mayhaveinfactuncoveredjustsuchaneffect.


CaseInformants’abilitytosupplytheappropriatelyinflectedformofthedefinitearticleyieldedaratherdifferentfinding.HeretheEnglish-mediumstudents(N=22)supplied64productionsofcorrectcaseoutofapossible110(22x5sentences),givinga58.8%valueforcorrectness,withameanof2.90outof5.0.These informants supplied49 fullyaccurateproductionsoutof apos-sible110,whichconstitutes a44.5% levelof accuracy.Herealso therewasagreaterconsistencyinbothscores(case+detail)with15studentshavingsimilarscores(−1/+1)inboth.ThecasescoresforstudentsintheIrish-me-diumstreamwerelower.Hereinformantsproduceda50%rateofaccuracyandagain16fullyaccurateproductions,whichconstitutesalevelofabsoluteaccuracyof32%(16/50)andyieldsameanscoreof2.40.Whenbothsetsofdataforcaseweresubjectedtoat-test,nosignificantdifferencebetweenthegroupsemerged(p=0.49).

To sum up these quantitative results, there seems to be evidence that theselearners’knowledgeofWOinIrishnon-finitepurposeclausesmayhaveafa-cilitativeeffectontheircapacitytoproduceappropriatelyorderednon-finitepurpose clauses in German. On the other hand, the additional exposure toIrish experienced by Group B does not differentiate them significantly fromGroupA–althoughthismaysimplybebecausethenumbersofparticipantsare low and the Group A scores are already very high. With regard to case,bothgroupsperformedmoreorlessequallybadly,andthereisnotreallyanysignthatmorphologicalchangesinIrishafterprepositionshadanyfacilitativeeffectineithercase.

Introspective dataToreturntotheissueofWO,thoughthereisevidenceofsomecrosslinguisticinfluencefromtheL2toL3intheseinformants’productionofWOintheL3,itdoesnotappeartobethecasethatlearnersaremetalinguisticallyawareofit.While50%ofinformantsincludedsomecommentsontheprocessofper-formingtheexercise,theseweremostlyshortreflectionssuchas

Nor sure about the gender Couldn’t remember plural I guessed The translation was easy

TherewerefewercommentsonthefacilitativeroleofEnglishorIrishincom-pleting the task. This is surprising, given the fact that informants were, infact, invited to state which of the languages they had studied had assisted


themmostinthetaskcompletion.Eightinformants(25%)madesomerefer-enceeithertoEnglishorIrishortobothEnglishandIrish.Inalltherewere21referencestoEnglishand5referencestoIrish.ThereferencestoEnglishrevolvedmainlyaroundthefacilitationprovidedbycognates–e.g.

English words resemble Germanwords English similarities in words lernen and Monate

Oneinformant,whoratedhimselfasa‘very poor learner of Irish,’comment-ed,however:

Not hugely English but touching on cases in Irish classes helped understand the German better.

RegardingIrishoneinformantcommentedinthecaseofWO,

a similarstructure in Irish

The only learner who chose to translate the sentences into Irish appendedthecommentar + an = urú(theprepositionon+thearticle+eclipsis)afterauf dem Tisch, indicatingthathehaddeliberatelydrawnonaparallelIrishmorphosyntaxinproduction.OnlythreeparticipantsreportedthattheywereawareofpossiblehelpinidentifyingsimilaritiesbetweenIrishandGerman.Thus, if these learners were exploiting the resources of their knowledge ofIrishmorphosyntaxinproducingGermanitseemsthattheywerelargelydo-ingsounconsciously.

We had speculated that participants might find the resource of knowing non-finiteclausesofpurpose inIrish–wherewordorder is similar to theGermanversion thereof – facilitative in relation to producing the required word orderinGerman.Ourpreliminaryconclusionfromourfindingsisthatourhunchinthismatterwasconfirmed.Informants’abilitytoproducecorrectwordorderinGermanwouldappeartohavedrawnconsiderablyontheirknowledgeofasimi-larstructure inIrish.Bothgroupsof informantsscoredverywell inWO,eventhoughtheirabilitytoproduceotherlexico-grammaticalelementsaccuratelyinthetargetclauseswaslimited.

OurinferenceofIrishinfluenceinthisconnectionisstrengthenedbythefactthatEnglish-speakinglearnersofGermanwithoutIrishseemtohaveconsider-ableproblemswithWOinsubordinateclauses.ThisthemeofEnglishspeakers’problemswithGermanWOhasaverylonghistory.Shears,forexample,writingin1947fromanAmericanstandpoint,hadthefollowingtosay:

9� MuirisÓLaoireandDavidSingleton

Wordorder,inparticular,deservestherenewedattentionofteachers.Inspiteofenthusiasticinstructionandcontinuousrefinementofmethods,Germanstillre-mainsadifficultsubjectinthecurriculum,andthisislargelyduetoitsword-pat-tern.Thestumblingblock…istheGermanpracticeofseparatingword-groupswhichtoourwayofthinkingbelongtogether. (Shears1947:103)

Inconfirmationoftheabove,Pienemann’s(1998)studyofanEnglishL1speakerlearningGermanrevealsthathissubject’sattemptsatsubordinateclauseproduc-tionwereentirelydevoidoftheV-ENDWOtype(pp.118–122)examinedtooinourownstudy.PienemannpostulatesthatforlearnerscomingtoGermanfromanSVOlanguagesuchasEnglishV-ENDwillalwaysbetheverylastaspectofGermanWOtobeacquired.SupportforthiscomesfromaveryrecentAustra-lianstudy(Jansen2008)ofEnglish-speakinglearnersofGerman,whichyieldedresultsfittingPienemann’spredictions(inthisasinotherdimensions)100%.In-terestingly, ifourownparticipantswerereceivinghelp fromIrish in somehow“beating”thenormalacquisitionorderinthisconnection,theywerebyandlargenot,accordingtoourintrospectivedata,awareofthis.

Thefactthat,contrarytoourexpectations,therewasnorealdifferencebe-tweenthetwogroupsintermsofWOproductiondespiteGroupB’smuchmoreextensiveexposuretoIrishmayhavetodowiththeclosenessofIrishtoGermaninrespectofnon-finitepurposeclausewordorder.ThesimilarityofIrishtoGer-man in this connection is so obvious that its (apparently largely unconscious)perceptionwouldprobablynotbedependentonthedegreeoflengthorintensityofexperienceofIrish.Hence,perhaps,thefindingthattheIrish-mediumgroup,whichincludedIrish-Englishsimultaneousbilinguals,didnotsignificantlyout-scoretheEnglish-mediumgrouponWO.

Withrespecttomorphologyinprepositionalphrases,aswehaveseen,bothgroupsperformedmoreorlessequallybadly.Therewasinthiscasenoindica-tionthatparticipants’knowledgeofmorphologicalchangesafterprepositionsinIrishhadanyrealfacilitativeeffectonproductionintheL3.Ourexplanationofthisfinding is that– incontradistinctionto thecaseofWOinnon-finitepur-poseclauses–thesimilaritiesbetweenIrishandGermanpost-prepositionalnounphrasemorphologyarenotespecially striking.There is morphologicalmodifi-cation inbothcases,butwhereas in Irish it isword-initial and its locus is thenoun,inGermanit isword-finalandits locusisthearticleandaccompanyingadjective(s).Ourviewisthatsuchdifferencesprobablyimpededtheperceptionofsuchresemblancesasthereareandthusputpaidtotheoperationofapsychoty-pologicalfactorinthisinstance.


7. Concluding remarks

OurconclusionfromStudyAwasthatinfluencefromIrishinrespectofFrenchL3waslargelyabsentinthelexicalsphere.Ourlearners’questforlexicalresourc-esbeyondtheirknowledgeofFrenchseemedtobeinfluencedbyrecognitionofthelexicalclosenessofEnglishandFrench.WeexploredthepossibilitythattheseresultsmightbeattributabletothefactthatEnglishwastheparticipants’L1,buttheevidencesuppliedbyparticipantsforwhomIrishaswellasEnglishwasanL1indicatedthattheseIrish/Englishbilinguals’cross-lexicalstrategieswithrespecttotheiruseofFrenchL3alsodrewprimarilyonEnglishandonlyminimallyonIrish.Thistendedtoconfirmourpsychotypologicalinterpretation.

In Study B we had speculated that participants might find the resource ofknowingnon-finiteclausesofpurposeinIrish–whereWOissimilartothatinGermannon-finiteclausesofpurpose–facilitativeinrelationtoproducingtherequiredWOinGerman.Herewefoundthatlearners’abilitytoproducecorrectwordorderinGermanwasatahighlevel,eventhoughtheirabilitytoproduceother lexico-grammaticalelementsaccurately in the targetclauseswas limited.OurinferenceofIrishinfluenceinthisconnectionisstrengthenedbythefactthatEnglish-speakinglearnersofGermanwithoutIrishseemtohavegreatdifficultywithGermanWOinsubordinateclauses.Withrespecttomorphologyinprepo-sitionalphrases,wenotedthatourparticipantsperformedlessthansuccessfully.Therewasinthiscasenoindicationthattheirknowledgeofmorphologicalmodi-ficationsafterprepositionsinIrishhadanyfacilitativeeffectontheirproductionofmorphologicalmodificationsinprepositionalphrasesintheL3.Ourexplana-tionofthisfindingisthat–incontradistinctiontothecaseofWOinnon-finitepurposeclauses–thesimilaritiesbetweenIrishandGermanpost-prepositionalnounphrasemorphologyarenotobviousenoughtolearnerstotriggerpsychoty-pologicallybasedfacilitationinthisinstance.

ThestudiestakentogetherrepresenttheemergenceofresearchinIrelandintothenatureofcrosslinguisticinfluenceinvolvingmorethantwolanguages,hereto-forearatherneglectedareaofinvestigationintheIrishcontext.Specifically,theyfocusonthepartthatIrish–thetypicalL2intheRepublicofIreland–playsinthesubsequentlearningofL3s.Thisissueisanalmostterra incognitaandstandsinurgentneedofexploration–notonlyforthelightthatsuchexplorationmightshedingeneraltermsbutalsoforimplicationsthatitsfindingsmighthavefortheentirelanguage-teachingenterpriseinIreland.


References

Barfield,O.1962.History in English Words.London:Faber.Brohy,C.2001.Genericand/orspecificadvantagesofbilingualisminadynamicplurilingual

situation:ThecaseofFrenchasofficialL3intheschoolofSamedan(Switzerland).Inter-national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1):38–49.

Cenoz,J.&Genesee,F.1998.Beyond Bilingualism.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Cenoz, J. & Jessner, U. (eds). 2001. English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language.

Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Cenoz,J.,Hufeisen,B.&Jessner,U.(eds).2001.Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition:

Studies in Tri and Multilingualism.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.Claiborne,R.1990.The Life and Times of the English Language.London:Bloomsbury.Cummins,J.1979.Linguisticinterdependenceandtheeducationaldevelopmentofbilingual

children.Review of Educational Research49:221–251.Griffin,C.2001.AninvestigationoftheinfluenceofIrishasanL1orL2onsubsequentinstruct-

edlanguageacquisition.PaperpresentedatSecondInternationalConferenceonThirdLan-guageAcquisitionandTrilingualism,Leeuwarden,theNetherlands,September13–15.

Hammarberg,B.2001.RolesofL1andL2inL3productionandacquisition.InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),21–41.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Harris,J.&Conway,M.2002.Modern Languages in Irish Primary Schools.Dublin:ITÉ.Hélot,C.1988.BringingupchildreninEnglish,FrenchandIrish:Twocasestudies.Language

Culture and Curriculum1:281–287.Hufeisen,B.2000.Howdoforeignlanguagelearnersevaluatevariousaspectsoftheirmultilin-

gualism?InTertiär-undDrittsprachen,B.Hufeisen&B.Lindemann(eds),23–40.Tübin-gen:Stauffenburg.

Jansen,L.2008.AcquisitionofGermanwordorderintutoredlearners:Across-sectionalstudyinawidertheoreticalcontext.Language Learning58(1):185–231.

Katzner,K.2002.The Languages of the World.London:Routledge.Kellerman,E. 1983.Nowyouseeit,nowyoudon’t.InLanguage Transfer in Language Learning,

S.Gass&L.Selinker(eds),112–134.RowleyMA:NewburyHouse.Kirk-Greene,C.W.E.1981.French False Friends.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Klein,E.C.1995.Secondversusthirdlanguageacquisition.Language Learning45(3):419–465.Lasagabaster,D.1998.Thethresholdhypothesisappliedtothreelanguagesincontactatschool.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism1(2):119–133.McArthur,T.&Gachelin,J.-M.1992.Romance.InThe Oxford Companion to the English Lan-

guage, T.McArthur(ed),872–874.London:BCA/OUP.Muñoz,C.2000.BilingualismandtrilingualisminschoolstudentsinCatalonia.InEnglish in

Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language,J.Cenoz&U.Jessner(eds),157–178.Clev-edon:MultilingualMatters.

NíGhréacháin,B.2006.TheroleofbilingualisminforeignlanguagelearningintheIrishcon-text.InLanguage Education in Ireland: Current Practice and Future Trends, A.Gallagher&M.ÓLaoire(eds),120–132.Dublin:IRAAL.

Ó Laoire, M. 2001. Balanced bilingual and L1-dominant learners of L3 in Ireland: A casestudy.InLooking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Tri and Multilingualism, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),153–160.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.


ÓLaoireM.&Singleton,D.2006.EvidenceofCross-linguisticinfluenceinIrishlearners’Ger-manmorphosyntax:Furtherexplorationofthepsychotypologyfactor.Paperpresentedatthe16thAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSecondLanguageAssociation(EUROSLA),Antalya.

ÓRahilly,T.F.1952.Irish Dialects Past and Present.Dublin:StationeryOffice.ÓSiadhail,M.1989.Modern Irish: Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation.Cambridge:

CUP.Pei,M.1967.The Story of the English Language.London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin.Picard, J. M. 2003. The French language in medieval Ireland. In The Languages of Ireland,

M.Cronin&C.ÓCuilleanáin(eds),57–77.Dublin:FourCourtsPress.Pienemann,M.1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development. Processability

Theory.Amsterdam:JohnBanjamins.Ringbom, H. 1987. The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon:

MultilingualMatters.Risk,H.1969.Frenchloan-wordsinIrish.Études Celtiques12:585–655.Robertson,S.1954.Development of Modern English.NewYorkNY:Prentice-Hall.SagastaErrasti,P.2001.Doesminoritylanguageusefosterthirdlanguageacquisition?Paper

presentedatSecondInternationalConferenceonTrilingualismandThirdLanguageAc-quisition,Leeuwarden,September2001,availableonInteractiveCD-RomL3 Conference. Fryske Academy, Leeuwarden.

Shears,L.A.1947.TheproblemofGermanwordorder.The German Quarterly20(2):103–108.Singleton,D.1987.MotherandothertongueinfluenceonlearnerFrench.Studies in Second

Language Acquisition9:327–346.Singleton,D.1999.Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon.Cambridge:CUP.Singleton, D. & Little, D. 2005. A first encounter with Dutch: perceived language distance

andtransferasfactorsincomprehension.InIntroductory Readings in L3,B.Hufeisen&R.J.Fouser (eds),101–109.Tübingen:Stauffenberg.(FirstpublishedinLanguage across Cultures,L.MacMathúna&D.Singleton(eds),259–270.Dublin:IrishAssociationforAppliedLinguistics,1984).

Singleton,D.&ÓLaoireM.2006a.PsychotypologieetfacteurL2dansl’influencetranslexicale.Uneanalysede l’influencede l’anglaisetde l’irlandais sur le françaisL3de l’apprenant.AILE (Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère)24:101–117.

Singleton,D.&ÓLaoireM.2006b.Psychotypologyandthe‘L2factor’incross-lexicalinterac-tion:AnanalysisofEnglishandIrishinfluenceinlearnerFrench.InSpråk, Lärande och Utbildning i sikte,M.Bendtsen,M.Björklund,C.Fant&L.Forsman(eds),191–205.Vasa:FacultyofEducation,ÅboAkademi.

Sjöholm,K.1976.AcomparisonofthetestresultsingrammarandvocabularybetweenFinn-ish-andSwedish-speakingapplicantsforEnglish.InErrors Made by Finns and Swedish-speaking Finns in the Learning of English,H.Ringbom&R.Palmberg(eds),54–137.Åbo:ÅboAcademy,PublicationsoftheDepartmentofEnglish.(ERICReportED122628).

Sjöholm,K.1979.DoFinnsandSwedish-speakingFinnsusedifferentstrategiesinthelearn-ingofEnglishasaforeignlanguage?InR.Palmberg(ed)Perceptions and Production of English: Papers on Interlanguage.Åbo:ÅboAcademy,PublicationsoftheDepartmentofEnglish.

Thody,P.&Evans,H.1985.Faux Amis and Key Words – A Dictionary-Guide to French Language, Culture and Society through Lookalikes and Confusables.London:TheAthlonePress.


VanRoey,J,Granger,S.&Swallow,H.1988.Introductiongénérale.Dictionnaire des faux amis français~anglais.Paris-Gembloux:Duculot.

Williams,S.&Hammarberg,B.1998.LanguageswitchesinL3production:Implicationsforapolyglotspeakingmodel.Applied Linguistics19:295–333.

Acknowledgment

WearegratefultoAgnieszkaSkrzypekforprovidingthegraphicmaterialforthesecondtestinStudyB.

chapter6

Methods of research in multilingualism studiesReachingacomprehensiveperspective


Thischapterfocusesonthemethodsofresearchwhichespeciallyfitthenatureofmultilingualism.Theinherentpropertiesofcontemporarymultilingualism,complexity,liminalityandsuffusiveness,callforappositeandemergingmeth-odsofresearch.Amongthelatteraremethodsofcomplexityscience,aswellastheuseofmetaphors,andconceptualizationservingasmethodsofresearch.Wearguethatmultilingualismstudiescouldsignificantlybenefitfromthestilllesswidespread,emergingmethodsintroducedinadditiontotheremarkablybroadarrayoftraditionalmethodsofresearch.

Keywords: researchmethods,complexity,propertiesanddevelopmentsofmultilingualism

Introduction

Thefulllistofthemethodsusedinsuchavastareaofknowledgeasmultilingual-ismwouldbeextensiveindeed.Thisarticledoesnotintendtoandcannotpossiblycoverthemallequally.Rather,whileacknowledgingthetime-honouredapproach-estoresearchintheareaoftheuseandacquisitionofmultiplelanguages,weshallputtheemphasisonrecentlyemergingandpromisingmethodsofresearch,focus-ingonthosewhichespeciallyfitthespecificnatureofMultilingualismStudies.

Weshallarguethatinadditiontotheremarkablybroadarrayoftraditionalmethodsofresearch,thestilllesswidespread,emergingmethodscouldfruitfullyfeedintothebroadermultilingualismstudiesenterprise.

With this in mind, we shall first characterize the nature of multilingualismandtheresultantspecificityofMultilingualismStudiesinordertobetterunder-standthesuitabilityandappropriatenessofvariousresearchmethodsinthisarea

10� LarissaAroninandBrittaHufeisen

ofknowledge.Thenweshalldescribeandanalysetheemergingmethodsthatwethinkofaspromisingforthecurrentandfuturestagesofmultilingualismstudies.

SinceMultilingualismStudiesaremultilayeredanddrawonvariousplanesofresearch,suchaslanguagelearningandteaching,neurolinguistics,psychology,education,communicationandsociologystudiesandothers,numerousresearchmethodshaveprovedtobeinstrumental.Bothinformalsettingsandinthesocio-linguisticdomainweseearangeoftimehonouredmethodsthatarewidelyusedinmultilingualismresearch.See,forexample,HornbergerandCorson(1997)onresearchmethodsinlanguageandeducation;Goraletal(2002)onmethodsusedinneurolinguistics;Jessner(2008)forthereviewofthevariousdimensionsofre-searchinlanguageteaching;Denzin(1978)andFlick(2007)onmethods,theory,investigatortriangulationandJanesick(1994)oninterdisciplinarytriangulation.The reader may also refer to the authoritative book on appraising and criticalanalysisofquantitativeresearchbyPorte(2002)andthestate-of-the-artreviewofqualitativemethodsbyRichards(2009)respectively.

Inthisarticle,wewillfocusonthemethodswhichcameintouseinMultilin-gualismStudiesmorerecently.

Contemporary multilingualism and more recent research methods

1. Propertiesanddevelopmentsofcontemporarymultilingualism

Humanlanguagepracticeshaverecentlyundergonesignificantchangesasacon-sequenceof thecrucialglobalshiftswhichtookplace in the20thcentury.Themodificationofhumanexperienceoftimeandspace,theinformationexplosionowingtotechnologicalbreakthroughwithon-goinginnovations,theeliminationorblurringofbordersofallkindsareonlysomeoftheseshifts.Allthemajorattri-butesofthecontemporaryglobalsettingsfeaturecurrentmultilingualismaswellbecausemultilingualismandglobalizationareinextricablyintertwined(AroninandSingleton2008a).

Theshiftinpatternsoflanguageuseinhumansocietyisconspicuousfortheinhabitantsofourplanetandisoutlinedintheliterature(Fishman1998;Maurais2003).Multilingualismassuchis,ofcourse,notanewphenomenoninhumansociety; multilingual individuals and populations have existed throughout his-tory.Butthesociolinguisticsettingwearelivinginnowisaveryspecificone,dif-ferentfromprevioussociolinguisticcontexts.Thenewsociolinguisticdispensa-tionembraceslanguageideologiesandpolicies,education,languagepracticesofcommunitiesandindividuals,teachinglanguagesandteaching/learningthroughlanguages.Italsoencompassesthedevelopmentandfunctioningoflanguageva-

Chapter6. Methodsofresearchinmultilingualismstudies 105

rieties,dialectphonology,vocabulary,morphology,syntax,stateofdevelopmentandstatusofoneparticularlanguagevis-à-visotherlanguages,andstatusinthecommunityinwhichitisusedandmanymoreaspects.Inordertoemphasisethedifferenceofcontemporarymultilingualismfrom ‘historicalmultilingualism’, itisreferredtoas‘anewlinguisticdispensation’(seemoreonthisinAroninandSingleton2008a).Inmoderntimes,agroupoftwoormorelanguagesratherthanonesinglelanguageoftenmeetsasociety’sandanindividual’sfundamentalneedsinrespecttocommunication,cognition,andidentity.

Contemporarymultilingualismischaracterisedbyinherentemergentquali-ties(properties)(AroninandSingleton2008d).Inparticular,contemporarymulti-lingualismis‘suffusive’,thatis,itpermeatestheworldintermsoftheexistenceofmultilingualpopulations,geographicalareas,businessandotheractivitydomainswheremultilingualpracticesprevail.Itiscomplex,thatis,itcannotbeaccountedforasasumofitsparts.Finally,contemporarymultilingualismcanbecharacterisedasliminal.Thislastqualitymeansthatmanyprocessesandphenomenaconnectedwithlanguagesseemtohavebecomeespeciallydiscernibleornoticeablerecentlyowingtoshiftsandchangesinsocietyingeneralandinthedomainoflanguageuseinparticular.Inotherwords,undercurrentsociolinguisticconditions,issueswhichwerepreviouslyimpossibletosingleout,arenowbecomingapparent.

Thesethreepropertiesofcontemporarymultilingualismbecomevisualintheconcretedevelopmentstakingplaceinthecurrentgloballinguisticdispensation(AroninandSingleton2008d)(seeFigure1).

Figure 1. ThePropertiesandDevelopmentsoftheCurrentGlobalLinguisticDispensation(modifiedafterAroninandSingleton2008d)


Howdotheserecentlygerminatedpropertiesanddevelopmentsofmultilingual-ismnecessitatethemodificationintheuseoftime-honouredresearchmethodsinthisdomainandinclusionofnewones?Searchingforananswer,inthefollowingwewilldiscusssomeofthepropertiesanddevelopmentsandtheirimpactoncur-rentresearchinmultilingualism.

2. Morerecentmethodsinthefieldofresearchintomultiplelanguagelearninganduse

2.1 The property of complexity and research methods

Themostobviouspropertyisthatofcomplexity,awarenessofwhichisgainingmomentum for those concerned with multiple language use and acquisition.Complexity is the subject matter of complexity science (complexity approach,systemic thinking),whichhasproven tobeeffective inarrivingat solutions infieldsasvariedasmedicine,trafficorganization,andfinancialservices(Waldrop1992;KanekoandTsuda2001;Capra2005).Itstechniques,ideasandsolutionscanbeproductively transferred tomultilingualismstudies.Particularmethodsandapparatusofthisapproachhavealreadyyieldedresultsinvariouslanguage-relateddomains.Forexample,inhiswellknownstudyofthecognitivedynamicsoflanguageacquisitionandchange,Cooper(1999)appliedconceptsderivedfromthermodynamics and computation to understanding the stability of languageovertimeandbetweencommunities(suchaschildlanguageversusthelanguageofadultsandjargons).Heintroducedtechniquestoisolateandmeasureattrac-tors(attractor–apatternorapointthat‘attracts’aprocess)inordertoexplaintheemergenceofwordmeaningsandthesociodynamicsoflanguage.Interestinfractal objects, those of irregular shapes and infinite variety (Bateson G. 1979;Bateson M. 1994; Capra 1996; Mandelbrot 1982), may hold the key to under-standingthesimilarlycomplicateddynamicsofmultilingualism.Intheirstudyofmultilinguality,ÓLaoireandAronin(2005)attemptedtogenerateandponderfractal-like images forstudying therepresentationof languages inmultilingualsettingsinIrelandandIsraelandwereabletoreachsomefindingsotherwisenotsoamenabletodiscoverybyconventionalmethods.

Amongthemorerecentfindings,thosepresentedinthespecialissueofAp-plied Linguistics editedbyEllisandLarsen-Freeman(2006)symbolize theshifttowideracceptanceand‘legitimization’ofresearchundertakenfromacomplex-ityperspective.Thejournalcontainsthecontributionsofauthorswhosharetheconceptualperspectiveofemergentism,thosewhobelievethatthisperspective“iscapableofshedding lightonsuchdiverseareasof languagestudyassyntaxanddiscourse,theuseofmetaphorsinsituatedtalk,andtheoriginsoflanguage”


aswellasoffering“acoherentsolutiontoanumberoftheoreticalconundrumsinlanguagedevelopment”(CookandKasper2006:554).

MacWhinney(2006:732)putsforwardastrongargumentinfavouroftakingcomplexitymethodsseriously,andheregardsemergentism“asequivalenttobasicscientificmethodology.”Heunambiguouslyconnectstheexpansionofemergen-tistresearchtotheadvanceoftechnology:

Thearticulationofemergentaccountsdependsonstrongmethodologicalsup-port. Because emergentist accounts emphasize complex interactions betweenmultiple factors across multiple time scales, they rely heavily on the powerfulcomputationalmethodsintroducedbydigitalrevolution.Withouttheenormousrecentexplosionincomputationalpowerandusability, therecentfloweringofemergentismwouldnothavebeenpossible.

Indeedtheresearcherswhoembracedemergentismusecomputerizeddatabases,graphingandstatisticstotrackcomplexpatternsofvariationinlearners(Larsen-Freeman2006),demonstratingtheimpactofcomputerisedcorporaontheoriesof languagelearningandfunctional linguisticanalysis(Mellow2006;CameronandDeignan2006).Simulationswerecarriedouttolearnhowwordordercouldhaveemergedintheprocessoflanguageorigination(KeandHolland2006)andofmultilinguallexiconsbymodelingcompetingL1andL2vocabularyitemsinBooleannetworkterms(Meara2006).Thisresearchavenueisinparticularseri-ouslycharacterisedbythoroughengagementinconcretemathematicalandcom-puterisedmethodsofresearch.

MacWhinneypredictsthat“WearenowatthebeginningofatechnologicalrevolutionthatwillilluminatethestudyofemergentprocessesinL2evenmorepowerfully.”

Awarenessandexplicitrecognitionofcomplexityofmultilingualismprimesselectionofparticularmethods,proceduresandresearchparticipantsaswellastheinterpretationofresults,whichallowsforamorecomprehensivetheoreticalunderstandingofmultilingualism.

The belief that complexity ideas can contribute to research into languagelearningandusearesharedbyrepresentativesofanumberofdisciplinesrelatedtomultilingualism.Aboutthesametimeresearchersindependentlyarrivedatrelatedideas.Larsen-Freeman(1997,2002)pointedtostrikingsimilaritiesbetweenthenewscienceofchaos/complexityandsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA).HerdinaandJessner(Jessner1997;HerdinaandJessner2002)employedsystemicthink-ingforthestudyoflanguageacquisitionandpsycholinguistics.TheirnovelDMM(DynamicModelofMultilingualism)approachemphasizedadynamicrepresenta-tionofmultilingualismandinparticularofmultiplelanguageacquisitionwiththefocus“placedonthevariabilityanddynamicsoftheindividualspeakersystem”


(HerdinaandJessner2002:2).DeBot(2004)madeuseofDynamicSystemsThe-orytolookatthelanguagesinlinguisticcommunities.AroninandTikhiy(2005)demonstratedtheremarkableparallelbetweentheconceptsofcomplexityandtherecentkeyfindingsinmultilingualism.

Gabryś-Barker(2005)analysingquantitativestudiesonmultilingualdevelop-ment, lexical storage,processingandretrieval, takesavisionof thecomplexityofmultilingualismandof the fuzzinessofmultilingual lexiconasher frameofreference.

AroninandSingleton(2008b)seeprofoundimplicationsforresearchmeth-odologyinapproachingcontemporarylanguagecontactasacomplexphenom-enonhavingemergentqualities.Theimplicationsofthenewangleofvisionarealso evident in practical dimensions and include inter alia, understanding thespecificneedsofmultilingualswithrespect topedagogy,curriculumplanning,life-longeducation,andvarious formsofcommunityeducation.Thinkingofasituationincomplexitytermsenablesus,forexample,toapproachtheperennialhotlydebatedproblemsoflinguisticarrangementsinsocietyfromapointbeyondtheboundsoftraditionalconsiderations.

Both ideational and exact (mathematical, computerised, graphic) methodsconnectedwithcomplexitythinkingshouldbeemployedsensibly.MacWhinney(2006:737)proposesasuitablycircumscribedplaceforemergentisminlinguisticstudies:

It iseasyenoughtocomeupwithemergentistaccountsthatareappealingbutwrong.Byitself,emergentismisnomagicbullet.Wemustapplyitwithcautionanddiscipline.Emergentistthinkingprovidesgeneralguidelinesforstudyingthemechanismsgeneratingcomplexphenomena.Itistheresponsibilityoftheindi-vidualresearchertoapplytheseguidelinestospecificcases.

2.2 The property of liminality and its expression in the use of research methods

Asstatedabove,contemporarymultilingualismisliminalinthatitallowsforpro-cessesandphenomenaconnectedwith languages ‘to transpire’, that is,becomeespecially discernible or noticeable. An instance of liminality is well capturedbySpolsky.Describingsecond/foreign languageteachingand learning,Spolsky(1999)stressedthesocialaspects,wherepreviouslyapurelylinguisticapproachtosecondlanguagelearninghadexisted.


Thoseofusconcernedwiththefieldofsecond-languagelearninghavebeenforcedbytheethnicrevivalandbyournewappreciationoflanguageandethnicitytoextentourconcernstoembracethesocialcontext inwhichtheteachingtakesplace.Wedothisreluctantly,forwenaturallyprefertheneatnessofparsimoniousexplanations.Itismuchsimplertorestrictamodeloflanguagelearningtolin-guistics (which should tell us about language) and psychology (which shouldcomplement this by telling us all about learning) and not have to add all thecomplexityofthesocialworld. (Spolsky1999:182)

The quality of liminality is also responsible for the development which wasdubbedthe emergence of new focal issues(AroninandSingleton2008d).Amongthesearethetopicswhichwerediscussedinthepast,buthaverecentlycometotheforeandacquirednewsignificance,aswellastopicsbeingreformulated.Anexampleoftheformeristheissueofidentity.Ascomparedtoitsprofileinpre-globalizationtimes,thisissueisnowmostsalient(cf.Castells1997;Bendle2002;Giddens1991;Palmer2003;BenwellandStokoe2006).Theexplorationofiden-tityintheframeworkofmultilingualismstudiesborrowstheoreticalapproachesfromthewiderdomainofsocialstudies.Inadditiontoquantitativemethodsofresearchmultilingualismresearchersrelynoticeablymoreonqualitativeworkonindividual multilinguals’ accounts of experiences and attitudes, subtle nuancesofperception.Others,largelyremainingintheframeworkofstrictquantitativemethodsextendtheirinterestto‘exotic’topicssuchas‘Blisteringbarnacles!Whatlanguagedomultilingualsswearin?!’(Dewaele2004)and‘TheemotionalweightofI love youinmultilinguals’languages’(Dewaele2008).

Thusthequalityofliminalityofcurrentmultilingualismexpressesitselfnotonlyintheemergentphenomenaandprocessesbutalsointhe‘transpiring’phe-nomenaandprocesseswhicharecomingtotheforeinpresentdaydiscussionsofmultilingualism.Thisexpansionofthefieldallowsforamoreopenrangeofmethods,someofwhichwerenotseenasfittingbefore.

Thequalitiesofcomplexityandliminalitywhichcharacterisecontemporarymultilingualismarealsoresponsibleforanotherdevelopmentofthecurrentso-ciolinguisticdispensation–a shift in norms.

Thisshiftinnormsisoneoftheemergentdevelopments(seetable1)whichisbecomingmoreandmoreapparentinsocialandschoolingpractices.Anumberofnormshavebeengraduallytransformed.Amongthemisthemovefromthepreviouslydominatingmonolingualnorm to regardingbilingual andmultilin-gualspeakersandlearnersasthenorm(Grosjean1985,1992;Cook1992,1999).Embracingculturalandlinguisticdiversityhasresultedinthecurrentsituationinwhichbilingualeducation iscommon,and trilingualeducation isbeingad-optedasanecessarymodelinmoreandmorecountries.TheshiftinnormshastakenplaceintheformulationoftheaimsofL2study(aswell,ofcourse,asin


respectofL3,L4,Lnstudy)whicharecurrentlybeingframed,especiallyperhapswithrespecttoEnglish,intermsofthelearnerbeingabletocommunicateintheadditionallanguage(s)ratherthanbeingacopyofanativespeaker(Cook1993).This,inturn,hasledtorestructuringlanguagelearning/teachingpractices,teach-ing/learningstrategies,aims,andlearningmaterialsandhasstimulateddiscus-sionofnewtopicssuchasauthenticityinmaterialsdesign.Theshiftinnormshasprovokeddoubtsandreassessmentsofresearchmethodologyinthirdlanguageacquisitionandmultilingualism.Jessner(2006:15)pointsoutthat

thegrowinginterestinTLAanditscognitiveandlinguisticeffectshasalsogivenrisetodoubtsaboutalltheexperimentswhichhavebeencarriedoutwith‘bi-lingual’subjectswho,infact,mighthavebeenincontactwithotherlanguages,buthadneverbeenaskedabouttheirpriorlinguisticknowledge(seealsoDeBot2004:22).Whether thiswouldhavehadaneffecton the resultsof theexperi-mentsornotremainsanissuetobediscussed.Itmayormaynothaveaffectedtheresultsandtheconclusionsdrawnhadthisinformationbeentakenintoaccountinthelanguagebiographyofthetesteesinthefirstinstance.Thisagaindependsonthekindofexperimentandlinguisticfieldinwhichitisembedded.

Theshiftinnormshasalsooccurredintheselectionofmethodsconsideredap-propriateforuseintheinvestigationofphenomenaandprocessesofmultilingual-ism,whicharenowadaysbeingviewedinadifferentway.Forexample,qualitativemethodsofresearcharebeingusedincreasingly,althoughthegapbetweentheuseofqualitativeandquantitativemethodsofresearchisevident.Richardsre-portsa“solid–thoughminority–presence”ofqualitativemethods(about18%)inthestudiesrepresentedinleadinglanguageteachingjournalssincetheturnofthiscentury(2009:151).

Because,withtheadventofthechangesassociatedwithglobalization,diverseanglesofvisionhavebecomeacceptable,studieshaveappeared,especiallywithinthe streamof critical studies (e.g. criticalpedagogy, criticalglobalization stud-ies)whichrelyonthemethodswherethestandoftheinvestigatoriscrucialanddetermines thefindings, theirassessmentand interpretations(see forexample,CreeseandMartin2003).ThiskindofresearchiswellillustratedbythecasestudyofSomaliliteracyteachinginLiverpool(Arthur2003).Thestudy,exploringthecommunicativeandsymbolicrolesof languages, involves tengirlsaged11–12,membersof theLiverpoolSomalicommunity. Itcombinesanumberofmeth-odsincludinghistoricalandethnographicalcontextualization,detailedconsider-ationofthemicroenvironmentinwhichthestudyissituated,deepanalysisofatranscribedextractfromoneoftheliteracylessons,andasurveybyinterviewoflearners’reflections,viewsandbeliefs,aswellasthereflectionsoftheauthor.


2.3 The property of suffusiveness as it refers to methods of research

The third property of multilingualism – suffusiveness – along with complexityand liminality, accounts for the fact that multilingualism studies have becomeextraordinarilyacquisitivewithregardtomethodsofresearch.Multilingualismstudiesadoptthemethodsusedinotherdomains(suchassociology,linguisticsandpsychology)and fromfieldspreviouslydeemedunrelated tomultilingual-ism(suchasmathematicsandeconomics).Multilingualismstudiesexpandanddeepentheirmethodologypotentialviathefollowing:

– thewideuseofmetaphorsasaresearchmethod;– theuseofconceptualizationwhichactuallyservesasamethodofresearch;– arecenttendencytoappropriatemethodsofstudywhichareusedindisci-

plinestraditionallythoughttoberather‘distant’fromresearchintolanguageuseandacquisition;

– aremarkableincreaseincrossdisciplinaryinvestigations.

Wewilldiscusseachofthepointsinturn.

Metaphorical thinking Attheturnofthiscentury,thesociologistUrry(2000:21)convincinglymaintainedthat“Muchofourunderstandingofsocietyandsociallifeisbaseduponandre-flectedthroughvariousmetaphors”.Commonlyusedandproductivemetaphorsarethoseofmobility,flux,exchangeandnetwork.Metaphorsarealsowidelyemployedandproductiveinmultilingualismstudies.Metaphorsrelatingtoplace,localandglobal, the environment, context, boundaries, especially those indicating reach-ing‘beyond’expandinghorizonsofallkinds,areoftencalledupontofacilitateanimagining,expression,andbetterunderstandingofthevariousdimensionsofmul-tilingualreality.Amongtheattemptstoseekparallelsandsimilaritiesfromotherdomainsofhumanknowledge,themostattractivepresentlyarethosefromnaturalscienceandecology.Alter(1999)describedthesimilaritythatCharlesDarwinandhispeersperceivedasearlyasthe19thcenturybetweenthetransmutationofbio-logicalspeciesandthe‘evolution’oflanguages.Itishardlysurprisingthatthemeta-phorsofnatureandlivingcreaturesarefrequentlyusedinlanguageandmultilin-gualismstudies.Theimageofnatureisbehindtheconceptofa‘linguisticlandscape’(deBot2004;GorterandCenoz2004;Gorter2006;Backhaus2007).

An ecological approach to language (or language ecology) originated byHaugenin1972wasespousedandfurtherdevelopedbyanumberofresearchers(Mühlhäusler1996;FillandMühlhäusler2001;Edwards1992;Bronfenbrenner1993;Hornberger2002).Kramsch(2008)seesthebasisoftheecologicalperspec-tiveonforeignlanguageeducationincomplexitytheory.


Hornberger(2003:136)definedthisapproachsuccinctlyandinverysimpletermsas

ametaphorforideologiesunderlyingmultilinguallanguagepolicyandpractice,inwhichlanguagesareunderstoodto(1)evolve,grow,change,live,anddieinaneco-systemalongwithotherlanguages(language evolution);(2)interactwiththeirsociopolitical,economic,andculturalenvironments(language environment);and(3)becomeendangeredif thereis inadequateenvironmentalsupportforthemvis-à-visotherlanguagesintheeco-system(language endangerment)…

Continuingthismetaphorof languageasa livingorganism/entitybyintensify-ing and broadening it researchers go deeper and farther in their conclusions.Skutnabb-Kangas believes that “English is the world’s worst killer language”(Skutnabb-Kangas 2004) and is primarily responsible (along with Spanish andFrench) for thegradualextinctionof smaller local languages.Bastardas-Boada(2004)speaksabout‘glottophagicexpansionofdominantlanguages’.

Metaphorsworkasmethodsof researchbecausealongwithothermethodemployedinaparticularstudy,theyserveasameansofarrivingatconclusions.Asanexample:inabookwrittenbySkutnabb-Kangas(2000),inadditiontothebackgroundofsupportingfacts,numbersandstudies,theauthordevotesawholechaptertoelaboratingtheworkingmetaphoroflanguageasanendangeredspe-cies.Shedeploysthecomparisonoflinguisticdiversityandbiologicaldiversity.

Othermetaphors invoke ‘political’orcriminalconnotations, suchas impe-rialismin‘linguisticimperialism’(e.g.Phillipson1992),andarenotuncommonespeciallyincriticalpedagogydiscourse.Waterhouseinherpedagogical-philo-sophicalstudy(2008)ponderswhetheritisappropriatetocallEnglishlanguageteachers“linguisticterrorists”andusestheexpression“theelusivecolonialmon-ster”referringtoEnglish.

Conceptualization and re-conceptualization as methods of researchOwingtothenewglobaldevelopmentsbrieflymentionedaboveandbecauseofthescope,complexityanddiversityofdataamassedinmultilingualismstudies,theimperativeneedhasarisenforaconceptualizationandre-conceptualizationofempiricalandtheoreticalknowledge.Notably,re-conceptualization,or‘reori-entation’asJessnercallsit(2006:14),isspecifictomultilingualismandconcernsthe quality of liminality. Referring to the study of Flynn et al (2004), Jessnerwrotethat

This researchgroupargued that investigationofL3acquisition (byadultsandchildren) provides essential new insights about the language learning processthat neither the study of first language acquisition (FLAhenceforth) nor SLA alone can provide. (Italics–L.A.&B.H.)


Inasimilarvein,Franceschini(thisvolume)callsfora“changeofperspective”inmultilingualismresearchanda“reinterpretationoflinguisticdiversityandofthevarious formsof languageacquisition/learning”.Theconceptualizationandre-conceptualizationiscarriedoutintheformsof(1)developingathesaurusofmultilingualism;(2)ascendingtothephilosophicallevelofconceptualization;(3)developingmodelsspecifictomultilingualismasopposedtomodelsapplicableonlytomono-andbilingualism;(4)usingmentalconstructs.Belowwewilllookattheseinfurtherdetail.

1. Developing a thesaurus of multilingualism is expressed, for example, in thecurrentveryactivequestfordefinitions.Intheirarticles(thisvolume),KempandFranceschinifeelitimportanttoelaborateonandclarifythedefinitionsofmulti-lingualismandCenozandJessnerputforwardadefinitionofmultilingualeduca-tion.Buildingathesaurusofmultilingualismisalsocarriedoutbyspecifyingthekeynotions(e.g.HerdinaandJessner2002onthenotionoftransfer).Anotherex-ampleisthemeticulousdistinctionbetween‘metalinguisticawareness’,‘linguisticawareness’and‘languageawareness’providedbyJessner(2006).Offeringclassifi-cationsofthekeyphenomenaisyetanotherresearchmethod.Asanillustrationwecanconsider,forexample,atypologyoftrilingualprimaryeducationbyYtsma(2001).Hoffmann(2001a:18–19)classifiedtrilinguals intofivegroups,namely,takingintoaccountboththecircumstancesandthesocialcontextunderwhichthesubjectsbecameusersofthreelanguages.Shenotedthat

Onecouldalsoestablishothertypologiesreflecting,ascriteria,featuresrelatedtoacquisitionsuchasage,acquisitionprocess(simultaneous,successiveoracom-binationof them), acquisitioncontext (home, community, classroom, school),languagecompetenceandskillsattained,amongothers. (Hoffmann,2001a:19)

2. Philosophical level of conceptualization.Asdistinctfromtheresearchmethodsinotherthanphilosophysciencesthephilosophicalmethodofresearchisa prioriinnature.“…philosophyavoidsusingthesensesandreliesonreflection”(Lacey2001:252).AroninandSingleton(2008c)proposedtheuseoftheapparatusandcategoriesofphilosophyinthestudyofmultilingualismandsuggestedthatmul-tilingualisminitsentiretybesubjectedtophilosophicalscrutiny.Theyalsoout-linedsomepossiblelinesofinvestigationforaphilosophyofmultilingualism.

3. Developing models specific to multilingualism. Models specific to multi-lingualism shared with but mostly opposed to models of bilingualism provideframeworksforunderstandingtheprocessesandphenomenaofmultilingualism.ModelsspecifictomultilingualismaretheFactorModeldevelopedbyHufeisen


(Hufeisen2000,2001;HufeisenandGibson2003); theMultilingualProcessingModel elaborated by Meißner (2003); an ecological model of multilingualitypresentedbyAroninandÓLaoire(AroninandÓLaoire2004);arole-functionmodelputforwardbyHammarbergandWilliams(Hammarberg2001;Williamsand Hammarberg 1998), and the Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (DMM)proposedbyJessnerandHerdina(2002).(ForamorecomprehensiveexplanationofthemodelsseeJessner2008;HufeisenandMarx2003;HufeisenandNeuner2004;Hufeisen2005).

�. Mental constructshavebeendevelopedtoexplainphenomenapertainingspe-cificallytomultilingualisminordertoseetheactualprocessesandphenomenaofmultilingualismthroughthelensofamultilingualspeakerandlearner.Themostsignificantlyproductiveandsuccessfularethoseofinterlanguage(Selinker1972,1992; De Angelis and Selinker 2001) and multi-competence (Cook 1992; 1996;Hoffmann2001b).AconstructofaDominantLanguageConstellation(DLC)hasbeenproposed(AroninandÓLaoire2004;Aronin2006;AroninandSingleton2008d)toencompassthenatureandthecomplexityofmultilingualism.Investi-gatingtheDLCoffersacynosureofthemultipleconstituentsofthemultilingualsituation,avantagepointfromwhichtostudyitwiththedesireddegreeofrefer-ence.AstheDLCisacross-sectionofmultilingualism,representingthemultilin-gualsituationofanysize,awiderangeofvantagepointsandlevelsofstudymaybetreatedinaDLCapproach.

Appropriating methods from other disciplines As the purview of multilingualism studies expands, it is growing out of usingmethodsofonlyoneparticulardiscipline;itnaturallyaddsthemethodsofotherdisciplines to its own. We can suggest here two illustrations. One is using the‘soliddata’–materialartifactsasopposedtoandadditionaltothetraditionaluseof‘softdata’analysisinsociolinguisticstudies.CalculatingandinterpretationofthedensityofmaterialobjectswhichareessentiallyrepresentativeevidenceofferadditionalopportunitiesofmeasurementinmultilingualismstudiesaccordingtoAroninandÓLaoire(2007).

Theotherillustrationreferstousingmethodsofeconomicstoinvestigatemul-tilingualismissues.Thefieldofthe‘economicsoflanguage’hasbeendevelopedmoreintensivelyrecentlyandisoneofthe‘emerging’topicsofmultilingualism.CenozandGorter(2008)introducedtheresearchmethodusedinenvironmentaleconomics.Inexploringtheeconomicdimensionofthelinguisticlandscapetheydeployedthecontingentvaluationmethodasawaytoassesstheeconomicvalueoflanguage.


Conclusion

Thepurposeofthepresentarticleistoacknowledgethewidevarietyofmethodsandapproachesavailabletostudentsofmultilingualismand,primarily,todrawattentiontothemorerecentemergentmethodsofexploringmultilingualism.

As multilingualism studies deal with a great diversity of referents and pro-cessesinformalandinformalsettingsandreferbothtolearningexperiencesandapracticaluseoflanguages,therangeofappositeresearchmethodsisextremelywide.Theframeworkofmultilingualismorganizes thevariousspecificperspec-tivesintoaunitedbroad-spectrumstructurewheretheresearchmethodsandtheirusecanbeviewedwiththespecificagendaofMultilingualismStudiesinmind.

Themultidimensionalityandspecialqualitiesofcurrentlinguisticdispensa-tionshouldbematchedbysuitableresearchmethodsfortheinvestigationofcon-temporarymultilingualism.It isourbelief that thenew linguisticdispensationcallsforareconsiderationofthewaythesemethodsareusedinmultilingualismstudies.Theinherentpropertiesofcontemporarymultilingualism,thatis,com-plexity, liminality and suffusiveness, necessitate additional appropriate methodsfor research.Thenewest research studies in thisfieldpresentvaluable insightsbymakinguseofcomplexityscience,notably,emergentistandsystems–theoreticapproaches,andalsometaphorsasmethodsofresearch.Thesemethodssuitmul-tilingualismperfectlyandenableustoachieveamorecomprehensiveperspec-tiveonmultilingualismandconsequentlyamorecomprehensivetreatmentofitstheoreticalandpracticalissues.

Theestablishmentandadvanceofmultilingualismasafieldofstudy in itsownright involvesconceptualizationandre-conceptualizationofmethodologywiththepurposeofdefiningthelatestrelevantpointsofdeparture,andneces-sitatesopennessinassessment,aswellasareviewofpreviousstudiesperformedunderthecoverofbilingualism.Conceptualizationandre-conceptualizationofmultilingualismstudiesisperformedbybuildingandexpandingthethesaurusofmultilingualism,especiallydefinitionsandclassifications,ascendingtothelevelofphilosophy,creatingmodelsandmentalconstructionsspecificallyformultilin-gualism(asopposedtobilingualismandfirstlanguageacquisition).Metaphoricalthinkinghasbeenproductiveasamethodofresearchinvariousaspectsofmul-tilingualismstudy.

Thenotablymoreacquisitiveresearchbehaviourofthoseinterestedinawideareaofmultilingualismstudieshasledtomodifying,borrowingandappropriat-ingresearchmethodsfromdomainsofknowledgebothneartoanddistantfrommultilingualism.Thearrivalofanumberofnewresearchmethodswhichrenderthestudyofmultilingualismcomprehensivealsopromptsrecalibratingandreor-ganizingtheuseofmethodsalreadyincommonuse.


Wehaveattemptedtodemonstratethatcurrentmultilingualismstudiesstandinneedofandwillbenefitfromamoreopenoptingformethodsfromtheabun-dantselectionofresearchmethodsnewlyavailable.Complementarityandtrian-gulationseemtobeimportantifonewantstoarriveatfindingsmeaningfulforcurrentmultilingualreality.Aconsiderablylessrestrainedchoiceandgroupingofmethodsseemsnotonlylegitimate,butalsoanecessityfortoday’sresearch.

References

Alter,S.1999.Darwinism and the Linguistic Image: Language, Race and Natural Theology in the Nineteenth Century.BaltimoreMD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Aronin, L. 2006. Dominant language constellations: An approach to multilingualism stud-ies.InMultilingualism in Educational Settings,M.ÓLaoire(ed.),140–159.Hohengehren:Schneider.

Aronin,L.&ÓLaoire,M.2004. Exploringmultilingualisminculturalcontexts:towardsano-tionofmultilinguality.InTrilingualism in Family, School and Community, C.Hoffmann&J.Ytsma(eds),11–29.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Aronin,L.&ÓLaoire,M.2007.Thematerialcultureofmultilingualism.PaperpresentedattheFifthInternationalConferenceonMultilingualismandThirdLanguageAcquisition.Stirling,UK,September.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008a.Multilingualismasanewlinguisticdispensation. Interna-tional Journal of Multilingualism 5(1):1–16.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008b.Thecomplexityofmultilingualcontactandlanguageuseintimesofglobalization.Conversarii.Studi Linguistici2:33–47.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008c.PhilosophyofMultilingualism.ICOMProceedings,Spain,December.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008d.Englishasaconstituentofadominantlanguageconstellation.PaperpresentedattheInternational Conference on Global English,Verona,Italy,February14–16.

Aronin,L.&Tikhiy,V.2005.Applyingcomplexity science tomultilingualeducation.PaperpresentedatComplexity,ScienceandSocietyConference,Liverpool,11–14September.

Arthur, J. 2003. ‘Baro Afkaaga Hooyo!’ A case Study of Somali Literacy Teaching in Liver-pool.InMultilingual Classroom Ecologies: Inter-relationships, Interactions and Ideologies, A.Creese&P.Martin(eds), 93–106.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Backhaus, P. 2007. Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Bastardas-Boada,A.2004.Towardsa‘linguisticsustainability’:Concepts,principles,andprob-lemsofhumancommunicativeorganisationinthetwenty-firstcentury.PlenaryspeechfortheXLinguapaxCongresson‘Linguisticdiversity,sustainabilityandpeace’,Forum2004,Barcelona<http://www.linguapax.org/congres04/pdf/bastardas.pdf>.

Bateson,G.1979.Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences).HamptonPress.

Bateson,M.1994.Peripheral Visions: Learning along the Way.NewYorkNY:HarperCollins.


Bendle, M. 2002. The crisis of ‘identity’ in high modernity. The British Journal of Sociology 53(1):1–18.

Benwell,B.&Stokoe,E.2006.Discourse and Identity.Edinburgh:EUP.Bronfenbrenner,U.1993.Theecologyofcognitivedevelopment:Researchmodelsandfugi-

tivefindings. InDevelopment in Context: Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments, R.H.Wozniak&K.W.Fisher(eds),3–44.HilssdaleNJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Cameron,L.&Deignan,A.2006.Theemergenceofmetaphorindiscourse.Applied Linguistics27:671–690.

Capra,F.1996.The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems.NewYorkNY:Anchor/DoubledayBooks.

Capra,F.2005.Complexityandlife.Theory, Culture & Society22(5):33–44.Castells,M.1997.The Power of Identity.Oxford:Blackwell.Cenoz,J.&Gorter,D.2008.Languageeconomyandlinguisticlandscape.InLinguistic Land-

scape: Expanding the Scenery, E.Shohami&D.Gorter(eds),55–69.London:Routledge.Cook,V.J. 1992.Evidenceformulti-competence.Language Learning42(4):557–591.Cook,V.J.1993.Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London:Macmillan.Cook,V.J.1996.Competenceandmulti-competence.InPerformance and Competence in Second

Language Acquisition, G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer & J. Williams (eds), 57–69. Cambridge:CUP.

Cook, V. J. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly33(2):185–209.

Cook,G.&Kasper,G.2006.Editorial:Thisspecialissue.Applied Linguistics27(4):554–557.Cooper, D. 1999. Linguistic Attractors: The Cognitive Dynamics of Language Acquisition and

Chang. Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Creese,A.&Martin,P.2003.Multilingual Classroom Ecologies: Inter-relationships, Interactions

and Ideologies. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.DeAngelis,G.&Selinker,L.2001.Interlanguagetransferandcompetinglinguisticsystemsin

themultilingualmind.InCross-linguistic Aspects of L3 Acquisition,U.Jessner,B.Hufeisen&J.Cenoz(eds),42–58.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

DeBot,K.2004.Linguisticlandscapeasinput:Adynamicsystemsperspective.PaperdeliveredatEUROSLA,SanSebastian,Spain,8–11September.

Denzin,N.K.1978.The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods.NewYorkNY:McGraw-Hill.

Dewaele,J-M.2004.Blisteringbarnacles!Whatlanguagedomultilingualsswearin?!Estudios de Sociolingüística 5(1):83–105.

Dewaele,J-M.2008.TheemotionalweightofI love youinmultilinguals’languages.Journal of Pragmatics 40:1753–1780.

Edwards,J.1992.Sociopoliticalaspectsoflanguagemaintenanceandloss.Towardsatypologyofminoritylanguagesituations.InMaintenance and Loss of Minority Languages,W.Fase,K.Jaspaert&S.Kroon(eds),37–54.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Ellis,N.&Larsen-Freeman,D.2006.Languageemergence:Implicationsforapplied linguis-tics–Introductiontothespecialissue.Applied Linguistics27(4):558–589.

Fill,A.&Mühlhäusler,P.(eds).2001.The Ecolinguistics Reader. Language, Ecology and Environ-ment. London:Continuum.

Fishman,J.A.1998.ThenewLinguisticOrder.Foreign Policy113:26–40.Flick,Uwe.2007.Triangulation.Wiesbaden:VerlagfürSozialwissenschaft.


Flynn,S.,Foley,C.&Vinnitskaya,I.2004.Thecumulative-enhancementmodelforlanguageac-quisition:comparingadults’andchildren’spatternsofdevelopmentinfirst,secondandthirdlanguageacquisitionofrelativeclauses.International Journal of Multilingualism I(I):3–16.

Gabryś-Barker, D. 2005. Aspects of Multilingual Storage, Processing and Retrieval. Katowice:WydawnictwoUniversytetuŚląskiego.

Giddens,A.1991.Modernity and Self-Identity.Cambridge:PolityPress.Goral,M.,Levy,E.S.&Obler,L.K.2002.Neurolinguisticaspectsofbilingualism,International

Journal of Bilingualism6(4):411–440.Gorter, D. (ed.) 2006. Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism. Clevedon:

MultilingualMatters.GorterD.&CenozJ.2004.LinguisticlandscapeandL2usersinmultilingualcontexts.Paper

deliveredatEUROSLA,San-Sebastian,Spain,8–11September.Grosjean,F.1985.Thebilingualasacompetentbutspecificspeaker-learner.Journal of Multilin-

gual and Multicultural Development6:467–477.Grosjean,F.1992.Anotherviewofbilingualism.InCognitive Processing in Bilinguals, R.J.Harris

(ed), 51–62.Amsterdam:ElsevierScience.Hammarberg,B.2001.RolesofL1andL2inL3productionandacquisition.InCross-linguistic

Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),21–41.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Haugen,E.1972.The Ecology of Language. StanfordCA:StanfordUniversityPress.HerdinaP.&JessnerU.2002.A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in

Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.Hoffmann, C. 2001a. The status of trilingualism in bilingualism studies. In Looking Beyond

Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Tri- and Multilingualism, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds.),13–25. Tubingen:Stauffenburg.

Hoffmann,C.2001b.Towardsadescriptionoftrilingualcompetence.The International Journal of Bilingualism.5(1):1–17.

Hornberger,N.2002.Multilinguallanguagepoliciesandthecontinuaofbiliteracy.Language Policy 1:27–51.

Hornberger,N.2003.Afterword:Ecologyand ideology inmultilingual classroms. InMulti-lingual Classroom Ecologies: Inter-relationships, Interactions and Ideologies, A. Creese &P.Martin(eds),136–142.Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Hornberger,N.H.&CorsonD.(eds).1997.Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, Vol.8:Research Methods in Language and Education. Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Hufeisen,B.2000.AEuropeanperspective–TertiarylanguageswithafocusonGermanasL3.InHandbook of Undergraduate Second Language Education: English as a Second Language, Bilingual and Foreign Language Instruction for a Multilingual World, J.W.Rosenthal(ed),209–229.MahwahNJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Hufeisen,B.2001.DeutschalsTertiärsprache.InDeutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationals Handbuch, G.Helbig,L.Götze,G.Henrici&H.-J.Krumm(eds),648–653.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.

Hufeisen,B.2005.Multilingualism:Linguisticmodelsandrelatedissues.InIntroductory Read-ings in L3, B.Hufeisen&R.Fouser(eds),31–45.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.

Hufeisen,B.&Gibson,M.2003.ZurInterdependenzemotionalerundkognitiverFaktorenimRahmeneinesModellszurbeschriebungsukzessivenmultiplenSprachenlernens.Gehirn und Sprache: Psycho- und neurolinguistische Ansätze.Bulletin suisse de linguistique appli-quée78:13–33.


Hufeisen,B.&Marx,N.2003.Multilingualism:Theory, researchmethodsanddidactics. InNew Visions in Foreign and Second Language Education,G.Bräuer&K.Sanders (eds),178–203.SanDiegoCA:LARCPress.

Hufeisen,B.&Neuner,G.2004.Theplurilingualismproject:Tertiarylanguagelearning–Ger-manafterEnglish.<http://www.ecml.at/documents/pub112E2004HufeisenNeuner.pdf>.

Janesick V.J. 1994. The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, andmeaning.InHandbook of Qualitative Research,N.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(eds),209–219.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.

Jessner,U.1997.Towardsadynamicviewofmultilingualism.InLanguage Choices: Conditions, Constraints and Consequences, MartinPütz(ed),17–30.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Jessner,U.2006.Linguistic awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh:EUP.

Jessner,U.2008.Teachingthirdlanguages:Findings,trendsandchallenges.Language Teaching 41(1):15–56.

Kaneko,K.&Tsuda,I.2001.Complex Systems: Chaos and Beyond – A Constructive Approach with Applications in Life Sciences.NewYorkNY:Springer.

KeJ.&HollandJ.H.2006.Languageoriginfromanemergentistperspective.Applied Linguis-tics27:691–716.

Kramsch,C.2008.Ecologicalperspectivesonforeignlanguageeducation.Language Teaching 41(3): 389–408.

Lacey,A.R.2001.A Dictionary of Philosophy,3rdedn. London:Routledge.Larsen-Freeman,D.1997.Chaos/complexityscienceandsecondlanguageacquisition.Applied

Linguistics 18:141–165.Larsen-Freeman, D. 2002. Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity

theoryperspective. In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization. Ecological Per-spectives, C. Kramsch(ed.),33–46.London:Continuum.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2006. The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oraland written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27(4):590–619.

MacWhinney, B. 2006. Emergentism – Use often and with care. Applied Linguistics 27(4):729–740.

Mandelbrot,B.1982.The Fractal Geometry of Nature.San-FranciscoCA:W.H.FreemanandCompany.

Maurais,J.2003.Towardsanewlinguisticworldorder.InLanguages in a Globalizing World, J.Maurais&M.Morris(eds),13–36.Cambridge:CUP.

Meißner,F.-J.2003.EuroComDidact:Learningandteachingplurilingualcomprehension.InSprachkompetenz—Mehrsprachigkeit –Translation. Akten des 35.Linguistischen Kolloqui-ums, L.Zybatow(ed.),33–46. Innsbruck,2—22September2000.Tübingen:Narr.

Mellow,D.2006.Theemergenceofsecondlanguagesyntax:Acasestudyoftheacquisitionofrelativeclauses.Applied Linguistics27:645–670.

Meara, P. 2006. Emergent properties of multilingual lexicons. Applied Linguistics 27(4):620–644.

Mühlhäusler,P.1996.Linguistic Ecology. Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Region. London:Routledge.

Neale,J.M.&Liebert,R.M.1986.Science and Behavior: An Introduction to Methods of Research. NewYorkNY:Prentice-Hall.


ÓLaoire,M.&Aronin,L.2005.Thinkingofmultilinguality–‘myself ’or‘myvariousselves’?Anexplorationoftheidentityofmultilinguals.Paperpresentedatthe Fourth Internation-al Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism, Fribourg/FreiburgandBiel/Bienne,Switzerland,September8–10.

Palmer,T.2003.Globalization,cosmopolitalism,andpersonal identity.Ethics and Politics 2.<http://www.tomgpalmer.com/papers/palmer-globcosmoidentity.pdf>(20May.2008).

Phillipson,R.1992.Linguistic Imperialism.Oxford:OUP.Porte,G.K.2002.Appraising Research in Second Language Learning: A Practical Approach to

Critical Analysis of Quantitative Research [LanguageLearning&LanguageTeaching3].Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Richards,K.2009.Trends inqualitativeresearch in language teachingsince2000.Language Teaching 42(2):147–180.

Selinker,L.1972.Interlanguage.IRAL10(3):209–231.Selinker,L.1992.Rediscovering Interlanguage. NewYorkNY:Longman.Spolsky, B. 1999. Second language learning. In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity,

J.A.Fishman(ed),181–192.Oxford:OUP.Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education – Or Worldwide Diversity and

Human Rights? MahwahNJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2004. as quoted in Killer English. <http://www.multilingualblog.com/

index.php/killer_english/>(9May2004).Urry, J. 2000. Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London:

Routledge.Waldrop,M.M.1992.Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos.New

YorkNY:SimonandSchuster.Waterhouse,M.2008.De/territorializationsandlanguagemonsters.Educational Insights 12(1).

<www.ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/publication/insights/v12n01/pdfs/waterhouse.pdf>.Williams,S.&Hammarberg,B.1998.LanguageswitchesinL3production:Implicationsfora

polyglotspeakingmodel.Applied Linguistics 19(3):295–333.Ytsma J. 2001. Towards a typology of trilingual primary education. International Journal of

Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1):11–22.

chapter7

The study of multilingualism in educational contexts

JasoneCenozandUlrikeJessnerUniversityofBasqueCountry/UniversityofInnsbruck

Inthisarticlemultilingualeducationisdiscussedinconnectionandcompari-sonwithbilingualeducation.Anoverviewofthevariousformsofmultilingualeducationandteachingispresented,focusingonthesocio-andpsycholin-guisticaspectsofmultilinguallearning.Thequestionoftheidealonsetageinamultilingualclassroomisdealtwithinmoredetail.RecentresearchintheBasqueCountryprovidesinsightintothecomplexityofmultilingualeducation.Thediscussionendswithapleaforamultilingualapproachtomultilingualism.

Keywords: multilingualeducation,agefactor,cognitiveeffects,metalinguisticawareness,BasqueCountry,multicompetence

1. Introductory remarks

Over the last few years a growing interest in the study of multilingualism hasemerged.Fromaglobalview,thisisnotsurprisingsincemultilingualismdoesnotpresentanexceptionbuttherule.FromaEuropeanperspective,itcertainlyhastobeseenlinkedtothecalloftheEuropeanUnionfortrilingualEuropeancitizens.AspublishedintheEurobarometerReport243,mostEuropeansconsideritimpor-tanttoknowotherlanguagesthantheirmothertongue(Eurobarometer2006).

Thebenefitsofmultilingualismandmultilingualeducationhavebeenadvo-catedduringthe lastdecadealthoughmultilingualismpresentsaphenomenondifficult tograsp in itscomplexityand thereforeposinganumberofproblemsto scholarsworking in thefield.Over the last years,nevertheless, the researchareaofthirdlanguageacquisitionandtrilingualismhascontributedtoabetterunderstandingofmultilingualprocessesanduse.Asaconsequence,multilingualeducationhasbeeninformedbyvarioustrendsinresearchofmultilingualacqui-sition(Jessner2008d).

122 JasoneCenozandUlrikeJessner

Theaimofthisarticleistoprovideanoverviewofinternationalresearchonmultilingualeducation,incontrasttobilingualeducation.Apartfrompresentinganoverviewofvariousformsofmultilingualeducationandteaching,itwillfocusonsocio-andpsycholinguisticaspectsofmultilinguallearning.Specialattentionwillbeplacedontheimportantquestionofage,thatis,whenit isbesttostartlearningasecondorforeign language.Newresearchcarriedout intheBasqueCountrywillprovideinsightintothiscrucialalbeitcomplexissueinmultilingualeducation.Finally,itwillbearguedthatamultilingualapproachtomultilingual-ismisneededinordertoprogressinallresearchareasofthefield.

2. Multilingual learning is not bilingual learning

Inthissectionmultilingualeducationwillbediscussedinconnectionandcom-parisonwithbilingualeducation.Atthesametimethedistinctionbetweensec-ondandthirdlanguagelearningrequiresfurtherexplorationsinceitplaysanim-portantroleintheclassroomandneedsconsiderationincurriculumplanning.

In many countries all over the world learning a third language at schoolpresentsacommonexperienceformanychildren.IntheEuropeancontextthismeans that a number of these children study two foreign languages at school,suchasEnglishandFrenchinAustriaorGermany.ButthirdlanguagelearningalsotakesplaceinschoolsliketheEuropeanschoolswhereseverallanguagesareusedasmediaof instruction(e.g.Baetens-Beardsmore1995)ordue todoubleimmersion,asdescribedbyGenesee(1998).Thesedaysmultilingualeducationisbecomingmorewidespreadduetotherecenttrendstofostermultilingualism,eitherthroughtheintroductionofaforeignlanguageatanearlyage–inmostcasesEnglish,oroneortwosecondforeignlanguagesinsecondaryschool,andthechangingstatusofminoritylanguages.

Incontrast tobilingualeducation,multilingualeducationcanpresentaddi-tionalchallengesbecause it ismuchmorecomplex (CenozandGenesee1998).TheseauthorsarguethatmultilingualeducationisdefinedbytheuseoflanguagesotherthantheL1sasmediaofinstruction(despitethelanguageswhicharetaughtasschoolsubjects)withtheaimofcommunicativeproficiencyinmorethantwolanguages(CenozandGenesee1998:14).Asexplainedinthe‘ContinuaofMulti-lingualEducation’(Cenoz2009),multilingualeducation,likebilingualeducation,cantakedifferentformsbecauseitisnecessarilylinkedtothesociolinguisticcon-textinwhichittakesplaceandhastotakeaccountoftherelativestatusanduseofthelanguagesinvolved.Complexityanddiversityinmultilingualeducationarerelatedtothevarietyofformsoflanguageteachingleadingtomultilingualismanddiversesocialenvironmentsrequiringdifferentformsofmultilingualeducation.

Chapter7. Thestudyofmultilingualismineducationalcontexts 123

Itisworthnotingthatélitemultilingualismseemstofavourtheuseofstrictboundariesbetweenlanguageswhereasmanymultilingualprogrammesforindig-enouspeople(seeexamplesofLatinAmerica,IndiaandAfrica)haveatraditionofusinglanguagesinterchangeably,aspointedoutbyGarcíaetal.(2006:22).Inmultilingualeducationtheselectionoflanguagesplaysacrucialrole.Minorityorheritagelanguageshavetobefosteredandbeintegratedintotheprocessofmul-tiple language learning(OlshtainandNissim-Amitai2004;Krumm2005).ThesameappliestotheintegrationofcommunitylanguagesaccompaniedbysomenecessaryinitiativestoimprovethestatusorvalueoflanguagesotherthanEng-lish(knownasLOTE)inmultilingualeducation(Clyneetal.2004).

Thirdlanguageacquisition(henceforthTLA)inschoolsharesmanyimpor-tantcharacteristicsofsecondlanguagelearningbut,atthesametime,buildsonsecondlanguagelearning;specifically,itisinfluencedbythedegreeofbilingual-ismalreadyattainedbythestudent.WhereassecondlanguagelearningreferstoteachinganL2asasubject,bilingualeducationusuallyreferstotheinstructionintwolanguages.Buttoviewthisdifferentiationasadichotomousfeaturewouldbemisleading.Rather,secondlanguageacquisition(henceforthSLA)andbilingualeducationshouldbetakenasexistingonacontinuum,also includingcontent-basedapproachesusingtheL2asmediumof instructionwithintheL2subjectclasses(Met1998).Equally,thedistinctionbetweenTLAandtrilingual(ormul-tilingual)educationisnotclear.WhereasTLAisusedtorefertolearninganL3asaschoolsubject,trilingualeducationinvolvestheuseofthreelanguagesaslan-guagesofinstruction.Butagain,theboundariesbetweenthetwoconceptshavetobeseenasblurredaccordingtothemethodologicalapproachesandeducationalaimsfortheindividuallanguages(JessnerandCenoz2007:160).

Examplesofmultilingualschoolingcanbefoundinthecaseof lessspreadlanguagesandminoritycontextswheretrilingualschoolingiscommon,suchasinLuxembourg,theBasqueCountry(seealsobelow),theLadin-speakingcommu-nityinSouthTyrolinthenorthernpartofItalyortheFrisianlanguagecommunityintheNetherlands.InmajorcitieswefindInternationalSchoolswhichsometimesincludethirdlanguagesandEuropeanSchoolswhichcanbeseenasratherelitistinstitutions(foramoredetaileddescriptionseeJessner2008d).

3. Attitudes towards languages

The distinction between additive and subtractive bilingualism goes back toLambert(1977)whoestablishedthiscrucialconceptofhowlanguagechoiceisinfluencedbytheprestigeofa languageinacommunityorsociety.Whetheralanguageismaintainedinanewenvironmentdependsverymuchontheprestige

12� JasoneCenozandUlrikeJessner

ofthatlanguageinthiscontext.Forinstance,whereasaPolishfamilywillmostprobablymeetproblemswiththemaintenanceofPolishwithinthefamilysinceit isnotconsideredaprestige language inaGermanoranAustriancontext,aFrenchfamilymightfinditmucheasiertomaintainthefamilylanguageinthesamecontext.Thedistinctionbetweenadditiveandsubtractivebilingualismhasbeen criticized by García (2008, chapter 6), who proposes two other conceptssuchas recursiveanddynamicbilingualismsoas to include thecomplexityofbilingualismanditslinguistic,ethnolinguisticandculturaldimensions.

Additionally, theprestigeofa languagealso influences thechoiceof learn-ingthislanguageasanadditionallanguage.LasagabasterandHuguet(2007)car-riedoutalarge-scalequestionnairestudyonthelanguageattitudesofpre-serviceteacherstowardsTLAand/ormultilingualisminanumberofbilingualcontextsinEuropesuchasIreland,Malta,Wales,Friesland,TheBasqueCountry,Cata-loniaandGalicia.Theyconcludedfromtheircomparativestudythatthewide-spreadfavourableattitudestowardstheminoritylanguagesreflectthechangesinlinguisticpoliciespromotingprotectionandrecoveryoftheminoritylanguagesoverthelasttwodecades.

Clearly,thesteadygrowthofEnglishaslinguafrancaplaysanimportantrolein the development of multilingualism, including the contexts above. Graddol(2004)isconvincedthattheincreasedacquisitionofEnglishintheworld, inanumberofcasesasathirdlanguage(CenozandJessner2000),doesnotcounter-actmultilingualismbutleadstothedevelopmentof“multilingualismwithEng-lish”onasocietalandindividuallevel(Hoffmann2000).

�. Linguistic and cognitive effects of multilingual learning

Multilingual acquisition is a complex and dynamic process. The complexity ofmultilingualdevelopmentanduseisclearlyrelatedtothedynamicsofmultilin-gualdevelopment,arelationshipwhichhasbeendiscussedbydynamicsystemstheory (e.g.HerdinaandJessner2002; Jessner2008c; seealsoLarsen-FreemanandCameron2008).

Justbylookingatthedifferencebetweenthesimultaneousvs.theconsecutiveacquisitionofdifferent languageswecansee importantdifferences.When twolanguagesareinvolvedthereareonlytwopossibilities:earlybilingualismwhenthe two languagesare learnedsimultaneouslyandsecond languageacquisitionwhentheyarelearnedconsecutively.InTLAthereareatleastfourpossibilitiesdescribedinCenoz(2000):


a. simultaneousacquisitionofL1/L2/L3,b. consecutiveacquisitionofL1,L2andL3,c. simultaneousacquisitionofL2/L3afterlearningtheL1,d. simultaneousacquisitionofL1/L2beforelearningtheL3.

Inaddition,inmultilingualacquisition,thelearningprocessisofteninterruptedbecausethelearnerstarts learninganotherlanguage.Thisprocessmightbere-versedorcomplicatedbyreactivatingoneormorepriorlanguages.

HerdinaandJessner(2002)definemultilingualproficiencyasnon-additivemeasureofthepsycholinguisticsystemsofamultilingualspeaker,crosslinguisticinteraction,whichalso includesnon-predictablecognitiveaspectsof the influ-encebetweenthelanguagesinaspeaker,andtheso-calledM(ultilingualism)-fac-tor.Thelatterreferstopropertiesofamultilingualsystemwhichcannotbefoundin monolingual systems such as multilingual awareness, multilingual monitor-ing,multilinguallearningstrategiesrelatedtothepriorlanguageknowledgethespeakercanresortto.

Theinfluencebetweenthelanguagesinamultilingualsystemistheareaofresearchwhichhasreceivedmostattentionfromthirdlanguageacquisitionre-searchers,ascanbeseeninvariouschaptersofthisbook(seealsoJessner2003).TheresearchquestionwhichhasbeenofutmostimportanceconcernsthestatusoftheL2inL3development.IncontrasttotheassumptionofthedominanceoftheL1inforeignlanguagelearningitturnedoutinanumberofstudiesthattheL2exertedsignificantinfluenceontheL3.

Todayresearchersstartfromtheassumptionthatanylanguagecanexertin-fluenceonanyotherlanguageinthemultilingualsystem,thatis,crosslinguisticinteraction can be found between the L1 and the L2, between the L1 and theL3,andfinallybetweentheL2andtheL3.Itisimportanttonoteherethattheinfluence isknowntobereciprocalbetweenall the languagecombinations.AsdiscussedbyKellerman(1995),apartfromlinguisticaspectsoftransfer,cognitiveprocesses beyond individual awareness can influence the transferring process.SuchaperspectiveiselaboratedintheconceptofcrosslinguisticinteractioninthedynamicmodelofmultilingualismbyHerdinaandJessner(2002).Accordingtodynamicsystemstheorytheyarguethatthemultilingualsystemisnottheprod-uctofaddingtwoormorelanguagesbutacomplexsystemwithitsownparam-etersexclusivetothemultilingualspeaker.Transferphenomenaarerecognizedassignificantfeaturesofthemultilingualsystemandthereforepresentprimeob-jectsofmultilingualinvestigation.Itisalsoarguedthatcrosslinguisticinteraction,whichisnotsynonymouswithcrosslinguisticinfluence,coversnon-predictabledynamiceffectswhichdeterminethedevelopmentofthesystemsthemselvesandareparticularlyobservableinmultilingualism,asdescribedinthefollowing.


OneofthemostinterestingissuesregardingTLAistoseewhetherbilingualshaveadvantagesovermonolingualsinlearningafurtherlanguage.Backin1976Gulutsan reported on double immersion programmes in Canada and therebyalreadypointedtothe intellectualenrichmentresultingfromtrilingualschool-ing. Today it seems to be widely known that under certain circumstances lifewithtwoormorelanguagescanleadtoadvantages,notonlywithregardtolan-guageknowledgebutalsointermsofcognitiveandsociopragmaticdevelopment.Amongthemwecountaheightenedlevelofmetalinguisticawareness,creativeordivergentthinking,communicativesensitivityandfurtherlanguagelearning(e.g.Mohanty1994;Baker2006).

FollowingtheearlystudiesofTLAbyRingbom(1987)andThomas(1988),anumberofstudieswerecarriedoutwithchildrenintheBasqueCountryandinCataloniatoexploretheeffectsofbilingualismonTLA(Cenoz1991;CenozandValencia1994;Sanz1997;Lasagabaster1997;Muñoz2000;Sagasta2003).Inallof these studies, bilingual children outperformed monolinguals in the acquisi-tionofEnglish.InaDutchcontext,Gonzalez(1998)studiedTurkishandMoroc-can immigrantswithregard to learningEnglishandalso foundsuperiority forthebilingualpopulation.Forinstance,inaSwisscontext,Brohy(2001)showedthat Romansch-German bilinguals outperformed German monolinguals whenlearningFrench.

Inanextensivecriticaloverview,Cenoz(2003c) foundatendencytowardsmixedresultsinstudiesontheeffectsofbilingualismonfurtherlanguagelearn-ingwhichsherelatedtothediversityofthestudiesconcerningthespecificaspectsofproficiency,methodologyusedandthetestingcontext.ThemajorityofstudiesongeneralproficiencyindicatedapositiveeffectofbilingualismonTLAandthiseffect was linked to metalinguistic awareness, language learning strategies andcommunicativeability,inparticularinthecaseoftypologicallycloselanguages.ThestudyalsoseemedtosupportBialystok(2001)whodescribesabilingualassomeonewhodoesnothaveacross-the-boardmetalinguisticadvantagesoruni-versally superiormetalinguisticabilitiesbut increasedabilities in tasks that re-quireselectiveattention.

Asforadditionallanguagelearning,theresultsofthesestudiesseemtoimplythatthedevelopmentofa‘bilingualawareness’(McCarthy1994)ortheapplica-tionofabilingualnorm–insteadofamonolingualnorm(HerdinaandJessner2002)–providesthenecessaryprerequisiteforsuccessfulfurtherlanguagelearn-ing(seealsobelow).

Metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness play an important role in thedevelopmentof language learningstrategies inmultilingual learnersandusers.Jessner(2006)definedlinguisticawarenessinmultilingualsasanemergentprop-ertyofmultilingualproficiencyandasconsistingofatleasttwodimensionsinthe


formofcrosslinguisticawarenessandmetalinguisticawareness.Crosslinguisticawarenessreferstothelearner’stacitandexplicitawarenessofthelinksbetweentheirlanguagesystems(seealsoJessner2008b).

Duetotheirexperienceinlanguagelearning,multilinguallearnersusedif-ferent strategies to monolingual students learning their first foreign language,asalreadypointedoutbyMcLaughlin(1990).Asshowninseveralfurtherstud-ies on the good language learner around 1990 (Nation and McLaughlin 1986;McLaughlinandNayak1989;Nayaketal.1990),expertlanguagelearnersshowasuperiorabilitytoshiftstrategiesandrestructuretheirinternalrepresentationsof the linguistic system. Thomas (1992) also concluded from her TLA studiesthat a student’s prior linguistic experience influences the strategies which theysubsequentlyadaptandtheirsuccessintheforeignlanguageclassroom.Lateron,Mißler(1999,2000)carriedoutalarge-scalestudyonlanguagelearningstrate-giesinmultilingualstudentsinaGermancontext.Shefoundthattheincreaseoflanguagelearningexperiencewasreflectedinthenumberofstrategies,whichalsoturnedouttodependonindividualfactors.ThiswassupportedbyEnder(2007)inherstudyonreadingcomprehensioninmultilinguallearnersofFrenchatInns-bruckUniversityinAustria.Basedonanotherlarge-scalestudyinGermanyfo-cusingonRomancelanguages,Müller-Lancé(2003)developedastrategymodelofmultilinguallearningwherehedistinguishesbetweenproductive(orretrieval)andreceptive(orinferencing)strategieswhichturnedouttodependmainlyonformerlyacquiredlexicalcompetencesinotherforeignlanguages.Kemp(2001)showed thatmultilinguals acquire thegrammarof another language faster, i.e.they use more grammar learning strategies (see also Klein 1995). In her mostrecentstudyKemp(2007)evendetectedathresholdeffectfortheuseofgrammarlearningstrategies,namelythatdiversificationandaugmentationofstrategyuseoccurstoagreaterextentduringtheacquisitionoftheL3.

5. Exploring the age factor

Researchontheinfluenceofageontheacquisitionofsecondandadditionallan-guageshasimportantimplicationsformultilingualeducationwhenmakingde-cisionsaboutinstructionofdifferentlanguagesandthroughdifferentlanguagesin the curriculum. There is the popular idea that children pick up languagesmoreeasilythanadultsandthat‘theearlierthebetter’istherightstrategyforlanguage learning. This idea is based mainly on the experience of immigrantfamiliesacquiringthelanguageofthehostcountries.Inthesecases,theageofarrivalisusuallylinkedtothelevelofproficiencyandyoungerchildrentendtoacquireahigherlevelofproficiencyinthetargetlanguagethanolderchildren


andadults.Researchstudiesinthistypeofsettinghaveconfirmedtheseresults(HyltenstamandAbrahamsson2003;DeKeyserandLarson-Hall2005).How-ever,theeffectofageonsecondlanguageacquisitionisstillacontroversialareaofresearchbecause languagelearningisacomplexprocessandtheagefactorcannotbeeasilyisolatedfromotherindividualandcontextualfactors.Researchinnaturallanguageenvironmentstendstosupporttheexistenceofsensitivepe-riodsforSLAbutsomestudieshavereportedthatolderchildrenandadultscanalsoacquireveryhighlevelsofproficiencyinasecondlanguage(seeSingletonandRyan2004forareview).

Thediversityofmultilingualeducationshowsthat therearemanypossiblewaystointroducedifferentlanguagesintheschoolcurriculum.Inmanycoun-tries second and foreign languages are introduced in the last years of primaryschoolor in thefirstyearsof secondaryschool. Inothercountriessecondandforeignlanguagesareintroducedinpre-primaryandevenindaycarecentresbe-causeitisthoughtthatveryyoungchildrencanhavesomeadvantagesforlearn-inglanguagesthatcanbelostwhenchildrengrowolder.

Thedevelopmentofthefieldofthirdandadditionallanguagelearningandmultilingualismhasraisedtheinterestindifferentaspectsoflanguageacquisitionandamongthemonthestudyoftheagefactorasrelatedtothirdlanguagelearn-inginschoolcontexts.Studiesoneducationareoftenrelatedtospecificsocialandeducationalproblemsandchangesineducationalpolicies.ThissituationisclearlyreflectedintheresearchstudiesconductedintwoautonomouscommunitiesinSpain,CataloniaandtheBasqueAutonomousCommunity.Studiesinthesecom-munitiesfocusontheacquisitionofEnglishasathirdlanguageinschoolswereSpanishandtheminoritylanguage(CatalanorBasque)arealsoschoolsubjectsand/orlanguagesofinstruction.

TheincreasingroleofEnglishinEuropeandasalanguageofinternationalcommunication has developed a growing interest in learning English which isreflectedindemandsformoreEnglishinstructionandbetterqualityEnglishin-structioninschools.Withafewexceptions,Englishcanberegardedintheseareasasa foreign languagenotused ineverydaycommunication.The levelofprofi-ciencyinEnglishinSpainingeneralislowerthaninsomeotherareasofEuropewherethereismoreexposuretoEnglishwithnativeandnon-nativespeakersandthroughthemedia.EnglishisalsotypologicallymoredistantfromSpanish,Cata-lanandparticularlyfromBasquethanthedifferentGermaniclanguages.

TheneedtoimprovethelevelofEnglishatschoolhasbeenassociatedwiththeearlyintroductionofEnglishintheschoolcurriculum.TheSpanishdecreefor pre-primary (Decree 1630/2006-4-1-2007) states that a first contact with aforeignlanguageshouldbeencouragedsoastodeveloppositiveattitudestowardsforeignlanguages,byusingtheforeignlanguageorallyforcommunicationinthe


classroom.Althoughthereisnotaminimumnumberofhoursforforeignlan-guageteachinginpre-primary,thenumberofhoursforaforeignlanguageis385forprimaryschool.Afirstforeignlanguageisathirdlanguageinbilingualcom-munitiessuchastheBasqueCountryandCatalonia.InthissectionwearegoingtodiscussinmoredetailthesituationoftheearlyintroductionofEnglishintheBasqueAutonomousCommunity(seealsoCenoz2009).

TheearlyintroductionofEnglishasathirdlanguageinpre-primaryisoneofthemaincharacteristicsoftheBasqueeducationalsystem.ItwasinitiatedonanexperimentalbasisinseveralBasque-mediumschoolsin1991.TheseschoolshadBasqueasthelanguageofinstructionandSpanishasaschoolsubjectandtheirpupilsarenativespeakersofBasqueorSpanishandinsomecasesearlybilingualsinBasqueandSpanish.Theideawastocombinethereinforcementoftheminor-itylanguagebyusingitasthemainmediumofinstructionwithmoreinstructionin English. Spanish is the majority language in the sociolinguistic context anditisalsotaughtasasubject.Thisexperimentspreadtomanyotherschoolsandnowadays,90%oftheschoolsteachEnglishfromtheageoffouralthoughitisnotcompulsoryuntiltheageofsix.ThisearlyintroductionofEnglishwasverymuchencouragedbyparentswhowanttheirchildrentolearnEnglishandthinkthatanearlyintroductionnecessarilyresultsinahigherlevelofcompetence.BeforetheearlyintroductionofEnglishwasspreadtomostschoolstherewasalsosomecompetitionbetweenschoolstoattractmorestudentsbyofferingEnglishfromaveryearlyage.Nowadays,manyparentssendtheirchildrentoprivateclassesofEnglishortolanguageschoolsintheeveningssothattheylearnmoreEnglishbecausetheythinkthatthelevelofproficiencyachievedatschoolsisnotenough.TeachersintheseprivateEnglishschoolsforeveningclassesareinmanycasesna-tivespeakersofEnglishandtheypreparechildrenforspecificcertificates.ParentsalsosendtheirchildrentoEnglish-speakingcountriesinthesummer.TheearlyintroductionofEnglishisconsideredawaytoimproveproficiencyinEnglishbutsofarithasnotreplacedtheprivateextra-classesorthecoursesinEnglish-speak-ingcountries.

TheteachingofEnglishinpre-primaryislimitedtoveryfewhoursperweekbutitincreasesthetotalnumberofhoursofexposuretoEnglish.Theminimumnumberofhoursfortheteachingofaforeignlanguage(mainlyEnglish)inpri-maryschoolis770intheBasqueAutonomousCommunity,muchhigherthanthe compulsory number of hours in Spain. Still the averagenumber of hoursdevotedtotheforeignlanguageperyearisquitelimited(128hours)ifwecon-siderthatexposuretothelanguageisverymeagreoutsidetheclassroom.Infact,exposurethroughthemediaisslightasmostpeoplewatchBasqueandSpanishtelevisionandalltheprogrammesaredubbedintoBasqueandSpanishwithoutusingsubtitles.Englishisusedinsomecommercialsignsandbytouristsbutits


useisquiterestrictedandmostchildrenhavenocontactwithEnglishoutsidetheclassroom.

ApartfromtheearlyintroductionofEnglishtherehavebeenotherprojectstoimprovetheteachingofEnglish.Forexample,theBasqueGovernmentDepart-mentofEducationhassubsidizedintensivelanguagelearningandmethodologycoursesforEnglishteachersbothintheBasqueCountryandintheUnitedKing-dom.TheBasqueGovernmenthasalsotriedto improvethequalityofEnglishteachingbyencouragingtheadoptionofnewinstructionalapproaches,especiallythosethatemphasizetheacquisitionoforalskills,theuseoflearner-centeredsyl-labi,andtheintegrationofcurriculaforthethreelanguages.SomeschoolshavegoneastepfurtherandareusingEnglishasthelanguageofinstructionattheendofprimaryschoolandinsecondaryschool(Cenoz,2009).Nevertheless,themostpopularprojectistheearlyintroductionofEnglishasathirdlanguageinthesec-ondyearofpre-primaryto4-year-oldchildren.

From 1996 onwards a research team from the University of the BasqueCountry has been working on different areas of the acquisition of English asathirdlanguageasrelatedtotheageofintroductionofEnglish.Thisresearchhasfocusedondifferentareas:phoneticsandphonology, lexicon,morphologyand syntax, writing skills. The results have focused on general proficiency inEnglish(seealsoCenoz,2002,2003a,2009),attitudes, specificaspectsofpro-ficiencyandcross-linguisticinfluence(Cenoz2001,2003b,2004;GarcíaMayo2003;GarcíaLecumberriandGallardo2003;RuizdeZarobe2005;LasagabasterandDoiz2003).Thesestudiesreportresultsthatcancontributetothetheoreti-caldebateontheagequestioninSLAandtothedevelopmentoftheareaofTLAandtrilingualismbecauseEnglishislearnedasathirdlanguagewithinbilingualeducation.Theimplicationsofthesestudiescanalsobeusefulforlanguageplan-ningandcurriculumdevelopmentwhendecidingaboutthebestpossibleagetointroduceaforeignlanguagewithinabilingualeducationsystem.Herewewilljustsummarizethegeneralresults.

Participants in this research study were children who had started learningEnglishasathirdlanguageatdifferentages:fromtheageof4inpre-school,fromtheageof8inthe3rdyearofprimaryschoolandfromtheageof11inthe6thyearofprimaryschool.Allparticipantscamefromsimilarsocioeconomicback-groundsanddidnottakeanyprivateclassesofEnglishoutsideschool.TheyhadnotbeentoEnglishspeakingcountrieseither.Comparisonsweremadeinthreedifferentways:

1. ComparingthelevelofEnglishproficiencybetweengroupsoflearnerswhohavehadthesameamountofexposurebutstartedlearningEnglishatdiffer-entages.


2. ComparingtheresultsobtainedintheEnglishproficiencytestsbylearnerswhowerethesameagebuthavereceiveddifferentamountofexposure.

3. Adopting a longitudinal perspective and comparing the progress made bylearnersinprimaryandsecondaryschool.

Theresultsofthecomparisonsbetweengroupsoflearnerswhohadstartedlearn-ingEnglishatthreedifferentages(4,8and11)andhadreceivedthesamenumberofhoursofinstructionindicatethatolderlearnersachievehigherscoresinoralandwrittenproficiencyinEnglishthanyounger learners.Thesegeneralresultsareconfirmedbythestudiesondifferentaspectsofproficiencyreportedinthestudiesmentionedabove.TheresultsarealsoconsistentwiththeresultsobtainedinBarcelonawhencomparinglearnerswhohadstartedinthe3rdyearofprimaryschool to learners who had started in the 6th year of primary school (Muñoz2006). A possible explanation for these results is related to cognitive maturitythatcouldhelpolderchildrentodobetterbecausetheyhavehigherdevelopedtest-takingstrategies.Anotherpossibleexplanationoftheresultsislinkedtothetypeofinput.Theoral-basedapproachusedwithyoungerstudentscouldexplainthefactthattherearefewerdifferencesinoralskillsbutmoredifferencesintestsofmorelexicalandsyntacticcomplexity.Thedifferencesaremoreimportantinthosemeasuresrelated tohighermetalinguisticawarenessand itcouldalsobethatthehighermetalinguisticawarenessassociatedwiththirdlanguageacquisi-tion(Jessner2006)isnotobservedintheearlystages.

AsecondcomparisonfocusedonanalysingthedifferencesinEnglishprofi-ciencytestsbetweenlearnerswhowerethesameagebuthadreceiveddifferentamountofexposure.Theadvantageofcomparingtheresultsobtainedbysubjectswhoarethesameageisthatnodifferencescanbeattributedtocognitivedevelop-ment.However,theproblemofthisperspectiveisthattheresultscanbeattrib-utedbothtothedifferencesinageandtothedifferencesinthenumberofhoursofinstruction.Thisisamethodologicalproblemforresearchontheagefactorbutnotsomuchforresearchinmultilingualeducationaimingtofindoutthemostefficient way to introduce second and additional languages in the curriculum.TheresultsoftheresearchstudyconductedintheBasqueCountryindicatethatanearlier introductionofEnglish including300hoursmoreof instructionhasapositiveeffectonsometestsoforalproductionbutnotinallthedimensionsofEnglishproficiency.Themostobviousexplanationfortheseresultsisrelatedtothetypeofinputwhichcouldexplainthattheeffectofadditionalinstructionfromanearlyageisonlyseeninsomemeasuresoforalproduction.AnalternativeexplanationisthatyoungerlearnersdonotpresentadvantagesbecausetheyarestillinthefirststagesofTLAandsomestudiesindicatethatmoreadvantagesareseenincomparisonscarriedoutatlaterstages(seeCenoz2009).


Thethirdcomparisonfocusesontheprogressmadebylearnersinprimaryandsecondaryschool.Alongitudinalperspectivewasadoptedinthiscaseandtheresultsindicatethatbothprimaryandsecondaryschoolstudentsmakeprog-ressalongthetwoyearsinwhichthemeasurementsweretaken.Thecomparisonofthesamegroupofstudentsinthe4thyearandthe6thyearofprimaryschoolindicates that subjectsmakesignificantprogress inall themeasuresofEnglishproficiency except pronunciation, vocabulary and number of utterances in theFrog story. The longitudinal data corresponding to the 2nd year of secondaryschoolandthe4thyearofsecondaryschoolindicatethatlearnersmakesignif-icant progress in all the measures of English proficiency except pronunciationandlisteningcomprehension.Thefactthatthereisnoprogressinpronunciationcouldbeduetofossilization,theincreasinginfluenceofspellingonpronuncia-tionortheexposuretonon-nativemodelsofpronunciation.Thefactthatthereisnoprogressinlisteningcomprehensioncanbeduetothehighscoresthatsubjectsgetinthistestwhichwerealreadyveryclosetothemaximumscore.Adetailedanalysisoftheprogressoftheprimaryandsecondarystudents’progressalongthetwoyearsindicatesthatsecondaryschoollearnersmademoreprogressthanpri-maryschoollearners.Infact,secondaryschoollearnersmakemoreprogressthanprimaryschoollearnersinfifteenofthetwentymeasures.Theseresultsconfirmonceagainthatlearnersinprimaryschoolmakemoreprogressinthesemeasuresthaninthoserelatedtometalinguisticawareness(grammar,clozetest)andcanindicatetheinfluenceofthetypeofinputtheyreceive.

Insum,theresultsoftheprojectontheeffectofageonTLAconductedintheBasqueCountryindicatethatanearlyintroductionofEnglishinpre-prima-rydoesnotnecessarilyresultinahigherlevelofproficiencywhenexposuretothelanguageislimitedtoafewhoursofclassperweek.Theresultsalsoindicatethatanapproachbasedonoralcommunicationcanproducebetterresultsinoralabilitiesbut that theseabilitiesarenotnecessarily transferred tootherareasofproficiency,atleastinthefirststagesofthirdlanguageacquisition.Anearlyin-troductionofEnglishdoesnotcreateproblemswithcognitivedevelopmentorthedevelopmentofproficiencyinotherlanguages(seeGaragorri2002)butdoesnotnecessarilyprovidethelevelofproficiencythatisneededforEuropeanandinternationalcommunication(seealsoMuñoz2006forCatalonia).BetterresultscouldbeexpectedifanearlyintroductionofthethirdlanguagewasfollowedupbytheuseoftheL3asanadditionallanguageofinstruction.TeachingthroughtheL3impliesadditionalchallengesregardingtheintegrationofthedifferentlan-guagesinthecurriculum.SomeBasqueschoolshavealreadygoneinthisdirec-tion(ElorzaandMuñoa2008).


TheresearchstudiesdiscussedhereontheacquisitionofEnglishasathirdlanguageandtheage factorhaveaimedatcomparingtheeffectof introducingEnglishatdifferentagesondifferentaspectsofproficiencyinEnglish.Anotherinterestingapproachcouldbetocomparebilingualsandmultilingualsacquiringathirdoradditionallanguageatdifferentages,butinsomecontextsithasbecomeverydifficulttomakecomparisonsbecauseofthespreadoftheearlyintroductionofthethirdlanguage.Anotherinterestingquestionistocompareearlymultilin-gualswhoareexposedtoseverallanguagesfrombirthvs.consecutivemultilin-gualswhohavelearnedsecondandadditionallanguageslaterinlife.

6. A multilingual approach to multilingual education

Research in the field of multilingualism indicates that multilingual educationdiffers in many respects from bilingual education and also that this differencepresentsagreatchallengetocommonframeworksofeducation.Tosolvetheagequestionisjustoneoutofmanyissueswhichneedfurtherinvestigation.Whenmore languagesare included in theschoolcurriculumtherearemorepossiblecombinationsregardingtheuseofthedifferentlanguagesasmediaofinstructionandtheyearinwhichthedifferentlanguagesareintroduced.ThedatafromtheBasqueCountrydiscussedinthischapterindicatethatanearlyintroductionofathirdlanguageasasubjectisnotnecessarilyassociatedwithbetterresults,atleastincasesinwhichexposuretothetargetlanguageisverylimited.

Asalreadydiscussedabove,achangeofperspectiveinlanguageacquisitionresearchneedstobeconsideredinordertoarriveatmoresatisfyingapproachestomultilingualismingeneralandmultilingualeducationinparticular.Toapproachmultilingualismfromamonolingualperspective,asisstillthecase,hasledtoanumberofproblems,inparticularwithregardtothenativespeakernorm.There-foreCook(e.g.1991),followingGrosjean(1985)whohadintroducedabilingualorholisticviewofbilingualism,suggestedtomoveawayfromamonolingualper-spectiveofcompetencebyapplyingmulticompetenceinstudiesofL2users(Cook2003).Suchaholisticviewalsopostulatesthatthepartsofawholearedynami-callyinterrelatedandthattheyshouldnotbediscussedinisolation,assuggestedbydynamicsystemstheory(Larsen-FreemanandCameron2008).HerdinaandJessner’sdynamicmodelofmultilingualism(2002)canalsoprovideatheoreticalframeworkfortheconceptofmulticompetence(seealsoCook2006).

A multicompetence approach to teaching bi- and multilingual proficiencycouldbeappliedinmultilingualeducationtomeetanumberofneeds(Jessner2008a).Emphasishastobeputonthedevelopmentoflinguisticawarenessasone


ofthecorefeaturesofmultilingualproficiencyinteachers,learnersandteachersaslearners.Oneoftheimportantissueswhichisrelatedtomulticompetenceintheeducationalcontextistheassessmentandtestingofmultilingualproficiency.Thedifferencesbetweenbilingualismandmultilingualismthathavebeenhigh-lightedinthischapterandelsewhereinthisvolumeneedtobeappliedtotheas-sessmentofdifferentlanguagessothatmultilingualsareconsideredassuchandnotjustcomparedtomonolingualsspeakingthedifferentlanguages.Itiscertainlynecessarytomoveawayfromamonolingualtoamultilingualapproachsoastoenhanceourknowledgeoftheprocessestakingplaceinmultilingualeducation.

References

Baetens-Beardsmore,H.1995.TheEuropeanschoolexperienceinmultilingualeducation.InMultilingualism for All,T.Skuttnab-Kangas(ed.),21–68.Lisse:Swets&Zeitlinger.

Baker,C.2006.Foundations of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 4thedn.Clevedon:Mul-tilingualMatters.

Bialystok, E. 2001. Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21:169–181.

Brohy,C.2001.Genericand/orspecificadvantagesofbilingualisminadynamicpurilingualsituation:ThecaseofFrenchasofficialL3intheschoolofSamedan(Switzerland).Inter-national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism4(1):38–49.

Cenoz,J.1991.Enseñanza-aprendizaje de inglés como L2 o L3.Donostia:UniversidaddelPaisVasco.

Cenoz,J.2000.Researchonmultilingualacquisition.InEnglish in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language,J.Cenoz&U.Jessner(eds),39–53.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.2001.Theeffectoflinguisticdistance,L2statusandageoncross-linguisticinfluenceinL3acquisition. InCross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:Psycholin-guistic Perspectives,J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen,&U.Jessner(eds),8–20.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.2002.Agedifferences inforeign language learning.ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 135–136: 125–142.

Cenoz,J.2003a.TheinfluenceofageontheacquisitionofEnglish:generalproficiency,attitudesandcodemixing.InAge and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language: Theoretical Issues and Fieldwork,M.P.GarcíaMayo&M.L.GarcíaLecumberri(Eds),77–93.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.2003b.Theroleoftypologyintheorganizationofthemultilinguallexicon.InThe multi-lingual lexicon,J.Cenoz.,B.Hufeisen&U.Jessner(eds),103–116.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Cenoz,J.2003c.Theadditiveeffectofbilingualismonthirdlanguageacquisition:Areview.The International Journal of Bilingualism 7(1):71–88.

Cenoz,J.2004.TeachingEnglishasathirdlanguage:Theeffectofattitudesandmotivation.InTrilingualism in Family, School and Community,C.Hoffmann&J.Ytsma(eds),202–218.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.


Cenoz,J.2009.Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational Research in International Perspective.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.&GeneseeF.(eds).1998. Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Edu-cation.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.&JessnerU.(eds).2000. English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language.Cle-vedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.&ValenciaJ.1994.Additivetrilingualism:EvidencefromtheBasqueCountry.Ap-plied Psycholinguistics15:197–209.

Clyne,M.,RossiHunt,C.&Isaakidis,T.2004.Learningacommunitylanguageasathirdlan-guage.International Journal of Multilingualism 1(1):33–52.

Cook,V.1991.Thepoverty-of-the-stimulusargumentandmulti-competence.Second Language Research 7: 103–117.

Cook,V.2003.ThechangingL1intheL2user’smind.InEffects of the Second Language on the First, V.Cook(ed),1–18. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cook,V.2006.ThenatureoftheL2user.PresentedattheEUROSLAconference,Ankara.<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/EURO2006.htm>(15July2008).

DeKeyser,R.&Larson–HallJ.2005.Whatdoesthecriticalperiodreallymean?InHandbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, J.F.Kroll&A.M.B.DeGroot(eds),88–108.Oxford:OUP.

Elorza,I.&Muñoa,I.2008.Promotingtheminority languagethroughintegratedplurilinguallanguageplanning:Thecaseoftheikastolas.Language, Culture and Curriculum21:85–101.

Ender,A.2007.Wortschatzerwerb und Strategieneinsatz bei mehrsprachigen Lernenden. Aktivie-rung von Wissen und erfolgreiche Verknüpfung beim Lesen auf Verständnis einer Fremdspra-che.Hohengehren:Schneider.

Eurobarometer 243. 2006. Europeans and their languages. http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc629_en.pdf15July2008.

Garagorri,X.2002.Hirueletasungoiztiarraikastoletan“Eleanitz-Ingelesa”proiektuarenebalu-azioa.In¿Trilingües a los 4 años?F.Etxeberria&U.RuizBikandi(eds),105–143.Donostia:IbaetaPedagogía.

García,O.,Skuttnab-Kangas,T.&Torres-Guzmán,M.2006.Weavingspacesand(de)construct-ingwaysformultilingualschools:Theactualandtheimagined.InImagining Multilingual Schools: Languages in Education and Globalization, García et al. (eds), 3–47. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

García, O. 2008. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.

GarcíaLecumberri,M.L.,&Gallardo,F.2003.EnglishFLSoundsinschoollearnersofdiffer-entages.InAge and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language,M.P.GarcíaMayo&M.L.GarcíaLecumberri(eds),115–135.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

GarcíaMayo,M.P.2003.Age,lengthofexposureandgrammaticalityjudgmentsintheacqui-sitionofEnglishasaforeignlanguage.InAge and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language: Theoretical Issues and Fieldwork,M.P.GarcíaMayo&M.L.GarcíaLecumberri(eds),94–114.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Genesee,F.1998.AcasestudyofmultilingualeducationinCanada.InBeyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education,J.Cenoz&F.Genesee(eds),243–258.Clev-edon:MultilingualMatters.

Gonzalez,P.1998.LearningaL2inathirdlanguageenvironment.Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 59:31–39.


Graddol,D.2004.Thefutureoflanguage.Science Magazine303:1329–1331.Grosjean,F.1985.Thebilingualasacompetentbutspecificspeaker-hearer.Journal of Multilin-

gual and Multicultural Development 6:467–477.Gulutsan, M. 1976. Third language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review 32(3):

309–315.Herdina,P.&Jessner,U.2002.A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in

Psycholinguistics.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Hoffmann,C.2000.ThespreadofEnglishandthegrowthofmultilingualismwithEnglishin

Europe.InEnglish in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language,J.Cenoz&U.Jessner(eds),1–21.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hyltenstam,K.&Abrahamsson,N.2003.MaturationalconstraintsinSLA.InThe Handbook of Second Language Acquisition,C.J.Doughty&M.H.Long(eds),539–588.Malden,MA:Blackwell.

Jessner,U.2003.Onthenatureofcrosslinguisticinteractioninmultilinguals.InThe Multilin-gual Lexicon, J.Cenoz,B.Hufeisen,&U.Jessner(eds),45–55.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Jessner,U.2006.Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language.Edinburgh:EUP.

Jessner,U.2008a.Multicompetenceapproachestothedevelopmentoflanguageproficiencyinmultilingualeducation.InBilingual Education [HandbookofLanguageandEducation6]J.Cummins(ed.),91–103.NewYorkNY:Springer.

Jessner,U.2008b.Languageawarenessinmultilinguals.InKnowledge about Language [Hand-bookofLanguageandEducation5],J.Cenoz(ed.),357–369.NewYorkNY:Springer.

Jessner,U.2008c.ADST-modelofmultilingualismandtheroleofmetalinguisticawareness.Second language development as a dynamic process. SpecialIssueofModern Language Jour-nal 92(2): 270–283.

Jessner,U.2008d.Teachingthirdlanguages:Facts,trendsandchallenges.Language Teaching 41(1):15–56.

Jessner,U.&Cenoz,J.2007.TeachingEnglishasathirdlanguage.InThe Handbook of English Language Teaching,J.Cummins&C.Davies(eds),155–167.Dordrecht:Springer.

Kellerman,E.1995.Crosslinguisticinfluence:Transfertonowhere?Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15:125–150.

Kemp,C.2001.MetalinguisticAwarenessinMultilinguals:ImplicitandExplicitGrammaticalAwarenessanditsRelationshipwithLanguageExperienceandLanguageAttainment.PhDdissertation,UniversityofEdinburgh.

Kemp,C.2007.Strategicprocessingingrammarlearning:Domultilingualsusemorestrategies.International Journal of Multilingualism 4(4):241–261.

Klein,E.1995.Secondvs.thirdlanguageacquisition:Isthereadifference?Language Learning45(3):419–465.

Krumm,H-J.2005.VonderadditivenzurcurricularenMehrsprachigkeit:ÜberdieNotwen-digkeitderEinbeziehungvonMinderheiten-,Migranten-undNachbarsprachen.InGesa-mtsprachencurriculum Integrierte Sprachendidaktik Common Curriculum,B.Hufeisen&M.Lutjeharms(eds),27–36.Tübingen:Narr.

Lambert,W.1977.Theeffectsofbilingualismon the individual:Cognitiveandsocioculturalconsequences.InBilingualism: Psychological, Social and Educational Implications,P.Hornby(ed.),15–28.NewYorkNY:AcademicPress.

Larsen-Freeman,D.&Cameron,L.2008.Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics.Oxford:OUP.


Lasagabaster,D.1997.Creatividad y conciencia metalingüística: incidencia en el aprendizaje del inglés como L3(CreativityandMetalinguisticAwareness:EffectsonLearningEnglishasL3).PhDdissertation,UniversityoftheBasqueCountry,Vitoria-Gasteiz,Spain.

Lasagabaster,D.&Doiz,A.2003.Maturationalconstraintsonforeign-languagewrittenpro-duction.InAge and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language,M.P.GarcíaMayo&M.L.GarcíaLecumberri(eds),136–160.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Lasagabaster,D.&Huguet,A.(eds).2007. Multilingualism in European countries.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

McCarthy, J.1994.Thecase for languageawareness intheIrishprimaryschoolcurriculum.Language Awareness3:1–9.

McLaughlin, B. 1990. The relationship between first and second languages: Language profi-ciencyandlanguageaptitude.InThe Development of L2 Proficiency, B.Harley,P.Allen,J.Cummins,&M.Swain(eds),158–174.Cambridge:CUP.

McLaughlin,B.&Nayak,N.1989.Processinganewlanguage:Doesknowingotherlanguagesmakeadifference?InInterlingual Processes,H.Dechert&M.Raupach(eds),5–14.Tübin-gen:Narr.

Met, M. 1998. Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education, J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (eds),35–63.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Mißler,B.1999.Fremdsprachenlernerfahrungen und Lernstrategien.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.Mißler,B.2000.Previousexperienceofforeignlanguagelearninganditscontributiontothede-

velopmentoflearningstrategies.InTertiär- und Drittsprachen: Projekte und empirische Un-tersuchungen, S.Dentler,B.Hufeisen&B.Lindemann(eds),7–22.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.

Mohanty,A.1994.Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society: Psychosocial and Pedagogical Implica-tions.Mysore:CentralInstituteofIndianLanguages.

Müller-Lancé,J.2003.Der Wortschatz romanischer Sprachen im Tertiärspracherwerb.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.

Muñoz,C.2000.BilingualismandtrilingualisminschoolstudentsinCatalonia.InEnglish in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language,J.Cenoz&U.Jessner(eds),157–178.Clev-edon:MultilingualMatters.

Muñoz,C.(ed).2006.Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Nation,R.&McLaughlin,B.1986.Expertsandnovices:Aninformation-processingapproachtothe‘goodlanguagelearner’problem.Applied Psycholinguistics7:51–56.

Nayak,N.,Hansen,N.,Krueger,N.&McLaughlin,B.1990.Language-learningstrategies inmonolingualandmultilingualadults.Language Learning 40(2):221–244.

Olshtain,E.&Nissim-Amitai,F.2004.Curriculumdecision-makinginamultilingualcontext.International Journal of Multilingualism1(1):53–64.

Ringbom,H.1987.The Role of L1 in Foreign Language Learning.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.RuizdeZarobe,Y.2005.Ageandthirdlanguageproduction:ALongitudinalStudy.Interna-

tional Journal of Multilingualism2(2):105–112.Sagasta,M.2003.Acquiringwritingskillsinathirdlanguage:Thepositiveeffectsofbilingual-

ism.The International Journal of Bilingualism 7(1):27–42.Sanz,C.1997.L3acquisitionandthecognitiveadvantagesofbilingualism:Catalanslearning

English.InViews on the Acquisition and Use of a L2, L.Díaz&C.Pérez(eds),449–456.Barcelona:UniversitatPompeuFabra.


Singleton,D.&Ryan,L.2004.Language Acquisition:Tthe Age Factor.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Thomas, J. 1988. The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third languagelearning.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9:235–246.

Thomas,J.1992.Metalinguisticawarenessinsecond-andthird-languagelearning.InCognitive Processing in Bilinguals,R.Harris(ed.),531–545.Amsterdam:NorthHolland.

chapter8

Multilingualism resourcesAssociations,journals,bookseries,bibliographiesandconferencelists

PeterEckeTheUniversityofArizona

ThischapterreviewsresourcesforresearchonandpracticeofmultilingualismandL3acquisition.Itpresentsanddescribes(1)associations,organizations,andnetworks,(2)researchjournalsandmagazinesforthegeneralpublic,(3)bookseries,and(4)researchbibliographiesdevotedtothestudyandpromotionofmultilingualismaswellas(5)listingsofconferencesthatmayincludesessionsorpanelsonissuesofmultilingualismandL3learning.Thechapteraddressesgraduatestudents,researchers,andpractitionerswhoworkintheareaofL3learning/teachingandmultilingualism,whoplantostartworkingonmultilin-gualismorwhowouldliketoseekassistance,contactsorpartnerstojoinforcesinaprojectrelatedtomultilingualism.

Keywords: multilingualism,third-languageacquisition,resources,associations,journals

Overview

Thelasttenyearshaveseenanimmenseincreaseinresearchandpublicationsonmultilingualismandmultiple languageacquisition.Milestones in thisdevelop-menthavebeenthebiannualConferences on Third Language Acquisition and Mul-tilingualism,theestablishmentoftheInternational Association of Multilingualism(IAM)in2003andtheappearanceoftheInternational Journal of Multilingualism(IJM)in2004.Researchhasbeendisseminatedthroughthesevenues,aswellasthroughaseriesofbooksonmultilingualism,someofthemeditedbyfoundingmembersoftheIAM,butalsothroughotherconferencesandprofessionaljour-nals thatsharean interest in issuesofmultilingualismandthird language(L3)acquisition.Inthischapter,Ireviewresourcesformultilingualismresearchand

1�0 PeterEcke

practicethat,Ihope,willbeofinterestandassistancetograduatestudents,juniorandseniorresearchers,andpractitionerswhowork in theareaofL3 learning/teachingandmultilingualism,whoplantostartaprojectonmultilingualismorwhowouldliketoseekassistance,contactsorpartnerstojoinforcesinaprojectrelatedtomultilingualism.

Thisresourceguideisdividedintothefollowingsixsections:Section(1)listsanddescribesassociations,organizations,andnetworksdevotedtothestudyandpromotionofmultilingualism.Section(2)onjournalsandmagazinesissubdi-videdinto(2.1)refereedresearchjournalsthateitherfocusonissuesofmultilin-gualismandL3acquisitionorincludemultilingualismandL3acquisitionasanareaofinterest,and(2.2.)non-refereedjournalsandmagazinesforprofessionalsorthegeneralpublicwithinterestinissuesofmultilingualism.Section(3)cov-ersbookseriesthatpublishworkonmultilingualismandL3acquisition.Section(4)refers thereader tobibliographiesonresearch intomultilingualismandL3acquisition,andsection(5)presentslistingsofconferencesthatmayincludeses-sionsorpanelsonissuesofmultilingualismandL3 learning. Idecidednottoincludereferencesto individualpublicationssincethatwouldrequireselectionandnecessarilyanevaluationoftheseworkswhichwouldgobeyondthescopeofthiscontribution.Interestedreadersarereferredtotheincludedbibliographies,journals,andbookseries.

Thecompilationofresourcespresentedhereis,ofcourse,notexhaustive.Itshould, however, assist particularly graduate students and researchers who arenewtothefieldinreviewingresearchrelevanttotheirworkinprogress.Itmayalso provide multilingualism researchers with a list of potential partners andpublications that they could reach out to in order to further disseminate theirresearchfindings,andperhapsinformorconsultparents,languageteachers,pro-gramadministrators,translators,softwaredevelopers,languagepolicymakers,orbusinesspeoplewho,inonewayoranother,dealwithpracticalissuesrelatedtobi-andmultilingualism.

1. Associations, organizations, and networks

Thesectiononassociations,organizations,andnetworksonlylistsorganizationsthat focus on multilingualism. It includes the association’s URL address and abriefdescriptionofitsgoalsand/ormissionadoptedfromtheassociation’sweb-site.Oneassociationisaprofessionalorganizationthatisprimarilyresearch-ori-ented,andtwoassociationsarepractice-oriented,i.e.,devotedtohelpingbi-andmultilingualfamilies.Thereareotherassociationsthathavesectionsand/orindi-vidualmembersworkingonissuesofbi-ormultilingualism.Thesearenational

Chapter8. Multilingualismresources 1�1

and international associations of foreign language teachers, associations of ap-pliedlinguists,linguists,psychologists,speechtherapists,interpreters/translators,orcognitivescientistswhichcannotbelistedhere.

International Association of Multilingualism (IAM)URL:http://www.daf.tu-darmstadt.de/l3/association_1/index.de.jsp

TheInternational Association of Multilingualismbringstogetherresearchers,prac-ticingteachers,andlanguageprogramadministratorsunitedbythecommongoalofpromotingmultilingualism.Studyingmultilingualismisseenasameansforbetterunderstandingalltypesoflanguageacquisitionandlearning,maintenanceandattrition.Theassociationaimsatfosteringthecooperationbetweenresearch-ers of multilingualism; disseminate knowledge, methods, theories and models;createa forumfor thediscussionof issues related tomultilingualism; improveresearch inmultilingualismandapplied linguistics; assistyoungresearchers intheirstudies;andorganizeandsponsorconferencesandmeetingsonaregularbasis.Theassociationpublishes the L3 Bulletin, aquarterlyelectronicnewslet-ter,andsponsorstheInternational Journal of Multilingualism,whichallmembersreceive.ThebiannualmeetingoftheassociationtakesplaceduringthebiannualConference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism.

The Bilingual/Bicultural Family Network (BBFN)URL:http://www.biculturalfamily.org/

TheBBFNismadeupoffamiliesaroundtheworldwhoareraisingtheirchildrenintwoormorelanguagesandcultures.ThegroupprovidessupportandresourcesintheformofawebsiteandanelectronicnewsletteraswellasSeattle-basedpre-sentations,seminarsandemailcontact.

The Multilingual Children’s Association (MCA)URL:http://www.multilingualchildren.org/

The(California-based)Multilingual Children’s Associationisfocusedonthebene-fitsandchallengesofraisingbilingualandmultilingualchildren.Itisdedicatedtoencouragingandsupportingbi-andmultilingualfamilies,answeringquestions,andbuildingacommunitywherefamiliescansharetheirthoughtsandexperi-ences. It is a free web-based guide with regularly updated resources, tips, andarticlesformultilingualparentsandcaregivers.

1�2 PeterEcke

2. Professional journals and magazines

Thissectionconsistsoftwoparts.Thefirstpart(2.1) listspeer-reviewedjour-nals that are devoted to research in multilingualism. It starts with a descrip-tionofjournalsthatincludemultilingualismintheirtitlesandjournalsthathavebilingualismintheirtitles.Thelatter,however,definethetermbilingualismverybroadlyandincludemultilingualism.Thenfollowsanalphabeticallistingofre-searchjournalsthatarebroaderornarrowerinscopethanbi-ormultilingual-ism,butthatrefertomultilingualismasoneareaofinterestwithinthejournal’sscope.Theprofilesofthesejournalsarenotdescribed.Onlythejournals’names,publishers,andURLsarelisted.Journalsthatarededicatedtothelearningandteaching of a particular language (be it as a first or foreign language) are notincluded,althoughsomeofthemmaypublishworkonL3learningandmultilin-gualism.Colleagueswhoworkonaparticularlanguagearelikelytobefamiliarwith the journals devoted to the learning and teaching of that language. Thesecondpartofthissection(2.2)referstonon-refereedjournalsandmagazinesforprofessionalsorthegeneralpublic.Thestatedfoci,objectives,andtopicsofthesejournalsareadoptedunchangedoreditedfromtheeditors’orpublishers’descriptions of the journals on their websites, theLINGUIST List’s posting ofjournals,orfromindividualjournalissues.

2.1 Peer-reviewedresearchjournals

Journalsonmultilingualism

International Journal of Multilingualism (IJM) Publisher:Routledge(Taylor&FrancisGroup)URL:http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/1479-0718

TheIJM isascientificjournaldedicatedtothestudyofpsycholinguistic,sociolin-guisticandeducationalaspectsofmultilingualacquisitionandmultilingualism.Itgoesbeyondbilingualismandsecondlanguageacquisitionbyfocusingondif-ferentissuesrelatedtotheacquisitionanduseofthirdoradditionallanguagesaswellassociolinguisticandeducationalcontexts involvingtheuseofmorethantwolanguages.Thejournalisconcernedwiththeoreticalandempiricalissuesinmultilingualismsuchasearly trilingualism,multilingualcompetence,multilin-gualeducation,multilingualliteracy,multilingualrepresentationsinthemindormultilingual communities. In addition to full-length research reports, the IJMpublishesstate-of-the-artreviewarticlesandbookreviews.


International Multilingual Research Journal (IMRJ)Publisher:LawrenceErlbaumAssociatesincooperationwithArizona

StateUniversityURL:http://imrj.asu.edu/

TheIMRJpublishesscholarlycontributionstobetterunderstandandpromotebi/multilingualism,bi/multiliteracy,andlinguisticdemocracy,andtoinformschol-ars,educators, students,andpolicymakers. It focuseson topicsrelated to lan-guagesotherthanEnglishaswellastodialectalvariationsofEnglish.The IMRJ hasthreethematicemphases:Theintersectionoflanguageandculture,thedialec-ticsofthelocalandglobal,andcomparativemodelswithinandacrosscontexts.Itincludesinterdisciplinaryresearchthatoffersinsightsfromlinguistics,appliedlinguistics, education, globalization and immigration studies, cultural psychol-ogy,linguisticandpsychologicalanthropology,sociolinguistics,literarystudies,post-colonial studies, critical race theory and critical theory and pedagogy. Inadditiontoarticlesontheoreticalorempiricalscholarship,thejournalincludesbookreviewsandtwooccasionalsections:PerspectivesandResearch Notes.

Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders (JMCD)Publisher:LawrenceErlbaum(2003–2006),nowRoutledge

(TaylorandFrancisGroup)URL:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713693308~db=all

TheJMCDwasascholarly journalpublishedbetween2003and2006thatspe-cificallyfocusedonspeech-languagepathologyandcommunicationdisordersinmultilingual populations. In 2007 it merged with Clinical Linguistics and Pho-netics whichisbroaderinscope.Topicsofarticlesincludedifferentiallanguageretentioninaphasia,provisionofassessmentmaterialsforbilinguals,establish-mentoflanguagenormsinmulticulturalpopulationsandclinicalmanagementofmultilingualclients.Thejournalalsopromotesresearchonlanguagesthathavenotbeenthefocusofstudyincommunicationdisordersandresearchonnormalacquisitioninlesser-researchedlanguages.

Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development (JMMD)Publisher:Routledge(Taylor&FrancisGroup)URL:http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/0143-4632

TheJMMDpublishesarticlesonmanyaspectsofmultilingualismandmulticul-turalism. It includes contributions on theory, research reports, descriptions ofeducationalpoliciesandsystems,andaccountsofteachingorlearningstrategiesandassessmentprocedures.Itisincreasinglyinterestedin“macro”levelworkin

1�� PeterEcke

thesociologyandsocialpsychologyoflanguageandculture,forexamplestudiesonlanguageplanningandpolicy,onlanguagemaintenanceandshift,andontherelationshipsamong languageandethnic/national identities.The journalhasabroadmethodologicalscope–fromhistoricalsurveytocontemporaryempiricalanalysisandincludesreviewsofrecentbooksofinterestinthefield.

Journalsonbilingualism

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition (BLC)Publisher:CambridgeUniversityPressURL:http://journals.cambridge.org/

BLC is an international journal focusing on bilingualism from a cognitive sci-enceperspective.Theaimsofthejournalaretopromoteresearchonthebilingualpersonandtoencouragedebateinthefield.Areascoveredinclude:bilinguallan-guagecompetence,perceptionandproduction,bilinguallanguageacquisitioninchildrenandadults,neurolinguisticsofbilingualisminnormalandbrain-dam-agedsubjects,andnon-linguisticcognitiveprocessesinbilingualpeople.

International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism (IJBEB)Publisher:Routledge(Taylor&FrancisGroup)URL:http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/1367-0050

TheIJBEBpublishesarticlesonlanguagesincontactintheUnitedStatesandarticlesonglobalissues,andonbilingualismandbilingualeducationindifferentcountriesaroundtheworld.ThepapersrangefromhistoricalanalysesofbilingualeducationintheUStotheeffectsoftheNoChildLeftBehind(2001)legislation.Particularthemesincludethelanguageeducationofimmigrantchildren,theachievementofbilingualchildren,andthechangingnatureofbilingualeducation.

International Journal of Bilingualism (IJB)Publisher:SAGEURL:http://ijb.sagepub.com/

The IJB isa forumfor thedisseminationof researchon the linguistic,psycho-logical,neurological,andsocialissueswhichemergefromlanguagecontact.Thejournalstressesinterdisciplinarylinksandfocusesonthelanguagebehaviorofthebi-andmultilingualindividual.Inadditiontofull-lengthresearchpapers,itpublishescasestudyreports,laboratoryexperimentsandfieldobservations,shortscholarlynotes,andcriticalreviewarticles.


The Bilingual Research Journal (BRJ)Publisher:NationalAssociationforBilingualEducation(NABE)URL:http://brj.asu.edu/FAQ.html

The BRJ includes articles on bilingual education, bilingualism, and languagepoliciesineducation(e.g.,languageassessment,policyanalysis,instructionalre-search,languagepolitics,biliteracy,languageplanning,secondlanguagelearningandteaching,actionresearch,andsociolinguistics).AstheofficialorganoftheNational Association for Bilingual Education,thejournalfocusesonmattersrelat-edtotheschoolingoflanguageminoritychildrenandyouthintheUnitedStates,althoughitoftenincludesarticlesonothercountriesaswell.

The Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingüe (BR/RB)Publisher:BilingualReviewPress,ArizonaStateUniversityURL:http://www.asu.edu/brp/bilin/bilin.html

TheBR/RBisascholarly/literaryjournalthatfocusesonthelinguisticsandlitera-tureofbilingualismandbilingualeducation.Itpublishesscholarlyarticles,literarycriticism,andbookreviewsaswellascreativeliterature:poetry,shortstories,es-says,andshorttheaterplays.LanguagesofpublicationareEnglishandSpanish.

Research journalswithbi-andmultilingualismasoneofvarioustopics

Journal Publisher URLAILAReview JohnBenjamins http://www.benjamins.com/AILE(AcquisitionetInteractionenLangueÉtrangère)

L’associationEncragesdel’UniversitédeParisVIII

http://aile.revues.org/

AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics

CambridgeUniversityPress

http://journals.cambridge.org/

AppliedLanguageLearning

DefenseLanguageInstituteForeignLanguageCenter

http://www.dliflc.edu/

AppliedLinguistics OxfordUniversityPress http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/AppliedPsycholinguistics



AustralianReviewofAppliedLinguistics

MonashUniversityPress/AppliedLinguisticsAssociationofAustralia

http://www.epress.monash.edu/aral

BISAL–BirkbeckStudiesinAppliedLinguistics

UniversityofLondon http://www.bisal.bbk.ac.uk/

1�6 PeterEcke

CALICOJournal TheComputerAssistedLanguageInstructionConsortium

https://calico.org/

ComputerAssistedLanguageLearning

Routledge(Taylor&FrancisGroup)

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/

CurrentIssuesinLanguagePlanning



DialogonLanguageInstruction

DefenseLanguageInstituteForeignLanguageCenter

http://www.dliflc.edu/

EstudiosdeLingüísticaAplicada

CELE,UniversidadAutónomadeMéxico

http://ianua.cele.unam.mx/publicaciones/

EUROSLAYearbook JohnBenjamins http://www.benjamins.com/ForeignLanguageAnnals

AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages(ACTFL)

http://www.actfl.org/

FremdsprachenLehrenundLernen

NarrFranckeAttempto http://www.narr.de/

HeritageLanguageJournal

UCLALanguageResourceProgram

http://www.heritagelanguages.org/

IALLJournalofLanguageLearningTechnologies

InternationalAssociationforLanguageLearningTechnologies

http://iallt.org/

IndianJournalofAppliedLinguistics

Publisher:BahriPublications

http://bahripublications.org/

InterculturalPragmatics MoutondeGruyter http://www.degruyter.de/

InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics

Wiley-BlackwellPublishing

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/

InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage

MoutondeGruyter http://www.degruyter.de/

InternationalReviewofAppliedLinguisticsinLanguageTeaching(IRAL)

MoutondeGruyter http://www.degruyter.de/

ITL–InternationalJournalofAppliedLinguistics

PeetersOnlineJournals http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/

JALTJournal JapanAssociationforForeignLanguageTeaching

http://jalt-publications.org/jj/

JournalforLanguageTeaching/TydskrifvirTaalonderrig

SouthAfricanAssociationforLanguageTeaching(SAALT)

http://www.ajol.info/


JournalofAppliedLinguistics

EquinoxPublishingLtd. http://www.equinoxpub.com/

JournalofLanguageContact

ChaireDynamiquedulangage–InstitutuniversitairedeFrance

http://www.jlc-journal.org/

Language&InterculturalCommunication



LanguageAwareness Routledge(Taylor&FrancisGroup)


LanguageLearning Wiley-BlackwellPublishing


LanguageLearningJournal

AssociationforLanguageLearning

http://www.all-languages.org.uk/

LanguageLearning&Development

PsychologyPress(Taylor&FrancisGroup)


LanguageLearning&Technology

LanguageLearning&Technology

http://llt.msu.edu/

LanguagePolicy Springer http://www.springer.com/LanguageProblemsandLanguagePlanning

JohnBenjamins http://www.benjamins.nl/

LanguageTeaching CambridgeUniversityPress


LanguageTeachingResearch

SagePublications,Inc. http://www.sagepub.com/

LanguageTesting SagePublications,Inc. http://www.sagepub.com/Multilingua MoutondeGruyter http://www.degruyter.de/PortaLinguarum UnivesidaddeGranada http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/ReadinginaForeignLanguage

NationalForeignLanguageResourceCenter,UniversityofHawai’iatManoa

http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/

ReCALL CambridgeUniversityPress


RevistaEspañoladeLingüísticaAplicada(RESLA)

AsociaciónEspañoladeLingüísticaAplicada(AESLA)

http://www.aesla.uji.es/resla

RevistaNebrijadeLingüísticaAplicadaalaEnseñanzadeLenguas

DepartamentodeLenguasAplicadas,UniversidadAntoniodeNebrija,Madrid

http://www.nebrija.com/revista-linguistica/

RevueFrançaisedeLinguistiqueAppliquée

l’AssociationFrançaisedeLinguistiqueAppliquée

http://rfla-journal.org/

SecondLanguageResearch

SagePublications,Inc. http://www.sagepub.com/

1�� PeterEcke

SouthwestJournalofLinguistics

LinguisticAssociationoftheSouthwest

http://clas.cudenver.edu/lasso/swjl.html

StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition



System ElsevierLtd. http://www.elsevier.com/TheCanadianModernLanguageReview

UniversityofTorontoPress

http://www.utpjournals.com/

TheLanguageTeacher JapanAssociationforLanguageTeaching

http://jalt-publications.org/

TheMentalLexicon JohnBenjamins http://www.benjamins.com/TheModernLanguageJournal

Wiley-BlackwellPublishing


ZeitschriftfürFremd-sprachenforschung

DeutscheGesellschaftfürFremdsprachenforschung(DGFF)

http://www.dgff.de/en/zff.html

2.2 Journalsforprofessionalsorthegeneralpublic

Multilingual: Language, Technology, BusinessPublisher:MultilingualComputing,Inc.URL:http://www.multilingual.com/

Multilingual is an information source for the localization, internationalization,translationandlanguagetechnologyindustry.Itstargetaudienceisreaderswithtechnology-based multilingual needs. The journal covers topics ranging fromtechnicalinternationalizationtoprojectmanagementtolanguagehistories.Itre-viewsnewproductsandbooksandpublishesarticlesonwebsiteglobalization,international software development, language technology translation, interna-tionalizationandlocalization(adaptingproductssuchaspublications,hardwareorsoftwarefornon-nativeenvironments,especiallyothernationsandcultures).Informationandcurrentnewsarealsoprovidedonthewebpageandthroughanelectronicnewsletter,MultiLingual NEWS.

Multilingual Living Magazine (MLM)Publisher:Bilingual/BiculturalFamilyNetworkURL:http://www.biculturalfamily.org/

TheMLMisadigitalmagazineforthegeneralpublicpublishedinPDFformat.Itsessaysandarticlesdiscussthemultilingualand/ormulticulturalindividual,family,community,ororganization.Themagazinepublishespersonalessays,tips,sugges-tions,insights,interviews,andresearcharticlesthatshedlightonissuesrelatedtomultilingualismandmulticulturalism.Themagazineseeksoriginalworkthathas


notyetbeendiscussedfullyinthemultilingualandmulticulturalcommunitybutmayalsoacceptreprintsofpublicationsiftheyhaven’tbeenwidelydistributed.

The Bilingual Family Newsletter (BFN)Publisher:MultilingualMattersURL:http://www.bilingualfamilynewsletter.com/

Thisquarterlynewsletterforthegeneralpublicaimsathelpingbi-ormultilingualfamilies through its short informative articles on language learning, bilingual-ism,biculturalism,mothertongue,schooling,etc.Italsopublishesdescriptionsofhowparticularfamilieshavedealtwithproblemsencounteredinparticularsitu-ationsandhowthesewereovercome.Readersarefrommixedmarriagefamilies;expatriatefamiliesinembassies,schools,contractworketc.;immigrantfamilies;studentsoflanguagelearning;andresearchersinthefieldofbilingualism.

3. Book series on bi- and multilingualism

Thefollowingsectionlistsandbrieflydescribesbookseriesthataredevotedtoissuesofmultilingualismor thatare interested inpublicationswithanL3per-spective.Thedescriptionsareadoptedfromthepublishers’websites.Mostoftheseries are published by Multilingual Matters (http://www.multilingual-matters.com/)whichhasstrengtheneditspositionastheleadingpublisherofbooksonbi-and multilingualism. John Benjamins (http://www.benjamins.com/) also offersseriesonresearch-basedstudiesofmultilingualism.Otherinternationalpublish-inghousesthathaveproducedbooksonbi/multilingualismandsecondlanguageacquisitionareWiley-BlackwellPublishing(http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA),Cambridge University Press (http://www.cambridge.org/), Taylor and Francis(http://www.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/),OxfordUniversityPress(http://www.oup.com/),andWalterDeGruyter(http://www.degruyter.com/).CascadillaPress(http://www.cascadilla.com/) has established itself primarily as a publisher ofconferenceproceedings,butalsooffersbooksonbilingualism,secondlanguageacquisition,andlinguistics.

Child Language and Child DevelopmentPublisher:MultilingualMattersURL:http://www.multilingual-matters.com/GeneralEditor:LiWei(BirkbeckCollege,UniversityofLondon)

Thisbookseriespublishesinterdisciplinaryresearchonchildlanguageandchilddevelopmentfromacross-linguisticandcross-culturalperspective.Publication

150 PeterEcke

topics include: language development of bilingual and multilingual children,acquisitionoflanguagesotherthanEnglish,childdevelopmentanddisorderinmulticulturalenvironments,andeducationandhealthcareforchildrenspeakingnon-standardEnglish.

Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (BEB)Publisher:MultilingualMattersEditors:NancyH.Hornberger(UniversityofPennsylvania)andColinBaker

(BangorUniversity,Wales)URL:http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

BEBisamultidisciplinaryseriesthatdisseminatesresearchonthephilosophy,poli-tics,policy,provisionandpracticeoflanguageplanning,globalEnglish,indigenousandminoritylanguageeducation,multilingualism,multiculturalism,biliteracy,bi-lingualismandbilingualeducation.Theseriespublishesovervieworintroductorytexts;coursereaders,generalreferencetexts;booksonparticularmultilingualedu-cationprogramtypes;casestudies;andprofessionaleducationmanuals.

Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism (HSM)Publisher:JohnBenjaminsEditors:PeterSiemund,BarbaraHänel-Faulhaber,ChristophGabriel

(UniversityofHamburg)URL:http://www.benjamins.com/

TheHSMpublishesresearchfromcolloquiaonlinguisticaspectsofmultilingual-ism organized by the Research Center on Multilingualism at the University ofHamburg.Topicsincludemultilingualcommunication,languagecontact,histori-calaspectsofmultilingualism,bilingualchildlanguageacquisition,andmultiplegrammarsinfirstandsecondlanguagelearners.

Linguistic Diversity and Language RightsPublisher:MultilingualMattersEditor:ToveSkutnabb-Kangas(RoskildeUniversity,Denmark)URL:http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Thisseriespublishestheoreticalandempiricalresearchtopromotemultilingual-ism as a resource, the maintenance of linguistic diversity, and development ofandrespectforlinguistichumanrightsworldwide.Theseriesfocusesoninterdis-ciplinaryapproachestolanguagepolicy,drawingonsociolinguistics,education,sociology,economics,humanrightslaw,politicalscience,aswellasanthropology,psychology,andappliedlanguagestudies.

Chapter8. Multilingualismresources 151

Multilingual Matters Publisher:MultilingualMattersEditor:JohnEdwards(St.FrancisXavierUniversity,Canada)URL:http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

TheMultilingualMattersseriespublishesbooksonbilingualism,bilingualeduca-tion,immersioneducation,secondlanguagelearning,languagepolicy,andmul-ticulturalism.Aparticular focusare “macro” level studiesof languagepolicies,languagemaintenance, languageshift, languagerevivaland languageplanning.Books intheseriesdiscuss therelationshipbetween language inabroadsenseandlargerculturalissues,particularlyidentityrelatedones.

Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition and LearningPublisher:SchneiderVerlagHohengehrenURL:http://www.paedagogik.de/Editors:BrittaHufeisen(TechnicalUniversityofDarmstadt)and

BeateLindemann(UniversityofTromsø)

Thisseriespublishesscholarlyworkontheacquisitionandteachingofthirdandadditionallanguages.Itincludesempiricalandtheoreticalstudiesfrompsycho-linguistic, sociolinguistic, educational, and interdisciplinary perspectives. Vol-umesaddress themultilingual language learnerand theprocessingofmultiplelanguages and/or issues of multilingualism in educational settings, such as in-structionalapproachestotheteachingofthirdoradditionallanguages.

Parents’ and Teachers’ Guides Publisher:MultilingualMattersURL:http://www.multilingual-matters.com/Editor:ColinBaker(BangorUniversity,Wales)

Thisseriesprovidesadviceandpracticalhelpforcommonquestionsofparentsandteachers.Bi-andmultilingualeducationofchildrenisonesuchissue.Thebooksarewritteninastylethatishighlyreadable,non-technicalandcomprehensive.

Promoting Multilingualism Across Contexts (PMAC)Publisher:CaslonPublishingandConsultingURL:http://www.caslonpublishing.com/

ThePMACseriespublishesmonographs,editedvolumes,casestudies,andtextbookswhichillustratehowvarioustypesofeducationalinstitutionscananddopromote multilingualism at the local level. The focus of this series is on lan-guageplanningandlanguagepolicy,languageprogramdevelopment(bilingual

152 PeterEcke

education,world languageeducation,heritage languageeducation),classroomdiscourseandinteraction,assessment,programevaluation,andprofessionalde-velopmentoflanguageeducators.

Second Language Acquisition Publisher:MultilingualMattersEditor:DavidSingleton(TrinityCollege,Dublin)URL:http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Thisseriespublishesscholarlyworkonavarietyofaspectsoflanguageacquisitionandprocessinginsituationswherealanguageorlanguagesotherthanthenativelanguage is involved. The volumes of the series offer both exposition and dis-cussionofempiricalfindingsandtheoreticalreflection.Theintendedreadershipisfinal-yearundergraduatesandpostgraduatestudentsworkingonsecondlan-guageacquisitionprojectsandresearchersandteacherswhoseinterestsincludeasecondlanguageacquisitioncomponent.

Studies in BilingualismPublisher:JohnBenjaminsEditors:DalilaAyoun(UniversityofArizona),

RobertDeKeyser(UniversityofPittsburgh)URL:http://www.benjamins.com/

Thefocusofthisseriesisonpsycholinguisticandsociolinguisticaspectsofbilin-gualism.Thisentailstopicssuchaschildhoodbilingualism,psychologicalmodelsofbilinguallanguageusers,languagecontactandbilingualism,maintenanceandshiftofminoritylanguages,andsocio-politicalaspectsofbilingualism.

�. Bibliographies on L3 learning and multilingualism

ThethreebibliographiesbelowarelistedontheL3 Homepageandcanallbefoundunder:http://www.daf.tu-darmstadt.de/l3/association_1/index.de.jsp.

Theyfocusonresearchintothelearningandprocessingofthreeormorelan-guages,butalsoincludeotherpublicationswithpotentialrelevancetothestudyofmultilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisition.ThegeneralL3bibliogra-phy (compiled by Britta Hufeisen and Nicole Marx) is a comprehensive list ofpublicationsonL3 learningandmultilingualismandverybroad inscope.Thesecondbibliography(compiledbyNicoleMarx)listsresearchpublishedinGer-manonissuesofmultilingualismandL3learning(notnecessarilyontheGermanlanguage).Thethirdbibliography(compiledbyLauraSánchez)presentsresearch

Chapter8. Multilingualismresources 153

published inSpanishwithannotations inEnglish.Thethreebibliographiesarecontinuously updated; and authors of publications on multilingualism and L3learningareencouragedtosubmittheirworks(referencesplusoff-prints,photo-copiesortitlepage)tobeincludedinthebibliographies.

5. Conference listings

Thefollowingfiveconferencelists,verybroadinscope,includeannouncementsof conferences on applied linguistics and linguistics, bi- and multilingualism,foreignlanguagelearning/teaching/education,technologyinlanguagelearning/teaching,translationandinterpretation,andothertopics.Someoftheseconfer-encesmayincludesessionsorinterestsectionsonmultilingualismandL3acqui-sitionormayhaveanannualconferencethemerelatedtoissuesofmultilingual-ism.Conferenceorganizersareencouragedtoannouncetheirconferencesand/orcallforpapersatthesesites.

Thetworegularly-heldconferencesthatareprobablymostrelevanttomul-tilingualismresearchersaretheInternational Conference on Third Language Ac-quisition and Multilingualism(focusingonthelearninganduseofthreeormorelanguages,andheldbiannuallysince1999)andtheInternational Symposium on Bilingualism(verybroadinscopeonmanyissuesofbi-andmultilingualism,andheldbiannuallysince1997).

IDVKalender(InternationalerDeutschlehrerverband)URL:http://www.dadkhah.de/idv/Hauptseiten/index.htm

InstitutUniversitarideLingüísticaAplicada(UniversitatPompeuFabra),AgendadeCongressosURL:http://www.iula.upf.es/serdocum/llistes/congrefca.htm

TheLINGUISTLIST,CallsandConferencesListURL:http://www.linguistlist.org/callconf/index.html

TheOfficialAILAConferenceCalendar(sponsoredbySYSTEM:AnInternationalJournalofEducationalTechnologyandAppliedLinguistics)URL:http://www.solki.jyu.fi/yhteinen/kongress/start.htm

RoyCochrun’sConferenceListforLinguists,Translators,InterpretersandTeachersofLanguagesURL:http://www.royfc.com/confer.html

15� PeterEcke

ItishopedthatthiscompilationofresourceswillbeofassistancetostudentsandresearcherswhoworkinthefieldofmultilingualismandL3learningandthatitwill contribute to thecollaborationandconsolidationofpartnershipsbetweenresearchersofrelateddisciplinesandbetweenresearchersandpractitionersde-votedtobi/multilingualismworldwide.

chapter9

Crossing the second threshold


Inthisfinalchapterweshallhighlightonceagainthecrucialstepsintheexplo-rationofmultilingualism(1),recapitulatethesalientdevelopmentsinL3andmultilingualismresearchwhichwererevealedinthisvolume(2)andattempttolookintothefutureofresearchintothirdandmultiplelanguageacquisitionandmultilingualism(3).

1. The first threshold crossed

Therewasaperiodinwhichthemonolingualperspectiveprevailed,whenusersoftwoormorelanguageswereseenasthesumoftwoormoremonolinguals,andtheirproficiencyinlanguagesotherthantheirmothertonguewasstrictlymea-suredagainstthatofnativespeakersofthesecondorthirdlanguage.Now,theho-listicviewonbilingualismandbilingualindividualshasfinallygainedcurrency.

The agreement to the norm famously promoted by the works of Grosjean(1985,1992)andCook(1992,1996)wasrightlyconsideredtobeanimportantthresholdinthedevelopmentofresearchinbilingualismandSLA,aswellasTLAandmultilingualism.

Theimplicationsofcrossingthisthresholdcanbeseeninafairlywideaccep-tanceofthedifferencesbetweenmonolingualismandbilingualismandbetweenthosebetweentheacquisitionofthefirstlanguageandthelearning/acquisitionofthesecondlanguage.This,inturn,hasledtodissimilarmethodsofteachingandapproachestowardscurriculaplanningwhencomparedtothoseaimedatlearn-ersofL1,aswellastosettingrealisticaimsforthebilinguallearnersinaccordancewiththeirlinguisticandcommunicativeneeds.Forthemostpart,theprevalentviewisthatofanoptimisticandpositiveperceptionofbilingualsasspeakerspos-sessinguniquecompetencieswhichareunavailabletothosewhouseexclusivelytheirmothertongues.Arangeofformsofsecondlanguageteachingandbilingualeducationhasbeenestablishedinmanypartsoftheworld.Themonolingualhy-pothesishasbeenabandonedintheory,ifnotinalltheeducationalpractices.


Thelasttwentyyears,especiallythelastdecade,i.e.theendofthetwentiethandthebeginningofthetwenty-firstcentury,constitutethemanifestlyintensiveperiodofresearchintomultilingualismandmultiple languageacquisition.Thematuringofmultilingualismresearchisirrefutable.Thisisclearlyevidentinthevolumeandintheconcentrationofresearchonmultilingualratherthanbilingualtopics,withresearchdevelopinginparalleltoandcloselyreflectingtheunfoldingof themultilingual reality.Studiesondiversemultilingual settingsandvariousmultilingualcommunitieshavebeencarriedoutinthecontextsofEurope,Asia,theMiddleEast,AustraliaandNewZealandaswellasinNorthandSouthAmer-ica.Inadditiontoinvestigationsintomultilingualuse,schoolingandacquisitionin traditionally multilingual areas such as India (e.g. Mohanty 1994) or Israel,significant efforts have been made to explore multilingualism in the Europeancontext.AnumberofmeaningfulstudieshavebeencarriedoutinIreland,Spain,Switzerland,UK,theNetherlands,Poland,Maltaandothercountriesonarangeof topics treating trilingualismandmultilingualism.Among the issues studiedwerethemultilinguallexiconandaspectsofmultilingualstorage,processingandretrieval,multilingualeducationalpracticesandlanguageteaching,theattitudestoeachofseverallanguagesinusebymultilinguals,thepatternsofsocietaluseoflanguages,multilingualdidactics,cross-linguisticinfluence,earlysecondlan-guage acquisition and more (Cenoz 2009; Cenoz, Hufeisen and Jessner 2001,2003;CenozandGorter2005;Gabryś-Barker2005;HoffmannandYtsma2004;HufeisenandNeuner2004;Hufeisen2004;LasagabasterandHuguet2006;Lüdi2007;Muñoz2006).InvestigationintoreceptivemultilingualisminScandinaviancountriesandthepossibilityofextendingtheapplicationofthisformofmultilin-gualismtotheRomancelanguageswasexplored(cf.tenThijeandZeevaert2007).Asaresult,acriticalmassofdatahasbeenaccumulated,andtheprocessesofcon-ceptualizationofthisinformationaswellasthegrowthoftheoriesandmodelsaretakingplace(seeforexample,AroninandSingleton2008a,2008b,2008c;DeBot2004;HerdinaandJessner2002;Hufeisen1998;Meißner2004).Weseemtoap-proachthesecond,andprobably,notlesssignificantthreshold,heraldingthead-vancetoitsnextlevel,ofresearchontheuseofandontheacquisitionofmultiple(morethantwo)languages.Theshiftistraceableinthetitlesofimportantrecentpublicationsinwhichthemovetoaninterestwhichgoes‘beyondbilingualism’isrepeatedlyindicated(suchasLooking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Stud-ies in Tri- and Multilingualism edited by Cenoz, Hufeisen and Jessner in 2001anditssecondeditionin2008;orDeAngelis(2005)The Acquisition of Languages Beyond the L2: Psycholinguistic Perspectives).

The fact that the world is bi- and multilingual rather than monolingual istaken for granted in many locations such as India and Africa. In many otherplaces,however,thisfactwasnot,inthepast,seenasobvious–butisnowbeing

Chapter9. Crossingthesecondthreshold 157

accepted.Notwithoutresistance,peoplearecomingtogripswiththeideathatbi-andmultilingualcommunities,groupsandindividuals,ratherthanmonolingualones,constitutethenormanditismostlymultilingualsandmultilingualcollec-tivebodiesthatactontheglobalscene.

Thisunderstandinganditsimplicationsineverydaylife,insocietalinterac-tionsandpolicies andactivitiesof educational establishments aswell as in re-search,representacrucialpointinchangingtheperspective.

2. Findings of this volume

Separatelyandcollectively,thechaptersofthisvolumeunderpintheideas,manyof which originated from bilingualism research, and are valuable for multilin-gualismresearch.Theretrospecthashighlightedtheseminalworkswhichhavebecomethe‘classics’inmultilingualismresearch.Thecontributionsalsodisplaysomeofthenovelelementsinapproachingthesecondthresholdreferredtoabove.Severalimportantpointsarelistedbelow:

– There are significant differences between bilingualism and multilingualism.Whiletheevidenceisnotyetdecisive,thefindingsreceivedsofararefairlycon-vincinginshowingthatinmanyimportantwaysanadditional,thirdlanguageacquisitionisdifferentfromsecondlanguageacquisition.Thereisnodoubtthatbilingualismandmultilingualismsharemanyimportantfeaturesandthat,inmanyways,multilingualismdrawsfrombilingualism.Thecontributorstothisvolumefoundit importanttoclearlydefinetrilingualismandthirdlanguageacquisitionasseparatefrombilingualismandsecondlanguageacquisition.

– Multilingualismiscomplexinallitsmanifestationsandaspects.Thecomplex-ityofmultilingualismisprogressivelygreaterthanthatofbilingualismandcrucial implications ensue.Contributors refer to the complexityof variousoccasionswherethischaracteristicofmultilingualismiscentralinordertotacklemultilingualeducation(CenozandJessner)ortodefinemultilingual-ism(Kemp),toponderonmethodsofresearch(AroninandHufeisen),todealwithadiversityoflanguagesandlinguisticgroupsinEurope(Franceschini)ortoexaminethephenomenonoftransferbetweentheseverallanguagesofan individual (Ó Laoire and Singleton). Indeed, complexity is an inherentpropertyofmultilingualism.Notably, asopposed to theperiod ‘before thesecondthreshold’,researchincreasinglyconcentratespreciselyontheseintri-cateknots.Notsolongago(asnotedbyFranceschiniinthisvolumeandbyJessner2006:15),itwasoftenthecasethatmultilingualsweretheparticipantsofstudiesunderthelabelof‘bilinguals’,becausetheresearchersdidnotfeelit


importanttoinquireaboutotherlanguagespossiblyexistinginthespeakers’repertoires.Moreover,quiteanumberofinterestingresearchquestionswereconsideredunsolvablebecauseof themultiple factors involved.Converselywearewitnessinganincreaseinresearchinwhichexpresslymorethantwolanguagesareinvolvedandinwhichthepeculiarityofprocessestakingplacebetweenthethreeormorelanguagesconstitutesthecoreoftheresearch.Stillmorestudiesonthecross-linguisticinteractionsonmorelanguagesareneed-edinordertoadvancethefield.

– Bycapturingthepulseofcurrentsituationofmultilingualism,researchex-hibitsitssalientdevelopments:ashiftinnorms(asdiscussedabove)andanemergenceofnewfocalissues(AroninandHufeisen).Asthecontributionsofthisvolumehavesummedupearlier,currentresearchalsotestifiestheim-portanceofthefollowingissues:

– cross-linguisticinfluencesbetweennon-nativelanguages(ÓLaoireandSingleton,DeAngelisandDewaele);

– refining the thesaurusofmultilingualism,definingandexplicatingkeynotionsandterms(Kemp,Franceschini,AroninandHufeisen);

– age-relatedinvestigationshavebeenpopularallalong,butrecentdevelop-mentscalledforththeparticularinterestinthevalueandexactageofanearlystartofforeignandsecondlanguagelearning(CenozandJessner);

– theemergenceofatangiblebaseofknowledge,activitiesondisseminat-ingtheknowledgegainedonmultilingualism,anumberofactiveasso-ciations and organizations dealing with multilingualism is highlighted(PeterEcke).

3. What’s next?

Over the years, research in multilingualism has made steady and cumulativeprogressanditsadvancewarrantsmoreinvestigationinthefield.Besidesmoreempiricalstudiesintherealmofpsycholinguistics,sociolinguisticsandappliedlinguistics,andtheorybuilding,ashavebeendescribedinthisvolume,newdirec-tionsofresearcharecrystallizing.Wewillseeanincreasingnumberofregionalinvestigationsconcentratingonspecificareaswhichimplyspecificformsofmul-tilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisitionwithtypessuchasmultiplesemi-lingualism,withvarioustypesofskillsindifferentlanguagesandwithmanifoldtypesofmigrationwhichformthelinguisticlandscapeinagivenregion.

Chapter9. Crossingthesecondthreshold 159

Wewillalsoseeanincreaseinstudieswhichfocusonthelearnersandspeak-ersthemselves(suchas,forexample,Belcher&Connor2001).Theseindividualsgiveinsightsintotheirpersonalmultilingualisms,theirlanguagerepertoiresandtheirlinguisticexperiences.TodevaandCenoz(inprint),forinstance,introducedavolumewithnarrativesbylinguisticallyawaresubjectswhotelltheirindividuallanguagestorieswhichtheeditorscommentedon.Researchinmultilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisitionwillcontinuetoofferinterestingandnewstudyareasworthexploring.

Aswecrossthesecondthresholdwearelookingforwardtonewinsightsintothefascinatingandeverunfoldinguniverseofmultilingualism.

References

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008a.ThePhilosophyofMultilingualism.InAchieving multilin-gualism: wills and ways, O.Arnandiz&M.SafontJorda(eds).Proceedingsofthe1stInter-nationalConferenceonMultilingualism(ICOM)UniversitatJaume-1.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008b.MultilingualismasaNewLinguisticDispensation.Interna-tional Journal of Multilingualism 5(1):1–16.

Aronin,L.&Singleton,D.2008c.Englishasaconstituentofadominant languageconstel-lation.PaperpresentedattheInternational Conference on Global English,Verona,Italy,February14–16.

Belcher,D.&Connor,U.(eds).2001.Reflections on Multiliterate Lives.Clevedon,Avon:Mul-tilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.2009.Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational Research in International Perspective.Bristol:MultilingualMatters

Cenoz,J.&Gorter,D.(issueeds).2005.TringualEducationinEurope.The International Jour-nal of the Sociology of Language 171.

Cenoz, J.,Hufeisen,B.&Jessner,U.(eds).2001.Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Cenoz,J.,Hufeisen,B.&Jessner,U.(eds).2003.The Multilingual Lexicon. Dordrecht:KluwerAcademic.

Cenoz,J.,Hufeisen,B.&Jessner,U.(eds).2008.Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition Studies in Tri- and Multilingualism. 2ndedition.Tubingen:Stauffenburg.

Cook,V.J. 1992.Evidenceformulti-competence.Language Learning42(4):557–591.Cook,V.J.1996.Competenceandmulti-competence.InPerformance and Competence in Sec-

ond Language Acquisition,G.Brown,K.Malmkjaer&J.Williams(eds),57–69.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

DeAngelis,G.2005.TheacquisitionoflanguagesbeyondtheL2:psycholinguisticperspectives.Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata2-3:397–409.

Gabryś-Barker, D. 2005. Aspects of Multilingual Storage, Processing and Retrieval. Katowice:WydawnictwoUniversytetuŚląskiego.

DeBot,K.2004.Themultilinguallexicon:Modelingselectionandcontrol.International Jour-nal of Multilingualism 1(1):17–32.


Grosjean,F.1985.Thebilingualasacompetentbutspecificspeaker-learner.Journal of Multilin-gual and Multicultural Development 6:467–477.

Grosjean,F.1992.Anotherviewofbilingualism.InCognitive processing in bilinguals, R.J.Harris(ed), 51–62.Amsterdam:ElsevierSciencePublishers.

Herdina,P.&Jessner,U.2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hoffmann,C.&Ytsma,J.(eds)2004.Trilingualism in Family, School and Community. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hufeisen,B.2004.Criticaloverviewofresearchonthird languageacquisitionandmultilin-gualismpublishedintheGermanLanguage.International Journal of Multilingualism 1(2):141–154.

Hufeisen,B.1998.L3-StandderForschung–Wasbleibetzutun?InTertiärsprachen, Theorien, Modelle, Methoden,Hufeisen&Lindemann(eds.),169–183Tubingen:Stauffenburg.

Hufeisen,B.&Neuner,G.(eds).2004.The plurilingualism project: Tertiary language learning – German after English. Strasbourg:CouncilofEuropePublishing.

Jessner,U.2006.Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Lasagabaster,D.&Huguet,A.(eds).2006.MultilingualisminEuropeanBilingualContexts:LanguageUseandAttitudes.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Lüdi,G.2007.TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication.InReceptive Multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts,J.tenThije&L.Zeevaert(eds),159–178. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins

Meißner,F.-J.2004.TransferundTransferieren.AnleitungenzumIntercomprehensionsunter-richt.InNeuere Forschungen zur Europäischen Intercomprehension, H.KleinandD.Rutke(eds),39–66.Aachen:Shaker.

Mohanty,A.1994.Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society-Psycho-Social and Pedagogical Implica-tions. Mysore:CentralInstituteofIndianLanguages.

Muñoz,C.(ed).2006.Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

tenThije,J.&Zeevaert,L.(eds).2007.Receptive Multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Todeva,E.&Cenoz,J.(eds).(Inprint). The Multiple Realities of Multilingualism. Personal Nar-ratives and Researchers’ Perspectives. Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

AAbrahamsson 129,137Abunuwara 69,71Adams 30,36,57Ahukanna 67,71Albert 15,24,66,72Alcantarini 70–71Alter 59,112,117Ammon 31,56Androutsopoulos 47,57Antonini 60Aronin 1,3–4,6–8,12,15,24,

32,37,39,57,71–72,103–109,114–115,117,155–159

Arthur 111,117Ashburner 60Astaneh 71,75Auer 1,8,29,46,57–58

BBackhaus 43,57,112,117Baetens–Beardsmore 122,135Baker 22,24,127,135,150–151Bardel 70,72Barfield 83,101Barnes 2,8,71–72Barron-Hauwaert 2,8Bastardas–Boada 113,117Bateson 107,117Behrent 48,57Belcher 159Bendle 109,117Benwell 109,117Bialystok 127,135Bianconi 60Birdsong 52,57Blanc 14,25Bloch 48,57Bloomfield 19,24Bouvy 70,72Braun 2,8

Braunmüller 36,58Brohy 3,71–72,80,101,127,135Bronfenbrenner 112,117Byrnes 54,58

CCameron 107,117,124,134,138Cantone 29,61Capra 106–107,118Carroll 66,77Cassia 68–69,72Castells 109,118Cenoz 1,3–4,6,8,12,24,35,58,

69–78,81,101–102,112–113,115,118–119,121–125,127,130–131,133,135–138,156–160

Chamot 54,65,72Chandrasekhar 65,72Charkova 71–72Claiborne 82,101Clyne 68–69,71–72,123,136Cole 22,26Colotla 66,78Comrie 20,24Connor 159Conway 79,100Cook 56,58,107,110,115,118,

134,136,155,159–160Cooper 106,118Corder 65,73Cornips 46,48,58Corson 104,119Creese 111,117–119Crinion 60Cummins 71,73,80,101,

137–138

DDanet 49,58d’Anglejan 32,59

DeAngelis 1,3,8,57,63,68–71,73,115,118,156,158,160

DeBot 73,108,110,118,156,160

DeGroot 69,73,136Dell 67,73Dentler 8,35,58,138Dewaele 2–5,8,23–25,40,

52–53,58,63,68–71,73–74,110,118,158

Diebold 19,25Dirim 46,58Dirven 20,25Dijkstra 68,70,73,77Doiz 131,138Donato 54,58

EEcke 3,7,69–70,73,139,158Edwards 14–15,21,25,68,71,

73,112,118,151Ellis,E. 12,14,24Ellis,N. 106,117Ellis,R. 14,24Elorza 134,136Ender 128,136Evans 79,83Extra 39,43,58

FFabbro 14,25Fase 31,58,118Feldman 76Ferguson 14,25Ferraresi 36,57Festman 70,73–74Fiehler 52–53,58Fill 112,118Fishman 14,25,31,39,58,104,

118Flick 104,118

Name index

162 Nameindex

Florida 32,47,58–59Flynn 71,74,113,118Foley 71,74,118Fouser 70,74,102,119Frackowiak 60Franceschini 4–5,8,27,42,

46–47,54,57,59–61,113,157–158

Friederici 54,60Frota 67,77Furer 60Fusco 38,59

GGabryś–Barker 108,118,156,

160Galambos 69,74Garagorri 133,136GarcíaLecumberri 130,

134–135,137GarcíaMayo 130,134–135,137García 123–124,135Gardner 25Gatto 2,8Genesee 3,8,35,57,76,81,101,

122,136–138Gentile 71Gibson 3,8,70,74,114,119Giddens 109,118Goebl 31,36,59Goldin-Meadow 69,74Gonzalez 126,135Goral 104,118Gordon 17,20,25Gorter 35,39,42,58–59,111,

115,117–118,156,159Graddol 124,137Granger 82–83Green 56,59,68,74Griffin 79,101Grommes 54,60Grosjean 31,59,68–69,74,109,

118,134,137,155,160Gulutsan 127,137Gumperz 41Gunter 60Gupta 16,25

HHamers 14,25

Hammarberg 4,8,69–70,74,78,81,101,114,118,120

Hammarström 20–21,25Hansen 138Harris 74,77,79,101,118,160Hart 69,77Hary 15,25Haugen 19,25,111,118Hélot 2,8,79,101Herdina 4,8,12–13,25,39,56,

59,107–108,113–114,118,124,126–127,134,137,156,160

Herring 49,58Herwig 70,74Hoeks 69,73Hoffman 35,59,70,74–75Holland 74,77,107,119Hornberger 104,112,118–119,

150Hudson 14,25Hufeisen 1,3–4,6–9,12,35,41,

57–59,70,72–78,81,101–103,114,117–119,135,137–138,151–152,155–160

Huguet 1,9,124,138,156,160Hyltenstam 51,59,129,137

IIanco-Worrall 14,25Isaakidis 70,72,136

JJanesick 104,119Janse 57Jansen 99,101Jarvis 70,76Jenkins 48,59Jessner 1–4,6,8–9,12–13,

24–25,35,39,56–57,59,69–77,81,101–102,104,107–108,110,112–114,117–119,121,123–124,126–128,132,134–138,156–160

KKaneko 106,119Kasper 107,117Katzner 89,101Kaufman 37,61Kaye 16,25Ke 107,119

Kellerman 65,75–76,81,101,125,136

Kemp 3–4,11,53,59,69–70,75,113,127,136,157–158

Keshavarz 70,75Kirk-Greene 83,101Klein 9,11,25,50,60,69,75,

80,101,127,136,160Koelsch 60Kramsch 111,119Krefeld 38,60Krueger 137Krumm 118,123,136Kupisch 29,60

LLacey 113,119Lambert 14,25,32,60,64–65,

76,123,137Lapkin 69,77Larsen-Freeman 56,60,106–

107,117,119,124,133,137Larson-Hall 128Lasagabaster 1,9,70,75,80,

101,124,126,130,137,156,160Leman 69,75Lengyel 51,61Leopold 31,60LePage 20,25Leung 71,75Levelt 57,67,72–73,75Levy 118Libben 70,74Liebert 120Lindemann 8,35,58–59,101,

137,151,160Lindqvist 70–71Little 52–53,79,81,102LiWei 1,7,25,149Lüdi 36,43,60–61,156,160Lund 71Lutjeharms 4,9,136Lynch 20,25

MMackey 15,19,25MacWhinney 107–108,119Maess 54,60Mägiste 66–67,75Maik 54

Nameindex 163

Makoni 52,57Mandelbrot 106,119Martin 110,116–119Marx 4,9,41,59,114,119,

152–153Maurais 104,119McArthur 15,25,83,101McCarthy 126,137McLaughlin 11,15,25,67,

75–76,127,137Meara 107,119Mechelli 51,60Meijers 69,76Meißner 4,9,114,119,156,160Meisel 50–51,60Mellow 107,119Met 123,137Metzeltin 61Miecznikowski 54,59Mißler 127,137Milroy 32,46,60Modiano 48,59Mohanty 11,21,126,137,156,

160Möhle 67,75Moscovici 32,60Mugny 32,60Mühlhäusler 55,60,111,117,119Müller 29,35,51,60,127,137Müller-Lancé 127,137Muñoa 132,135Muñoz 80,100,126,131–132,

137,156,160Muysken 46,60MyersScotton 46,60

NNation 11,15,25,67,75,127,137Nayak 67,75,127,137Neale 120Nelde 32,59–60Nemser 65,76Neuner 114,119,156,160NíGhréacháin 79,100Nicol 60,74Nissim-Amitai 123,137Nitsch 4,8,57,61Noppeney 60Nortier 46,48,58

OObler 15,24,51,59,66,71,118Odlin 70,76O’Doherty 60Oksaar 2,9ÓLaoire 3–7,9,15,24,79–80,

83–84,89,101–102,106,114,116,120,157–158

Olshtain 123,137Olton 25O’Malley 53ÓRahilly 83,102Orioles 38,59ÓSiadhail 90,102Oxford 14–15,24–25,53,56,

58–60,74,76,101,117,120,135–136,145,149

PPalmer 109,120Parmeggiani 38,59Pavlenko 22,40,52,54,60Peal 64–65,76Pei 82,102Perdue 50,59Personne 3,8Petersilka 36,60Phillipson 112,120Picard 83,102Pienemann 99,102Porte 104,120Potter 64,76Price 60

QQuay 71,76Quiroga-Blaser 59

RRampton 46,60Ramsay 11,14,25Richards 104,110,120Rinaldi 36,60RindlerSchjerve 60Ringbom 1,4,9,66–67,70,

76–77,81,102,126,137Risk 83,102Rivers 65,76Robertson 82,101Romaine 14,25

Ronjat 31,60RossiHunt 70,72,135Rowen 69,77RuizdeZarobe 130,137Ryan 128,138

SSafontJordá 4,9,70,76,159SagastaErrasti 70,76,80,101Sanders 69,76,119Sanz 70,76,126,137Saville-Troike 15,25Schachter 65,76Schlieben-Lange 36,60Schmidt 67,76Schmitz 29,60Schönpflug 70,76Schrauf 52,60Schumann 40,61Scribner 22,25Seidlhofer 48,59,61Selinker 65,68,70,72,75–77,

100,114,117,120Shears 97–98,101Singh 65,76Singleton 1,5–7,12,24,32,37,

39,51,56,61,67,70,76–77,79–81,83–84,88,101,104–106,108–109,113–114,116,128,138,152,156–159

Sjöholm 81,101Skutnabb–Kangas 18,26,112,

120,150Smeets 21,26So 76Spolsky 108–109,120Stedje 66,77Steiner 28,61Stokoe 109,117Strevens 16,26Swain 56,69,77,137Swallow 82–83,102

TTaddeiGheiler 53Taeschner 31,61Tchoungui 13,26tenThije 9,38,41,61,156,160Thimm 53,59Thody 83,102

16� Nameindex

Thomas 67,69,77,126–127,138Thomason 38Tikhiy 108,116Titone 30Todeva 159–160Torres-Guzmán 135Toubkin 70–71Tsuda 106,119Tucker 32,59Tulving 66,77Tunstall 25

UUrry 111,120

VValdés 43,61Valencia 69,72,77,126,135

VanAvermaet 32,60VanHell 68,70,77VanRoey 82–83,102Verspoor 20,24Vildomec 2,9,11,15,26,64,77Vinnitskaya 70,73,118vonEckardt 75vonMaik 60vonStutterheim 54,61Voorwinde 67,77

WWaldrop 106,120Wandruszka 2,9Waterhouse 112,120Wattendorf 52,61Wei 70,77

Weinreich 11–12,14,26,31,61,64,77

Werlen 43,59–60Wildgen 39,61Williams 69,77,81,102,114,

117,120,159Wode 47,61Wymann 59

YYağmur 39,43,58Ytsma 3,7–8,24,35,59,76,113,

116,120,134,156,160

ZZappatore 4,8,57,61Zobl 9,69,77

Aagefactor 5,52,81,121,128–

129,133–134Arabic 25,46,50,67associations 7,139–141,158

BBasqueCountry 7–8,72,

121–124,127,130–131,133–134,136,138

bilingual 4–5,8–9,11–15,19,23–25,31,33,42,46–47,51–52,54,56,58,60–61,66,68–74,76,84,94,102,109–110,118–119,122,124,127,130,135,137,141,144–145,148–150,152,155–156,160

bilingualcommunities 12,129bilingualeducation 6,8,24,

71–73,75–76,79,102,109,120–123,131–132,134–135,137,144–145,150–152,155

bilingualism 1–2,4,6,8,14,18–19,24–26,29,31,34–35,50,57–60,64–65,70–77,79–80,102,113–116,118,120,123–125,127,135–138,142,144–145,149–153,155–157,160

bilinguality 14,25,75

CChinese 16,45,119code-switching 19–20,46,55,

57,60cognitiveeffects 121,124complexity 4–6,12–13,16,

23–24,30,42,60,103,106–109,111–112,114–117,119–122,124,132,157

contemporarymultilingualism 1,6,103–106,108–109,115

crosslinguisticinfluence 5–6,63,66,76,79,81,97–98,101,127,138

crosslinguistictransfer 20–21

Ddefinitionofmultilingualism

13,18,22–24,27–28,33developmentsofmultilingualism

103,106differencesbetweenbilingualism

andmultilingualism 134,157diglossia 14–15,25diversity 4–5,16,26–30,32,36,

39,58,109,112–113,115,117,120,122,127,129,150,157

DominantLanguageConstellation 114

Eearlybilingualism 124earlysecondlanguage

acquisition 156earlytrilingualism 70,142élitemultilingualism 123emergentism 106–108,119English 3,6–9,14–16,24–26,

31,45–46,48–49,59,61,67,70–72,75–77,79–91,93–102,110,112,116,118–120,122–124,127,129–134,136–138,143,145,150,153,159–160

FFinnish 67,76,81firstlanguage 33,41,49–52,

76,155foreignlanguage 1,7,9,33,36,

51,57,61,72,74–77,101–102,108,112,119,122,126,128–131,

135–138,141–142,146–147,153,160

French 6,8,14,31,67,72–73,75,77,79–80,82–89,101–102,112,122,124,127–128,135

Frisian 123

GGerman 67,82,126Germaniclanguages 128

Hheritagelanguage 122,146,152

IIgbo 67immersion 4,70–71,84,88,

122,127,151Irish 6,8,79–80,82–90,

92–102,138

Jjournals 7,110,139–140,

142–148

KKashmiri 16

LL1 5,8,63,65–66,73–77,

80–81,83–84,92–93,99–102,107,118,126,136,155

L2factor 6,79,81–82,88,92,101

L3 1–3,5,8–9,11,36,63–64,70–77,79–82,88,91–92,95–96,98–102,110,113,117–120,123,126,128,134–135,138–142,149,152–155,160

Ladin 123

Subject index

166 Subjectindex

languageacquisition 1–4,8–9,27,29,40,47,50–53,57,59,61,72–74,77,79,100,106–107,113,116–119,129,134,139,141,144,148,150–153,155–156,158–159

languageawareness 1,40,75,79,113,137–138,147

languagedistance 65–66,68,101

languagetransfer 5,64–67,71Latin 23,57,82–83,123liminality 6,103,108–109,111,

113,115linguisticawareness 9,113,119,

128,135,137,160linguisticdispensation 1,6–7,

57,105,115–116,159linguisticlandscape 42–43,59,

111,115,117–118,159literacy 11,22,26,69,77,110,

116,142Luxembourg 38,123

Mmediumofinstruction 20,80,

123,130metalinguisticawareness 5,

67,69,74–75,77,81,113,121,127–128,132–133,137–138

metaphor 2,6,103,106,111–112,115,117,119

methodsofresearch 6,56,103,107,109–113,115,120,157

minoritylanguage 27,30,40–41,46,80,101,117,129–130,136,150

model 8,19,25,39,57,59,67–68,73–75,77,102,107,113–114,118,120,125,128,134,137,160

monolingual 12–13,15–16,19–20,23,33,45,72,109,126–128,134–135,138,155–157

monolinguality 14morphology 51,69,92,98–99,

105,131mothertongue 21,31,77,121,

149,155

multicompetence 58,73,121,134–135,137

multilingual 1–9,11–16,18–34,36–39,42–52,54–59,61,64,66,69–77,100–101,104–109,111–114,116–119,121–124,126–129,132,134–138,140–144,148–152,156–157,159–160

multilingualacquisition 24,121,124,126,135,142

multilingualapproach 121–122,134–135

multilingualclassroom 116–118,121

multilingualcommunity 12,19multilingualeducation 6,

123,157multilingualism 1–9,11–16,

18–19,22–38,40–50,54–61,63–65,67–77,79–80,100,103–116,118–124,126–127,129,134–143,145,149–160

multilinguality 7,15,24,106,114,116,120

multilinguallearning 6,80,121–122,124,126,128

multilinguallexicon 8,70,72–74,76–77,108,135,137,156,159–160

multilingualmemory 69mutualintelligibility 11,18,

20–21,25,38

Nnationallanguage 29,31,38,80nativelanguage 19,63–68,

70–71,75,77,81,152nativespeakers 19,41,47–48,

92,110,117,129–130,133,155Navajo 16non-nativelanguages 5,64–66,

71,158non-nativelanguagetransfer 5,

64,66–67

Pphonology 51,69,83,105,131Portuguese 67,76

priorlanguageknowledge 65,126

proficiency 4–8,11–12,15,18–20,22–23,71,81,85,122,126–135,137–138,155

psychotypologicalfactor 79,92,98

psychotypology 6,65,71,79,81,101

Rresearchmethodology 12,

108,110resources 7,52,85,97,99,

139–141,154

Ssecondlanguage 6,19,25,30,

52,57–58,60,63,75–76,101,108,118–120,123,129,136–137,145,148,150–151,155,158

secondlanguageacquisition 24–25,55,57,59–61,74–77,100–101,107,117–119,123–124,129,137,142,149,152,156–157,159

SouthTyrol 123Spanish 31,41,66–67,80,112,

128–130,145,153suffusiveness 6,103,111,115Swedish 66,76,81,101syntax 51,60,69,71,105–106,

119,131

Tthesaurusofmultilingualism

113,115,158thirdlanguage 1,5–9,24–25,

51–52,57,63,67–77,80–81,100–101,110,116,118–125,128–137,139,141,153,155,157,159–160

thirdlanguageacquisition 1,6–7,63,68–70,80,110,121,123,125,131–132,139,141,153,157

thirdlanguageeducation 80thirdlanguagelearning 74–75,

77,80,122,128,136,138

Subjectindex 167

threshold 80,100,127,155–157,159

TLA 6,110,123–124,126–127,130–132,155

transfer 5,9,20–21,63–67,69–73,75–77,79,81–82,100–101,113,117,125,136,157,160

triangulation 52,56,104,116–117

trilingualism 2,5,7–8,24,29,59,63,69–77,79–80,100–101,116,118,121,130,134–135,137,142,156–157,160

In the AILA Applied Linguistics Series the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:

6 Aronin, Larissa and Britta Hufeisen (eds.):TheExplorationofMultilingualism.DevelopmentofresearchonL3,multilingualismandmultiplelanguageacquisition.2009.vii, 167 pp.

5 GiBBons, John and M. Teresa TureLL (eds.):DimensionsofForensicLinguistics.2008.vi, 316 pp.4 forTAneT-GóMez, inmaculada and Christine A. räisänen (eds.):ESPinEuropeanHigher

Education.Integratinglanguageandcontent.2008.vi, 285 pp.3 MAGnAn, sally sieloff (ed.):MediatingDiscourseOnline.2008.vii, 364 pp.2 PrinsLoo, Mastin and Mike BAynHAM (eds.):Literacies,GlobalandLocal.2008.vii, 218 pp.1 LAMB, Terry and Hayo reinders (eds.):LearnerandTeacherAutonomy.Concepts,realities,and

response.2008.vii, 286 pp.

the exploration of multilingualism - npu.edu.uanpu.edu.ua/!e-book/book/djvu/a/iif_kgpm_aronin l. the...

Documents