The Role of Metalinguistic Awareness in the Attrition Processes of the 1St, 2Nd, 3Rd and 4Th Learned Foreign Language

MASTER THESIS Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Master of Education

The Role of Metalinguistic Awareness in the Attrition Processes of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Learned Foreign Language

A Comparative Analysis of the LAILA and LAILA-BICS Research in 2012

Eingereicht von: Charline Fehr Stefanie Kilga

Bei: A.o. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Jessner-Schmid Ulrike

Institut für Anglistik Leopold-Franzens Universität, Innsbruck Juni, 2021

3 Table of Contents List of Acronyms List of Figures and Tables Disclaimer

1 Introduction (C. Fehr) ...... 11 2 From Bilingualism to Multilingualism (C. Fehr) ...... 14 2.1 Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) ...... 14 2.1.1 Defining Bilingualism...... 14 2.1.2 History of Bilingualism ...... 15 2.1.3 From Bi- to Multilingualism: Difference Between SLA and TLA...... 18 2.1.3.1 Cross-Linguistic Influence (CLI) ...... 19 2.1.3.2 Cross-Linguistic Interaction (CLIN) ...... 20 2.2 Multilingualism and Third Language Acquisition (L3) ...... 21 2.2.1 Defining Multilingualism ...... 21 2.2.2 From Dynamic Bilingualism to Dynamic Multilingualism ...... 22 2.2.3 Language Acquisition as a Dynamic System ...... 23 3 Language Attrition (S. Kilga) ...... 28 3.1 Definition ...... 29 3.2 (Extra-) Linguistic Variables in Language Attrition ...... 29 3.2.1 Linguistic Aspects of Language Attrition ...... 29 3.2.2 Extralinguistic Aspects of Language Attrition ...... 32 3.3 Dynamic Systems Theory in Language Attrition ...... 35 3.4 Foreign Language Attrition ...... 38 3.4.1 Research on Multilingual Attrition...... 39 3.4.2 Methodological Issues and Constraints in Foreign Language Attrition ...... 41 4 The Interaction between Aptitude, Metalinguistic Awareness and Motivation (S. Kilga) ...... 42 4.1 Language Aptitude and its Components ...... 42 4.1.1 Language Skills and L2 Learning ...... 43 4.1.2 Working Memory and Processing Abilities ...... 45 4.2 Metalinguistic Awareness in Multilinguals ...... 48 4.2.1 Metalinguistic Awareness and Language Aptitude ...... 51 4.2.2 Testing and Monitoring Metalinguistic Awareness ...... 52 4.3 The Motivation to Learn a Foreign Language...... 54 4.3.1 Motivation, Classroom Anxiety and Self-Confidence ...... 58 4.3.2 Cultural and Educational Context in Motivation ...... 59 5 Language Learning in Tyrol, Austria (C. Fehr) ...... 61 5.1 Austria’s Demographic and Linguistic Context ...... 61 5.2 Austrian’s Educational Context ...... 64 5.2.1 History of Language Teaching at Austrian Schools ...... 64 5.2.2 Current Foreign Language Acquisition at Austrian Schools ...... 66 5.2.3 Level of Proficiency in Foreign Languages at Austrian Schools ...... 69 6 Language Learning in South Tyrol, Italy (C. Fehr) ...... 70 6.1 Historical Background of the Multilingual Region ...... 71 6.2 Demographic and Linguistic Context of the Multilingual Region South Tyrol ...... 74 6.3 South Tyrol’s Educational Context ...... 77

4 6.3.1 History of South Tyrolean’s Educational System ...... 77 6.3.2 Current Language Learning at German-Speaking South Tyrolean Schools ...... 81 6.3.3 Level of Proficiency in Foreign Languages at German Schools ...... 81 7 LAILA and LAILA-BICS Study ...... 83 7.1 LAILA Study...... 83 7.2 LAILA-BICS Study ...... 84 7.3 Aim of Comparative Study and Study Background ...... 84 7.4 Participants ...... 85 7.5 Linguistic Background ...... 86 7.6 Testing Formats ...... 89 7.6.1 The LLAMA_F Aptitude Test ...... 89 7.6.2 Cloze Test ...... 91 7.6.3 Sociolinguistic and Motivational Questionnaire ...... 93 8 LAILA 2012/2013 and LAILA-BICS 2012: A Comparison ...... 95 8.1 LAILA 2012 and 2013 ...... 96 8.1.1 LLAMA_F Test Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 ...... 96 8.1.2 C-test English Test Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 ...... 97 8.1.3 C-test French Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 ...... 99 8.1.4 C-test Italian Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 ...... 100 8.1.5 C-test Spanish Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 ...... 102 8.1.6 Analysis of LAILA-cohort by Jessner et al. (2020) ...... 103 8.2 Comparison LAILA 2012/13 with LAILA-BICS 2012 ...... 104 8.2.1 LLAMA_F Test Results LAILA and LAILA-BICS ...... 104 8.2.2 C-test English Results LAILA and LAILA-BICS ...... 105 8.2.3 C-test French Results LAILA and LAILA-BICS ...... 106 8.2.4 C-test Italian Results LAILA and LAILA-BICS ...... 107 9 Research Question and Hypotheses ...... 110 9.1 Hypothesis 1 ...... 111 9.2 Hypothesis 2 ...... 119 9.2.1 LAILA 2012 and 2013 LLAMA_F High-Achievers’ Results...... 119 9.3 Hypothesis 3 ...... 123 9.3.1 English (L2 in LAILA, L3 in LAILA-BICS) ...... 123 9.3.2 Italian (L3 in LAILA, L2 in LAILA-BICS) ...... 125 9.3.3 French (L3 in LAILA, L4 in LAILA-BICS) ...... 126 10 Discussion and Conclusion (S. Kilga) ...... 128 10.1 Outlook and Teaching Implications ...... 130 11 Bibliography ...... 133

Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaire LAILA-BICS Appendix B: LLAMA_F test examples Appendix C: C-Test example – English and French

5 List of Acronyms DMM Dynamic Model of Multilingualism CPH Critical Period Hypothesis FLE Foreign language environment DST Dynamic Systems Theory FL Foreign language L1 First language L2 Second language L3 Third language Ln Fourth, fifth,... etc. language CLI Cross-linguistic influence M-Factor Multilingualism-factor SLA Second language acquisition TLA Third language acquisition MLA Metalinguistic Awareness, (multi)lingual aptitudes LAP Language acquisition progress MOT Motivation PC Perceived language competence EST Self-esteem ANX Anxiety CLIN Cross-linguistic interaction LAILA Linguistic Awareness in Language Attriters LAILA-BICS Linguistic Awareness in Language Attriters in a Bilingual Contexts LME Language maintenance effort MAT Metalinguistic awareness test MLAT Modern Language Aptitude Test LLAMA Language aptitude test WM Working Memory PPLI Perceived Positive Language Interaction AMTB Attitude/Motivation Test Battery FLCAS Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale PLAB Pimsleur Language Aptitude DMC Directed Motivational Currents

6 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: “Difference between views of traditional bilingualism, linguistic interdependence and dynamic bilingualism” (García & Wei, 2014, p. 14; italics in original) ...... 17 Figure 2: Linear process by Herdina & Jessner (2002) ...... 25 Figure 3: Gradual language loss by Herdina & Jessner (2002) ...... 25 Figure 4: Some individual factors involved in the development of a multilingual system by Herdina & Jessner (2002) ...... 27 Figure 5: Model by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) ...... 46 Figure 6: Adaption of model by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) ...... 47 Figure 7: Model by Gardner (2007): Language Achievement and Use ...... 60 Figure 8: Fremdsprachenunterricht der Schülerinnen und Schüler im Schuljahr 2017/18 (Statistik Austria, 2019a) ...... 68 Figure 9: Language Levels according to the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 23)...... 69 Figure 10: The new Austria-Italian border after the treaty of Saint Germain (Seininger, 2003, p. 10) ...... 71 Figure 11: Map of South Tyrol with its eight districts (Mortadelo2005, 2007) ...... 74 Figure 12: Childern in kindergartenkinder and school according to language – school year 2019/20 (ASTAT, 2021b) ...... 77 Figure 13: L1 of all participants of LAILA 12 ...... 87 Figure 14: L1 of all participants of LAILA 13 ...... 87 Figure 15: L1 of all participants of LAILA-BICS 12 ...... 88 Figure 16: Barplot of spoken first languages LAILA 13 TT1 and TT2 ...... 89 Figure 17: Example of the presentation phase from the LLAMA_F test (Rogers, Meara, Barnett-Legh, Curry, & Davie, 2017, p. 51) ...... 90 Figure 18: Mean of the LLAMA-test results from LAILA-cohort 2012 ...... 96 Figure 19: Mean of the LLAMA-test results from LAILA-cohort 2013 ...... 97 Figure 20: Mean of the C-test results (ENG) from LAILA-cohort 2012 ...... 97 Figure 21: Mean of the C-test results (ENG) from LAILA-cohort 2013 ...... 98 Figure 22: Mean of the C-test results (FRA) from LAILA-cohort 2012 ...... 99 Figure 23: Mean of the C-test results (FRA) from LAILA-cohort 2013 ...... 100 Figure 24: Mean of the C-test results (ITA) from LAILA-cohort 2012 ...... 101 Figure 25: Mean of the C-test results (ITA) from LAILA-cohort 2013 ...... 101 Figure 26: Mean of the C-test results (ESP) LAILA-cohort 2012...... 102 Figure 27: Mean of the C-test results (ESP) LAILA-cohort 2013...... 103 Figure 28: Mean of the LLAMA-test results from LAILA 12/13 and LAILA-BICS 12 cohort ...... 105 Figure 29: LAILA-BICS 2012 English C-Test scores ...... 106 Figure 30: LAILA-BICS 2012 French C-Test scores ...... 106 Figure 31: LAILA-BICS 2012 Italian C-Test scores ...... 107 Figure 32: Use of Italian after school in LAILA-BICS 12 ...... 108 Figure 33: Motivation for their L3s ...... 112 Figure 34: Average of all L3s compared ...... 112 Figure 35: High achievers compared to the rest of the group LAILA 12 ...... 113 Figure 36: High achievers compared to the rest of the group LAILA 13 ...... 114 Figure 37: High achievers compared to the rest of the group LAILA-BICS 12...... 114 Figure 38: Comparison of all cohorts (motivation L3) ...... 115 Figure 39: Further engagement of high achievers in LAILA 12/13 and LAILA-BICS ...... 118

7 Figure 40: High achievers LLAMA_F in LAILA 12 ...... 120 Figure 41: High-achievers LLAMA_F in LAILA 13 ...... 120 Figure 42: High-achievers LLAMA_F in LAILA 12/13 ...... 121 Figure 43: High-achievers LLAMA_F in LAILA-BICS 12 ...... 122 Figure 44: High achievers in English difference in average (C-test) ...... 124 Figure 45: Average of C-test scores difference in Italian ...... 126 Figure 46: Average in C-test scores difference in French ...... 127

8 Table 1: Total number of participants in LAILA 12 and LAILA-BICS 12 ...... 85 Table 2: LLAMA_F scoring table (Meara, 2005) ...... 91 Table 3: Rating scale for motivation ...... 94 Table 4: Adjusted LLAMA_F scores ...... 119

9 Disclaimer This master thesis contains data assembled in two longitudinal projects at the Universtiy of Innsbruck, both headed by a.o. Univ.-Prof.Dr. Ulrike Jessner-Schmid: - The LAILA project, a study made possible by the grant from the Austrian Science Fund and carried out in north and east Tyrol, Austria. - The LAILA-BICS project, a study made possible by a grant from the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (South Tyrol) and carried out in South Tyrol, Italy.

Both projects contain highly confidential information and all the rights for the material used and the data gathered in the study belong to the research group DyME and Prof. Ulrike Jessner-Schmid.

10 1 Introduction (C. Fehr) “To have another language is to possess a second soul.” Charlemagne

Today, Charlemagne’s quote can be expanded since mastering foreign languages does not only broaden one’s personality or “soul”, but it has become a vital competence for the educational, professional and leisure experiences of human beings. Speaking two or more languages is no longer a rare phenomenon but it has rather become the striven for norm. In some regions and countries, children growing up are frequently confronted with a language other than their first language, which is what Franceschini (2016) names “minimal language acquisition” (p. 102) since children already uncounciously absorb another language than their own. Even when disagreeing with the fact that the regular encounter with another language can be seen as minimal language learning, children start to acquire foreign languages later on at school which guarantees that every pupil eventually achieves what Charlemagne states. However, when analysing the quote of the Roman emperor in more detail, the question arises whether a language learner who “has” another language does so for life or whether the knowledge of a language can also be lost again. This thesis is concerned with understanding the factors which influence language loss particularly in regard to ascertaining the importance of the linguistic context in which people live. Hence, two studies, LAILA and LAILA-BICS, were taken as the main source of analysis in order to shed light on the influence of the linguistic environment of learners on language attrition. The LAILA study was conducted in Tyrol, Austria, which is a German-speaking region near the Italian border. On the other side of this border lies South Tyrol, a trilingual region which once belonged to Austria but has since transformed into an area where German, Italian and Ladin coexist as official languages. Therefore, the two “Tyrols” were chosen to illustrate whether the environment has an impact on the language proficiency of pupils after having left school. Further information on the regions itself will be given in chapter five and six of this thesis. This thesis aims at examining how, in addition to the linguistic context of the pupils, factors such as motivation, language aptitude and also language proficiency influence the process of losing a language. As all the participants of the studies acquired three or more languages during their school education, the phenomenons bilingualism and especially multilingualism will be addressed in the second chapter of this work. As already mentioned,

11 the test takers mastered several languages which will be seen as a highly complex and dynmic interaction of the various language systems in their multilingual minds which lays the foundation for the theory of the Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (henceforward DMM) (Herdina & Jessner, 2002) as well as the Dynamic Systems Theory (henceforth DST) (De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007). The DST, which was applied to multilingualism in the DMM, argues that language learning is a highly dynamic process instead of a linear and static one. Their dynamics is influenced by intrinsic factors such as motivation or multlingual awareness, but also by extrinsic factors such as the necessity to use a foreign language, for instance, when moving to a country with an official language other than the one one is used to. The third chapter is concerned with the main process which is analysed in this work namely language attrition. After defining the term, the linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of language attrition will be elaborated on in order to establish clarity concerning language loss for the discussion of the results from the studies LAILA and LAILA-BICS. In addition to that, the already introduced Dynamic Systems Theory will be discussed in regard to language attrition. Then, relevant research on foreign language and multilingual attrition will be dealt with before addressing the obstacles of longitudinal studies of language attrition. The fourth chapter deals with the interaction between aptitude, metalinguistic awareness and motivation. Firstly, language apptitude will be discussed with regard to its definition and the ways to measure apptitute such as the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) or the Pimsleur Language Aptitude (PLAB). The crucial role of memory will also be explained. Secondly, the metalinguistc awareness in multilinguals will be treated in relation to the just mentioned language aptitude. Lastly, the impact of motivation on language learning will be discussed, in particular the relation between motivation and anxiety as well as the significance of the cultural and educational context in motivation. As mentioned above, the chapters five and six will give an insight into the two contexts of the studies, namely Tyol in Austria and South Tyrol in Italy. The demographic, historic and linguistic context will be given before explaining the structure of each educational system in closer detail. Then, the focus will lie on foreign language teaching by illustrating through the means of statistics which languages are most frequently learned at school in either context. Both chapters conclude with a subchapter on the level of proficiency which the participants of the conducted studies should attain at the end of their school career so as to offer a theoretical basis for the subsequent analysis and comparison of the studies. The last three chapters focus on the studies by explaining the methodology of the studies with its testing formats as well as further information on the participants. Then, the

12 Tyrolean study LAILA will be discussed in greater detail since there were two cohorts taken from this study in comparison to one cohort from the South Tyrolean study named LAILA- BICS. After that, the studies of Tyrol and South Tyrol are compared before tackling the research question and the three hypotheses. As in an earlier study, Gasteiger and DeMaine (2020) also analysed the same comparative studies; however, they only contrasted one cohort from each study while this thesis aims at painting a more extensive picture concerning the comparison of two LAILA cohort with one LAILA-BICS cohort. Lastly, in chapter eleven, the main results will be discussed once again and an outlook concerning further studies will be given.

13 PART I

2 From Bilingualism to Multilingualism (C. Fehr) This chapter starts by introducing the definition, history and various concepts of bilingualism before shifting to the expanded view of multilingualism in contrast to bilingualism.

2.1 Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) To label people as bilingual has gradually become the norm, especially because of the rise of English as a global language (Crystal, 2003; Kayman, 2007; Melitz, 2016). The increase in the language’s importance cannot only be perceived when looking at English being used as a lingua franca in international organisations or on social media, but also when looking at curricula around the world. In other words, the mastery of one’s mother tongue and at least another (foreign) language is one of the main aims introduced to school systems today which is the reason why current as well as future generations will be bilingual. In order to understand the concept of bilingualism, the following chapters are concerned with the definition, acquisition as well as the arrangement of the linguistic systems of two languages. Firstly, the various definitions of bilingualism will be analysed as they greatly differ according to different researchers. Secondly, the development of bilingualism as a field of research will be elaborated on. Lastly, a comparison between second (SLA) and third language acquisition (TLA) will be drawn.

2.1.1 Defining Bilingualism There are several views on bilingualism when it comes to finding a definition for the term. For instance, Oestreicher speaks of bilingualism only when the speaker has “complete mastery of two languages” (Oestreicher, 1974, p. 9), which goes together with Bloomfield’s conception of bilingualism, namely that it is concerned with having a “native-like control of two languages” (Bloomfield, 1933, p. 56). Over the time, the definitions of Bloomfield and Oestreicher were considered as being too narrow since they exclude people speaking two languages lacking a native-like mastery in both languages. Therefore, the claim arose that one can also define bilingualism using the motto “any step beyond monolingualism is a step into bilingualism” (Komorowska & Krajka, 2016, p. 45). One researcher that held that view was Diebold (1961) who has defined the concept of “incipient bilingualism” arguing that

14 bilingualism starts as soon as one acquires bilingual skills including the passive ability to comprehend utterances whilst not being able to produce them oneself (Diebold, 1961, p. 111). According to this definition, as soon as a speaker begins to understand content in another language than their own, one can call themselves bilingual. Another researcher contracting the opinion of Oestreicher and Bloomfield is Macnamara (1967) who states in an article that he declares people as bilingual as soon as they “possess at least one of the language skills even to a minimal degree in their second language” (Macnamara, 1967, p. 59-60). Furthermore, Macnamara (1967) justifies his definition by claiming that, for instance, bilingual children understand a language but cannot speak or write it; nevertheless, they are considered bilingual according to his definition since they possess one language skill – in that case listening. Thus, both Macnamara (1967) and Diebold (1961) suggest a much greater spectrum when looking at bilingualism than Oestreicher (1974) and Bloomfield (1933). All in all, it can be said that each definition of bilingualism has one aspect in common: the speaker “knows” two languages. However, even though finding one valid definition for the term bilingualism has always caused disagreement among researchers, the same goes for the reputation of the phenomenon itself which has encountered numerous changes over the years as well.

2.1.2 History of Bilingualism The research on bilingualism has not only shown numerous definitions for the term itself, but also the perception of bilingualism has undergone a significant development. In the beginnings of bilingual research, the mastery of two languages has often been perceived as a handicap concerning the intelligence of bilingual children (Peal & Lambert, 1962). For instance, Laurie (1890) has claimed that “[i]f it were possible for a child or boy to live in two languages at once equally well, so much the worse. His intellectual and spiritual growth would not thereby be doubled but halved” (Laurie, 1890, p. 15f.). Another scholar who perceived bilingualism with a negative regard was the Danish linguist Otto Jespersen. He wrote in “Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin” (1922) that when children master two languages, their power to learn other things reduces. The two hence assumed that mastering two languages presented a deficit rather than an advantage in terms of mental abilities. However, this perception has changed with research that substantiated the opposite. For instance, a study conducted by Peal and Lambert (1962) was one which contradicted the abovementioned statements by performing verbal and non-verbal intelligence tests on 10-year-old monolingual and bilingual pupils from French schools in Montreal, Canada. The results

15 illustrated that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in both tests which, as Peal and Lambert argued, might be due to the fact that they possess “a more diversified set of mental abilities than the monolinguals” (Peal & Lambert, 1962, p. 22). This constitutes one of the first crucial shifts in the history of bilingual research, namely from a deficit to a positive understanding of bilingualism. Another key concept of bilingualism was introduced by Selinker (1972), the so-called interlanguage. Selinker explains that when learning a second language, there are three stages of which the intermediate state is called interlanguage which describes that the language is transitioning from the native to the target language. This process illustrates that the actual act of learning a language is something dynamic since the speaker evolves from knowing only one’s own language until speaking the language like a native speaker. This assumption has been further supported by introducing the concept of fossilisation, so-called flaws in the target language which can reappear during i.e. stressful situations even though they had already been eradicated (Selinker, 1972). The fact that errors reoccur, even after a speaker has achieved to no longer make that certain mistake while using the target language, demonstrates that language learning is not a static process. In addition to Selinker, Cummins played a major role in bilingualism studies by publishing an article introducing the interdependence hypothesis which is concerned with the fact that “previous learning of literary-related functions of language (in L1) will predict future learning of these functions (in L2)” (Baker & Hornberger, 2001, p. 118). In other words, even though the two languages might not share the same vocabulary or grammar, Cummins asserts they share the same common knowledge concerning language learning such as problem- solving originating from the acquisition of the first language (L1) which is crucial for the acquisition of the second language (L2). He calls this knowledge common underlying proficiency (ibid.). Another concept regarding the cognitive competences of a bilingual speaker comes from Grosjean (1989) who criticises the monolingual or fractional view of bilingualism, which is the assumption that people mastering two languages also have “two separate and isolable language competencies; these competencies are […] similar to those of the two corresponding monolinguals; therefore, the bilingual is […] two monolinguals in one person” (p. 4). Instead of using the just introduced fractional view when analysing bilinguals, Grosjean (1989) proposes a bilingual or wholistic view of bilingualism. He urges researchers to cease comparing a bilingual’s language system, which consists of constantly interacting system between the two languages, with the monolingual view of having two isolated language systems which do not

16 interact (Grosjean, 1989). Selinker’s, Cummins’ and Grosjean’s concepts have illustrated that bilingualism is a dynamic process as the acquired languages constantly interact and influence one another. However, the term dynamic bilingualism itself was coined by García (2009). It is suggested that bilingualism is dynamic as well as complex and that there is but one linguistic system which means that the languages neither work independently nor that they occur linearly like Cummins proposed by introducing his interdependence hypothesis (García & Wei, 2014). In lieu of an interdependence, the dynamic bilingualism “connotes one linguistic system that has features that are most often practiced according to societally constructed and controlled ‘languages’, but other times producing new practices” (ibid., p. 14). The distinction between what is understood as traditional bilingualism, Cummins’ interdependence hypothesis and García’s proposition can be further analysed by means of the figure 1.

Figure 1: “Difference between views of traditional bilingualism, linguistic interdependence and dynamic bilingualism” (García & Wei, 2014, p. 14; italics in original)

Firstly, when examining the illustration of the traditional bilingualism, one perceives that the linguistic systems (L1 and L2) together with its linguistic features (F1 and F2) are isolated systems that neither interact nor interdepend. Secondly, the concept of Cummins is illustrated by bringing the linguistic systems together in order to be able to interact with one another. Furthermore, the Common Underlying Proficiency is connected with both language systems which is portrayed as the base for both languages. However, even though the two language systems transfer, the L1 and L2 as well as the appertaining linguistic features are still

17 separate. Lastly, the concept of a dynamic bilingualism is visualised. This concept displays just one linguistic concept which already includes linguistic features (Fn) (ibid.). As mentioned above, these features stand for practices which are utilised to “conform to societal constructions of a ‘language’, and at other times used differently” (García & Wei, 2014, p. 15). This concept plays an important role for the following chapters concerning multilingualism and especially when discussing the dynamic model of multilingualism (DMM) by Herdina and Jessner (2002).

2.1.3 From Bi- to Multilingualism: Difference Between SLA and TLA Ellis (1997) defined the term second language acquisition (SLA) as “the systematic study of how people acquire a second language” (Ellis, 1997, S. 3). According to Ellis (1997), a second language is any language except the mother tongue (ibid.). Sharwood Smith (1994) was of the same opinion by claiming that the term “will normally stand as a cover term for any language other than the first language learned by a given learner or group of learners a) irrespective of the type of learning environment and b) irrespective of the number of non-native languages possessed by the learner.” (p. 7, italics in original). Both scholars therefore made no distinction between the process of acquiring a second or a third language. However, the fact that a language learner who acquires a third or even fourth language already possesses knowledge on how to acquire languages is neglected. Scholars such as Cenoz (2013) or Herdina and Jessner (2002) were as well of the opinion that second and third language acquisition (TLA) differ. Jessner (2006) claimed that “the learning process and its product, are not only more complex but also require different skills of the learner” (p. 14). Cenoz (2013) compared these mentioned skills by comparing it with learning to walk (L1), followed by acquiring how to drive (L2) and lastly that learning a third language is comparable to subsequently having to drive a bus (L3). These comparisons illustrate that learning a second language is a clear benefit for TLA since the learner already possesses the knowledge of how to acquire a language. However, by acquiring the knowledge of new languages the complexity rises as well since the languages, as seen with García’s dynamic bilingualism (García & Wei, 2014), start interacting and, additionally, the “sociocultural status of each language along with the languages’ respective roles and functions in society can contribute additional complexities” (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998, p. 16). In addition to that, the complex aspect of TLA is due to the fact that three or more languages can be acquired differently. Compared to SLA, which can only be learnt either at the same time as the L1 or after the mother tongue, the possibilities of TLA are

18 more complex. Cenoz (2000) has come up with four different orders concerning TLA. Firstly, the three languages can be acquired conecutively (L1 L2 L3). Other possibilities include the silmultaneous acquistion of two languages (Lx/Ly) that could take place after the L1 has been acquired (L1 Lx/Ly) or before the L3 is acquired (Lx/Ly L3). Another possibility involves silmultaneous contact with three languages (Lx/Ly/Lz). (Cenoz, 2000, p. 40) Furthermore, it has to be taken into account that a learner can also stop acquiring a language and recommence doing so later on (L1 L2 L3 L2) which increases the complexity of TLA again (ibid.). Therefore, it is clear that when mastering three or more languages instead of two, there is not only a difference concerning the possibilities of acquisition orders, but also when focusing on the influence between the languages. The analysis of the relationship between already existing languages and newly acquired ones is called the study of crosslinugistic influence, henceforth CLI (De Angelis, 2007).

2.1.3.1 Cross-Linguistic Influence (CLI) The term was introduced by Sharwood Smith (1983) and Kellerman (1984) who used it to describe “phenomena as 'transfer', 'interference', 'avoidance', 'borrowing', and L2-related aspects of language loss” (Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1986, p. 1). The term was first used when analysing the interference between two languages in the context of SLA instead TLA which, again, is a more complex concept as it focuses on the interaction between several languages. The circumstances of CLI can be defined according to several aspects which “can potentially predict the relative weight of cross-linguistic influence in the speakers’ production and the source language of the elements that are transferred” (Cenoz, 2001, p. 8). With regard to the source language of the language transfer, it has been shown that borrowed words are extracted from languages that are typologically similar to the target language (Cenoz, 2001). Kellerman (1979) has introduced a similar concept in which he claimed that the speaker’s perception of the typological distance between languages is pivotal for the influence of the languages on one another. However, it has to be noted that Kellerman did not consider multilinguals in his notion, but he was solely interested in the ability of language transfer between similar languages such as German, English and Dutch. Other studies contradict the findings of Kellerman (1979) by illustrating that learners do not only transfer from closely related languages but apply acquired knowledge from distant languages as well. It is delicate to define what is understood by “distant languages” as there are no fixed meanings regarding similarity and dissimiliarity between languages. This is due to the fact that the perception of

19 closeness, also known as psychotypology, is subjective as language learners conceive language aspects such as phonetic features differently. The aspect which is of great importance, at least for the analysis of the conducted study, is again the difference between bilingualism and multilingualism. Regardless of whether the source languages display linguistic similarities or not, it is curcial to differentiate between the language repertoire of a bilingual speaker and the one a multilingual speaker possesses. The CLI of a speaker mastering two languages can therefore only transfer language knowledge from one language to the target language whereas multilingual speakers depend less on one source language by having access to multiple languages (De Angelis, 2007). Herdina and Jessner (2002) take CLI even one step further in regard to multilingual speakers by introducing the so-called cross-linguistic interaction (henceforward CLIN)

2.1.3.2 Cross-Linguistic Interaction (CLIN) CLIN is a concept that came into existence through the dynamic model of mulitlingualism, short DMM, which was introduced by Jessner and Herdina in the year 2002, of which a detailed elaboration can be found in the chapter 2.2. CLIN differs from CLI as it encompasses “not only transfer and interference but also codeswitching and borrowing phenomena and is thus reserved as an umbrella term for all the existing transfer phenomena” (Jessner, 2003, p. 49). Additionally, CLIN can be described as a crucial aspect of the dynamic component of multilingual system by, for instance, also including dynamic changes in the multilingual language system which are unpredictable. In order to illustrate the dynamics of the language systems, Jessner claims that while other researchers such as Kecskes and Papp (2000), who also described multilingualism as a “dynamic and cumulative process that is characterized by transfer of a different nature” (p. xv), define language systems as overlapping, she considers “the two languages as two liquids, which, when mixed, acquire properties that neither of the liquids had” (Jessner, 2003, p. 49). Hence, the result is not a simple overlap but rather a total transformation of both systems. When looking at multilinguals who master for example three languages, this also has to be taken into consideration concerning their language learning skills and strategies. L3- learners display are more advanced level considering the latter aspects which consequently have an impact on the quality of CLIN as well. The term multilingual proficiency signifies a concept which encompasses the interaction of the language systems, its expression in CLIN as well as the impact which the emergence of a system handling multiple languages has on the

20 learner. The latter becomes perceptible when analysing the abilities of an experienced learner which differ greatly from a learner who has not learned multiple languages (Jessner, 2003). The following chapter will elaborate on L3 by focusing on multilingual learners.

2.2 Multilingualism and Third Language Acquisition (L3) This chapter is concerned with the definiton, development and today’s perception of multilingualism. In addition to that, relevant linguistic models such as the abovementioned DMM by Herdina and Jessner (2002) will be introduced as it will provide the basis for the study.

2.2.1 Defining Multilingualism When trying to find a definition for the term multilingualism, one quickly realises that it does not only differ from scholar to scholar, but that there is also a difference between individual and geographical multilingualism. The latter can be identified as “the ability of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage, on a regular basis, with more than one language in their day-to-day-lives” (Commission of the European Communities, 2007, p. 6). With regard to the conducted study, this definition would apply for the region of South Tyrol which is multilingual due to their three official languages, German, Italian and Ladin, which are used in the every day lives of many South Tyrolean citizens. Another definition of multilingualism focuses on the individual speaking several languages. In this case, however, there is not one universal definition as to what individual multilingualism means but, as already stated above, scholars are of different opinions. Clyne (1997), for instance, claimed that the individual multilingualism is used as a synonym for bilingualism since it could be defined as the “competence in more than one language” (p. 301). However, some scholars also disagree with the just mentioned definition by making a clear distinction between the two terms. Herdina and Jessner (2002) declared bilingualism as a variation of multilingualism while at the same time defining multilingualism as “the command and/or use of two or more languages by the respective speaker” (p. 52) which illustrates the fact that the two terms cannot be used interchangeably but that bilingualism is a form of multilingualism. Additionally, it has to be considered that acquiring three or more languages instead of two differs greatly as the influence between two languages differenciates from the one between three or more languages. The assumption that languages constantly interact and that the language proficiency of the acquired languages alters indicates that language learning is a dynamic process.

21 2.2.2 From Dynamic Bilingualism to Dynamic Multilingualism The fact that biliningualism can be seen as dynamic, which has already been addressed in the chapter 1, must also be considered for multilingualism. One researcher who worked on this hypothesis was Cook (2007). He introduced the term multi-competence which describes “the knowledge of two languages in one mind” (Cook, 2007, p. 17) which is an idea towards wholism (Grosjean, 1989). Moreover, Cook’s multi-competence focuses upon the interaction between the exisiting languages in the language user’s brain by transfering different aspects, such as grammar or syntax, from one language into the others. This process is, according to Cook (2007), not one-sided but rather a bidirectional process which illustrates the fact that language learning as well as language production is a dynamic process which has also been shown in attrition research (ibid.). For instance, the proficiency in the L1 can decrease over time, due to a relocation, while the one of the L2 increases which can lead to a more frequent transfer from the L2 to the L1 instead of the presumed way of the L1 predominantly influencing the L2. This process of intereference and transfer alters and becomes even more complex when adding new languages which results in an alteration of the already existing language structures, including the L1. Therefore, concerning multilinguliasm, the existing language structures are constantly rewired which can “be seen as a dynamically growing entity that changes according to the experiences that the speaker makes” (Franceschini, 2016, p. 107). Furthermore, the just- cited researcher Franceschini (2016) focuses on the relation between multicompetence and language biographies which is a crucial aspect when analysing the impact the linguistic background of a region has on the language usage of a speaker. For instance, when living in a trilingual region such as South Tyrol, this affects the language biography of a speaker since they are, consciously as well as unconsciously, exposed to languages other than their native language. Franceschini (2016) claims that this exposure can be defined as unfocused language acquisition meaning that the “languages of a social environment are not consciously learned […], but rather subtly absorbed, with the result of a minimal language acquisition” (p. 102). Even though the actual language competence of unfocused language acquistion is often ignored, Franceschini (2016) is of the belief that being regularly exposed to foreign languages in one’s own social environment has a noticeable effect on one’s language biography (ibid.). According to Franceschini (1999), the results of the unconscious acquisition of a language within one’s environment can be noticed by the usage of chunks or expressions which had been absorbed by people in one’s own milieu. Franceschini (1999) recorded around 160 speakers in sales outlets in the German-speaking part of Switzerland in regard to the usage of Italian. Italian

22 is one of the four official languages of Switzerland which was, at the time of the publication of the cited article, rarely acquired at school. Nevertheless, Franceschini (1999) still observed that German-speaking Swiss sometimes use Italian chunks. One example from her study shows how the speakers combine Swiss-German dialect with Italian words: “jo quattro isch e bitz troppo he” (p. 146). As can be seen in the example, numerals or quantifiers are often used by people who did not actively acquire the language but who still show a limited knowledge of the language. Consequently, when later analysing the results of the conducted study, according to Franceschini (2016), the South Tyrolean particpants should have an advantage over the North Tyrolean subject groups due to the fact that they are regularly confronted with Italian and maybe even Ladin throughout their everyday life thanks to a trilingual environment. In terms of multicompetence, the preknowledge of varieties of Italian or Ladin by South Tyroleans is used when actively acquiring one of the exposed languages later on in life which is, as mentioned before, Franceschini’s view of how multicompetence operates in multilingual speakers. According to her, this quality enables the multi-competent speaker to move freely and swiftly within his or her communicative repertoires […] in an effort to secure understanding, using not only the stronger or more fluent variety, but also the ones that he or she uses less frequently […] or even varieties he or she may only have minimal knowledge of: thus, a flexible speaker. (Franceschini, 2003, as cited in Franceschini, 2016) The ability to flexibly move from using the various competences in the languages mastered as the several varieties are interconnected is, as mentioned above, the reason why the repertoire of such a speaker is defined as being dynamic (ibid.). Herdina and Jessner (2002) also apply the same view while at the same time adding the component of alteration over time to multilingualism. The following chapter will elaborate on the introduction of language learning as a dynamic process.

2.2.3 Language Acquisition as a Dynamic System In 1997, Larsen-Freeman emphasised the fact that there are “a number of parallels between complex nonlinear systems and second language acquisition […] [since] both are characterized by dynamic processes” (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, p. 151). One factor which is mentioned by her is the vital distinction between the term “target language” and the actual non- attainment of a “target” since language acquisition is an endless process due to its status of being dynamic. The crucial aspect of Larsen-Freeman’s justification is that she considers language learning not as a linear development, but rather that the so-called learning curve when discussing language acquisition “is filled with peaks and valleys, progress and backsliding”

23 (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, p. 151). Five years later, Herdina and Jessner supported Larsen- Freeman’s notion by means of their findings published in the book A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics (2002). Among other researchers, Herdina and Jessner refer to the chaos theory of Gleick (1987) who refered to the concept of chaos in relation to different disciplines such as physics by claiming, for instance, that to “some physicists chaos is a science of process rather than a state, of becoming rather than being” (Gleick, 1998, p. 5). Gleick’s view coincides with the notion of Larsen-Freeman concerning the non-existence of an ultimate attainment of a language due to its factor of being dynamic. Herdina and Jessner (2002) also propose this view by defining the term learning as evolving systems which originate in the interaction between the existing systems with the corresponding environment. In other words, they claim that it is “a process of constant adjustment to the changing environment and internal conditions aiming at the maintenance of a state of (dynamic) balance” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 86). In addition to that, Herdina and Jessner (2002) refer to other existing dynamic systems just like Gleick (1998) proposed as well in terms of applying the dynamics of biological systems and especially psychological development to the discipline of language learning. Other vital aspects mentioned in the book A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics (2002) are introduced in the chapter called “Goals of DMM”. Firstly, the authors mentioned that they do not distinguish between multilingualism and second language acquisition due to the fact that their Dynamic Model of Multilingualism “provides a tool with which we can view learner systems and stable multilingual systems as variants of multilingual systems fundamentally obeying the same principles” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 86). Additionally, they advocate further research concerning foreign language acquisition with the focus on trilingualism as well as other variants of multilingualism instead of simply directing one’s attention towards bilingualism. Another crucial issue Herdina and Jessner (2002) mention is the lack of attention towards the existence of language systems (i.e.

LS1 and LS2) instead of the traditional focus simply on either L1 or L2. This marks a fundamantal change since they claimed that these language systems are interlocking and, additionally, that they are part of a comprehensive psycholinguistic system. They are of the opinion that especially language growth and loss were long neglected by language learning research which are significant aspects that the DMM aims at explaining. The process of language learning was assumed to be a linear one leaving the aspect of heterogenous acquisition out of consideration (see figure 2) (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).

Figure 2: Linear process by Herdina & Jessner (2002)

The authors of the book argue, however, that the actual language learning process is non-linear by stating that it is “a dynamic process with phases of accelerated growth and retardation” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 91). Reasons for the latter are a limited amount of efforts a learner invests into acquiring a language. Therefore, eventually the knowledge growth stagnates or even becomes insufficient in order to actively maintain the language. Consequently, the learner experiences progressive language attrition as the effort to learn the language ceases (see figure 3). The chapter 3 will elaborate on the issue of language attrition in language acquisition.

Figure 3: Gradual language loss by Herdina & Jessner (2002) However, when analysing the stability of a language system, the authors assert that it depends on several factors. For instance, it is of relevance at what age the learner is acquiring the language, to what extent the learner masters the language and also how many other language systems interact with the language in focus. In addition to that, the linguistic context in which an individual lives plays a crucial role concerning the communicative need to master a certain language. According to Herdina and Jessner (2002), this component is inconsistent and

25 determined by the so-called language maintenance effort (henceforth LME). If an individual moves into a country where their native language is not commonly used, the communicative need is non-existant which consequently has reperscussions on the LME (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). In regard to the conducted study of this thesis, pupils were obliged to acquire their third and/or fourth language even though their communicative needs were solely for educational purposes such as passing an oral exam in the respective language. After passing the school- leaving exam, the communicative requirement changes for most pupils which consequently has an impact on the LME as well. In addition to inconsistent factors of language acquisition, the DMM also focused on skills which multilingual speakers acquire in contrast to monolingual ones “such as language learning skills, language management skills and language maintenance skills which are linked to a change in quality to be expected in the language learning process” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 129). All of the just mentioned competences form part of the so-called metalinguistic awareness (henceforth MLA) which will be further discussed in the chapter 4. Another vital factor of the DMM which has to be discussed is the M-factor. The fact that the language systems of an DMM interact has already been mentioned above. The function behind this process emerges from the so-called M-factor which “consists of a dispositional measure which will primarily be observable on the acquisition of a further language” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 130). The essential aspect this factor aims to illustrate is a distinction between monolinguals and bilinguals when acquiring a third language. Moreover, the MLA presents a key aspect of the M-factor. In order to illustrate the link between proficiency, performance and competence in a spear of multiple languages, the formula goes as follows:

LS1 + LS2 + LSn + CLIN + M ≅ MP < p (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 130) The derivation illustrates that the multilingual proficiency, which is more than the actually produced performance, is calculated by adding the existing language systems with the crosslinguistic interaction and the M-factor. When trying to determine the competence in regard to the mastery of a language, the following equation should be applied:

C1 + C2 + Cn + CLIN + M ≅ MP < p (ibid.) This means that the multilingual proficiency, which outweighs the actual performance, comes into being when combining the various competences a multilingual speaker possesses in a language with the crosslinguistic interaction and the M-factor. There are several factors which can influence the multilingual proficiency highlighting the complexity of the DMM once again. It has already been illustrated that the DMM differs

26 from the other assumptions regarding the functioning of TLA. However, in addition to it being highly dynamic by acknowledging various processes of language development as well as language attrition, it also recognises the fact that psychosocial and personal components can influence the progress of TLA. The figure 4 aims at illustrating possible factors which can affect the complex process of language acquisition, both in terms of growth or loss (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).

Figure 4: Some individual factors involved in the development of a multilingual system by Herdina & Jessner (2002) By means of the figure, the consequences of the interconnectedness of the various factors becomes evident. The diverse components of the depiction are the following: • MLA = (multi)language aptitude / metalinguistic abilities: it is a factor which has an impact on the development of the language system. • LAP = language acquisition progress: indicates how fast language growth as well as attrition occurs. • MOT = motivation: is considered to be the main factor in terms of language effort since it can be seen as the engine behind it. • PC = perceived language competence: describes the language competence which is apprehended by the speaker in regard to their communicative needs to which the competence is constantly adapted by means of (re-)evaluation and reflection. • EST = self-esteem: this factor is of vital importance concerning the individual’s readiness to engage in actions which concern the usage of a foreign language. Furthermore, the PC influences the EST since a positive perception of one’s own language competence simultaneously provides an individual with EST. • ANX = anxiety: a factor which relates to the acquisition as well as the performance as it hinders language learners from producing content in the foreign language due to their fear of committing a blunder. (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 138ff.)

27 These factors can either advance the language acquisition or restrict its progress which would thus lead to language attrition. Before laying the focus on the very phenomenon called language loss or attrition, it has to be mentioned that after the publication of the DMM by Herdina and Jessner in the year 2002, other works were published asserting that the progress of language acquisition is dynamic. For instance, de Bot, Lowie & Verspoor published an article entitled “A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition” (2007) in which they also claim that “language can be seen as a dynamic system, i.e. a set of variables that interact over time, and that language development can be seen as a dynamic process” (De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007, p. 7). De Bot et al. (2007) refer to the dynamic systems theory (DST), a theory based on a branch used in mathematics, which is also concerned with complex systems. The DST bases dynamic systems on complete interconnectedness meaning that every variable influences the other one’s meaning that there is a constant interaction between the different language systems. At the same time, this notion is the reason why a constant change is acknowledged and perceived as a logical consequence of a dynamic process (De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007). As mentioned before, the DMM used the concept of DST and applied it to multilingualism. In 2008, Jessner also addressed the DST in the article “A DST Model of Multilingualism and the Role of Metalinguistic Awareness”. The article focuses in particular on the importance of the metalinguistic awareness (MLA) and how this factor highlights the difference between monolinguals and multilinguals (Jessner, 2008). The MLA will be addressed as well in one subchapter. But first, the circumstances of language attrition will be elaborated on.

3 Language Attrition (S. Kilga) In 2016, more than 60% of the Europeans were able to speak at least one foreign language and this number is continuously rising. Nevertheless, mastering a foreign language is complex, since sentences need to be formulated, grammatical and lexical knowledge has to be acquired and having encoded it, the learner must integrate it into his or her long-term memory. The field of second language acquisition has been widely studied; however, research on second language attrition, namely the process of forgetting an already learned language, has not been explored to its full potential (Mickan et al., 2019). Although many studies have tried to explain the phenomenon of forgetting a language, the underlying mechanisms of it remain unclear. Forgetting, in general, is not only limited to language itself, we forget a lot in life: these pervasive occurrences happen when we try to remember names, where we put the keys and so

28 on. Research in this field dates back to Ebbinghaus (1885, 1913) who discovered that forgetting is not linear at all; instead, memory loss sets in with intensity at first and then “gradually levels off” (Mickan et al., 2019).

3.1 Definition In order to avoid a lack of unclarity and confusion a definition of the term language attrition is needed. Language loss is an ambiguous term when used in a linguistic context due to its many meanings. Language loss can refer to a variety of phenomena; a change or decrease in linguistic knowledge over generations, for example, or even the total extinction of a language. Therefore, the term language attrition describes more specifically a person who has not suffered from brain injuries or other mental conditions but has still lost their language somehow (Schmid, 2011). Therefore, when healthy speakers leave their usual linguistic environment, the declining usage of the language will lead to language attrition. The new language becomes the dominant medium to manage life which leads to the fact that the L2 systems are enhanced. Therefore, language skills are lost, and grammatical features are changed. In such a situation, vocabulary items might not be recalled, or grammatical systems may be replaced by more simple ones. Furthermore, phonetic aspects may be reconstructed and might be influenced by the speaker’s change in language habits. All these processes are influenced by both speaker’s new environment, and by his or her attitude towards the language and mechanisms of identification (Schmid, 2011). Lambert and Freed (1982) distinguished between linguistic (e.g., lexical and morphosyntactic influence) and extralinguistic variables (e.g., age, length of time with no input and motivation) (Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2010). This distinction will be dealt with in more detail in the following subchapters.

3.2 (Extra-) Linguistic Variables in Language Attrition Most linguistic processes, e.g., acquisition and attrition, are influenced by a number of complex variables which means that no singular factor can be seen in isolation. The present chapter will elaborate on these linguistic and extralinguistic aspects since these are said to be relevant in the context of language loss.

3.2.1 Linguistic Aspects of Language Attrition Language attrition goes hand in hand with many discrepancies: Where does attrition begin, is there a clear distinction between an attriter and a non-attriter, after how much time

29 does language attrition set in or can linguistic criteria be found to define an attriter or a non- attriter (Schmid, 2011)? For many years it was believed that language attrition only applied to individuals with a high proficiency level in language who had not used their L1 in a long time. However, there is reason to believe that as soon as a person becomes bilingual, there is a mergence or some kind of traffic between the two languages present. If a person moves to another linguistic environment, the exposure to the previous language may decline drastically. This leads to difficulties in activating memories and knowledge due to the lack of usage (Schmid, 2011). The mental lexicon of a bilingual speaker can be influenced by many different processes, such as borrowing, restructuring, convergence and shift. Since these concepts have been explained in a previous chapter, no further explanation is needed. However, language systems are not only manipulated by the interaction between the L1 and the L2, but also by the fact that L1 words become inaccessible over time. When this person then tries to retrieve certain vocabulary, different items from different languages will compete against each other and sometimes a non-required item will pop up. However, these processes do not always come from the second language, as it can also be the result of not using the L1 for too long. When lexical items have not been used for a certain period of time, it can reach the point where these become lastingly inaccessible since bilinguals have to store many items which can be very similar in meaning and pronunciation (Schmid, 2011). This means that attrition of the mental lexicon happens if the activation threshold reaches the point where items of vocabulary become temporarily or constantly inaccessible due to internal simplifications. At this point it needs to be said that lexical attrition and the active words, to which the individual has access, are difficult to detect and dissect due to the fact that language attrition aims at finding out what ‘is not there’ (Schmid, 2011). Finally, attrition also affects the structure of language. Previously, attrition was spoken about in terms of its influence on the lexicon of a language, whereby it was pointed out that one’s lexicon is complex, consists of many items and that overlaps between systems happen naturally. The level of complexity is not as high when referring to phonology, phonetics, and morphology, as well as syntax due to the smaller set of items in use. Inflectional endings or phonemes are limited in a language, which means that they will be used in multiple interactions, whereas, lexical words can be only perceived without even being produced. Therefore, grammatical morphemes and certain patterns in sentences are reinforced more compared to lexical items (Schmid, 2011). When looking at different components of foreign language learning, it seems that pronunciation is one of the most difficult aspects to master. A native-

30 like pronunciation, which consists of a combination of stress, intonation, articulation and hesitation patterns, can still be unattainable after many years of immersion. But “what exactly is it that attriters and L2 learners pronounce differently from natives?” (Schmid, 2011, p. 50). When taking Pavlenko’s framework of borrowing, restructuring, convergence, shift and attrition into consideration, her findings can assist in answering the above-raised question. Borrowing of sounds, for example, only applies to lexical loanwords when talking about language attrition. This means that phonemes or sounds are, in most cases, not implemented into the L1. On the other hand, phonetic restructuring happens in the attritional process. When taking a closer look at convergence it occurs the fact that this phenomenon is the most dominant in language attrition. When the equal underlying phoneme is pronounced differently in the two languages present, “bilinguals often articulate an intermediate version in both languages” (Schmid, 2011, p. 52). The two different phonetic systems have merged. Furthermore, shift can also influence the pronunciation and finally, the question is raised as to whether attrition in phonetics and phonology in the L1 can occur. It can only be said that it is common for L1 attriters to adapt their pronunciation, but it is unlikely that they would ever completely lose the underlying phonetical system (Schmid, 2011). Just like the limited number of phonemes and sounds, grammatical structures (such as morphemes and rules), are not endless. Given that new words can be added to a language constantly (open-class system), the possibility of new sounds or inflectional endings is quite rare (closed-class system). Different speakers pronounce different phonemes differently; however, grammatical structures are either correct or not, they can only be used in one way or another, which makes it almost immune to changes. Again, Pavlenko’s framework is helpful when analysing different types of these phenomena. Grammatical borrowing seems to be rare, while restructuring can influence the grammatical system. It can happen that two tenses are equal on a formal level, which means they are constructed identically, but have different functions. Hence, grammatical restructuring affects two systems which are formally similar or even identical and still vary in their functions. “Where convergence is concerned, two grammatical phenomena which have previously been investigated in the context of language attrition are case marking and pronominal reference” (Schmid, 2011, p. 60). A complex system with, for example, oblique cases can be vulnerable to weaker systems. To illustrate this with an example, the comparison between German and English is needed. In the process of language attrition, the obligatory cases in German (nominative, genitive, dative and accusative) could be merged with the non-morphologically- signed structure of cases in English (cases are only marked by pronouns) and would result in superordinate categories (a new system with probably only the nominative and accusative). All

31 these cross-linguistical phenomena occur occasionally and, yet it is highly doubtful that someone could completely lose the underlying automatised knowledge of how to produce utterances (Schmid, 2011).

3.2.2 Extralinguistic Aspects of Language Attrition Extralinguistic aspects which influence attrition can be grouped into three main categories: Firstly, personal background factors which are not connected to the language itself. This category considers gender, age, education and time for development. The second group of factors deals with the frequency of practice, exposure and usage; hence, it is directly connected to the language. Finally, language attrition goes hand in hand with factors such as identity, feelings and attitudes. These factors refer to the internal and psychological state of the individual. All these parameters are important in language learning, and are, therefore, crucial when it comes to language attrition (Schmid, 2011). There are many studies on the existence of the critical period; some favour the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), and others are against it. There are two different ways in which the CPH is used: the first refers to an empirical hypothesis which focuses on language learning in the first years of life and if humans are more efficient in these years. The second corresponds to a stage in age which is a crucial predictor of ultimate proficiency. It is important to distinguish between these two meanings since the first one still implies that high proficiency is possible, even though language learning started at an older age. A common assumption, when talking about the latter meaning, is that once a child has learned the language of its environment, the neural modifications cannot be reversed (Pallier, 2007). However, age does not determine how proficient someone becomes in a language since studies have proven that individuals can still reach native-like proficiency even though they started language learning at a later time in life. Whether and to what degree age is important in language attrition has not been much discussed. One significant study by Ammerlaan (1996) and Pelc (2001), though, has shown that age is the most crucial predictor when it comes to language attrition. Another study by Bylund (2008, 2009) investigated L1 attrition and the importance of age. It is claimed that one’s native language stabilises at the age of twelve. If migration takes place before the age of twelve, L1 knowledge and skills can degrade drastically or can even be lost completely. According to these findings, it could then be argued that the CPH values vice versa and explains language attrition partially (Schmid, 2011). When talking about attrition, especially attrition in children, the distinction among additive and subtractive bilingualism is important. The former

32 type of bilingualism describes the situation where a family moves to another linguistic environment and an automatic reversion of language dominance takes place since the child is exposed to a new language system. The acquisition of the L1 is slowed down drastically and it may even become difficult to communicate the family’s first language to the child. The subtractive bilingualism describes the complete substitution of the L1 by a new language system. This type of bilingualism is quite rare and still happens with children who are adopted. It is assumed that the L1 of these adoptees has completely vanished from their minds as proved by a study in 2004 with adoptees at the age of 3-10. Furthermore, language attrition in general seems to be a very dynamic process. Indications show that attrition can set in only shortly after the emigration has taken place and is characterised by ups and downs. In respect to language attrition and length of residence in a new country, it is claimed that if an individual manages to preserve their language skills five to ten years after the emigration, his or her language will remain stable (Schmid, 2011). The role of the L1 input and output describes the second set of factors in regard to attrition and will be dealt with in the following paragraph. Cook (2005) and other scholars are convinced that lack of contact results in attrition and the constant usage of the L1 prevents from losing it. If the claim is that using a language helps to not lose it, then we need to ask ourselves, what does ‘language use’ mean? To answer this question Schmid (2011) argues that a more detailed approach is needed in which she differentiated between three types of L1 use: “interactive language use (spoken and written communication with others), non-interactive exposure (reading, media) and inner language (thought, dreams, diary writing, counting/maths etc.)” (p. 83). The first type, which describes the interactive use of the L1, embraces the fact that speakers adapt their speech considerably depending on context, prestige, interlocutor and solidarity. Among bilingual individuals this means that the more formal a situation is, the less L2 interference, interlanguage and code-switching will take place. If the situation is more formal, bilingual speakers will try to avoid such phenomena. If the amount of L1 use is to be measured, distinction between formal and informal settings is required in order to make more meaningful findings (Schmid, 2011). To support Schmid’s approach, Grosjean’s (2003) investigations should be taken into consideration. He points out that is relevant to respect the issue of language mode: in some conversations only one of a bilingual’s language will be activated, while the second language is turned off completely. According to Grosjean (2003), this phenomenon is called monolingual mode language use. It is very unlikely that two native speakers of German, who are both proficient in English, will code-switch a lot, if they are in Germany. If both languages are highly active, he talks of the bilingual mode language use. The

33 third type he refers to is the intermediate mode, which is the in-between of the previously mentioned types. External occurrences might trigger the activation of the passive language; however, the individual refuses to use this language. This digression has proven that the manner in which attriters use their L1 depends very much on the situation. Hence, not the quantity of contacts is significant, but the quality (context, interlocutor, emotional setting) (Schmid, 2011). The second type Schmid (2011) differentiated is non-interactive exposure. It has been proven that more advanced language learners are able to profit more from comprehensible input which can, then, prevent from language attrition. Input can maintain a language, but it is still not definitive if this is enough or if productive output und interaction is required (Schmid, 2011). The language of thoughts and emotions is never exercised as a way of exchanging information, but is rather limited to inner functions such as thinking, praying, shopping lists, dreaming etc. The choice of which language to use in which situation is very complex. If bilinguals are confident that their chosen language is understood without strain by the interlocutor, their choice between their languages is freely chosen. Many scholars, such as Grosjean, claim that the different inner functions of language very much depend on the situation and context. They are linked to experiences this individual made (counting will take place in the language of instruction) and if he or she was exposed to, for example, praying in one language, this will remain the dominant language while praying. Hence, the first exposure is crucial for the rest of their lives and will link languages to inner functions. For many bilinguals, the language of their early childhood will remain the language in situations which are profoundly emotional. “A letter from another German-Jewish refugee contains the statement: ‘the more emotional the topic of conversation, the more strongly biased I am to use German’” (Schmid, 2011, p. 92). Another study, carried out by Dewaele and Pavlenko (2004), has proven that emotion-laden words, such as swear words, taboo words and expressions of love, appeared to be more often said in the first language. Another phenomenon is the ‘choice’ of language in dreams. Again, depending on the language linked to one particular event and the amount of L2 exposure, bilinguals dream in their more dominant language. Therefore, returning to language attrition, it is assumed that the process of L1 attrition [is] accompanied by an overall reduction of the use of the L1 for internal speech. The difference between this type of L1 use and the two types discussed above (interactive and receptive L1 use) is probably that, while the latter are examples of input which can actively help to prevent attrition, a reduction in internal L1 use is probably merely indicative of the attritional process, an outcome of the reduced accessibility of L1 words and structures (Schmid, 2011, p. 94).

34 The final section of extralinguistic aspects that relate to language attrition is on attitudes and identities. Language is, beyond doubt, a key element of identity. Language is our tool to communicate with the world and people. We use it to make ourselves understood and to create both solidarity and distance in our relationships with those around us. It has been established that attitude and motivation are successful predictors when it comes to acquiring a second language; however, little work has been done in regard to language attrition. Due to the fact that there are two methodological problems, such as the fact that attrition is a dynamic process and fluctuates over time and, secondly, attitudes are not observable entities, instead they reach the surface by expressions, its investigation is problematic. In one study, conducted by Schmid (2001), the level of proficiency of two German-native speakers, who left Germany over 40 years ago, have been compared. It turned out that attitude and identity are the key elements of their discrepancy in language proficiency. Decades later, one participant of the study has maintained an astonishing proficiency, while the other person questioned, who did not want to be part of the German community after having left the country, had difficulties in expressing herself in German (Schmid, 2011).

3.3 Dynamic Systems Theory in Language Attrition The field of language attrition is concerned with two questions: why and how do people lose their language? While the why-question looks to find answers about which factors are responsible, the how-question relates to the mechanisms of the whole attrition process. Therefore, the person’s lifespan has to be investigated and can be best analysed with the dynamic systems perspective (De Bot, 2007). When focusing on the why and on the individual factors contributing to language attrition, the lifespan developmental psychology perspective serves us best to analyse the topic. Development is a life-long process and is characterised by gains and losses at different stages of life. This multidirectional development depends on external and inter-subjective criteria and covers many topics, such as cognitive development, social development and development of personality as well as perceptual and motor development. The lifespan perspective enables us to connect the impact of different factors with different age ranges. Another aspect of the lifespan developmental psychology focuses on major life events which are deeply connected to language attrition. This concept refers to events in someone’s life which have a considerable impact of the further course of their life. Such events can be going to school, losing one’s job, getting married, an accident etc. There is no set list of criteria which constitute a major life

35 event, as any such event is highly individual and depends on unique circumstance. In regard to language development, and of course language attrition, these events can have a significant impact on the development of the language system (e.g., going to a bilingual kindergarten, having a foreign pen friend, studying abroad). The key argument here is that when analysing factors contributing to language attrition, major life events should be taken into consideration. Typical life events, such as migration, are often linked to language attrition due to the invasive effect on one’s life (De Bot, 2007). To move on to the how of language attrition and the involved mechanisms of a complex system working overtime, the Dynamic System Theory (DST) has to be taken into consideration. “A dynamic system can be defined as: a set of variables that mutually affect each other’s changes over time” (Van Geert, 1990, p. 50). “The main components are therefore sets of variables on the one hand and change over time on the other” (De Bot, 2007, p. 58). Hence, all variables in this system influence each other and real-time processes are connected to change over time (Jessner, 2003). In the case of language these variables can be motivation, success and contact with the language: all these interact throughout one’s life. These variables do not deliver a fixed outcome, but they interact with each other and even this interaction varies over time. Motivation and contact to the language influence each other and this particular interaction is at the centre of this investigation. A main characteristic of this dynamic system is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions. There are those systems where tiny differences in the initial state of the system have a huge impact in the long run, and other systems where it is vice versa. In some systems it is impossible to determine a beginning, e.g., the weather. Language learning is a system where small differences in learners at the beginning of the acquisition of a language system can have an enormous impact in the long run. The outcome can be very different, and the same process (schooling) does not lead automatically to success. This also applies to language attrition: it seems that individuals can start from the same position and yet still some lose their language more quickly than others (De Bot, 2007). Furthermore, the dynamic systems typically consist of subsystems. When looking at language, these subsystems are memory, attention and perception, motivation, as well as language aptitude which contribute to learning processes. Since these subsystems are interconnected, change in one leads to change in all other subsystems. In addition, dynamic systems exhibit a non- linearity in development which means it cannot be predicted which change will lead to which outcome. Smaller changes can have a massive impact on the development, whereas big changes can be absorbed by the system. Within the field of language attrition this means that there is no direct relationship between time spent not using a language and decline of the system. There

36 is evidence to suggest that a dynamic system has so-called attractor states. When systems move from one stable state to another state, this is what is known as an attractor state. A system is affected if input is heard or read. Therefore, reorganisation is constantly needed, and the system has to adapt constantly. If one pattern or structure is lost, the dynamic system has to reorganise itself and thereby finds a new attractor state. This is closely linked to the fact that these systems are constantly changing; nevertheless, its next attractor state cannot be predicted. In language learning fossilization and complete acquisition can be attractor states and regardless of proficiency level, language can always be subject of loss (De Bot, 2007). Many scholars have worked on the DST, such as Meara in 2004. According to his work, language attrition cannot be seen as a lexicon of single items, but rather a network with interrelated components. Therefore, attrition is not a reduction of access to certain information, it is the complete reorganisation of a whole system. He classifies the network into elements and their degree of activation. Since attrition is anything but linear, “the effects of steadily increasing numbers of attrition events lead to very different patterns of attrition, with some iterations leading to stable networks without much attrition and others showing heavy decline rapidly” (De Bot, 2007, p. 63). It has been proven that individuals vary a lot from each other, despite being in settings that expose them to similar attritional events. Jessner (2003) views third language acquisition and trilingualism as a complex phenomenon which cannot be explained by taking a look at linear language growth models since “the development of a system in time is subject to investigation” (Jessner, 2003, p. 235). Herdina and Jessner (2002) have applied the DST to multilingualism, Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (DMM), by focusing on time-dependent changes in the system, such as dominance of one language over the other or the loss of L1 in an L2 environment. According to Herdina and Jessner, one is required to see the relationship between socio- and psycholinguistic variation in order to understand the dynamic perspective fully. On the one hand we have changes on the social level (language shift in multilingual communities) and on the other hand there are changes on an individual level, such as intralanguage and interlanguage changes. The DMM views the interaction between these two levels as important due to the fact that changes in one system influence the development of other systems and these changes are not additive. In addition to Cook and Grosjean who believe that multilingual speakers have multi-competences which can never be compared to those of monolinguals, Herdina and Jessner subjoin that “the acquisition of a further language leads to the development of new qualities in the multilingual system” (Jessner, 2003, p. 236). With the growing number of language systems at play within one individual, changes of his or her proficiency, directly traceable to changes in communicative

37 necessities, are inevitable. If the DMM is applied to language attrition, it becomes obvious that multilingual learners will be confronted with language attrition. A dynamic approach is supported when looking at individuals who re-activate a ‘forgotten’ language. Furthermore, the development of a multilingual system is highly influenced by psycholinguistic factors and environment. Hence, the multilingual system is in a continuous state of adaption to its environment and remodelling its processes, all while its psycholinguistic systems are constantly competing for limited resources (time and language effort). While one language system is maintained and stable, other systems will automatically deteriorate, and the dynamic system adapts to this change in dominance. Language maintenance work is the key factor which could counteract attrition. Language loss and replacement, according to the DMM, occur simultaneously and highly depend on the individual’s efforts to obtain language proficiency. Maintaining one language systems requires effort; however, nourishing two or more different languages is even more time-consuming due to constant processes of matching and differentiating these language systems and metalinguistic/monitoring actions. This leads to the assumption that multilingual systems are less stable than monolingual ones (Jessner, 2003).

3.4 Foreign Language Attrition In the first part of this chapter, language attrition in general has been at the centre of investigation. Whereas L1 attrition has already been dealt with, the following chapter will focus on L2 attrition. Second language attrition has much in common with L1 attrition; however, due to additional linguistic and extralinguistic components and circumstances, it is even more complex. The major difference between L1 and L2 acquisition lies in the degree of achievement. While L1 acquisition is mostly successful, L2 acquisition is not which makes the analysis of language attrition even more extensive (Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2010). Foreign language attrition presents itself as a reduction of fluency and lexical diversity. In general, it can be said that forgetting a foreign language starts very soon after the input starts missing. In addition to that it seems that productive skills decrease more rapidly than receptive skills and knowledge, which has been acquired most recently, tends to deteriorate more quickly. Due to individual factors, language attrition varies from learner to learner and the exact fierceness of its progression depends on various factors (Mickan et al., 2019). Bahrick’s (1984) study on pupils who acquired a high proficiency of Spanish proved that the higher the proficiency the later attrition will set in. It is also believed that age, language usage and exposure, motivation and attitude towards the language are important aspects in deciding the progression of foreign

38 language attrition. Furthermore, it can be assumed that foreign language attrition is temporary and reversible: even if a learner does not recall words in the foreign language anymore, it appears to be easier for this learner to reactivate vocabulary. This indicates that there is some kind of residual storage which includes forgotten words; therefore, attrition can be best explained by seeing it as a performance problem due to difficulties in accessing knowledge, as opposed to actually losing the language (Mickan et al., 2019).

3.4.1 Research on Multilingual Attrition The following paragraph will shed light on the different studies in the field of foreign language attrition in order to highlight the current theoretical findings and opinions. These studies go back to the early 1920’s. Some studies departed from the regression hypothesis, which believes that attrition is the reverse of acquisition itself. For this approach it is important to establish an acquisition sequence in order to test the hypothesis. Cohen (1975) studied three second-grade children after a summer vacation, whose L2 Spanish had been documented over 20 months, from kindergarten to first grade. Their oral language achievements were measured before and after summer vacation and it was found that two of the three children lost grammatical structures which had been learned only one to three months before vacation. The grammatical structures in question were the usage of ser and estar (to be), distinction between progressive and simple present and definite articles. In addition to that Hansen and Hayashi (1999) also tested this hypothesis in a Japanese environment with two different groups: adult missionaries and children who went to Japanese school during the Japanese occupation of Micronesia. “Given the established acquisition sequence for Japanese negation in which bound negators are first suffixed to predicates that are verbs, then nouns, then nominal adjectives, and, finally, adjectives (V-Neg > N-Neg > NA-Neg > A-Neg), they predicted by the regression hypothesis that the order of attrition would be the reverse (A-Neg > NA-Neg > N-Neg > V- Neg)” (Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2010, p. 16). Both learning populations showed the most significant loss with adjectives which supports the regression hypothesis. Another hypothesis which seeks to explain language attrition is the critical threshold hypothesis. It claims that if a certain level of proficiency is achieved, one’s language skills are immune to attrition. This is partially supported by the CPH, since it is assumed that a certain period in life values more when it comes to language acquisition and attrition. Clark and Jorden (1984) claim that low- level learners are presented with heavy attrition just after the lack of input. Therefore, it is assumed that recently acquired structures are forgotten more often, while structures which are

39 more deeply ingrained remain and are immune against L2 attrition. Due to the fact that there is a high number of other hypotheses, such as interference or simplification, not every single approach can be discussed. However, many studies have in common the addressing of the skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) and the focus on lexicon, morphology and syntax. Rating fluency has also been attempted, along with hesitations, pauses and repetitions to explain the phenomenon of second language loss (Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2010). Second language attrition can also be explained by taking a look at the between-language interference (cross-linguistic hypothesis). It is believed that the complex interaction and competition between languages leads to the effect that the longer one word in one language has not been activated, the more difficult it is to pass the activation threshold. Therefore, a word is inaccessible. The study conducted by Mickan et al. (2019) supports the interaction hypothesis since participants had to learn a set of new L3 words in Spanish. 24 hours later, interference was forced on them: the participants had to retrieve half of these words in their L1 (Dutch) or L2 (English), the other words were not interfered with. After a short break, the originally learned words had to be retrieved, again. The study has shown that the participants were worse at retrieving the words that had been interfered with. These results were proved again one week later. Interference has long-term effects on their memory; therefore, interference could be seen as one possible mechanism for foreign language attrition (Mickan et al., 2019). In 2008, a study conducted by Tomiyama investigated the difference in second language attrition of two siblings (one male and one female) whose first language is Japanese followed by English (L2). One sibling returned home by the age of 7, an age believed to be more vulnerable to attrition, and the other one left with 10 years, which is an age reported to be more resistant. Their proficiency was measured by storytelling data collection in terms of grammatical complexity and accuracy, as well as lexical complexity and productivity. Both children maintained their grammatical complexity, while lexical complexity decreased slightly (Tomiyama, 2008). These findings go hand in hand with other studies, such as Moorcroft and Gardner (1987), who reported that grammatical competences are less vulnerable than lexical skills if high proficiency is attainted. To conclude, it was found out that age, which can be seen as an indicator for cognitive maturation, does play a role, since the younger sibling started to lose language competences in different areas (e.g., accuracy, complexity and fluctuation). The older sibling showed a more stable development of the language system, and this was explained by the variables age and language proficiency (Tomiyama, 2008). In general, the main findings of foreign language attrition can be summed up as follows: receptive skills are less vulnerable to attrition than productive competences (Weltens

40 & Grendel, 1993), it seems that attrition begins rapidly but then levels off (Bahrick 1984 & Weltens, 1988), attrition does not only depend on time (Murtagh, 2003), the length of attrition does not tell how great the loss is since it is not a linear process (Taura, 2008), higher proficiency might help maintaining one’s language (Bahrick, 1984), practising during attrition does not necessarily prevent attrition (Bahrick, 1984) and if one’s language system is sufficiently developed, it becomes sealed to deterioration (Mehotcheva, 2010).

3.4.2 Methodological Issues and Constraints in Foreign Language Attrition Methodological issues and constraints, such as establishing a baseline and adequate methodology, are the current problems faced in the field of foreign language attrition. In order to explore hypotheses and this complex phenomenon, this number of challenges should be avoided. One issue, namely the baseline or the group of reference, has always been seen as highly problematic due to the fact that to understand ongoing attrition, we need to establish how this linguistic feature is used by a competent speaker. Foreign language attrition faces people who have reached a certain level of language proficiency, but the starting point of attrition is almost impossible to determine since ultimate attainment is difficult to point out. To solve this initial problem longitudinal studies would be the solution (Mehotcheva, 2010). This means that the same test subjects are interviewed over different periods of time in order to establish a ‘true’ baseline and determine attrition and its starting point. Unfortunately, these longitudinal designs are difficult to execute due to the fact that the recruitment of this specific population, who do not only have to fulfil these criteria, but also to be available for years or even decades into the future. Furthermore, it also has to face practical issues, such as funding, and the possibility that this long-time study helps practicing the language and, therefore, helps preventing the phenomenon it is actually searching for. Solutions to this problem have been presented, suggesting the usage of individuals who are comparable and whose language abilities have not yet started to deteriorate. This would mean that development over time could still be investigated due to their comparable characteristics, which Mehotcheva (2010) designed for participants who are tested at two different point in their attrition process. Due to the lack of a common framework in foreign language attrition, many studies use varying methods to test, such as storytelling, speech recording, recognition and recall of vocabulary and many more, and this leads to unimodal data which cannot be trusted blindly. In order to make future studies more reliable and comparable, a standardization of tasks and methods to measure foreign language attrition would be necessary (Schmid & Mehotcheva, 2012).

41 4 The Interaction between Aptitude, Metalinguistic Awareness and Motivation (S. Kilga) Psychological components play an important role in the analysis of language learning in general. However, these dimensions are highly individual and depend on various factors. The learner’s personality can influence anxiety and how they experience language usage and learning. Other affective elements, such as character traits in regard to risk-taking, can determine how often a language will be used actively and how ‘prepared’ a learner will be. Depending on their individual learning styles and their learning orientation, one’s confrontation of a learning task will be different and highly depends on the ways of learning. Therefore, the kind of input (spoken or written) can influence the perception of the degree of difficulty, since some learners find tasks easier to work with than with others (Ellis, 1997).

4.1 Language Aptitude and its Components In the last few decades, scholars’ position towards language aptitude has been divided. While some argue that language aptitude has only little impact on L2 acquisition in communication contexts and has to be seen as a talent different to other talents when acquiring a skill, others tend to see a relation between language achievement and language aptitude. It has been suggested that, in order to understand why some students acquire an L2 more rapidly, language aptitude has to be taken into consideration and could have an effect on the level of competence in the L1. Therefore, subcomponents of language aptitude have been established to show positive correlations between the students’ strengths and weaknesses and these subcomponents (Sparks et al., 2011). In general, language aptitude is believed to be the natural ability to learn a language. Some suggest that it is connected to general intelligence; others see it as two distinct parts. “One reason for the unpopularity and lack of research relating to the L2 aptitude concept has been that aptitude researchers make the assumption that language is special; that is, they propose that a talent exists that is speciﬁc to language learning” (Sparks et al., 2011, p. 256). This ‘talent’ for language learning can be divided into different components: the phonemic coding ability refers to the intelligence to identify sounds of an unknown language in order to remember these afterwards. This ability goes hand in hand with the aptitude to manage sound- symbol relationships (for example, the link between ‘th’ and its sound). The grammatical sensitivity specifies the ability to handle grammatical functions of words in sentences. Furthermore, the inductive language learning ability is “the ability to identify patterns of

42 correspondence and relations between form and meaning (for example, to recogni[s]e that in English ‘to’ can denote direction and ‘at’ location)” (Ellis, 1997, p. 74) and finally, the ability to rote learn allows individuals to shape and recollect associations between stimuli; hence, it is significant for vocabulary learning. There is evidence that language aptitude is strongly connected to successful foreign language learning and that the different abilities within this natural ability are linked to different stages in processing. While phonemic coding seems important when it comes to processing input, grammatical sensitivity and indictive language learning is needed to activate memory and access language (Ellis, 1997). According to these components of language aptitude, the test battery known as the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) has been developed. The second most commonly used test for language aptitude is called the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB) and tests, just like the MLAT, auditory capacity, sound-symbol relations and grammatical sensitivity. In another study, conducted by Skehan (1989), three components of aptitude have been defined: (1) auditory abilities, which is basically identical to the phonemic coding ability, (2) linguistic ability, which is a combination of grammatical sensitivity and inductive language learning ability, and (3) memory ability. In addition to that Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) present the following understanding of language aptitude: “aptitude is a conglomerate of different skills” and that “[n]o single ability is presumed to be the hallmark of a gifted language learner” (p. 132). Sparks and Ganschow (1993) presented a study with three different populations of L2 students in which the factor analyses of test batteries were used. They aim to test the learners’ L2 proficiency and achievement after one to two years. In this study they found evidence for the existence of subcomponents of language aptitude and that these are related to L1 competences and L2 language aptitude (Sparks et al., 2011).

4.1.1 Language Skills and L2 Learning A number of scholars have suggested that there is a relationship between the level of proficiency in the L1 and L2 aptitude and learning. Carrol (1973) brought evidence for the fact that learning an L1 and L2 both require the ability to learn in general, such as recalling and reproducing sounds and applying grammar. He based his assumption on a study in 1988 where it was proven that early L1 development (before the age of five) correlates with L2 aptitude as well as L2 achievement. Furthermore, Cummins’ interdependence hypothesis claims that literacy skills can be transferred to other languages, which again underlines the fact that success in the L2 highly depends on prior language skills (L1). In addition to that, Sparks and

43 Ganschow (1993) claimed that learners of an L2 who struggle in their L1 have more problems acquiring the second language. Individuals with higher skills in their L1 reached more points in language aptitude tests and were more successful in their L2 along all studies. “In even more recent studies, Sparks et al. found that early L1 skills, such as word decoding, spelling, vocabulary, reading, and listening comprehension measured in elementary school are strongly related to L2 aptitude and L2 proﬁciency a number of years later in high school” (Sparks et al., 2011, p. 255). 73% of the students’ L2 aptitude on the MLAT could be linked to early L1 skills and early reading skills correlated with 40% of the variance in written and oral L2 achievement. Phonetic coding and phonological processing, hence L1 literacy skills, could already predict proficiency and achievement in the L2 in elementary school. Finally, a correlation between L1 phonological awareness and L2 decoding and reading competences has been found (Sparks et al., 2011). Language learning ability can be seen as an ability, in general, which is similar to acquiring other competences. This presumes that strong language learners generally have less problems in all areas of learning due to some universal intelligence. Another view of language learning suggests that language learning is different from other learning tasks and that, found in studies, poor readers can become very proficient in languages. Many findings support the view that language organisation works in modules. This means that a fast, automatic module operates effortlessly and does not need constant monitoring and conscious attention. Skehan (1998) proposed the idea that L1 and L2 modules process differently. In the L1, this module is divided into phonology, syntax and semantics, whereas the L2 offers three different modules: auditory processing, language analysis and memory which are all connected to language aptitude subcomponents. Skehan (2002) says that the auditory processing module is linked to phonemic coding while the analytic module is related to sensitivity in grammar and to the inductive language learning ability. Sparks (1995) hypothesised that the level of proficiency in the phonetic module impacts the L1 reading and L2 learning process (specially reading, spelling and writing), and that L2 word decoding and spelling competences highly rely on L1 proficiency. Finally, findings suggest that if the L2 and L1 are organised in different modules, low processing in one module, such as auditory functioning, could explain problems in other modules, such as language memory, which is important in L2 learning (Sparks et al., 2011).

44 4.1.2 Working Memory and Processing Abilities “Working memory refers to the system or systems that are assumed to be necessary in order to keep things in mind while performing complex tasks such as reasoning, comprehension and learning” (Baddeley, 2010, p. 136). The term itself was firstly coined by Miller, Galanter and Pribram in 1960 and was adopted later on for different fields. The analysis of the working memory developed from the short-term memory which can be best described as a temporary storage which covers information for limited time. When the computer in the 1960s was developed as a theoretical approach to the development of psychological theories, the working memory became of interest due to information-processing theories in psychology (cognitive psychology) (Baddeley, 2010). Subsequently, cognitive psychology was applied to patients with brain-damage. When cases occur in which only one single cognitive function is damaged, there can be attempts at verifying or disproving certain theories. A well-known case is H.M., who, after having a bilateral hippocampal surgery, could not form memories which lasted for periods of time. The short-term memory was not affected since tasks, such as repeating numbers, did not present a problem. The results of this study could be generalised due to other patients who showed similar outcomes. However, with patients who suffered from damage to the left temporo-parietal cortex and not to the hippocampus, the complete opposite of deficits could be observed, meaning that long-term memory worked well while short-term memory could not be preserved. This led to a conceptualisation of memory as comprising of a succession of storage systems in which information flows from the environment, into a series of temporary sensory buffers, which are essentially part of perceptual processes, before being passed on to a limited capacity short-term memory store, which then feeds long-term memory. (Baddeley, 2010, p. 137) Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) suggested that short-term memory operates as a working memory which is in charge for information flow coming out and into the long-term memory. They assigned to it an important role regarding cognition in general and, specially, learning. This model presented by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) had two problems: Firstly, the assumption that the short-term memory’s maintenance of material could guarantee long-term learning was proved wrong due to the fact that learning depends more on the nature of processing. Encoding the material in terms of meaning and emotional tone is much more efficient than learning it by its perceptual appearance or spoken sound. And secondly, Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) came to the conclusion that a missing short-term memory leads to a rapid loss of information and, therefore, these patients are not able to learn. In addition to that they claimed that if this system operates as a working memory, patients who suffer from damaged short-term memory should

45 be highly cognitively restricted, but in fact, these patients lived their lives successfully and presented a fully working long-term memory (Baddeley, 2010). Baddeley and Hitch (1974) tried to solve these problems by investigating the effect of intermit short-term memory. Healthy people were asked to perform tasks, such as comprehension tasks (comprehending, reasoning and acquiring) while simultaneously performing other activities (recalling and repeating sentences backwards). It was anticipated that the longer a sequence is, the more the short-term memory will deteriorate, and consequently the cognitive task will be interrupted. To interpret their findings, the three- component model (figure 5) was developed. “This assumes an attentional control system, the central executive, aided by two short-term storage systems, one for visual material, the visuo- spatial sketchpad, and one for verbal-acoustic material, the phonological loop” (Baddeley, 2010, p. 137). It is suggested that patients who suffered from short-term memory damage impaired the loop and, therefore, simultaneously used memory digits were loaded up the loop, while putting only a small load on the rest of the working memory (Baddeley, 2010).

Figure 5: Model by Baddeley and Hitch (1974)

Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) model distinguishes itself from Atkinson and Shiffrin’s (1968) model in many aspects. The initial concept of a single system was replaced by a three- component system which has three subsystems constantly interacting whilst maintaining their independence. This, then, leads to the assumption that there are no stages succeeding each other, but interacting subsystems which are constantly processing parallel with one another. Long-term memory is believed to have an impact on the performance in every stage. The three- component model was then adapted to a multicomponent model to allow for an even more

46 detailed presentation of the working memory; a term that was chosen consciously to illustrate that it is far more than just a static storage linking it to all activities which require a working memory. In figure 6 we can see that a fourth component was added to present the episodic buffer which is able to preserve episodes and chunks containing visual and auditory information. It is believed that this buffer presents a limited capacity of four episodes or chunks which are accessible consciously (Baddeley, 2010).

Figure 6: Adaption of model by Baddeley and Hitch (1974)

Many different fields and scholars have made use of this model due to its simplicity and because of the possibility to make theoretical developments within the model without changing its structure. There are two other models which are similar to the multicomponent model which will be presented in the following paragraph. The storage “in which speed-like memory traces are registered and will spontaneously fade within about two second” and the process “whereby such traces can be refreshed by verbal or subvocal rehearsal, an activity that takes place in real time” (Baddeley, 2010, p. 138) are attributes of the phonological loop. If the rehearsal was blocked, continuous utterances would result (for example, saying the word ‘the’ repetitively) and would hinder the transformation of the visual stimulus (for example, letter) into a phonological item. The phonological similarity effect explains the existence of a speech- like memory. Words that are similar in their phonology are harder to remember than words

47 which are less similar in sound. In contrast to this, similarity in denotation does not influence the level of difficulty in remembering words. Furthermore, the subvocal rehearsal is proven by the word length effect, whereby the immediate remembering of words is more challenging the longer it is (Baddeley, 2010). To link this whole discussion to language aptitude and language learning, the hypothesis which focuses on the facilitation of learning new words in connection with the phonological loop needs to be mentioned. Evidence has proven that patients with a phonological loop damage are capable of learning meaningful material, but struggle in learning foreign language vocabulary. Older children have less problems with dealing with a phonological loop deficit when their executive processing is working fully. Other studies on differences between individual people and their working memory have been conducted. A study by Daneman and Carpenter (1980) on the individual differences in working memory and reading tested students from college. They had to read out phrases of unrelated sentences, and consequently they were asked to remember the final word of each sentence. The findings of this study correlated with the prose comprehension component aptitude test. Span measures and working memory span along with concurrent storage and processing presented themselves as important predictors for performance and cognitive abilities including learning programming competences and reasoning tasks applied in intelligence tests (Baddeley, 2010). The theoretical construct of language aptitude is often measured by the MLAT, developed by Carroll and Sapon (1959), who found a positive correlation between language aptitude and scores in tests. They claimed that language aptitude could predict the speed of foreign language acquisition; however, they did not state that those who performed low on the test would never become proficient, it would just take more time and effort (Robinson, 2019). In the MLAT, students have to memorise vocabulary, comprehend grammar, and distinguish different sounds (Robinson, 2019); all these measured competences make part of working and processing abilities.

4.2 Metalinguistic Awareness in Multilinguals Dating back to the findings of Lambert and Peal in 1962 which showed that bilinguals present a cognitive advantage over monolinguals which is linked to metalinguistic awareness and skills, studies on linguistic abilities have increased (Jessner, 2006). One attempt by Malakoff (1992) to define the term ‘metalinguistic awareness’ is:

48 Metalinguistic awareness allows the individual to step back from the comprehension or production of an utterance in order to consider the linguistic form and structure underlying the meaning of the utterance. Thus a metalinguistic task is one which requires the individual to think about the linguistic nature of the message: to attend to and reflect on the structural features of language. To be metalinguistically aware, then, is to know how to approach and solve certain types of problems which themselves demand certain cognitive and linguistic skills. (p. 518) Gombert (1992) sees metalinguistic abilities as “a subfield of metacognition concerned with language and its use – in other words comprising of: (1) activities of reflection on language and its use and (2) subjects’ ability to intentionally to monitor and plan their own methods of linguistic processing (in both comprehension and production)” (p. 13). Hence, metalinguistic abilities describe the ability to focus on language itself and, consequently, by thinking about language in the abstract it becomes feasible to manipulate language. There is evidence to suggest that multilinguals use this ability more often than monolinguals (Jessner, 2006). Lambert (1990) goes so far as to suggest that “bilingualism provides a person with a comparative, three-dimensional insight into language, a type of stereolinguistic optic on communication that the monolingual rarely experiences” (p. 212). Nevertheless, monolinguals do show metalinguistic awareness but to a lower degree and differently. Depending on profession and usage, metalinguistic awareness can be more or less pronounced due to the fact that an individual becomes more sensitive for a language when thinking about it actively (writers, journalists). Another attempt to define the concept was made by Rampillon (1997) referring to the same ability by calling it language awareness. She defined the term as a composition of (1) linguistic awareness (or declarative knowledge), referring to linguistic skills and abilities; (2) communicative awareness (or executive knowledge), referring to knowledge about the functions of language such as communication and discourse strategies; and (3) learning awareness (or procedural knowledge), as knowledge about learning, thinking and problem- solving processes and the ability to interpret and apply these strategies. (Jessner, 2006, p. 42) While many scholars do not distinguish between language awareness and linguistic awareness, others, such as Masny (1997), do. She believes that language awareness is the form of consciousness-raising to explain phenomenon of language in the classroom, whereas metalinguistic awareness describes the level of knowledge about language as a consequence of language reflection and manipulation. Language awareness is a concept found in linguistics theory and pedagogy, linguistic awareness, however, derives from psycholinguistic and cognitive theories. “She described commonalities and divergences between manipulating the

49 language code in teaching (language awareness) and learning (linguistic awareness) in this complex relationship” (Jessner, 2006, p. 43). There is a connection between cross-linguistic interaction in multilinguals as well as metalinguistic awareness. James (1996) claimed that knowing that an individual has hold of two or more languages, already demonstrates metalinguistic actives: “This knowledge can be held at the procedural level of performance […] or at the cognitive level of intuition, in which case we talk of Cross-linguistic Intuition. Or knowledge can be held at the explicit (declarative) level of metacognition, which we shall call Cross-linguistic Awareness” (James, 1996, p. 139). He furthermore suggested that language awareness is the holding of metacognition about language, and that any monitored and coherent form of intuition has to be seen as language awareness. He emphasizes that it is necessary to see one’s languages in terms of their underlying language systems objectively, and then to see these languages as separate systems each of which requires a linguistic metacognition (James, 1996). Cross-linguistic interaction has been investigated by Schweers in 1996. He conducted a study about metalinguistic awareness and lexical transfer where he differentiated between three types of predispositions in the awareness of any kind of learner: (1) the predisposition or readiness to analyse the language by consciously relating form, meaning and how to use it, (2) the predisposition or readiness to “make inferences about the meanings and forms of an L2” (Jessner, 2006, p. 70), and (3) the predisposition or readiness to actively interpret input and manage the output by resorting to prior language knowledge. Schweers (1996) could prove the existence of the connection between metalinguistic awareness and the frequency of transfer in L2 production (substitution as a strategy). The pupils who used these strategies, showed the highest degree of metalinguistic awareness and, furthermore, he found that metalinguistic awareness can indeed be taught. “The metalinguistically aware multilingual learner explores and analyses points of commonality between her or his language systems to obtain the target language item” (Jessner, 2006, p. 70). Therefore, experienced language learners have abilities in language use and acquisition. If the DMM is taken into consideration, it becomes clear that depending on the individual’s communicative needs (language mixing, cross-linguistic awareness, etc.), the level of metalinguistic awareness is high or low. This is also agreed upon by Cummins who assumes that “metalinguistic skills will also transfer across languages and, in fact, the presence and use of two codes may prompt greater monitoring and inspection of each such that metalinguistic awareness is enhanced” (1987, p. 64).

50 4.2.1 Metalinguistic Awareness and Language Aptitude Due to an increased interaction with languages in multilinguals, the relationship between metalinguistic awareness and language aptitude could be of interest. As mentioned in previous chapters, language aptitude, which is not purely intelligence but shares features with it, seems to be an important predictor of the rate and success of language learning (Jessner, 2006). In multilingual research a link between cognitive advantages in multilingual leaners and an enhanced degree of metalinguistic awareness has been proven by comparing the language learning ability or aptitude of bilinguals learning an L3 to monolinguals learning an L2. Eisenstein (1980) found out that children who grew up in a bi- and multilingual setting performed best in the MLAT und Thomas (1988) proved that English-Spanish bilingual children are superior to monolinguals when it comes to learning an L3 (French). After one semester of instructions (grammar and vocabulary) the test subjects did a short version of the MLAT and an adapted version of the Gardner and Lambert (1959) attitude and motivation questionnaire. Thomas deduced that formal language learning experience increases metalinguistic awareness, and as such, the success in learning an L3 is higher. According to Thomas, metalinguistic awareness plays a significant role and is more important than the fact that languages are related, such as Spanish and French (Jessner, 2006). Another study which focused on second language acquisition in adulthood investigated the individual and contextual factors and how these factors influence language learning. By using Carroll and Sapon’s (1959) test on grammatical coding ability to test metalinguistic awareness, evidence was found that metalinguistic awareness is one of the most influential components. Further studies, where language aptitude was tested in relation to other variables, such as language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, intelligence and metalinguistic knowledge, have proven that language proficiency depends on general cognitive abilities which include aptitude and that there is a clear relationship between aptitude and language knowledge. Furthermore, it is believed that aptitude is related to learning a language and one’s awareness of it (Jessner, 2006). A study by Skehan (1998) investigated successful language learning, with the focus on linguistic and cognitive abilities and if they have to be seen as separate concepts, and concluded that there is suggestive evidence that an unusual degree of language learning talent may be mediated by particular patterns of neuropsychological development. Further, such learners seem to be essentially memory-driven learners in terms of their capacities, but this is linked with an interest in the form of language. (p. 215)

51 In 1990 McLaughlin pointed out that language aptitude is teachable: “[A]ptitude should not be viewed as a static personality trait; novices can become experts with experience” (p. 173). Other scholars approve of the concept of the teachability of language aptitude and describe it as a skill which is not very different from other skills taught at school. Obviously, contrasting positions to this view of language aptitude do exist. Skehan suggested language aptitude was innate by claiming that, although one’s environment has an impact on the language learning ability, “there is still an underlying endowment which has not changed, and which acts as a constraint on what is possible in terms of the speed of future learning” (Skehan, 1998, p. 188). By mentioning all these studies, light has been shed on the fact that language aptitude and metalinguistic abilities have similarities. Hence, the more language systems are involved, the more complicated it is to say if and to what extent the language acquisition progress is influenced by language aptitude or metalinguistic awareness (Jessner, 2006).

4.2.2 Testing and Monitoring Metalinguistic Awareness The three tests to examine metalinguistic abilities which are used in an international context are developed by Pinto (1995). Children between the age four and six are tested with MAT-I, the MAT 2 is used for children between nine and thirteen, and teenagers and adults are tested with the MAT-3. Furthermore, grammaticality can be examined, as well. These grammatical judgment tests elicit data in SLA and are seen as predictors for failure or achievement in the process of language learning. In L1 and L2 acquisition, the concept of metalinguistic performance applies both to the output from the learner and input to the learner. When metalinguistic performance is considered from the output side, the emphasis is on producing synonymity and grammaticality judgments, pointing out ambiguity, locating errors, explaining word choice, etc. From the input side, metalinguistic performance involves attending to formal features of the linguistic environment and testing these features against current structural hypotheses. (Birdsong, 1989, p. 29) However, grammatical judgment tests have been criticised due to the fact native speakers can also struggle to say why a sentence is wrong. This can also be applied to L2 learners. Another study has proven that communicative approach learners perform better on oral tests, and other students with a grammatical approach outperformed in written tests. Since metalinguistic awareness in this study referred to grammatical knowledge, it was assumed that the student’s ability to judge grammatical issues represented their MLA progress. It was, consequently, suggested that high metalinguistic awareness goes hand in hand with an advanced proficiency in the L2 (Jessner, 2006). Research in the field of metalinguistic awareness has shown that the

52 metalinguistic development has more range than previously assumed. Furthermore, it has been suggested that learners can be aware of aspects of grammar without being capable of describing and articulating this knowledge. According to Hoffmann (1991) this is revealed by the learners’ language use. Other scholars, such as Titone made a distinction between awareness and metalinguistic consciousness; the latter is only thought to be developed around the age of twelve (Titone, 1994). If monolinguals are compared to bilinguals in this field of interest, it turns out that bilingual develop metalinguistic consciousness at a very young age (Jessner, 2006). When differentiating between awareness and consciousness, a closer look at their meanings is necessary. Even in history the distinction of these terms was not clear at all. Applied to language learning, Schmid (1994) defined four different orientations for consciousness. He talked about consciousness as intentionality (learning in an intentional environment), as attention (active attention), as control (opposite of automaticity) and consciousness as awareness (explicit versus implicit learning). Hence, consciousness refers to the distinction between implicit and explicit learning. While implicit learning can be defined as a natural acquisition of knowledge through experiences, explicit learning is a more conscious process which requires the active search for structures to prove individual hypotheses. Bialystok (1994) argued that implicit language cannot be reached if it is explicit but that “[t]he explicit knowledge dynamically evolves from the implicit knowledge, as the whole system moves towards a state of increasing explicitness” (p. 567). This leads to the importance of metalinguistic awareness in the process of learning a language. If the learner has control over the language, if the learner is able to demonstrate skills, the learner will develop a set of intuitions. This view contradicts with the view discussed previously. There, language awareness is seen as the conversion of pre-existing intuitions into metacognition. “Consciousness gives the learner insight into the knowledge she or he lacks and therefore needs to learn” (Jessner, 2006, p. 55). If you are able to rely on intuition which allows you to judge if a sentence is grammatically correct or not, this shows awareness and, furthermore, the ability to explain the corresponding rule is the highest level of awareness. James (1998) suggested that awareness and consciousness are both needed to develop intuition which will lead to an enhanced performance. While awareness describes the ability to reflect on what the learner is doing in their native language, the latter delineates aspects of language which the learner should and should not be doing in the target language (James, 1998). While the previous discussion dealt with the question of how metalinguistic ability can be tested, the following paragraph will deal with the aspect of monitoring metalinguistic

53 awareness. When we assume that monitoring describes the act of keeping track of a process, in our case the learning process, difficulties along the way and how these difficulties arise need to be taken into consideration (Jessner, 2006). There are studies on bilingual monitoring focusing on language acquisition or language processing. Language acquisition is combined with the learner’s monitor while learning the language. The monitor is described as a tool within the whole system which is responsible for conscious inspection, and which adapts its form of production – the metalinguistic awareness. Hence, the ability of metalinguistic awareness is directly mirrored in the monitor. [T]he linguistic knowledge that one gains through monitoring can be used to consciously formulate sentences and to correct one’s own speech and writing. The editing function of the monitor comes into play when a student attempts to edit compositions and correct ungrammatical sentences in language test items, as well as when the student spontaneously self- corrects errors made during natural conversation. (Krashen, 1981, p. 59) Language processing studies, instead, focus on mechanisms to control (error detection and correction) or self-repair. Levelt (1989) has presented a static language processing model which separates the monitoring device from the production system. These two devices are connected by the speech perception system. According to Levelt self-monitoring processes are possible at the conceptual level. Levelt’s model has been used as the underlying basement for bi- and multilingual studies. In the DMM the monitoring has also been addressed. The multilingual speaker’s system contains an expanded monitor which monitors language in a multilingual environment. Therefore, the use of this monitor is enhanced since it deals with the activation and distinction of two or more languages. It constantly has to detect errors and correct them at the same time in regard to situation and context. In addition to that it is required to fulfil the demands of a monolingual monitor, retrieve from resources of more than one language, sperate the language systems in order to avoid transfer phenomena and form rules corresponding to their language (Jessner, 2006). It has been proven by studies that the trilingual learner cannot be compared to mono- or bilingual speakers due to increased contact of language which lead to an improved level of metalinguistic awareness and metacognitive strategies (Jessner, 2006).

4.3 The Motivation to Learn a Foreign Language Second language acquisition and how people are motivated to learn a foreign language have been studied widely. Motivation itself is highly complex and depends on psychological and physical aspects which, then, have an impact on behaviour, achievement, success failure and cognition (Dörnyei, 2003).

54 The motivation of language learning depicts a social dimension. Due to the fact that L2s are ‘learnable’, in the sense that language systems have lexical items and underlying grammatical rules, language learning becomes a highly social process. The L2 culture needs to be incorporated into one’s cultural understanding which goes hand in hand with elements such as multiculturalism, lingua franca and globalisation, as well as language contact. It is believed that the social dimension of the motivational component of language learning is a crucial element and, therefore, needs to be considered when analysing one’s motivation. Hence, the study of motivation was initiated by the field of social psychology with the scholars Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert (1972). They argue that the L2 is the mediating element between ethnolinguistic communities and multicultural countries. According to Gardner and Lambert, motivation is one significant factor which promotes and hinders intercultural communication (Dörnyei, 2003). Motivational psychologists aim at investigating the driving forces behind the individuals’ behaviours rather than the social being. They take instinct, arousal, as well as personality features (fear, cognitive appraisals of success and failure) into consideration. Defining the construct of L2 motivation, represents a challenge due to the language’s unique and multifaceted nature. Firstly, language can be defined as a communication coding system which is usually studied at school, secondly, language forms a crucial part of the individual’s identity; hence, it plays an important role in cognitive activities and thirdly, language is the most essential tool of social communities. In addition to that personality traits, cultural and cognitive aspects also depict important components of the construct of learning an L2 (Dörnyei, 1994). Furthermore, it needs to be distinguished between the terms integrativeness and instrumentality. Integrativeness means that one’s motivation is based on the desire of integration in one community, whereas the latter describes the motivation of pragmatic nature, e.g., to receive a higher salary. Integrativeness can, again, be divided into three different categories: integrative orientation, integrativeness, and the integrative motive. Integrative motivational orientation is a positive attitude towards the L2 group and the desire to interact with them and illustrates an open mind and respect towards the community which can be followed by a complete identification with the society. In the educational environment Dörnyei argues that the identification can be generalised due to the fact that values associated with the L2 can still be internalised (Dörnyei, 2003). Motivation is highly dynamic and cannot be only separated into these two categories, and must, therefore, be seen as simple and broad tendencies or subsystems of motivation. Dörnyei augmented dimensions to this phenomenon, namely the “interest in foreign languages, cultures, and people”, “desire to broaden one’s view and avoid provincialism”, “desire for new stimuli and challenges” and “desire to integrate into a new

55 community” (Dörnyei, 1994, p. 275). The last form of motivation overlaps with Gardner’s integrativeness. It has been elaborated on the fact that the social and pragmatic dimension of language learning always depends on the learner-self, on the language and on the context in which a specific language is studied. Departing from Gardner’s construct of motivation, various scholars have aimed at coming up with different components of its complex structure. Hence, an extrinsic and intrinsic motivation theory has been added. In one attempt to explain the construct of motivation, many other components, such as, “intellectual curiosity, attribution about past successes/failures, need for achievement, self-confidence, and classroom goal structures, as well as various motives related to learning situation-specific variables such as classroom events and tasks, classroom climate and group cohesion, course content and teaching materials, teacher feedback, and grades and rewards” (Dörnyei, 1994, p. 276) have been investigated; in the current master thesis, only extrinsic and intrinsic motivation will be analysed. Whereas extrinsic motivation presents the phenomenon in which motivated behaviours are based on extrinsic rewards, e.g., grades or money, or on avoiding certain punishments, e.g., ‘angry parents’, the latter focuses on internal rewards. Hence, one’s performance is due to personal joy and pleasure of, in our case, learning a language. It is stated that this distinction in extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is essential when it comes to the school setting since curiosity incorporates an extra boost when learning new competences. This leads to the conclusion that in the educational environment’s it should be aimed at offering exercises which challenge, stimulate and activate the students’ learning processes (Dörnyei, 1994). The baseline of this present thesis is the assumption that role models are capable of changing the students’ extrinsic motivation to a more intrinsic approach. Although intrinsic motivation can be subverted by extrinsic motivation, e.g., by grades and tests used by the teacher, it is not said that extrinsic rewards cannot transform into intrinsic motivation. It is argued that intrinsic motivation can be predominant if pupils are unrestricted in choosing their activity, which would be impossible to perform in every educational setting; however, empirical evidence has shown that the learners’ motivation can change from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation (Noel, 2003). However, other researchers claim that exams and test can be very powerful motivators due to their proximity in the students’ lives. Tests manifest as immediate highlighters of progress and function, as well as regression, as proximal sub-goals which might contribute to an on-going language learning behaviour. Direct feedback presents an important device in developing students’ self- confidence and promotes an enhancement of intrinsic motivation (Dörnyei, 1994). This highly

56 depends on self-determination and internalisation, which are “prerequisites for any behaviour to be intrinsically rewarding” (Dörnyei, 1994, p. 276). The self-determination theory results from the assumption that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are no counterparts but that there are different types of motivation which range from self-determined to more controlled types of motivation. External regulation is the extremist form of extrinsic motivation due to rewards or punishment for every behaviour. Introjected regulation refers to a less strong type of extrinsic motivation where the student is pressured by personal reasons incorporated into the self. Although the source of pressure is internal, the student’s willingness to study is not self-determined, hence, it is a reaction to external and internal pressure. The most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation is identified regulation. Hereby, norms are fully accepted and assimilated with one’s own values and identities, regulations are internalised. They have decided to acquire the language due to personal interest and when they perform activities, they want to achieve a certain value. In the FL classroom, it is believed that the last two forms of motivation mostly apply, depending on the significance and aims students ascribe to a specific language (Dörnyei, 2003). Nicholson (2013) adds another type of motivation, namely the integrated regulation which describes the performance of an activity as a totally internalized action. Regulations are entirely identified with and are seen as a valuable action. Amotivation is the final category added and describes the phenomenon where students cannot connect between their behaviour and the outcome. This leads to a disengagement from the action, therefore, they detect themselves as passive agents who wait until it is done (Noel, 2001). In recent years Alastair et al. (2015) has investigated goal-oriented phases of motivation, called Directed Motivational Currents (DMCs). With directedness, the presence of one particular vision, and enduringness, the motivated individual or group is urged towards a specific goal. These self-propelling processes differ to other types of motivation, e.g., intrinsic motivation. DMCs are present in everyone’s’ lives: diets, challenges, acquisition of skills, etc. and “involve[s] a greater sense of urgency than normal motivated behaviour. Such intensive, goal-directed activities often alter established patterns of day-to-day life, and people caught up in a DMC experience a unique sense of functioning beyond what they are normally capable of […]” (Alastair et al., 2015, p. 330). Another aspect which distinguishes the DMCs from other approaches of motivation is that it has a clear starting point with different variables (cognitive and contextual factors) are put into effect. Alastair et al. (2015) concluded in their study that intense phases of motivation do exist and facilitate learning. “Such behaviours […] can be sustained as a consequence of processes of personal goal setting and appraisal, through positive

57 self-appraisals generated by progress indicators” (Alastair et al., 2015, p. 341). It has to be seen as a heightened form of known approaches in L2 motivation, such as integrativeness (Gardner, 2001) or ideal self (Dörnyei, 2009): DMCs are powerful motivational processes involving the vision of oneself to become someone else (Alastair et al., 2015, p. 342).

4.3.1 Motivation, Classroom Anxiety and Self-Confidence One of the most manipulating emotions is anxiety. Therefore, it has been investigated since the early 1970s with three mainstream approaches: the state of anxiety, anxiety as character trait and anxiety related to situations. One important example of situation-specific anxieties is the foreign language classroom anxiety. Horwitz et al. (1986) connected negative emotional reaction to language anxiety in the classroom and developed three components: communication apprehension, anxiety of negative assessment and exam anxiety. Therefore, the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) was developed to measure the level of anxiety by posing 33 items (Liu & Huang, 2011). Other scholars, such as Gardner, also claimed that anxiety in the foreign language classroom is situation-specific and that it could be a predictor for levels of success. Many other variables are said to cause language failure or achievement, such as learning strategies, self-confidence or language aptitude (Gardner et al., 1997). There was proof that low-anxiety learners outperformed their high-anxiety fellows due to lack in oral production (speak less and inaudibly). Foreign language anxiety has been linked to confidence and self-esteem, and also to attitude and motivation (Liu & Huang, 2011). Scovel (1978) received findings from studies which did not all come to the same conclusion; therefore, he identified two different types of language anxiety: facilitating and debilitating anxiety. Many other language anxiety tests have been designed (French Class Anxiety, the English Use Anxiety Scale and many more) all coming to the conclusion that language anxiety influences language success negatively. In addition to that they have proven that language anxiety is a predictor for poor abilities in listening comprehension, vocabulary learning, low word production, evaluation of standardised tests, and bad grades in language at school, or a combination of these. Experiences related to anxiety can lead to difficulties in cognitively processing L2 input (Gardner et al., 1997). The perception of self-confidence is automatically linked to language anxiety; however, it presents a more positive element of language learning. Self-confidence, developed in multicultural environments, increases the frequency and quality of usage of the L2 in the L2 community due to absence of anxiety (Gardner et al., 1997). Clément, Dörnyei and Noels

58 (1994) claim that "self-confidence includes two components […]: anxiety as the affective aspect and self-evaluation of proficiency as the cognitive component" (p. 443). The proficiency in the L2 can be clearly related to high self-confidence by Clément et al. (1994). All the mentioned components are in some way connected to L2 success and achievement; hence their relationship among these different variables will be part of the discussion in the following paragraph. While some relationships are quite obvious, such as motivation and attitude, others, such as self-confidence and motivation and anxiety, self-efficacy and usage of language learning strategies, are also components which influence each other. Scholars worth mentioning, such as Gardner (1985), suggested that language aptitude and language motivation are independent; however, other claimed that these are related. Politzer and McGroarty (1985) found evidence that motivation and aptitude determine the usage of language learning strategies. Many studies and models have been developed to clarify that achievement in the L2 cannot be explained simply by pointing out variables that seem to influence success in language learning. It has become obvious that these mentioned variables do not operate independently, but rather represent underlying processes which affect language learning (Gardner et al., 1997).

4.3.2 Cultural and Educational Context in Motivation When analysing the roots of motivation in the school context, Gardner (2007) suggested that a distinction between the educational and cultural context has to be made. While it is necessary to investigate educational context when analysing any other subject, the cultural context seems to be connected closely to languages due to the relationship between language and culture. Learning or studying another language requires an emersion into the culture connected to this particular language (such as, vocabulary, pronunciations, language structure) and, therefore, every individual becomes a part of this culture, including the fact that he or she is also influenced by it. “In the individual, this cultural context is expressed in terms of ones attitudes, beliefs, personality characteristics, ideals, expectations, etc.” (Gardner, 2007, p. 13). This leads to the understanding that learning a language influences the individual’s attitude, beliefs about the value of the language, as well as meaningfulness and expectations about what one can achieve and what not. All these features develop in the overall cultural context. North Americans, generally, believe that Europeans learn languages more easily and are better in achieving certain levels of proficiency. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it can influence the North Americans’ expectations about how good and proficient they will become. Therefore,

59 it is assumed that the cultural effect has an important impact on the individual’s success and motivational attitude in language learning (Gardner, 2007).

Figure 7: Model by Gardner (2007): Language Achievement and Use

Figure 7 shows the model by Gardner (2007) illustrating the effects of the cultural and educational context on the motivation in language learning. It also deals with approaches, such as integrativeness, which were analysed in chapter 4.3.1. The educational context refers to the situation in which the students are registered and depicts the educational system with its classroom situations. In more details, it refers to the quality of instruction, expectations of the overall system, interest, enthusiasm, teachers’ competences, resources, classroom environment and the curriculum in general. Hence, when analysing motivation, it is important to take both contexts into consideration, in order to draw conclusions on the student’s level of motivation. While the cultural context is based on socially relevant variables, also called integrativeness, openness and cultural identification, and is focused on the individual’s interest in learning a foreign language in order to interact with members of this community, the educational context deals with variables that derive directly from the educational system and the experiences the individual has had within it. The latter also considers attitudes towards the learning situation and focuses on the level of motivation depending on the educational situation. In addition to the concepts discussed, it is important to note that the constructs do not operate in isolation.

60 Both influence each other in so far as attitude deriving from the school environment and the educational context can have an impact on the individual’s level of integrativeness. As mentioned, motivation is a multifaceted construct and “[t]he motivated individual is goal directed, expends effort, is persistent, is attentive, has desires (wants), exhibits positive affect, is aroused, has expectancies, demonstrates self-confidence (self-efficacy), and has reasons (motives)” (Gardner, 2007, p. 15). Integrativeness and one’s attitude towards the situation in which one is learning the language are believed to have an influence on the level of motivation and, therefore, should be considered in the process of language acquisition (Gardner, 2007).

5 Language Learning in Tyrol, Austria (C. Fehr) This first subchapter will outline the sociolinguistic background of Austria and especially the region Tyrol due to its relevance for the study. Subsequently, the second part will focus on language learning in Austria in regard to the school system. Then, a subchapter will elaborate on the history of foreign language teaching at Austrian schools. Lastly, today’s language teaching situation will be discussed followed by an elaboration of the level of proficiency Austrian pupils should attain when completing their school career.

5.1 Austria’s Demographic and Linguistic Context The national language of Austria is German; however, throughout the country one cannot find ‘the’ Austrian German but rather a variety of dialects. The origins of Austrians lie in the Alemannians, from whom the dialect of Vorarlberg derives, as well as the Bavarians. When knowing the latter, one comes to understand quickly why the dialects, especially in Tyrol, resembles the ones from the south of Germany (Scheuringer, 1996). The term diglossia best describes the linguistic situation in Austria namely the existence of both a standard variation of German as well as regional dialects. However, it has to be mentioned that the majority of Austrians converse using a dialect rather than the standard variation, especially in non- professional situations (De Cillia, 2006). Not only the variety of dialects make the linguistic background of the country so interesting, but the fact that the country shares border with eight countries in total of which five have a different national language than German. We have Italy in the south and Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic in the east. With Austria lying in between these countries, it is evident that the country’s neighbours have an impact on

61 the cultural but especially also on the linguistic situation in Austria. The result is a multicultural German-speaking country (Council of Europe, 2008). In addition to the geographical location, Austria’s cultural and linguistic context is influenced by its diversity regarding its population. Events such as the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 have had an impact on the number of immigrants settling in Austria and consequently influencing the linguistic setting of the Republic of Austria. Since 2004, when Austria joined the European Union, new possibilities concerning mobility have opened up which at the same time is reflected in the population statistics (ibid.). In the year 2003, 9.2% (754,216 people) were non-Austrians whereas the percentage has almost doubled when looking at the numbers of the year 2020 (Statistik Austria, 2020a). According to the statistics from the year 2020, 16.7% (1,486,223 people) possess a foreign citizenship in Austria of which Germans constitute the biggest group of foreigners from the European Union with 13.5% (199,993 Germans) living in Austria. Concerning people living in Austria without the Austrian citizenship from third states, the two most represented countries are Serbia (122,115 people) and Turkey (117,607 people) (Statistik Austria, 2020a). Concerning the languages which are actively spoken by Austrian and foreign citizens, the last survey was conducted in the year 2001. The data shows that 11.5% of the inhabitants of Austria used another vernacular than German. When looking at the linguistic situation more closely, one realises that in 2001 the recognised minority languages such as Hungarian with 40,583 speakers (0.51%) or Slovene with 24,855 speakers (0.31%) constituted significant parts of the total percentage being 11.5%. In 1976, Austria signed the so-called Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, in which they officially accepted six minority languages in the Republic of Austria, namely Burgenland-Croatian, Romani and Hungarian in the state of Burgenland, Slovene in the state of Carinthia and lastly Czech and Slovak in the state of Vienna (Volksgruppengesetz, BGBl. III Nr. 216/2001). By signing this charter, Austria as well as other European countries which have also signed it, engage in protecting and supporting those minority languages and communities by for instance offering courses at school in German as well as in the minority language (ibid.). Therefore, it is evident that the great majority of the non-German languages that are being spoken in Austria are from the official minority languages of Austria. However, also non-acknowledged languages such as English with 58,582 users (0.73%), Polish with 30,598 speakers (0.38%) or Albanian which has 28,212 speakers (0.35%) represent a substantial portion which illustrates that the Republic of Austria can also be seen as a multilingual country. As for the languages French and Italian, the number of users of those two languages in Austria indicate that there are 10’190 (0.13%) speakers of French while users of Italian amounted to 10,742 (0.13%)

62 (Statistik Austria, 2007). Hence, Austria is not only a diverse and multicultural country concerning the inhabitants’ country of birth, but even more so by the languages that are being spoken by the population coming from foreign countries as well as the ones being Austrian citizens. Lastly, when focusing on the area in which the LAILA study was conducted, namely Tyrol, the statistics regarding the nationality mirrors the data analysed from whole Austria by indicating again that in the year 2003 (before the accession to the EU) 9.8% (66,846 people) of Tyroleans did not possess the Austrian citizenship compared to the year 2020 in which 16.35% (123,887 people) were non-Tyroleans after the population has grown from 679,457 in 2003 to 757,634 in 2020 (Statistik Austria, 2020c). In 2020, the most non-Tyrolean inhabitants listed in the statistics of Tyrol are from Germany (29.4%), Turkey (9.4%) and Italy (6.2%). As there are no statistics concerning the languages spoken in Tyrol, it can only be assumed that from the 123,887 inhabitants with a foreign citizenship around 70.5% (disregarding the 1 German-speaking countries Germany and Liechtenstein 0F ) might not have German as their first language which means that from the whole population of Tyrol (757,634 inhabitants), approximately 11.5% were not raised with the national language of Austria (Statistik Austria, 2020c). Coincidentally, the outcome is the same proportion as the one published in the statistics from 2001. Nevertheless, it has to be considered that this result was calculated with the assumption that no inhabitant of Tyrol with a foreign citizenship from a non-German-speaking country was raised with German as a L1, as well as that no citizen from Liechtenstein or Germany had another L1 than German. Consequently, the result is not convincing since the data was overgeneralised. However, the aim of the calculation was to outline the Tyrolean multilingual society. Another study, with regard to pupils only, supports this assertion. Statistik Austria collected data on pupils in the Tyrolean school system who have a different mother tongue than German which can be seen as the only reliable source as to paint a picture of the linguistic situation in Tyrol; however, the numbers are strictly speaking only representative for Tyrolean pupils. In the school year 2018/19, a total of 99,498 pupils attended the schools in Tyrol of which 17,008 (17.6%) used another language than German in their everyday life (Statistik Austria, 2020b). Due to the lack of a similar study for the whole population of Tyrol, it can only be assumed that the actual number of non-German-speaking Tyroleans with a foreign nationality is

1 Belgium, Luxemburg and Switzerland were not considered in this calculation as German is not their only national language.

63 somewhere within the range which was calculated generalising that every foreign citizen was also raised with a non-German language and the actual data collected in 2018/19 concerning the pupils. After defining the demographic and linguistic background of the participants, the next chapter will address the educational context that the LAILA participants have experienced.

5.2 Austrian’s Educational Context The following chapter will give an insight into how the Austrian educational system has evolved regarding foreign language teaching. In the first subchapter, the focus will lie solely on the history of the Austrian educational system as well as its acts and reforms that have shaped today’s school system. Then, the second subchapter will address the present situation at Austrian schools so as to offer a concrete context to the conducted LAILA study. Lastly, the levels of proficiency concerning the various foreign languages which can be acquired at Austrian schools will be illustrated.

5.2.1 History of Language Teaching at Austrian Schools As already mentioned in the previous chapter, Statistik Austria gathered data on the languages most frequently used by pupils in the school year 2018/19. The results for Austria in general show that 26.4% of the questioned Austrian pupils most frequently used another language than German in their daily lives (Statistik Austria, 2020b). Hence, the role of languages plays not only an important role in the lives of pupils with a non-German mother tongue, but also for the Austrian educational system itself. Foreign language classes were already introduced after 1945 at the so-called Hauptschulen or Mittelschulen (middle schools) which could be attended after having attended four years of primary school. In the secondary schools at that time, the pupils who were in the first class (5th academic year) and were part of the first stream (the highest performing group of students from one class) were obliged to attend foreign language learning as this has been introduced by a reform in the year 1939. In addition to that, the pupils were free to choose Latin as an optional subject in the third class (7th academic year) (Engelbrecht, 1988). At the end of the 1950s, a change in thinking concerning the educational system of Austria eventually led to restructuring the whole school system in the year 1962 with the introduction of a new school organisation act (Schulorganisationsgesetz). With this act came the change to today’s educational system structure with its corresponding types of schools such as the allgemeinbildende höhere Schule (upper secondary school) which still exists today. With the new act came the compulsory acquisition of a foreign language

64 which was normally English at ordinary secondary schools (Hauptschule) while at the academic secondary school they taught mostly English but sometimes even French or Russian. When pupils decided to go to grammar schools, afterwards they also had to learn Latin as a second foreign language. For those going to regular secondary schools, there was no second foreign language. The other school types such as berufsbildende mittlere oder höhere Schulen (vocational secondary or upper secondary schools) required only one foreign language. The system did not alter apart from minor educational reforms such as the introduction of one foreign language for the 3rd and 4th class of primary school after its implementation has been trialled in the 70s in the context of school pilot projects. After the implantation of the reform concerning foreign language learning in the 3rd and 4th class of primary school, another school experiment was conducted aiming at pupils starting to acquire a foreign language already in the first class. Eventually, in the school year 1998/99, the foreign language classes were compulsory beginning in the first class of primary school. Since 1985/86, the acquisition of one foreign language was as well compulsory in secondary schools which meant that students would start learning a foreign language, mostly English, in primary school as well as in the secondary school. Additionally, a new reform was introduced in the school year 1991/92 which enabled students attending the primary school to have another possibility namely to acquire a second foreign language. Regarding the participants of the discussed study of this paper, it was in 1989 that the curriculum for upper secondary schools implemented the option of choosing a third foreign language which enables students to acquire three foreign languages at an upper secondary school (De Cillia, 2002). Concerning the languages that were taught, schools only offered English and French until the early 1990s when they started to expand the choice of languages with the minority languages as well as neighbour’s languages such as Hungarian, Czech, Croatian, Slovene and Slovakian. Later, Italian, as the language of the neighbouring country Italy, was added to the list as well. By analysing past statistics, it can be illustrated how the importance of language learning has increased in Austria and also that the dispersion of the languages has changed. Data from the school year 1951/52 indicated that English was the most commonly acquired language with 83.6% of secondary school students attending English courses. French was the second most taught language with 18.5%, followed by Russian with 3.6% and Italian with 1.1%. Ten years later, the statistics already depicted a different picture as almost every pupil learns English (97.8%) followed by 22% who acquire French, 1.3% Russian and 1.7% Italian. At the end of the 1990s, a considerable increase in Italian-students was observed with around 10% while, at the same time, pupils started to show less interest in Russian (De Cillia, 2002).

65 A precise explanation of the Austrian school system as well as the current statistics in terms of foreign language learning at Austrian schools will be given in the following chapter.

5.2.2 Current Foreign Language Acquisition at Austrian Schools So as to understand the educational background of the participants, especially in regard to their foreign language experience, this chapter will explain how the Austrian school system is structured. Austria has a compulsory school attendance for all children of nine years in total beginning at the age of six. Therefore, children enter the school system at the age of six by starting to attend the primary school (Volksschule). During the four years of primary school, the pupils acquire one foreign language which, according to data from the school year 2017/18, is in almost every school English (99.8%). Additionally, Austrian primary schools offer other languages such as French, Italian, Croatian, Slovakian, Slovene, Czech and Hungarian (Statistik Austria, 2019a). Those languages are taught to children whose mother tongue is one of the just mentioned languages. By offering language courses in the mother tongue of children with a non-German L1, the Austrian educational system supports multilingualism while at the same time contributing to equal opportunities for all students (BMBWF, 2020). After four years of primary school, the pupils enter either the middle school (Mittelschule) from age 10 to 14 or the secondary school (AHS) which offers four years of lower secondary education and another four years of upper secondary education which ends with the school-leaving exam called Matura that enables to study at higher education institutions (BMBWF, 2020). At both school types, acquiring one language is mandatory while a second or even a third language can be chosen as an optional subject in some secondary and vocational schools. When looking at statistics focusing on the number of foreign languages acquired at Austrian schools during the school year 2017/18, 95% of the pupils at the middle schools learned one foreign language while only 4.7% also acquired a second foreign language. At lower secondary schools of the school type AHS, the results were different. These schools enable students to acquire a third language more frequently than middle schools. 76.3% of the pupils receiving lower secondary education were learning one foreign language while 23.2% acquired two foreign languages. The trend towards learning multiple languages is also visible at the upper secondary schools of the school type AHS where 67.3% acquire two, 28.4% three and 2.7% even four foreign languages at the same time (Statistik Austria, 2019b). Therefore, it can be said that learning multiple languages is more central for the school type AHS, at both the lower and upper secondary school, compared to the school type Mittelschule.

66 After illustrating the number of languages which are learnt at the different school types, this part will focus on the distribution of these languages. According to the statistics mentioned above, 99.9% of the pupils at a middle school learn English followed by Italian with 2.2% and French with 1.3%. At the secondary school the date indicates a trend towards French by showing that, at the lower secondary schools, English is learnt by 99.8% followed by French with 9.6%, Italian with 2.8% and Spanish with 2.6%. As can be seen in figure 8, the data concerning the upper secondary schools states that foreign language acquisition is essential in this school type with 99.9% acquiring English, 51.1% learning Latin, 36.9% practicing French, 23.4% learning Spanish and 16.9% acquiring Italian. The upper secondary school is the one school form that still focuses on Latin while another school type, namely the secondary vocational schools with focus on economy, have no pupils acquiring the ‘dead’ language Latin but all the more pupils learn French (41.2%), Italian (32.9%) and Spanish (32.7%) (Statistik Austria, 2019a). All in all, it can be stated that foreign language learning plays a central role at Austrian schools as every pupil acquires English and the majority also another foreign language, most frequently French, Italian or Spanish. The following chapter will focus on the level of proficiency which Austrian students should attain after having attended school.

Figure 8: Fremdsprachenunterricht der Schülerinnen und Schüler im Schuljahr 2017/18 (Statistik Austria, 2019a)

68 5.2.3 Level of Proficiency in Foreign Languages at Austrian Schools After illustrating the history as well as today’s structure of the Austrian educational system with regard to foreign language learning, it is crucial to elucidate the different language levels Austrian pupils achieve throughout their school career. The Austrian curricula refer to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) which is a publication from the European Council that aims at rendering language proficiency internationally comparable (Horak, Moser, Nezbeda, & Schober, 2010). The Council of Europe has created six language levels (see Figure 9) which can be achieved in a language to classify the language proficiency of a language learner.

Figure 9: Language Levels according to the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 23)

The first level is classed by the letter ‘A’ to describe the basic user of a language with the two sub-levels A1 and A2. The second stage that can be achieved by a foreign language user, according to the Council of Europe, is the level ‘B’ with the sub-levels B1 and B2. Lastly, when a language learner is proficient in a foreign language one speaks of the level ‘C’ with the sub-levels C1 and C2 which is the highest that can be attained according to the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001). According to the Austrian curriculum, pupils attending a middle school should attain the proficiency level A2 or maybe even show the mastery of certain competences corresponding with the level B1 in the first foreign language after four years of learning it (Lehrplan Mittelschule BGBl. II Nr. 185/2012). As already mentioned above, 99.9% of the pupils at middle schools acquire English as the first foreign language (Statistik Austria, 2019a). If students at middle schools acquire a second foreign language for two years they are meant to attain the CEFR level A2 in listening, reading, speaking coherently and writing whereas they should be able to participate in conversations as is proposed for the first proficiency level A1 (Lehrplan Mittelschule BGBl. II Nr. 185/2012). At the old school type called Hauptschule (middle school), the most taught second language is Italian with 3% followed by 1.8% acquiring French, while at the new school type named Neue Mittelschule (new middle schools)

69 2.2% learn Italian and 1.3% receive French lessons (Statistik Austria, 2019a). The curriculum of lower and upper secondary schools predefines the same level of proficiency for the first four years of learning one foreign language (between A2 and B1) as well as for acquiring a second language for two years (A2 in most competences and A1 concerning the participation in an oral conversation) (Lehrplan AHS). Just as has been observed at middle schools, English also proves to be the most commonly taught first foreign language at lower secondary schools with 99.8% followed by 9.6% learning French and 2.8% learning Italian as a second foreign language (Statistik Austria, 2019a). Finally, students at upper secondary schools should attain the level B2 in the first foreign language, in most cases English, when passing the school- leaving exam. In the second foreign language, pupils should be independent users of the foreign language with the CEFR level B1 in the competences writing, speaking and hearing and B2 in reading after four years of learning. When pupils have learned the second foreign language for six years in total, they are meant to achieve the proficiency level B2 in reading and B1 in speaking and writing while possessing partial competences of the level B2 (De Cillia & Krumm, 2010). Therefore, the participants of the study should be independent users of their first and second foreign languages. According to the levels of proficiency organised by the Council of Europe, the latter means that they have attained the level B2 in their first foreign language English and B1 in their second language French or Italian. In order to measure how far their level of proficiency has increased or decreased after receiving formal language education at school, the study conducted a test called C-test which measures the language proficiency (see chapter 9).

6 Language Learning in South Tyrol, Italy (C. Fehr) Since the LAILA-BICS study focused on language attrition of South Tyrolean pupils, it is essential to provide the social, linguistic and also educational context of South Tyrol. Firstly, the history of how South Tyrol became an Italian region will be explained so as to understand the comparison between Tyrol and South Tyrol. Secondly, the social and linguistic background will be illustrated. Thirdly, its educational context will be elaborated on with a focus on German-speaking schools since the test takers attended schools being taught in German.

70 6.1 Historical Background of the Multilingual Region On the 3 November 1918, the treaty between Austria-Hungary and Italy was signed near Padua which led to the peaceful occupation of South Tyrol by Italian troops. Up until the 31 July 1919, the region of South Tyrol was a military government by General Guglielmo Pecori- Giraldi. His goal was to secure the possession of South Tyrol by Italy which implies the introduction of measures such as the bilingual proclamation in all municipalities of South Tyrol. Not long after, the Italians began to replace German-speaking officials by commissioners from Italy. The crucial event for the province was the treaty of Saint-Germain which was signed on the 10 September 1919 where it was dictated rather than negotiated that South Tyrol would become part of Italy without having neither minority nor autonomy regulations. On the 10 October 1920, South Tyrol became officially part of Italy (Steininger, 2003). Thereafter, Tyrol has been split into three separate parts, two belonging to Austria (North and East Tyrol) and the southern part being given to the Italian (South Tyrol) as can be seen on figure 10.

Figure 10: The new Austria-Italian border after the treaty of Saint Germain (Seininger, 2003, p. 10)

The frontier has been randomly drawn at the Brenner instead of at the linguistic border South of Salurn. With this decision, a constant conflict has been created. One of the first incidents was conducted by Italian fascists who came up to the new region and began to remove Austrian symbols, such as the eagles, and to tear down German signs like the one at the civil

71 commissariat in Bolzano which stated ‘Bozen’ (in German) instead of the Italian version “Bolzano”. Afterwards followed the so-called “Bloody Sunday” where fascist Italians attacked participants of the traditional costume parade on the 24 April 1921. The military had to intervene but by doing so they only supported the fascist groups by escorting them back to the train station to leave the region again. North Tyrol strongly condemned the happening and protested against the killing of a South Tyrolean teacher called Franz Innerhofer. However, there were no adequate consequences. Only one year later, the fascists ruled over Italy except for some areas such as Sardinia and South Tyrol. The linguistic situation of South Tyrol changed on the 6 April 1922 when the fascists from Trento, a city in South Tyrol, adopted an action programme which demanded among other things that the Italian language could be used in any public office and that Italian had to be taught compulsorily at every German-speaking school in South Tyrol. Whenever the South Tyrolean population tried to offer resistance, for instance over the choice between hoisting an Italian flag at the town hall, this led to ultimatums on behalf of the fascists. When the citizens continued to behave non-compliant, the fascist groups would menace them with the application of force. The first South Tyrolean city which ceased its opposition was Meran. Mussolini was of the opinion that this strategy could be adopted for the rest of South Tyrol. This is exactly what happened with the so-called ‘March on Bolzano’ on the 1 October 1922 in order to foster the Italianization of South Tyrol. The consequences were Italian place names, the interdiction of the usage of the name ‘Tyrol’ as well as any derivation of the name such as “South Tyrolean” and even magazines which were named ‘Der Tiroler’ (‘The Tyrolean’) were changed into ‘Der Landsmann’ (‘The countryman’) (Steininger, 2003). These historic facts are of importance when trying to understand the identity of South Tyrolean residents since these prohibitions were implemented but one hundred years ago. The province’s name ‘South Tyrol’ was officially reintroduced in the year 1972 as part of the statue of autonomy (Steininger, 2003). Regarding the linguistic background of the region, the Italianization under Mussolini implied that on the 25 September 1925 Italian became the only official language at courts in South Tyrol even though many residents did not master the language which obliged them to pay a translator themselves. German-speaking lawyers were fined when using their native language at work and therefore had to search for a new workplace since no court in South Tyrol would employ them anymore. The difficulty of finding a post at a South Tyrolean court when being a Germanophone lawyer did not change until the 1990s. Another measure by the fascist military regime was the pre-censorship followed by the cessation of German newspapers in South Tyrol. The regime also began publishing themselves in German so as to ensure that the

72 reporting was not antifascist. The suppression of the German language was also visible at official libraries, newsstands or cafés where the number of displayed books or newspapers in German had to equal Italian ones. A solution for the ‘problem’ of South Tyrol being a Germanophone province in Italy seemed to be found during the Second World War. The South Tyrolean residents hoped for a resettlement back to their home country Austria, which was already annexed to Germany under Hitler’s National Socialist regime. While the discussions between a complete relocation of the South Tyrolean population and a partial one represented a heated debate at the time, the citizens of the region did not want to leave their homeland at first. They only changed the idea after it had been announced that the ‘stayers’ would be deported to the south of Italy. On the 17 November 1939, an agreement was signed which gave the ones that wanted to stay in South Tyrol the right to do so while at the same time clarifying the fact that the relocation was a definite solution which resulted in a monoethnicity in South Tyrol. However, the citizens who stayed in their home country had to endure social exclusion. The key organisation at the time for the German-speaking residents was the ‘Amtliche deutsche Ein- und Rückwandererstelle’ (ADERST) which was responsible for the emigration. ADERST evolved into a German parallel administration to the fascist one which was responsible for the reintroduction of German in South Tyrol. German schools, associations and even language courses were allowed again. The Gruber-De-Gasperi Agreement was signed on the 5 September 1946 granting the German-speaking citizens of South Tyrol absolute equality to their Italian fellow citizens. In addition to that, they received the right to attend primary and middle schools in their mother tongue German, to alter their Italianised last names back to their original Germanophone versions as well as the equality of the languages Italian and German, which both became the official languages of the province (Steininger, 2003). As already mentioned above, the year 1972 was crucial for the region since the autonomy statute entered into force which resulted in the renaming of the province as ‘South Tyrol’. In 1992, the new statute of autonomy was signed which meant peace between Austria and Italy at the same time. Even though South Tyrol was never handed back to its home country Austria, the illogical border at Bolzano is no longer a point of discussion since the border controls ceased in the year 1998. In 2001, the Ladin citizens received more rights which marked another step towards equality between the different ethnic groups within the region (Steininger, 2003). Today, South Tyrol profits from its autonomy as it is actively working towards an equality between all language groups. The historical background of this region is of importance in order to understand the educational structures concerning languages as well as the linguistic context of the region today. The following chapter will focus on the latter.

73 6.2 Demographic and Linguistic Context of the Multilingual Region South Tyrol South Tyrol is an Italian province with, according to statistics from 2019, 533’439 residents located in the north of Italy sharing a border with Austria and Switzerland (ASTAT, 2020). Regarding the census, residents of South Tyrol have to indicate their affiliation to their language community (Meraner, 2004). According to the census of 2011, 62.3% of the South Tyrolean population stated that they belong to the German language group, 23.4% claimed to belong to the Italian language group, 4.1% mentioned to be part of the Ladin language community while 10.3% were participants who were either inhabitants originating in a foreign country or refused to decide in favour of one language community (ASTAT, 2020; Meraner, 2004). The local distribution of the three different language groups across the province is not consistent. The Ladin-speaking residents live mostly in the valleys Val Badia and Val Gardena or in cities such as Bolzano or Bruneck due to better job opportunities. The German-speaking community, on the other hand, spreads all over the province of South Tyrol. Lastly, the inhabitants belonging to the Italian community have the majority over German in five municipalities namely in the state capital Bolzano where 73% identify themselves as belonging to the Italian language community, followed by Leifers with 70.42%, Branzoll with 59.85%, Pfatten with 57.09% and Salurn with 62.19%. All of the just mentioned municipalities lie southernmost district called Überetsch-Unterland/Oltradige-Bassa Atesina (see figure 11) which might explain the tendency away from German and towards Italian.

Figure 11: Map of South Tyrol with its eight districts (Mortadelo2005, 2007)

74 The cities Meran, Sterzing and Brixen also indicate a high percentage of Italian-speaking residents. However, there has been a significant decrease of the proportion of Italian-speaking inhabitants living near the border to Austria since the abolition of border controls. For instance, custom officers were out of work and have had to search for a new workplace which made them move away from the borders (Meraner, 2011). Considering the statuses of the languages, German has the same status as Italian namely as being an official language of the province according to the Art. 99 of the Second Autonomy Statue (ASt). Concerning Ladin, it is obligatory to teach in Ladin as well as to use it at nursery schools in Ladin regions meaning that in those areas, the language enjoys the same privilege as German and Italian (ASt). Hence, all of the civil servants working in the public administration have to be bilingual or, when working in a Ladin area, even trilingual. In order to verify the mastery of two or three languages, the province has created language tests which need to be passed as a requirement for working in the public service. However, the successful completion of the examination exerts pressure on language learning at South Tyrolean schools since many school graduates are unable to pass it even though, as will be elucidated in the following chapter, pupils have several foreign language lessons a week. One possible explanation for this outcome focuses on the fact that former pupils do not fail due to a lack of language knowledge but rather that the exams itself do not correspond with the CEFR. As a result, the test does not represent the skills which pupils are taught at school as the learning content is CEFR-oriented (Meraner, 2011). Whatever the reason for the high failure rate is, the main point is to illustrate that the command of foreign languages plays a crucial role in the South Tyrolean society. The region is not only multilingual in regard to the three official languages Italian, Ladin and German, but the population itself is also highly multicultural. According to statistics from the 31 December 2019, 9.7% (51’967 people) of the South Tyrolean population are foreign citizens. In total, the people with a non-Italian citizenship come from 138 different countries. 31.5% (16’350 people) are originally from one of the 28 countries pertaining to the European Union. 30% possess the citizenship of another European country, 20% come from Asian countries while 14.1% own an Asian passport (ASTAT, 2021a). There is only one evidence concerning the number of speakers of languages other than German, Italian and Ladin namely that 10.3% (51’795 people) of the South Tyroleans have claimed that they belong to other languages than the three mentioned before. However, the 10.3% include the absence of inhabitants as well as invalid statements. Hence, the statistics is not convincing as it is not clear how many people speak other languages (ASTAT, 2020). The same information gap exists for the naming of the languages which are spoken in South Tyrol as there is no statistics concerning this data neither.

75 One can only assume that the data concerning foreign citizens in South Tyrol gives indication of the languages spoken in the province. Based on the 9.7% which are living in South Tyrol while having another citizenship than the Italian one, the biggest share represents people with an Albanian citizenship (11.7%). German citizens make up the second biggest proportion with 8.6%, followed by Pakistan (7.3%), Morocco (7%) and Rumania (6.7%) (ASTAT, 2021a). According to this data, it can be supposed that the region of South Tyrol is not only multilingual due to the official languages, but even more so when assuming that the foreign residents also bring along their native language. When comparing the percentage of foreign citizens with the demographic data from the state of Tyrol in Austria, where the proportion of foreigners represents 16.35% of the overall Tyrolean population, South Tyrol does not seem as multicultural in regard to citizens possessing a non-Italian citizenship (Statistik Austria, 2020c). However, it has to be considered that in Tyrol, German is the only official language meaning that the official languages of South Tyrol still portray a certain kind of omnipresence which the native languages of foreign citizens can never occupy. Therefore, it can be claimed that even though Tyrol is more multinational than the Italian region of South Tyrol, the multilingualism is omnipresent in the latter. In the previous chapter concerning the demographic and linguistic context of Tyrol, data regarding the first languages of Tyrolean pupils was discussed in order to clarify the linguistic starting position of students. There is no exact equivalent in South Tyrol since, as already mentioned above, there are no general statistics on the foreign languages spoken in the region. Yet, ASTAT has published data referring to the language of instruction at schools and kindergartens which enlightens the distribution of languages in the educational context. Throughout all school types as well as in kindergarten, the majority of pupils and kindergartners receive education in German, followed by Italian and lastly Ladin (see figure 12). In primary school, 73% of the pupils are taught in German, 22.9% in Italian and only 4.1% in Ladin. At middle school, German is still the mostly used language of instruction with 71.4%, followed by Italian with 24.3% and lastly 4.3% of South Tyroleans being taught in Ladin at middle schools.

76 Figure 12: Childern in kindergartenkinder and school according to language – school year 2019/20 (ASTAT, 2021b)

At upper secondary schools, the ones which are of importance regarding the conducting study, the data indicates the same distribution since German is still the mostly used language of instruction with 65.4%. However, Ladin is less taught at this school type with only 2.5%, while teaching in Italian has increased compared to the other school types with 32.2% (ASTAT, 2021b). All in all, the majority of South Tyrolean pupils receive their education in German, while up to one third of them are taught in Italian. Ladin is, as already discussed in the previous chapters, not used throughout South Tyrol, but rather localised in certain areas of the region. In how far the school system is responsible for this language distribution will be addressed in the following chapter.

6.3 South Tyrol’s Educational Context This chapter will focus on defining the educational structures existing in the region of South Tyrol. Firstly, the history of its school system will be elaborated. Then, today’s foreign language learning at South Tyrolean schools will be introduced in order to provide the theoretical basis for the analysis of the study. Lastly, the level of proficiency at German- speaking schools will be elucidated.

6.3.1 History of South Tyrolean’s Educational System When discussing the educational system of South Tyrol, one term is crucial: Italianization. There were several stages concerning the suppression of German in general, as already

77 mentioned in the chapters above, but it was a central issue regarding schools. Not long after the ‘Bloody Sunday’ took place in 1921, the school act ‘Lex Corbino’ was introduced. The law obliged Italian parents to send their children to an Italian-speaking school in South Tyrol. The aim of minister president Credano was to reinforce the cultural and political position of Italian is reinforced in South Tyrol. This was only one way of attacking the South Tyrolean population while at the same time protecting its minority group of Italians. Additionally, a commission consisting exclusively of Italians was established which was assigned to determine the nationality of the families. The reason for the foundation of such a committee was in correlation with the just mentioned law: the more families could be designated as Italian citizens, the more children could be obliged to attend an Italian school. Ladin families were as well affected by this decision as their nationality was altered as well. Especially the southern area of South Tyrol suffered from the consequences of this act as they had to close 49 German-speaking primary schools. If the parents resisted against this regulation, this resulted in a criminal procedure. In 1923, another school law became effective namely the “Lex Gentile” which was named after the minister of education Giovanni Gentile. It led to the complete destruction of German schools in the whole region. Year after year, the number of German-speaking classes decreased. In 1928, there was a total of 760 classes in which Italian was the only language of instruction while German was only allowed to be taught in 30 classes as an additional subject. The new law also enabled the dissolution of the middle and secondary schools which eventually happened in 1927/28. Consequently, every German-speaking South Tyrolean pupil was forced to adapt to the Italianization after having finished primary school. Other decrees concerned the degree of tertiary institutions. Degrees from German or Austrian institutions were only approved when the students had studied at least one year at an Italian university which was another way of forcing people to assimilate to the Italian educational system (Steininger, 2003). Another consequence of ‘Lex Gentile’ was the downsizing of the German-speaking teachers. They were either transferred to the south of Italy or dismissed without compensation. The Italian teachers, on the other hand, were lured into taking a job in South Tyrol. This was done by offering them free flats among other things or by asserting that South Tyrol was in great need of them considering the miserable standard of education in the region. However, the teachers were confronted with the immense challenge of transforming German-speaking pupils with diverging languages and cultural traditions into Italian pupils (Steininger, 2003). However, the South Tyrolean population fought back by creating so-called “Katakombenschulen”, which were secret schools taught in German. The German schoolbooks were often smuggled into the country by students. One of the biggest problems at the time was

78 to find teachers since most German-speaking educators had been relocated. Eventually, they secretly trained young women to become teachers. Nevertheless, clandestine schools were exposed by the fascists which led to house searches and the confiscation of the German teaching materials. The undercover classes were carried on; however, it represented an immense burden for the pupils themselves who attended the Italian schools at the same time. In addition to frequenting two types of schools, the contents which were taught also differed greatly which afflicted the students additionally. Moreover, the situation at the Italian schools in South Tyrol also experienced a difficult time with many Italian teachers leaving the region which led to a lack of knowledge which became visible in the high number of illiterates at the time. The secret teaching continued to exist until the year 1940, in which the prohibition of the German language was rescinded (Steininger, 2003). After the Second World War, rebuilding German schools was a central priority. As a consequence, three school systems were introduced in South Tyrol. The first one focuses on schools for the German-speaking group of citizens. In those schools, the language of instruction is German and, accordingly, the teachers master the German language. The second school system concerns the Italian-speaking community with lessons being taught in Italian by Italian- speaking teachers. Lastly, there is a different system in Ladin regions, where the main languages of instruction are Italian and German while Ladin is only used as a substitute language (Meraner, 2011). As the pupils in the discussed study were all at German schools in South Tyrol, the focus will be on the history of the German school system. As already mentioned above, German-speaking teachers were a rarity in South Tyrol after the fascists prohibited them from teaching. Additionally, it was a difficulty to organise the teaching materials and books in German. Thanks to the founding of the Pädagogischen Institute in 1987 as well as the Freie Universität Bozen in 1997, these problems were overcome (Meraner, 2011). The German school system in South Tyrol consists of primary, lower and upper secondary as well as vocational schools. The development of this system came into being after the German troops entered the region in 1943. After the German Wehrmacht capitulated in the year 1945, all schools were temporarily closed. The promise from the Italian government to permit classes held in the native language was already given in 1945. Yet, there were different visions of how education in South Tyrol should be implemented as the region wanted to assimilate in order to be able to stay a part of Italy. After numerous negotiations, Rome allowed lessons to be taught in German, while at the same time recognising the language Ladin only as an Italian dialect. On the level of lower and upper secondary schools, the government and the South Tyrolean population were of different opinions. In November 1945, the vice chief of the board of

79 education named Ferrari opened German secondary schools. Another issue concerning all types of schools at the time was the fact that the teachers had all taught during fascist and national socialist dictatorships which presented a problem for the wish to educate pupils according to the principles of democracy. To prompt pupils to go to secondary schools at that time was a challenge. In the year 1958-59, 80% of the German-speaking pupils only attended the primary school while 62.18% of the pupils speaking Italian already attended a secondary school. A possible explanation for these numbers is that the language communities did not like to work together by learning the language of the other community. This changed with the founding of a standard school for all, which provided standard education and entrance into an upper secondary school for every pupil. An evolution was also observable in the openings of new upper secondary schools which was also thanks to the creation of the just mentioned standard lower secondary school (Verra, 2008). Considering the status of the three languages at school, the allowance to teach German- speaking pupils in their mother tongue was implemented in the treaty of Paris in 1946. Additionally, in 1947, the usage of the native languages German and Italian was stipulated by decree which was the reason for monolingual Italian and German schools in South Tyrol. A new class was established as soon as eight students shared the same mother tongue in one village. Since the first autonomy statue, introduced in the year 1948, Italian lessons were compulsory at German schools whereas German was not obligatory at Italian schools. The German schools were long seen as translated versions of the Italian schools which ended in 1975 due to the introduction of three separate boards of education for each language group (Verra, 2008). Today, a pupil in South Tyrol has to receive education until the age of 18. The first stage is going to the primary school at the age of six for five years in total. Then, the lower secondary school has to be attended for three years which means from the age of eleven until the age of 14. Then, pupils can either decide to attend an upper secondary school or the so-called vocational training system. The upper secondary education consists of courses over a time of five years which end with a final exam and the corresponding certificate which allows to study at tertiary institutions. On the other hand, when choosing the vocational training system, one has to take courses until receiving a qualification in order to complete an additional level with vocational courses or to receive higher education (Eurydice, 2021). The following chapter will elucidate the South Tyrolean educational system in regard to language learning.

80 6.3.2 Current Language Learning at German-Speaking South Tyrolean Schools After having looked at the educational system in general, it is of great importance for the comparison and analysis of the conducted study to understand the differences between institutionalised language learning in Tyrol compared to South Tyrol. Since the pupils who participated in the study attended German schools in South Tyrol, this chapter will solely analyse this type of school in regard to language learning. As the previous chapters concerning the historic and linguistic background of the region have already illustrated, the multilingual context of South Tyrol plays a crucial role. Nevertheless, South Tyrolean schools do not only offer foreign language lessons of the official languages of the region, as will be explained in this chapter. At German schools in South Tyrol, every subject is taught in German except the foreign language classes. As already mentioned, every citizen of South Tyrol has to decide to belong to one language group. When it comes to teaching at schools in the region, one is only allowed to teach in the language of one’s language group. Hence, all of the teachers at a German school have to be part of the German language community. The same goes for the teachers of Italian belonging to the Italian language group. German-speaking pupils start learning Italian at the first class of primary school. Since 2008/09, the second foreign language pupils learn is English which is compulsory from the fourth class of primary school onward. At upper secondary schools, pupils can decide to acquire a third foreign language. Normally, due to its history, Latin plays an important role at upper secondary schools. Nevertheless, the other languages which are offered among others are French, Spanish or Russian. One of the most significant distinctions between Austria and South Tyrol is the status of multilingualism in the Italian region as the region itself is multilingual with Ladin and Italian next to German. Therefore, the curricula and guiding principles perceive multilingualism as a necessity in today’s society and especially for living and working in the Italian region (Meraner, 2011). The next chapter offers concrete information on the level of proficiency in foreign languages which German-speaking pupils should achieve throughout their school education.

6.3.3 Level of Proficiency in Foreign Languages at German Schools As already mentioned in the previous chapters, German-speaking pupils are taught in German and can learn up to three foreign languages in addition to their native language. The first one is Italian which is taught as a second language instead of a foreign language, as the mastery of it is essential for South Tyrolean citizens in order to communicate with people

81 appertaining to the Italian language community. In the curricula for the primary and lower secondary school there are solely the goals concerning the competences which are formulated as can-descriptors. After the eight years of learning Italian as a second language, the pupils should be able to understand the main message of longer spoken texts about familiar topics which could mean that, when trying to allocate the listed descriptors to a CEFR level of proficiency, pupils are somewhere between the level A2 (basic user) and B1 (independent user) (Deutsches Schulamt, 2009). In a in 2019 published statistics it is stated that pupils should reach the CEFR level A2. 92.66% of the pupils from German schools reach this level in the competence ‘reading’ at the end of the lower secondary school. The results are even higher for the competence ‘listening’ where 96.5% achieved the assumed level A2 (Evaluationsstelle für das deutsche Bildungssystem, n.d.). The CEFR level for upper secondary schools should be B2 or at schools whose focus is on languages even C1 in both English and Italian (Deutsches Schulamt, 2011). This would mean that the pupils’ level of proficiency in English should be the same as in Tyrol when passing the school-leaving exam at a non-language upper secondary school. However, since some participants of the study went to an upper secondary school with the focus on languages, they should display certain language competences in English and Italian corresponding to the CEFR-level C1 which would be slightly above the level of the Tyrolean participants. Whether this slight distinction manifests in the conducted study will be analysed in the chapter 8.

82 Part II (C. Fehr & S. Kilga)

7 LAILA and LAILA-BICS Study The following chapter will deal with the multilingual attrition study in north Tyrol (LAILA) and south Tyrol (LAILA-BICS). It will give detailed information about the participants, the methodology and the testing instruments of the first and second cohort of the LAILA study conducted from 2012 to 2014/15 and the first cohort of the LAILA-BICS study carried out from 2012 to 2013.

7.1 LAILA Study Beginning in March of 2011 and ending in February 2016, the longitudinal multilingual language attrition study LAILA – Linguistic Awareness in Language Attriters – is a project which investigated the development of metalinguistic awareness in foreign language knowledge and its importance connected to language attrition. The study was carried out at the University of Innsbruck, headed by Ulrike Jessner-Schmid and funded by the Austrian Science Fun (FWF). 17 schools of higher education in Tyrol, Austria, took part and the students’ first foreign language, English, together with their second foreign language, Italian or French, were tested shortly before their school-leaving exam and then once again after 18 months, when the formal language education had fully ceased. The testing procedures and tasks, except for the questionnaire, were identical in both test times. The test location varied since the first testing time was during school hours, whereas the second test time was at the University of Innsbruck. A questionnaire served to collect personal data, such as the participants’ language biography, language learning experience in general and their sociolinguistic backgrounds and attitudes towards language acquisition. Additionally, the questionnaire gives insight in their motivational level when studying a foreign language. Subsequently, a C-test, think aloud protocols (TAP) and spontaneous oral productions contributed to the perseverative language assessment in all acquired languages. These oral testing sessions were held individually, in face-to-face meetings, and were recorded. To reveal grammatical inferencing skills, an adapted version of the LLAMA aptitude test was deployed. Due to the fact that the whole LAILA test battery incorporated many different tasks, only items relevant to this paper are specified, namely the questionnaire, the C-test and the adapted version of the LLAMA testing format. The overall objective of the LAILA study was to investigate development and changes in the production of languages acquired at school based on the substantial reduction or the total

83 absence of use after the school-leaving exam. Furthermore, metalinguistic abilities were at the centre of attention with the aim of linking research on language attrition, third language acquisition and multilingualism with metalinguistic abilities. The whole study is based on the assumption that language systems interact dynamically, namely the dynamic model of multilingualism (DMM) by Herdina and Jessner (2002). Chapter 2 elaborates at length on the DMM, wherefore it will not be repeated once more.

7.2 LAILA-BICS Study The Linguistic Awareness in Language Attriters in Bilingual Contexts (LAILA-BICS) is the accompanying study of LAILA conducted in South Tyrol. This study also aims at exploring awareness and attrition in multilingual participants basing all assumptions on a multilingual, complex and dynamic system. The study was headed by Ulrike Jessner, carried out by the University of Innsbruck and supported by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Italy. In South Tyrol, children experience Italian not only as a subject in school, but also in a natural environment as a second language since Italian is one of the three official languages of the region. Due to the tri- or multilingual context, the encounter with two or even three languages (German, Italian and/or Ladin) leads to a linguistic landscape providing a number of languages within one single individual. This implicates that participants from South Tyrol have a different perception of second language and foreign language. In order to guarantee comparable results, all test takers attended German-speaking schools in South Tyrol. In those schools, Italian is taught as a second language while English is the third language South Tyrolean pupils acquire. Concerning the school types, the participants attended either grammar schools (Gymnasien) or technical secondary schools (Fachoberschulen). At those schools, all participants were taking classes in at least three foreign languages meaning they acquired Italian, English and then another foreign language, such as French, Spanish or Russian. A detailed analyse of the LAILA-BICS context can be found in chapter 6.

7.3 Aim of Comparative Study and Study Background The collected data aims at comparing the two different contexts to find out if language proficiency, motivation and attitude, as well as language attrition processes and multilingual awareness differ from one another. The comparative study is unique in terms of their multilingual approach. Rather than focusing on the development of one single language, several different languages were taken into consideration to see how they interact. The purpose

84 of the comparison between the two studies is to find similarities or differences in multilingual pupils who have been raised in a bi- and multilingual environment, such as South Tyrol, or who have grown up in a monolingual area, such as North Tyrol. As South Tyrol has once appertained to Austria, both regions share history as well as the Tyrolean culture. This renders a comparison between the Northern and Southern part of Tyrol suitable for a comparative study which aims at illustrating the impact a bi- and multilingual context has on language learners.

7.4 Participants The following chapter focuses on the number of participants in test time 1 and 2, and on the test subjects’ age. The LAILA study includes different testing groups from different years. The first LAILA testing group (TT1) from 2012 included 185 participants, but only 100 of these participants returned for the second test time (TT2). These 100 observations came from 74 female participant and 26 male test subjects; hence, a preponderance of female test takers can be observed. The second cohort of LAILA in 2013 offers 58 female and 24 male participants who concluded TT1 as well as TT2. In total, there were 251 participants, 169 female and 82 male test takers; therefore, a response rate of 35% can be seen. The number of female participants exceeds the number of male participants in both LAILA-cohorts, since both studies show more than 50% female participants. Regardless of this uneven distribution, it was not considered as important for the analysis of this paper. In the LAILA-BICS cohort from 2012 and 2013 62 female and 7 male people can be observed, which means that there are 69 participants in the pool of LAILA-BICS. As mentioned above, this uneven distribution of female male observations will not impact the following analysis. The returnees in all three cohorts can be compared in terms of number due to test populations with no significant difference in number.

LAILA LAILA BICS

FEMALE 74 58 62

MALE 26 24 7

Table 1: Total number of participants in LAILA 12 and LAILA-BICS 12

The age range of all participants from all three cohorts is extremely homogeneous, due to the fact that the initial testing time took place shortly before all participants took their school- leaving exam (Matura) and the second test time about one year after their first test time. Their ages range from 16 to 21. However, only one participant was 16 and one was 21 years old.

7.5 Linguistic Background The following chapter will deal with the participants’ linguistic background, such as their first language or languages and their foreign acquired languages while in school and during test time one and two. The majority of all participants’ first language is German and only around 6% have an additional first language beside German which makes the group quite homogenous in terms of first language only. In the BICS study, there is a slightly larger share of participants who have one or more first languages beside German, since 11 participants claim to have two first languages, namely German and Italian or German and Ladin. One single participant states having three first languages, namely German, Portuguese and Italian. These results apply for all LAILA and LAILA-BICS cohorts taken into consideration in this thesis. While there are 11 participants who mentioned that they grew up with an additional first language (French, Italian, Turkish or other) in the LAILA 2012 population, six participants stated growing up with one additional language in the LAILA 2013 cohort. In LAILA-BICS 2012 12 observations mentioned an additional first language; however, all participants speak German as a first language. Around 5% of all participants have two first languages and the most common combination was German and Turkish.

Figure 13: L1 of all participants of LAILA 12

Figure 14: L1 of all participants of LAILA 13

Figure 15: L1 of all participants of LAILA-BICS 12

33 participants of the LAILA study from 2012 have studied three foreign languages, most commonly these languages are: English, French, Italian, Spanish followed by Russian. In all three cohorts, only four subjects indicated that they learn a fourth foreign language. In the 2012-LAILA cohort two participants had French or Spanish as their fourth foreign language. Only a few pupils study other languages than these listed above. A large share of all participants (only five subjects mentioned French as their first foreign language) claims to have learned English as their first foreign language, followed by Italian and/or French. Three participants listed having studied a third foreign language which has not been offered at school (Arabic, Turkish and Dutch). If we compare these results to the LAILA-BICS 2012-group, all South Tyrolean-test takers listed Italian as a second language, which makes English their first foreign language. Therefore, English is their L3 in all those who have no bilingual family background, and all participants state to be learning English in a formal setting. Their L4 is most frequently French, followed by Russian. 11 participants of the LAILA-BICS 2012 population stated having learned a third foreign language, 1 has even learned Finnish as their fourth foreign language. After the first testing time many participants indicated that they have studied additionally Spanish, Hungarian, Japanese, Finnish or Portuguese. The second cohort of the LAILA study from 2013 exhibits similar results: While 32 participants indicated that they have studied a third foreign language, the most common languages are English, French, Italian, Spanish and Russian, 1 participant has learned Romanian as a fourth foreign language. Only few pupils reported to have learned other languages than the ones listed above. Considering

88 that the 2012-LAILA cohort has five participants who have listed English as their second foreign language, all observations in the LAILA 2013-cohort mentioned English as their first foreign language.

Figure 16: Barplot of spoken first languages LAILA 13 TT1 and TT2

7.6 Testing Formats The following chapter will elaborate on the different testing formats used in the LAILA and LAILA-BICS study; however, only testing formats relevant for our purposes will be offered and discussed in more detail. These testing formats are the questionnaire, even though it is mostly used to gather personal information and motivational background, the c-test and the adapted version of the LLAMA test.

7.6.1 The LLAMA_F Aptitude Test The LLAMA tests are shorter and free versions of the MLAT tests by Carroll and Sapon (1959) which were created in the context of a research training programme at the University of Swansea. The LLAMA tests share the same elements as the MLAT test, however, “the aim was to take advantage of developments in technology at the time to develop an easier, more appealing user interface” (Rogers, Meara, Barnett-Legh, Curry, & Davie, 2017, p. 50). The test has four sub-tests namely LLAMA_B, LLAMA_D, LLAMA_E and LLAMA_F. The first one,

89 LLAMA_B, is concerned with vocabulary learning. The second one, LLAMA_D, collects data on the phonetic skills of a language learner. Thirdly, LLAMA_E tests the equivalence between symbols and sounds. The last variant of these tests is the LLAMA_F test which focuses on grammatical interference. A slightly altered version of this test was used in the LAILA and LAILA-BICS study. During the presentation phase, which lasts five minutes, the participants see illustrations showing various objects and forms combined with a short phrase which describes what is depicted using the grammatical structure of an invented language (see figure 17).

Figure 17: Example of the presentation phase from the LLAMA_F test (Rogers, Meara, Barnett-Legh, Curry, & Davie, 2017, p. 51)

During the presentation phase, test takers need to decode the grammatical rules such as conjugating prepositions or the word order of the imaginary language. They are free to write down whatever comes to their mind during this phase. The task is to choose between two phrases describing an image. Ideally, the participants should be capable of matching the picture with the correct sentence after having figured out the rules during the first phase. Each example can either make the test taker receive five points if they were right or five points get subtracted from their score (Rogers, Meara, Barnett-Legh, Curry, & Davie, 2017). 14 test examples are similar to what has been presented during the presentation phase while six test items demand the comprehension of new lexical items. For the LAILA and LAILA-BICS study, two supplementary items were added to the test so as to test the actual apprehension of the grammatical structures since the 20 other test items have a 50% probability of being correct. Regarding the bonus items, the task differs from the others since the participants only see a picture, which was not part of the presentation phase and without the possibility of choosing between two options. Instead, they have to apply their newly acquired grammatical knowledge in order to produce the correct sentence to describe the image. The two additional tasks value five points each which corresponds with the value of the other 20 tasks.

90 All in all, test takers can achieve a maximum of 110 points when figuring out the correct answer for all of the 22 questions (De Maine & Gasteiger, 2020). Meara (2005) created a scale according to which the results of the LLAMA_F tests can be classified to the categories ranging from “a very poor score” to “an average score” to “a good score” and finally “an outstandingly good score” (see table 2).

0 - 15 a very poor score 20 - 45 an average score; most people score within this range 50 - 65 a good score 75 - 100 an outstandingly good score; few people manage to score in this range unless they are using a formal mnemonic system. Table 2: LLAMA_F scoring table (Meara, 2005)

For the purpose of the LAILA/LAILA-BICS study, the presented scale was adapted based on the addition of two questions. A presentation of the adjusted table can be found in chapter 9. This test aims at giving an insight into the MLA of the language learner as strategies concerning the identification and analysis of grammatical rules are needed. Rogers et al. (2017) suggest as well that their results have shown that especially language learners who have acquired languages by means of instruction outperform those who did not (i.e., people raised bilingually). A further analysis of this aspect will be presented in chapter 9.

7.6.2 Cloze Test The cloze test, which is better known as the C-test, is a technique firstly introduced in the 1960s by Wilson Taylor and was used to measure the effectiveness of communication. It is based on the Gestalt concept of Closure which describes the process of completing and filling in a word. Wilson Taylor examined the C-test`s effectiveness by evaluating the test subjects’ success when supplying a missing gap. Many scholars after Taylor proved the value of this testing format (Bickley et al., 1970, p. 232). From then on, the C-test was applied in many studies which investigated its utility in teaching procedures. Other scholars, such as Hafner (1964) “used the cloze to evaluate the effects of teaching on reading achievement and reported no significant difference” (Bickley et al., 1970, p. 242). Apart from some findings which turned out to be less important, Hafner provided results which showed the significance of the C-test in the teaching environment: “(1) Cloze tests could be used, along with reading inventories, to

91 evaluate progress in reading comprehension. (2) Cloze procedures, using various kinds of materials, might provide some way of stimulating concept-building and problem solving activities. (3) Cloze procedures could be used to ascertain the readability of texts” (Bickley et al., 1970, p. 242). Since 1981, the C-test has been deployed in more than 20 languages, such as English, French, German, Turkish and Japanese (Eckes & Grotjahn, 2006, p. 290). Therefore, it can be claimed that the cloze test has been an efficient research tool which offers opportunities in many different sectors (Bickley et al. 1970, p. 243). The test itself functions like follows: Depending on the level of its testing population, the length and the level of the text have to be adapted. Then, the second half of every second word is cut off, which means that this missing part has to be completed by the participants, who cannot insert the word by means of length since every gap has the same length and does not depend on the missing letters. If it is the case of a word with an uneven number of letters, the second half of the word is rounded of, for example the word stair becomes st___. To assure the participants’ understanding of the context of the text, the first and last sentence are left unchanged. In order to assert that a text is valid and appropriate for a testing population, every text is required to be evaluated and edited accordingly. One appealing advantage of this testing format is its economic implementation, since five texts with 20-25 blanks filled in in less than 30 minutes can be scored in one to two minutes per participant and text. This directs to a highly objective test administration with valuable reliability (Eckes & Grotjahn, 2006, p. 290). The validity of this test format has been proved by Eckes and Grotjahn (2006) in “A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests” who have elaborated on this topic at length. Provided that a cloze test has been compiled properly by maintaining a coherent text, it can bring forward the competences and proficiencies one has in one or more languages. One grand advantage of this testing format is that it can give straightforward insight in language attrition, since comparing the results of TT1 and TT2 by comparing the participants’ C-test scores, will show if and to which extent their language proficiency has attrited and which areas might be affected (for example lexis, grammar and/or morphology). Notwithstanding that not all different language skills are tested by the C-test, “the following conclusion seems to be sufficiently substantiated: lexis and grammar are important components of general language proficiency as measured by C-tests” (Eckes & Grotjahn, 2006, p. 316). In the LAILA/LAILA-BICS study, the test takers received the cloze tests respectively to their languages they studied (English, French, Italian, Spanish and Russian). One example of this test format can be found in the appendix.

92 7.6.3 Sociolinguistic and Motivational Questionnaire The participants’ linguistic and personal background, their biographies and interests were collected by means of the questionnaire. It helped gathering sociolinguistic factors, information about their education, language exposure and motivation towards language learning. Two questionnaires had been distributed, one at test time one and the second one at test time two. Since one of the main hypotheses of this paper deals with motivation in combination with language attrition, the data gathered by means of the questionnaire will be at the centre of investigation. There are 19 questions (9-27) which deal directly with motivation and attitude towards language learning. Both, the LAILA and LAILA-BICS study, employed the first questionnaire consisting of 35 questions. The first section dealt with personal information about languages spoken at home, with family members or languages taught at school or in other contexts. Furthermore, other questions targeted at finding out about motivation towards learning a new language, attitude and extracurricular activities to maintain or improve language competences or language contact. Finally, the participants were asked to list their grades in relevant subjects. The following questions, from nine to 27, tried to explore the ground of the participants’ motivational level. Targeting to find out the general motivation towards foreign language learning, Robert Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (1985) was applied which sets its objectives in indicating the student’s interest in learning other languages, in improving the empathy for other societies, in studying an unknown language, etc. (Gardner, 1985). Therefore, in the questionnaire a list of statements is used, similar to Gardner’s AMTB, which can be either agreed to or disagreed to. In addition to that, the students were asked to mark each question with the acronym for each language to identify the language they were thinking of, namely German, English, Italian or French. Using the Likert scale, the participants had five possible responses they could choose from: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree or strongly disagree. To analyse their motivational level more easily, a one-to-five-point system was applied, which means that they could reach a maximum of 95 point in each language. In total, there is a number of 19 questions dealing precisely with motivation rating different factors of the participants’ motivational level. In order to compare motivation scores to their C-test results, the following rating scale has been developed.

93 HIGH LOW TO NO MOTIVATION NEUTRAL MOTIVATION MOTIVATION L3 AND L4 SCORES (FRENCH/ITALIAN OR 77-95 58-76 39-57 0-38 ENGLISH/FRENCH) Table 3: Rating scale for motivation

The following section will list the statements of the AMTB by Gardner, which are divided into attitude and desire, motivational intensity, anxiety and confidence, one’s opinion of the teacher and the instrumental orientation. The first part of the questionnaire’s statements deals with attitude and desire. There are eight statements in total and they concern the individual’s interest in studying and applying a foreign language. o Ich will so gut…. können, dass die Sprache sich für mich ganz natürlich anfühlt (9) o Hätte ich die Wahl gehabt, hätte ich … nicht als Fach belegt (10) o Wenn ich freiwillig mehr Stunden … während der Schulzeit nehmen könnte, würde ich es machen (14) o Es ist mir eigentlich egal, ob ich gut … kann oder nicht (15) o Mehr als die wichtigsten Grundkenntnisse in … will ich eigentlich gar nicht lernen (19) o … lernen macht mir Spaß (20) o Nach meinem Schulabschluss möchte ich … noch weiter lernen und verbessern (22) o … lernen ist reine Zeitverschwendung (23) The student’s willingness to learn a language is investigated in the next three questions. Their motivational intensity, so to say their effort they invest in learning and improving their language competences, is tried to be brought forward. o Ich arbeite in … nur so viel, um durchzukommen (12) o Korregierte Hausaufgaben und Schularbeiten in … gehe ich genau durch, um aus meinen Fehlern zu lernen (24) o Ich versuche immer, alles was ich auf … höre oder sehe zu verstehen (27)

94 Since anxiety and self-confidence are important factors in language learning, the following three statements elaborate on these issues. They aim at finding out how high or low their self-confidence is. o Es wäre kein Problem für mich, in einer … sprachigen Umgebung auf mich alleine gestellt zu sein (13) o Wenn ich … spreche habe ich Angst, dass ich Fehler mache (17) o Mit anderen Leuten (native oder non-native) … zu sprechen oder zu telefonieren ist mir unangenehm (21)

Three sequential questions refer to the opinion on their language teacher and the learning environment. o Mein/e … Lehrer/in gestaltet den Sprachunterricht interessant und dynamisch (11) o Bei meiner/m … Lehrer/in lernt man viel (18) o Mein/e … Lehrer/in ist mir sympathisch (26)

Finally, two more statements elaborate on the students’ future benefits by learning a foreign language, namely the instrumental orientation. This section deals with the personal value one gains by language learning. o … zu lernen ist wichtig, weil es meine Chancen auf eine gute Stelle / einen guten Beruf erhöht (16) o … zu lernen ist wichtig, weil ich es in meiner Zukunft vielfältig anwenden werde (25)

8 LAILA 2012/2013 and LAILA-BICS 2012: A Comparison Chapter 8 first focuses on the comparison of the 2012- and 2013-LAILA cohorts, which is necessary in order to claim whether there are significant differences between the two cohorts or not. If no deviations can be found, the two groups will be seen as one test population for further analysis, so as to receive more reliable data. This enables a convincing interpretation of the findings to further compare these results with the LAILA-BICS population.

95 8.1 LAILA 2012 and 2013 To compare the effect of the interruption of language exposure after the participants have left the educational context, the two LAILA-cohorts will be compared to receive a larger test group. This will enable an ample comparison with LAILA-BICS in chapter 8.2.

8.1.1 LLAMA_F Test Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 This subchapter aims at comparing the LAILA cohorts from the year 2012 and 2013 in regard to the LLAMA test. As already elaborated in chapter 7.5.1, this test type examines the learner’s ability to acquire a new grammatical structure by means of using the learning strategies which have been learned through previous language acquisition. Hence, it gives straightforward insight in the students’ metalinguistic awareness. The maximum score for the used test was 110 points but statistics worked with the system of valuing a correct answer as one point and an incorrect as zero points. Hence, the maximum score was 22 points. When multiplying each correct answer by 5, 110 points could be reached. The LLAMA_F test mean of the first testing time (TT1) concerning the 100 participants the 2012 LAILA-cohort is 16.33 points. During the second test time (TT2), the mean was 17.66 points (see figure 18) which proves that the grammatical skills of the participants increased regarding the results pre-school-leaving examination. The difference between the TT1 and TT2 makes out to be 1.33 points.

Figure 18: Mean of the LLAMA-test results from LAILA-cohort 2012

In comparison to the 2012-cohort, the TT1 cohort of the 2013-cohort achieved a mean of 16.34 points. The mean of the TT2, which was conducted after the school-leaving examination, increased up to 17.90 points (see figure 19). The distinction between TT1 and TT2 adds up to 1.56 points.

Figure 19: Mean of the LLAMA-test results from LAILA-cohort 2013

Both cohorts show an increase in MLA of the participants after having left the secondary institutions. For the purpose of this comparative study, the fact that the two cohorts both show an increase by over one point is of great importance since this enables the merger of the two cohorts when comparing with another one. As there is a divergence of only 0.23 points between the mean of 2012 and the one from 2013, the two cohorts will be considered as one in order to represent a more extensive cohort consisting of 177 participants in total. Due to this measure, the study as well as the comparisons made with the cohort conducted in South Tyrol (LAILA BICS) will constitute a more convincing study basis concerning the comparison than separating the almost identical cohorts in regard to the LLAMA-test.

8.1.2 C-test English Test Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 Both cohorts, 2012 and 2013, conducted the above-described C-tests in English in order to measure their language proficiency of the English language. The maximum score which the participants could achieve were 100 points. An example of this test can be found in the appendix. When looking at the results from the 2012 cohort, it becomes evident that between TT1 and the TT2 there has been language growth instead of attrition. The average value of the results from TT1 were 65.41 points while TT2 showed a significant rise in their proficiency as the value has surged to 70.49 points (see figure 20). The growth amounts to 5.04 points which makes up 5% of the total score.

Figure 20: Mean of the C-test results (ENG) from LAILA-cohort 2012

97 The cohort of 2013 also indicated an increase in language proficiency which was, however, less significant. The TT1 had a mean value of 61.83 points whilst the test takers increased their overall average value to 63.59 points. The discrepancy between the two testing times amounts to 1.76 points (see figure 21).

Figure 21: Mean of the C-test results (ENG) from LAILA-cohort 2013

The difference between the two testing times is almost only one third of the growth which the 2012 cohort has shown. Nevertheless, as both cohorts have shown a rise in the participants’ English competences, it can be argued again that the two testing groups will be taken together for further comparisons. As to the reasons why there was such a significant increase in the proficiency, it could be argued that the global status of the English language is one central factor. Furthermore, the majority of the participants, namely 154 out of 182 (84.6%), commenced a tertiary education where English is the main language in many research fields. The recreational as well as educational exposure to the English language are logical consequences. Other reasons why the average of English language proficiency shows an increase in score could be traced back to the language proficiency test takers had at TT1. As discussed above in chapter 3 about language attrition, Tomiyama (2008) found out that age, as a general indicator for cognitive maturation, can explain why the younger sibling showed attrition in English in all measured areas, e.g., accuracy, complexity and fluctuation (Tomiyama, 2008). This goes in line with our assumption of the DMM due to non-linear processes of loss which indicates instability and, again, this was found to be the case for the younger sibling. Therefore, the older sibling showed, in general, a more stable language proficiency and subsequently, this was linked to language proficiency. It is suggested that proficiency level is a promising factor in maintaining L2 skills. Although, some questions (what exactly specifies high proficiency) still need to be clarified, there is a correlation between L2 proficiency and L2 maintenance (Tomiyama, 2008). Considering the results of this study, it can be argued that any process of language attrition in the two LAILA cohorts can be linked to high language proficiency and age. English is already studied by the age of 10/11 and all the subjects in this study achieved a high language level measured by their school-leaving exam.

98 In addition to that, not only high motivation and usage of the language can prove the increase in proficiency from TT1 to TT2, but also cognitive maturation plays an important role.

8.1.3 C-test French Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 After the first two tests have shown an increase in the metalinguistic awareness as well as the proficiency in the English language, the results concerning the C-test of French depicts a different outcome. As mentioned in the chapter concerning the Austrian educational context, French constitutes the second foreign language which is taught at the majority of the upper secondary schools in Austria. In addition to that, it has to be considered that in Austria the language status of French in contrast to English differ greatly. As discussed in the chapter concerning the educational context of Austria, English is the first foreign language at the majority of the schools followed by French and then Italian (Statistik Austria, 2019a). According to these numbers, English profits from a higher status as the Austrian curricula promote the acquisition of English more than any other language. This could be one plausible explanation for the following results. The C-test results of the 2012-cohort for students who had French as their second foreign language was 64.47 points in TT1 and 63.20 points in TT2 which is a decrease of 1.27 points. 5 out of 40 participants claimed to have French as their first foreign language. In this case, 81.40 points were achieved in TT1 which is higher than any of the average results achieved in English. This is interesting as one might assume the level of proficiency is higher in English due to language status. During the second testing, a slight decrease of 0.4 points was recognised with the average value being 81.00 points. However, it needs to be mentioned that only 5 participants had French as their first foreign language (see figure 22).

Figure 22: Mean of the C-test results (FRA) from LAILA-cohort 2012

The tendency of language attrition instead of language growth also becomes visible when comparing the mean of TT1 and TT2 in the 2013-cohort. The mean score of TT1 was 60.53 which is over 20 points less than the average value of the cohort from the previous year. The TT2 also indicates a language loss identical to the 2012-cohort with a mean of 57.90 points

99 (see figure 23). The actual decrease of language proficiency can be seen by a general loss of 2.63 points.

Figure 23: Mean of the C-test results (FRA) from LAILA-cohort 2013

Both cohorts manifest that the language proficiency in French decreased from TT1 to TT2. As mentioned above, the results of French need to be interpreted with caution when comparing them with English since the two languages do not only have a diverging status in Austria but also on other resources which young adults use such as social media. Due to globalisation, English has turned into a universal language which one encounters on a daily basis especially when using online tools or applications such as Instagram or TikTok or when having to read scientific articles for university published in English. French, on the other hand, has little to no direct influence on the everyday lives of the test takers, neither on social media nor particularly at the university. As already proposed above, in order to find concrete explanations for this outcome, an analysis of the questionnaire could shed light onto the language attrition in French. It turned out that the majority of all test subject who studied French in school did not mention any further interaction with the French language. 71 of 182 (39%) participants indicated to still use the English language, while only 24 of 182 (13.2%) test takers still practice French after having learned the language at school. Italian was the three most mentioned language with 23 of 182 (12.6%) participants still using the language after having left school. One participant explicitly mentioned not to use French anymore after school. The fact that only 13.2% still use French after school can be seen as a possible explanation for the language loss perceived in the studies.

8.1.4 C-test Italian Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 In the C-test results in Italian similar results like in French can be observed. A tendency towards language attrition has become evident due to an overall decrease in language competences in both cohorts. This, again, might be the result of the language status. If the participants who have been in constant contact with the language are seen as an individual group, an increase over time emerges. A more detailed analysis will follow.

100 In the 2012-cohort the TT1 shows an average of 33.56 points which is the lowest achieved score in all compared languages. Additionally, in the second test time a mean of 33.23 points has been achieved. Therefore, a slight decrease of 0.33 points can be observed, almost not worth mentioning. 60 observations participated in both rounds and completed the questionnaire. 7 participants mentioned Italian as their second foreign language, while 53 stated to have it as their third foreign language. The previously mentioned results are the mean of both groups, the separate results can be seen in the figure 24.

Figure 24: Mean of the C-test results (ITA) from LAILA-cohort 2012 On account of the fact that the group of participants who claimed Italian as their second foreign language shows an increase in their language competences, their results have been compared to their answers in the questionnaire. Some results can be explained by analysing the motivational questionnaire, where their scores always reach at least high motivation or motivation (see motivation ranking table), other results can be clarified when interpreting their answers in the personal section of the questionnaire. Their language competences have increased due to continuing exposure in university, employment in Italy, the possibility of being an exchange student in the South of Italy, bilingual parents and a longer stay in Italy. These personal events also had an impact on their level of motivation which, again, emerges in their C-test scores. The 2013-cohort contributes to the reliability of the first cohort from 2012, whereas also a decrease can be observed. The average declines from 39.24 in TT1 to 35.76 in TT2. This accounts to a discrepancy of 3.48 points. In total, 40 observations had to be reduced to 25 on account of returning for TT2 and incomplete questionnaires (see figure 25).

Figure 25: Mean of the C-test results (ITA) from LAILA-cohort 2013

101 Considering the fact that both cohorts show a decrease from TT1 to TT2 and only differ from one another with 3.5 points, the Italian testing populations from 2012 and 2013 will be conjoined for further analysis to receive more reliable outcomes. Regarding the Austrian school context, it seems logical that the students achieved the lowest scores in Italian due to the dominance of the other languages, such as English, French and Spanish. Furthermore, the observed attrition process seems to be coherent considering the low impact Italian has on the participants’ lives. It can be argued that Italian does not count as an everyday language, accordingly the pupils’ interaction, usage and exposure to the language need to be quested actively by every individual to maintain language skills.

8.1.5 C-test Spanish Results LAILA 2012 and 2013 When analysing the two cohorts from 2012 and 2013 in regard to Spanish, similar results to English can be observed since their Spanish language competences seem to increase from the first test time to the second. This might be traced back to the fact that Spanish is the third most spoken language in the world and its importance shows a marked increase over the last few years. Another factor might be its usefulness in different kinds of businesses and for the students’ later life due to the language’s globalisation. This could explain why the participants’ need or motivation, and on account of this their scores, have augmented. The C-test results of the first test time in 2012 show 47.55 points in average, whereas the TT2 depicts an average of 48.64 points. This slight increase of 1.09 points can be compared to the LAILA 2013-cohort in English (see figure 26).

Figure 26: Mean of the C-test results (ESP) LAILA-cohort 2012 When comparing the C-test results of TT1 and TT2 of the first cohort with the equal data of 2013, it becomes clear that also in 2013 the participants’ competences manifest a tendency towards increase in proficiency. In TT1 a mean of 54.00 points can be observed, while TT2 depicts a mean of 59.56 points. Although an increase over time has emerged in both cohorts, the 2013-cohort shows an increase of 5.56 points. Therefore, their means differ 4.47 points (see figure 27).

102

Figure 27: Mean of the C-test results (ESP) LAILA-cohort 2013 Nevertheless, since both testing groups show an increase in the participants’ language competences, the two cohorts will be taken together to form one LAILA group with a meaningful number of participants since elsewise the small number of samples could lead to different outcomes. 21 potential observations completed both testing rounds and filled out all questionnaires; however, this number has to be divided into 12 participants who mentioned Spanish as their third foreign language and 9 participants who claimed to have learned Spanish as their second foreign language. For the purpose of this study, only observations who mentioned Spanish as their third language will be taken into consideration. In summary, the augmentation in points in both groups could be traced back to the global status of Spanish and its progression in importance and personal benefit. A follow-up study could be performed to investigate the rise of their competences and their answers in the motivational questionnaire to find evidence of the already mentioned hypotheses about language status.

8.1.6 Analysis of LAILA-cohort by Jessner et al. (2020) This thesis is not the first one to analyse the results of the comparative studies LAILA and LAILA-BICS. Among others, Jessner, Oberhofer and Megens published an article titled “The attrition of school-learned foreign languages: A multilingual perspective” in the year 2020 which incorporates valuable results for this work. Jessner et al. (2020) also investigated multilingual attrition concerning a sample consisting of 114 participants of the LAILA cohorts in regard to the FL1 (English) as well as the FL2 (Italian or French). The authors also claimed that the test takers of their cohort indicated a higher proficiency in English than in the FL2 Italian or French during TT1. Furthermore, they also confirmed our findings concerning the significance of the frequency of language use after school regarding language loss. They classified the participants according to low, middle and high-use post-Matura and detected that the results from the groups did not differ significantly concerning the FL1 English. However, there were significant differences regarding the three subgroups of the FL2. The low and middle showed a highly significant (low) and a significant decrease (middle) in terms of i.e.,

103 reformulating while speaking. On the other hand, the group with high use showed an increase concerning aspects such as auto-corrections and filled pauses (Jessner et al., 2020). As a consequence, Jessner et al. (2020) also supported our assumption relating to the significance of the language maintenance effort which is reflected by the actual use of the FL1 and FL2 in order to counteract attrition. Regarding a distinction concerning attrition between the FL1 (English) and the FL2 (French/Italian), Jessner et al. (2020) indicated the same results for their cohort consisting of 114 LAILA-participants as has our cohort of 182 LAILA-test takers. The first foreign language, English, showed an increase in proficiency regardless of the frequency of usage. For the second foreign languages Italian and French, they reported a decrease in language proficiency when the usage of the language after school diminished. The authors also claimed that the reported attrition is linked to the initial level of proficiency. English was learned from the primary school until the school-leaving exam compared to French and Italian being acquired from the secondary school onwards resulting in a significant difference visible by the CEFR-levels which are B1 for the FL2 and B2 for the FL1 (De Cillia & Krumm, 2010). Therefore, English, “where the initial proficiency was certainly higher than in the FL2, thus appears to be less vulnerable to attrition through reduced or non-use” (Jessner et al., 2020, p. 44). In the following chapter the LAILA results will be compared in regard to the LAILA- BICS study.

8.2 Comparison LAILA 2012/13 with LAILA-BICS 2012 The following chapter aims at comparing the two LAILA cohorts from 2012 and 2013 with the LAILA-BICS 2012-cohort in terms of C-tests in the present languages and the LLAMA F-Test. The achieved scores in LAILA will be compared to the average of LAILA- BICS in English, French and Italian.

8.2.1 LLAMA_F Test Results LAILA and LAILA-BICS Considering the LAILA 2012 and 2013 test population as one group, the LLAMA F average lies at 16.33 points at TT1. An increase of 1.43 points can be observed to TT2 (17.76 points). The LAILA-BICS pool offers results with no significant difference, since TT1 shows a mean of 16.53 points and TT2 17.29 points (0.76 points in difference).

104

Figure 28: Mean of the LLAMA-test results from LAILA 12/13 and LAILA-BICS 12 cohort These two groups can be compared in terms of average of all participants, as well as by comparison of the high achievers of each group. If test takers reached more than 82.5 points in the LLAMA F score, they will be taken into consideration for the following analysis. While the LAILA 2012-cohort has 54 high-achievers, the LAILA 2013-cohort offers 42 high- achievers. In total, 96 test subjects out of 182 returnees reached 82.5 points or more; hence 52.75% of all participants are high achievers. In comparison, in LAILA-BICS 38 high- achievers out of 69 participants can be found which is more than 50%. When comparing the results of both testing groups, it becomes evident that, regardless of environment, no significant difference can be observed. As seen in approach number one, namely the average of all participants, and approach number two, the comparison of high-achievers, the trilingual environment of LAILA-BICS (South Tyrol) does not impact their metalinguistic awareness. Different conclusions can be drawn from this, such as the conclusion that the tested subjects in LAILA, North Tyrol, already know and have studied a number of different languages which have highly influenced their MLA. The reasons for this outcome will be traced back in chapter 9.

8.2.2 C-test English Results LAILA and LAILA-BICS As mentioned in the previous chapter, the English proficiency seems to increase in both LAILA cohorts, as well as in the LAILA-BICS group. The C-test scores from TT1, 64.34 points, rise to 69.81 points in TT2. This is a total growth of 5.47 points and, therefore, the most notable increase in all three cohorts. The total number of returnees had to be reduced to 67 observations who completed both rounds in the C-test and answered the questionnaire completely (see figure 29). These findings can be explained like before. To sum up what has been elaborated on in previous chapters, the status of the English language, language proficiency and age, as well as globalisation and the dominance of English have to be mentioned in terms of reasons for increase in language proficiency. The study by Tomiyama (2008), where two siblings have been tested, does also account for these results since age and language proficiency might explain the preservation and increase of language competences.

105

Figure 29: LAILA-BICS 2012 English C-Test scores

8.2.3 C-test French Results LAILA and LAILA-BICS In the LAILA 2012- and 2013-cohort a slight tendency towards language attrition in French could be observed. Interestingly enough, also the LAILA-BICS test population exhibits a decrease of 2.08 points (TT1 71.48 to TT2 69.40). Although, their language proficiency scores for French in the TT1 were higher than in the 2013-LAILA cohort, the average of points offers no significant difference (60.53 in LAILA 2013 to 71.48 in LAILA-BICS 2012). The LAILA-BICS cohort offered 60 participants who completed every required task in order to be considered in this analysis. This evident proof for language attrition in French has already been discussed in the previous chapter due to equal results in the comparison between LAILA 2012 and 2013. The connection to the DMM can be drawn here as well: If insufficient time and energy is put on the maintenance of a language, a gradual loss of the language system, in this case French, will occur. This can only be counteracted if a conscious reactivation or use of the language is conducted by every individual; hence, all variables, such as maintenance, effort, motivation, loss, acquisition and many more, are interconnected and cannot be seen separately. It is “a process of constant adjustment to the changing environement and internal conditions aiming at the maintenance of a state of (dynamic) balance” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 86).

Figure 30: LAILA-BICS 2012 French C-Test scores

106 8.2.4 C-test Italian Results LAILA and LAILA-BICS While the two cohorts in LAILA 2012 and 2013 indicate an obvious trend towards language attrition in Italian, the LAILA-BICS populations differs notably. The 66 LAILA- BICS observations, which could be considered, scored an average of 74.56 points in TT1 and 78.42 points in TT2 which leads to a clear increase of almost 4 points. Furthermore, they outperformed the other testing groups of LAILA by far, considering an average of 36.05 points (LAILA 2012 and 2013 combined) compared to 74.56 points in LAILA-BICS 2012. Due to this significant difference in score, a more detailed analysis of these observations will follow.

Figure 31: LAILA-BICS 2012 Italian C-Test scores

As the results concerning the development of the second language Italian of the LAILA- BICS cohort have shown an increase in proficiency, a further investigation into the participants was conducted to justify this result. As the participants also completed the sociolinguistic and motivational questionnaire, further information on the test takers could be drawn from the answers given to the items concerning their occupation between the first testing time and the second one. In total, there were 67 participants who were considered for the hypothesis concerning language attrition. Out of these 67, only one person did not complete the questionnaire even though they were included in the evaluation of the LLAMA_F test. However, it can be said that one out of 67 does not alter the now presented result in a significant way. When looking at the different paths the test takers chose after having finished school, the answers were taken and classified according to the following categories: 1. Test taker offered either no information concerning the usage of Italian or explicitly mentioned that they no longer practice Italian in their everyday life. 2. Test taker used the Italian language regularly due to studying or working in Italy, studying in Italian or even studying the language itself. 3. Test taker used Italian during the holidays or when working a holiday job. 4. Test taker used the Italian language on a regular basis with the family or simply by living in a trilingual region.

107 5. Test taker is bilingual with Italian being one of the two languages. The results show that 40.9% mentioned that they either do not use the language anymore or gave no specific information on whether they still use it or not (see figure 32). The remaining 59.1% still practice the Italian language. 28.8% of the 59.1% stated that they are now studying or working using the language (i.e., studying in Venice) while some even started to study the language itself (i.e., translation studies).

Use of Italian after school (LAILA-BICS)

3.0% 12.1%

40.9% 15.2%

28.8%

No information or explicitly no Italian Studying or working using Italian On holidays or when working holiday jobs Regular use (family, trilingual region) Bilingual

Figure 32: Use of Italian after school in LAILA-BICS 12

Another category concerns the usage of Italian during the holidays which was mentioned by ten test takers in total (15.2%). The participants often explained that when working a holiday job in South Tyrol, one is regularly confronted with Italian which is why this can be seen as an intense practice of the language over a limited period of time. Additionally, depending on the job sector, the acquisition of the appropriate vocabulary for the respective branch is inevitable. This means that when working using Italian, the vocabulary as well as the receptive and productive skills profit. Again, it depends greatly on the job itself whether the participants increased their oral or written competences, but either way it can be claimed that using a (foreign) language at work can lead to language growth. Another category was created since eight participants (12.1%) claimed to use the language regularly either with their family or just in their everyday life by living in a trilingual region. The remaining 3% are made of bilingual participants who stated to use Italian on a regular basis. All in all, it can be

108 claimed that as almost 60% of the participants still practice the Italian language after having left school, this is one possible explanation as to why this cohort shows no decrease but rather an increase in language proficiency. Another possible justification for this outcome would be an increase in motivation for Italian between TT1 and TT2. However, when looking at the collected data, the average of the 67 participants who came back for TT2 makes out -19.51 points which illustrates a decrease in motivation from TT1 to TT2. Hence, it cannot be argued that the motivation of the test takers is the reason why their language proficiency increased from TT1 to TT2 as their motivation to learn the language decreased.

109 9 Research Question and Hypotheses The present chapter will discuss and illustrate the following three hypotheses due to the fact that Gasteiger and De Maine dealt with the same hypotheses. The research question, whether MLA plays a significant role in the L2, L3 and L4 language attrition process when LAILA and LAILA-BICS are compared, will be answered at the end of this chapter, when all results are compared, and when conclusion can be drawn. What makes the present study unique, is the fact that it respects MLA as an emergent property of a dynamic system which is the key factor of the M-factor. Due to the DMM’s relevance of language usage, it is assumed that after some time after school, when foreign languages are not used frequently, language attrition will set in. Therefore, the relation between high MLA, learning strategies for the maintenance of a language system, as well as monitor functions and language attrition will be discussed. Due to the fact that this paper is a comparison to Gasteiger and De Maine (2020), the identical hypotheses haven been taken in order to enable an exact comparison of the results.

Hypothesis 1: Looking at LAILA-BICS, the motivation scores for the L3 (English) will be higher than for L3 (Italian or French) in LAILA.

Hypothesis 2: Looking at the LLAMA_F scores, there will be no significant difference in MLA between LAILA & LAILA-BICS, even though one group has grown up in a bilingual environment – the exposure to multiple languages will prove to be enough to achieve an enhanced level of MLA.

Hypothesis 3: Students with high motivation and high LLAMA_F scores will not show attrition in their L2s, L3s and L4s as measured by their proficiency level regardless of their sociolinguistic language background.

110 9.1 Hypothesis 1 Looking at LAILA-BICS, the motivation scores for the L3 (English) will be higher than for L3 in LAILA. The sociolinguistic and motivational questionnaire includes 19 questions specifically aiming at identifying the motivational level of each participant. A 1-5 rating scale is used from 1 low motivation to 5 representing very high motivation. This leads to possible maximum of 95 points. To answer this hypothesis two different approaches can be applied. The first approach leads to calculation of the average of all the languages in LAILA, namely English, French, Italian and Spanish, which is then compared to the average of the L3, English, in LAILA-BICS. This will show if and how the motivational level varies between the two testing groups. The second approach aims at abstracting all these students, who have achieved a score of 71 points or higher. This individual population is considered the top quarter (25%) of all participants in terms of motivation for their L3. When taking another look at the scale in chapter 6, it turns out that the group ‘motivation’ and ‘high motivation’ will be considered and compared. The following paragraph will deal with the first approach, namely the calculation and comparison of the averages of LAILA 2012, 2013 and LAILA-BICS 2012 in all their L3s. The LAILA 2012-cohort has 40 participants who claimed that French is their L3, while 54 observations named Italian. Only one returnee learned Spanish as his or her third language and five other participants studied English as an L3. French shows an average of 65.32 points of 95 potential points, followed by Italian with 66.33 points. Due to a low number in sample, the Spanish and English results cannot be interpreted meaningfully, since Spanish has an average of 82 and English shows a mean of 86.80. All languages counted together lead to an average of 68.01 points. Compared to the scale in chapter 6 this means that the calculated average belongs to the group of ‘motivation’ (third quarter 58-76 points). The second cohort from 2013 exhibits 39 observations in French with a mean of 65.45 points. This is followed by Italian with 33 participants and an average of 68.69 points: therefore, a slight increase in points can be observed in Italian. 10 returnees indicated that Spanish is their L3, which makes up an average of 57 points. No participants in the 2013-cohort stated English as their L3. In order to prove the hypothesis 1 correct or wrong the average of all languages of 65.72 points has to be considered. In comparison, the LAILA-BICS, where English is the only L3 of all participants, a mean of 76.33 emerges. This indicates a difference of 10.61 points in total. All 69 observations have been considered in this analysis. For the purpose of this study, the variation

111 of the L3s will be simply combined to one category ‘motivation for L3’ in order to compare the results with the LAILA-BICS results (see figure 33 and 34) since both test populations have different L3s.

MOTIVATION FOR L3

French Italian Spanish English

86.8

76.33

68.69

66.33

65.45

65.32

0 0 0 0

L AI L A 1 2 L AI L A 1 3 LAILA- B I C S 1 2

Figure 33: Motivation for their L3s

LAILA 12/13 LAILA-BICS 12

76.33 65.72

AVERAGE OF ALL LANGUAGES (L3)

Figure 34: Average of all L3s compared

When analysing the same data according to approach number two, findings with no significant difference have been found. Gasteiger and De Maine (2020) have interpreted and analysed the hypothesis according to approach number two; therefore, to compare findings,

112 this will be done equally. High-motivation achievers and the higher end of the ‘motivation’ group have been filtered out to compare the upper quarter of the LAILA 2012-cohort and the 2013-cohort, as well as the LAILA-BICS cohort of 2012. This means that participants with more than 71 points in each language in the motivational questionnaire form an individual group for testing and further analysis. In total, 45 observations out of 100 counted as highly motivated learners in the LAILA 2012 testing group, while 33 high-motivation participants of 82 can be counted in the 2013-LAILA cohort. In 2012, there were 16 returnees with a motivation scores of 71 points or higher in French, whereas in Italian, 23 participants reach this number of points. 5 participants claimed that English is their L3s, and all of these participants exhibit a very high motivational level. Therefore, all five participants will take part in the following analysis. Spanish was the L3 for one single returnee who also indicated a high-level motivation. In the 2013-cohort 16 high motivation achievers can be found in French, while there are 17 participants who reach 71 or more points. No single participant of the 2013-LAILA cohort scored at the higher end of the category ‘motivation’ or the entire group of ‘high motivation’; therefore, only English, French and Italian will be considered.

LAILA 12 - Motivation Scores

45%

55%

High motivation scores Lower motivation scores

Figure 35: High achievers compared to the rest of the group LAILA 12

In the 2012-LAILA cohort 45.00% of all participants achieved a high motivation score, whereas 55.00% manifest lower motivation. Also, the 2013-cohort shows equal results with no significant deviation: 40.24% are high-motivation achievers, while 59.76% indicate lower motivation to learn an L3. These findings can be seen illustrated in figure 36.

113 LAILA 13 - Motivation Scores

40%

60%

High motivation scores Lower motivation scores

Figure 36: High achievers compared to the rest of the group LAILA 13 In the LAILA-BICS 2012-cohort 54 observation out of 69 can be added to the top quartile due to 71 points or higher in their scoring in English in terms of motivation. This is more than three quarters of the entire test population (see table 37). The LAILA-BICS motivation results will be compared to the LAILA 12/13 scores in the figure 38.

LAILA-BICS 12 - Motivation Scores

22%

78%

High motivation scores Lower motivation scores

Figure 37: High achievers compared to the rest of the group LAILA-BICS 12

114 LAILA 12/13 + BICS 12 - MOTIVATION SCORES

High motivation scores Lower motivation scores

78%

60%

57.50%

55%

45%

42.50%

40% 22%

L A I L A 1 2 L A I L A 1 3 LAILA 12/13 LAILA - B I C S 1 2

Figure 38: Comparison of all cohorts (motivation L3)

As elaborated at length in chapter 8 the school context of South Tyrol varies significantly in terms of foreign languages. Although English is their L3, it has to be acquired obligatorily from primary school on and, therefore, is learned from an early age on. It could be argued that their acquisition of Italian or German and English is simultaneous, whereas the acquisition of an L3 in North Tyrol starts at a later point in life. Various school types offer different L3s, mostly French or Italian, which means that the length of input can never be compared to the South Tyrolean school context. Many different argumentations can be found to explain these findings and why the motivation to learn an L3 is significantly higher in South Tyrol than in Tyrol. First of all, the language itself play an important role. As pointed out by Dörnyei and Ushioda (2017), English holds a dominant status in the world and in recent years it is called a must-have language. When looking at the fact that over 70% of all studies conducted around motivation to learn a foreign language chose to investigate the foreign language, it becomes evident that English has turned into a global language which might be even called a ‘disembodied language’ due to detachment of borders, cultures and boundaries (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2017, p. 451). They claim that the motivational factor of learning English is significantly impacted by the English language globalisation (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2017). Therefore, English cannot be presumed as only the acquisition on an L3 alongside with one, two or even three languages (German, Italian, Ladin), but on the contrary, due to its major status in (inter-) national affairs, such as education,

115 professionalisation and society, it receives another level of importance. An additional factor which could explain the difference in results of the LAILA and LAILA-BICS population is the level of proficiency. As discussed in chapter 6 motivation and language proficiency are closely interconnected. Many studies on the connection of these two variables can be found, which proves that there is a positive correlation between the acquisition of a foreign language and motivation. Therefore, it can be argued that the higher one’s proficiency is, the more an increase in motivation over time can be observed. The participants of the LAILA-BICS study have a great advantage in terms of intensity and length of exposure and input of their L3 (English), hence, their motivational level is more advanced. In comparison, the Romance language the returnees in the LAILA 2012- and 2013 cohort study, namely French, Italian and Spanish, start more or less in the upper-secondary school and on account of this it becomes evident that their length and intensity of exposure and input of a third language is more concise. Therefore, it can be claimed that this reduction in time and resources, namely the advantage of having studied already two other languages, are additional factors for the current results. Again, it has to be made clear that the results of hypothesis 1 show that English exhibits a special role in the LAILA-BICS context due to the noticeable difference of 35.50 points in average. When acquiring an L3, it always additionally depends on the development of the previous acquired language systems. Chapter 5 on the Dynamic Systems Theory highlights the reciprocal interconnectedness of all language systems, explains how they influence each other, how they change constantly and why language systems cannot be seen as separate boxes. It should become clear that there is a limitation to the acquisition of a new language system due to language maintenance efforts for an already existing language. This phenomenon can influence the acquisition of new language systems negatively or positively (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). LAILA participants do not have the same length of exposure as LAILA-BICS students to their L3s due to a different starting point. To sum up findings and conclusions of hypothesis 1 a closer look into the sociolinguistic and motivational questionnaire has proven to be helpful. 54 out of 69 high- achievers in the LAILA-BICS 2012 testing population have been considered for this analysis. More than 80% of all participants answered the question whether they want to keep on studying English with a yes; reasons for these clear affirmative answers were au-pair, internship, travelling or further education at university. These motives are highly pragmatic nature. When taking another look at the questionnaire they filled out at TT2, it turns out that 17 of these claimed that they have done something actively with the language. The majority actually started a career where English was a compulsory subject, such as English academic studies in

116 the Netherlands, Lehramt at the University of Innsbruck with English as a subject, economics where English is mandatory, trilingual studies in Italy and two testees stated to have started studying translation with either English and French or English and Italian. Others claimed to have travelled for more than one month to the United States of America, have English acquaintances, have lived for more than one month in India and started professional careers with daily usage of the English language. These findings prove that there is a positive correlation between motivation and further commitment to the language. More than 30% (17 out 54 observations) of the LAILA-BICS population showed a high motivation score in TT1 and consequently chose a further career where English is an inherent part. 2012-LAILA participants, on the other hand, stated different reasons for their motivational level: Primarily, travelling and the personal interest in the language and its culture were mentioned. A much smaller group, 10 out of 100 participants (10%), stated that they wanted to seek contact with the language, especially French and Italian, in a university setting. Compared to the LAILA- BICS population, their motives to continue learning their L3s are personal while English as an L3 in LAILA-BICS has a pragmatic influence on the pupils’ lives. When looking at the motivational questionnaire of TT2, it becomes evident that 15 out of 45-high achievers in the 2012-LAILA cohort continued improving their language proficiency in either English, French, Italian and/or Spanish; therefore, 33.33%. The majority of these 15 observations chose a further education at university with focus on their L3s. Especially Lehramt or the theoretical and applied translation studies have been chosen. Others have participated in language courses in target language countries and, in addition to that, a much smaller group indicated that after their school-leaving exam, they spent more than half a year in France, Italy and Spanish speaking countries. The 2013-LAILA cohort exhibits 6 participants who achieved high motivation and who have chosen a further engagement with their L3s, which represents around 18%. Again, it can be seen that the majority chose translation studies, Lehramt or bachelor studies in Italian or French. Considering the fact that also LAILA-BICS shows a significant correlation between motivation and further professional engagement with the language, it can be argued that one’s motivational level has a positive impact on future prospects. Finally, no significant difference can be found to Gasteiger and De Maine’s findings. Hence, it can be claimed that their conclusions can be confirmed and supported. Figure 39 sums up all findings presented in this paragraph because it shows the total number of participants of each cohort, divided into high-achievers and this section is again divided by test takers who further used their L3s after the school-leaving exam.

117

180

160 15 140 17 45 120 6

100 33 54 80

60 100 40 82 69 20

0 LAILA 12 LAILA 13 LAILA-BICS 12

Total number High-achievers in L3 Further engagement with the language

Figure 39: Further engagement of high achievers in LAILA 12/13 and LAILA-BICS

118 9.2 Hypothesis 2 Looking at the LLAMA_F scores, there will be no significant difference in MLA between LAILA & LAILA-BICS, even though one group has grown up in a bilingual environment – the exposure to multiple languages will prove to be enough to achieve an enhanced level of MLA. Firstly, the two LAILA cohorts will be compared individually with the LAILA-BICS cohort in order to illustrate a potential distinction between the two cohorts conducted in 2012 and 2013. As this thesis is based on the work written by Gasteiger and DeMaine (2020), the comparison between the testing regions will be made by means of contrasting the so-called “high achievers”. The LLAMA_F test has a score of 110 in total consisting of 22 items. The authors adapted the score table by Meara (2005) as the original test consisted of 20 items. The adjusted table used for the interpretation of the test results is as follows:

1-25 A very poor score, probably due to guessing

30-55 An average score; most people score within this range

60-75 A good score

85-110 An outstandingly good score; few people manage to score in this range

Table 4: Adjusted LLAMA_F scores

Gasteiger/DeMaine (2020) classified the high achievers according to their LLAMA_F score which has to be 85 points or more which makes up three quarters of the total score. The score gives insight into the participants’ ability to acquire the grammatical structures of an invented language which is part of the MLA. Therefore, the test was used in order to assess the test takers‘ MLA.

9.2.1 LAILA 2012 and 2013 LLAMA_F High-Achievers’ Results In the 2012 cohort, there were 100 participants who conducted both testing times. From those 100 test takers, 54 are so-called high achievers in the TT1 since they show a LLAMA_F score of 82.5 or higher (see figure 40). According to the adapted scale, the achieved results of these 54 participants is an “outstandingly good score” meaning that they possess a high awareness and knowledge of how grammatical structures in languages are analysed and used accordingly after having decoded the grammatical rules only through examples.

119 High achievers LLAMA_F test - LAILA 2012 TT1

46%

54%

An outstandingly good score (top 25%) A good to very poor score (remaining 75%)

Figure 40: High achievers LLAMA_F in LAILA 12 The second LAILA cohort, namely LAILA 2013, has only 82 test takers who participated in both testing times which is 18 less than the LAILA 2012 cohort. When analysing the top quartile in the LLAMA_F test (TT1), the results indicate that 44 out of the 82 participants are high achievers. This results in the conclusion that there is no difference between the LAILA cohort 2012 and 2013 since they share the exact same percentage of high achievers namely 54% (see figure 41).

High achievers LLAMA_F test - LAILA 2013 TT1

46%

54%

An outstandingly good score (top 25%) A good to very poor score (remaining 75%)

Figure 41: High-achievers LLAMA_F in LAILA 13

120 So as to increase the meaningfulness of the LAILA cohort, the two cohorts were combined. In that case, the overall testing population adds up to 182 test takers of which 98 emerged as so-called high achievers which is once again 54% of the entire cohort (see figure 42). Thanks to the similarity between the two LAILA cohorts, this merger is not only possible but also increases the significance of the conducted study in regard to the results.

High achievers LLAMA_F test - LAILA 2012/13 TT1

46%

54%

An outstandingly good score (top 25%) A good to very poor score (remaining 75%)

Figure 42: High-achievers LLAMA_F in LAILA 12/13

When comparing the results from the monolingual region Tyrol (LAILA study) with the multilingual region South Tyrol (LAILA-BICS), one perceives that firstly the number of 2 participants is smaller than in either of the Tyrolean cohorts with only 67 test takers 1F . Concerning the high achievers, however, the result shows no significant difference between the Tyrolean cohorts and the South Tyrolean one with 35 out of 67 test takers being high achievers which makes out to be 52% of the whole LAILA-BICS cohort (see figure 43). Consequently, it can be stated that the multilingual context does not influence the MLA of the test takers since all three cohorts show that the high achievers always constitute over half of the testing population regardless of their linguistic environment. Therefore, it can be claimed, that it seems to be enough to have studied multiple language in order to achieve high MLA scores in the LLAMA_F test battery. Considering the fact that this paper has included the LAILA 2012-cohort, as well as the LAILA 2013-cohort, no differences to Gasteiger and De Maine (2020) can be observed.

2 69 participants in total but two did not complete the first LLAMA_F test

121 High achievers LLAMA_F test - LAILA-BICS 2012 TT1

48% 52%

An outstandingly good score (top 25%) A good to very poor score (remaining 75%)

Figure 43: High-achievers LLAMA_F in LAILA-BICS 12 As emerges from the previous analysis, both groups have more than 50% test subjects who achieved an enhanced level of MLA tested in this study. Hence, hypothesis 2 can also be proven correct; to be more specific, the sociolinguistic background of South Tyrol does not automatically lead to an advanced development of MLA. In order to prove that the conducted study in South Tyrol also took schools in bi-or trilingual regions into consideration, an analysis of the tested schools will follow. The majority of all participants (38 test takers) have been tested in Bozen, which is a predominantly Italian-speaking region; others came from Meran (Humanistisches Gymnasium with 7 returnees) where people speak German as often as Italian. In total, 21 participants came from German-speaking schools (Sterzing, Bruneck, Schlanders). In the two LAILA cohorts, the populations’ language is predominantly German; Some individuals grew up bilingual; however, no whole school district has a bilingual status. As discussed in previous chapters, high MLA does not automatically lead to high proficiency; nevertheless, it holds high potential to achieve a high level of language proficiency. Due to the fact that all participants, LAILA 12/13 and LAILA-BICS, already acquired more than one language throughout their lives, they recognise structures and recreate them, as well as memorise these patterns in their long-term memory to access this information when needed (Baddeley, 2010). Therefore, high MLA plays an important role in the acquisition of new foreign languages since the working memory is a key factor in metalinguistic activities that is “activities of reflection on language and its use as well as subjects’ ability to intentionally

122 monitor and plan their own methods of linguistic processing, in comprehension and production” (Gombert, 1992, p. 13).

9.3 Hypothesis 3 Students with high motivation and high LLAMA_F scores will not show attrition in their L2s, L3s and L4s as measured by their proficiency level regardless of their sociolinguistic language background. Gasteiger and DeMaine (2020) claimed that test takers who achieved results in the top quarter of the LLAMA_F test (more than 82.5 points) and who displayed high motivation (more than 71 points) will not show attrition in their foreign languages. For each language, the actual number of participants considered for this analysis fulfilling the just mentioned prerequisites differs. Hence, each language was treated individually in a subchapter where the two LAILA cohorts will be mentioned individually followed by the results of the test takers living in the multilingual region South Tyrol. Gasteiger and DeMaine (2020) were of the opinion that the linguistic context does not influence the outcome. They solely focused on the L3 which is English in South Tyrol (LAILA-BICS) and French, Italian or Spanish in Tyrol (LAILA). Their analysis showed a decrease in the L3 of the LAILA cohort high achievers while the high achievers of LAILA-BICS increased their language proficiency in English. In this analysis, the L2 and L4 will be taken into account as well.

9.3.1 English (L2 in LAILA, L3 in LAILA-BICS) When analysing and comparing English, one has to bear in mind that the test takers in Tyrol acquired the language as their first foreign language whilst South Tyroleans start to learn Italian before English which makes it their L3. When looking at the high achievers from the LAILA 2012 cohort, the number of participants meeting the above-mentioned criteria is 42. The average difference between TT1 and TT2 concerning their C-test results amounts to +5.71 points. This indicates a clear language growth. For the LAILA 2013 cohort, the number of high achievers is 35. The mean concerning the C-test results of this cohort for the high achievers adds up to +6.8 points which is an even greater growth when comparing with the LAILA 2012 cohort. As done before, the two LAILA cohorts can be taken together in order to paint a more concrete picture thanks to a more meaningful number of participants. When doing so, the average C-test results from the 77 high achievers found in both LAILA cohorts is +6.21 points. Lastly, concerning the LAILA-BICS cohort for its L3 English, the average difference between

123 TT1 and TT2 from 32 high achievers is +4.21 points which also shows a language growth. It has to be considered that the number of high achievers for the LAILA-BICS cohort is smaller than either of the LAILA cohorts and especially when both are taken together. However, when comparing the overall means of the different cohorts are all positive which proves that the high achievers of each cohort experienced a growth concerning their language proficiency (see figure 44).

English: High achievers 8

7 6.8 6.21 6 5.71

4.21 test test points - 4

Difference C Difference 2

0 LAILA 2012 English LAILA 2013 English LAILA 2012/13 English LAILA-BICS 2012

Figure 44: High achievers in English difference in average (C-test)

A possible explanation for the smaller average increase of the LAILA-BICS cohort could be linked to the language proficiency since Tyrolean pupils start to acquire the language earlier, it could be plausible that they have a minor advantage regarding their proficiency as they learned the language longer than the pupils in South Tyrol. This assumption is supported by the study by Gardner (1987), which was mentioned before, regarding language proficiency being a crucial factor in language attrition. Even though both students growing up in Tyrol and South Tyrol should reach the CEFR level B2, it can be argued that due to a longer and earlier exposure to English at Austrian schools, where pupils begin to learn English in the first class of primary school, the Tyrolean test takers maintain the language more easily than South Tyroleans who start to acquire the language in the fourth class of primary school. A study by Hansen (1999) has indicated that, concerning retention of a language, the period during which language learners were exposed to the language is of greater importance than the initial proficiency. Yet, Jessner et al. (2020) claim that a combination of the two as well as additional

124 factors, such as language aptitude or motivation, all play a crucial role in attrition. Hence, it cannot be asserted that the language growth in LAILA-BICS is smaller only due to the shorter exposure in the educational context, but it is nonetheless a factor which needs to be considered. Nevertheless, as the difference between LAILA and LAILA-BICS consists of less than two points and given the fact that the number of high achievers is rather small, an interpretation as the latter would be more reliable if the number of test takers was higher in order to assert that high achievers from Tyrol experience a more significant language growth than the ones from South Tyrol.

9.3.2 Italian (L3 in LAILA, L2 in LAILA-BICS) For the Italian language, the order of acquisition is the opposite of the one for English as Italian is the L2 of the LAILA-BICS participants but the L3 or even L4 for LAILA participants. In the LAILA 2012 cohort, there were 17 high achievers of which the average distinction between the TT1 and TT2 C-test results were +0.77 points. For the LAILA 2013 cohort the number of high achievers was smaller with only ten high achievers indicating an insignificant language loss according to the mean being -0.09 points. Again, when taking the LAILA cohorts together meaning a total of 27 high achievers, the average difference between the TT1 and TT2 amounts to +0.24 points. As the number of high achievers is rather small, one has to be careful when interpreting the outcomes as an actual language loss or growth, especially when the average difference score is less than one point. For the LAILA-BICS cohort, a total of 27 test takers fulfilled the criteria for high achievers with a high score in motivation. The average of the 27 participants is similar to the results of the LAILA cohort being +0.29 points. However, when analysing the data more closely, one realises that there is one participant who influences the result insofar as this test taker shows an attrition of -39 points from TT1 to TT2 which depicts a significant language decline. Without this participant, the average language growth of the LAILA-BICS cohort would have been +1.5 points which illustrates to a greater extent that this cohort experiences an increase in language proficiency. However, the average of all the participants amounts to +0.29 points which still shows that the cohort’s language growth even though the number is, just like for the LAILA cohorts, rather low which does not enable a meaningful assertion concerning language growth (see figure 45).

125 Italian: Average in C-test Scores Difference

0.9 0.8 0.77 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.29 0.3 0.24 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.09 -0.2 LAILA 12 LAILA 13 LAILA 12/13 LAILA-BICS 12

Italian: average in C-Test scores difference

Figure 45: Average of C-test scores difference in Italian

9.3.3 French (L3 in LAILA, L4 in LAILA-BICS) French is for the majority of the test takers of the LAILA cohort an L3 which is learned after English. In the LAILA 2012 cohort, the criteria of high achievers applied to ten test takers. The mean of the difference between TT1 and TT2 represents a language growth of +0.53 points. The LAILA 2013 cohort has a total of only six high achievers who also indicate an increase in proficiency with +0.25 points as the mean difference between TT1 and TT2. As both cohorts show a slight language growth, the outcome is the same when combining the two LAILA cohorts into one larger cohort. The LAILA 2012/13 cohort therefore has a total of 16 high achievers with an average difference of + 0.32 points which can also be seen as a rise in language proficiency in French. Regarding the LAILA-BICS cohort, for which French was an L4 whereas for LAILA French was in most cases an L3, the results differ. The result suggests an attrition of -5.11 points when looking at the average of all of the 18 high achievers of this cohort. In contrast to the LAILA cohort, individual or combined, the LAILA-BICS test takers show a rather significant language loss (see figure 46).

126 French: average in C-test scores difference

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

LAILA 12 LAILA 13 LAILA 12/13 LAILA-BICS 12

Figure 46: Average in C-test scores difference in French

Possible justifications for the difference between the cohorts lies in the order of acquisition of the languages. The LAILA cohorts acquired French as the second foreign language after English, while French is already the third foreign language after Italian and English for the LAILA-BICS cohort. The latter hence has to maintain three other languages, Italian being of great importance in their everyday lives due to its language status as an official language in the region and English being a language which also possesses a high-status value on an international and educational level. French being the fourth and least vital language for South Tyroleans, even when they manifested a high MLA and a high motivational score, is one potential explanation for this outcome. Additionally, Jessner (2003) claimed that monolingual systems are more stable than multilingual ones which again supports the assumption that while Tyroleans have to maintain a system of three languages, South Tyroleans have four languages which consequently alters the time and language effort a learner has to invest making it more difficult to counteract a possible attrition.

127 10 Discussion and Conclusion (S. Kilga) This paper is based on the assumption of the DMM, which assumes that metalinguistic or multilingual awareness is one of the key factors of the DMM, and, therefore, aimed at finding correlations between this element and language attrition in multilinguals. MLA is, beyond doubt, one of the driving aspects of language development; hence, its connection to the process of continuously losing or forgetting a language system is obvious (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). It was assumed that the languages of the students who show an enhanced level of MLA might be less vulnerable to language attrition. In addition to that, motivation plays an important role in the preservation of a language system; wherefore it was logical to investigate the connection between motivation for language learning, MLA and the attrition process. After these concepts have been illustrated, the sociolinguistic backgrounds of both test populations have been analysed. Due to the context of this comparative study, it seemed necessary to take a more detailed look at North Tyrol, where LAILA was conducted, and South Tyrol, the trilingual environment of LAILA-BICS, in order to reveal potential findings and conclusions. After having analysed general conditions of the study conducted from 2012 to 2015, the two LAILA- cohorts from 2012 and 2013 have been compared in terms of the LLAMA_F test, the C-test and the motivational questionnaire, as well as in terms of language growth or language decline. No significant difference could be found. By doing so, a larger population of all LAILA participants enabled us to interpret findings more meaningfully and draw expressive conclusions. Before going into depths, the LAILA population was compared to LAILA-BICS in terms of LLAMA_F-test and C-test. As expected, while both LAILA cohorts showed a decrease in language proficiency in Italian (L3 or L4), LAILA-BICS exhibited a clear tendency towards increase in language proficiency. These findings were traced back to language status, language exposure and usage, as well as motivation and pragmatic benefits. Jessner et al. (2020), who analysed the results of 114 participants from the LAILA study, attested the findings of this work concerning the value of the language maintenance efforts so as to counteract language loss. The analysis has shown, for instance for the FL2 French, that language attrition in the LAILA 2012/13 cohorts can be explained based on the small number of test takers (13.2%) who maintained the language after having left school. Overall, the results of Gasteiger and DeMaine (2020) and Jessner et al. (2020) both support the findings of this work. Hypothesis 1 focused on the assumption that the motivation to learn an L3 in South Tyrol, namely English, is higher than the motivation for the L3s in North Tyrol, namely English,

128 French, Italian and Spanish. This hypothesis has been proven true. The LAILA-BICS context exhibited a significant higher motivational level for English compared to the two LAILA cohorts. First, their overall average was compared, then, in order to compare the results to Gasteiger and De Maine high achievers were filtered out. Both approaches supported the general assumption and showed that due to language status, language dominance, language proficiency and pragmatic usefulness, motivation scores for English excelled all L3s in LAILA (English, French, Italian, Spanish). Hypothesis 2 addressed the question whether LAILA-BICS participants outperformed LAILA test subjects in terms of MLA due to their trilingual environment and their continuous exposure to different languages (German, Italian, Ladin). It aimed at finding out if growing up in a multilingual context automatically leads to a higher level of MLA and it turned out that that is not the case. No striking differences could be observed across the two groups. Therefore, the multilingual environment of South Tyrol has no observable influence on the test takers’ MLA and does not lead to an advantage in terms of MLA. These findings were explained by the fact that participants of LAILA also acquired different languages throughout their lives and had been in contact with various languages since primary school. Hence, studying various languages in a school context seems to be as efficient as living in a bi- or trilingual environment. As mentioned above, MLA is an emergent property of the multilingual system and, therefore, not only “facilitates the interaction within the complex, dynamic systems, but it also makes it possible in the first place” (Török & Jessner, 2017, p. 5). This explains why and how participants of LAILA and LAILA-BICS were able to perform linguistically demanding tasks (LLAMA_F task). If high achievers of the LLAMA_F test are combined with high achievers in the motivational questionnaire, the test group for hypothesis three is created. The third hypothesis, whether high LLAMA_F achievers and high motivation participants are more resistant to language attrition, can be affirmed partially. Since MLA does not correlate automatically with high proficiency, but can only facilitate reaching it, it was tried to reveal if high MLA and high motivation help to counteract a decline in the language system after some time of non-use. This was sought to be proven true or false by comparing their C-test results in TT1 and TT2 in order to expose potential language attrition. While an increase in language proficiency in English and Italian can be observed, an on-going development towards language attrition seems to be prominent in the LAILA-BICS population in French. It was tried to explain these findings by arguing that French, in the LAILA-BICS context, is already their L4 and due to the vital status of Italian or German in everyday life as their L2 and English as the language of globalisation, the preservation of French is not possible. Having high motivation

129 and being experienced in language learning and thus having developed a high level of MLA, are not sufficient factors for the maintenance of French. Dynamic systems distinguish themselves by the fact that if usage and communicative needs decline, also the language system itself cannot be maintained with active counteraction. Jessner (2018) states that “the different subsystems of a multilingual person are not only in continuous competition with each other regarding time and resources in terms of LME, but also regarding partial cognitive capacities (e.g., regarding working memory as well)” (p. 20); hence, a gradual loss during this process is plausible. It becomes evident that the languages which LAILA-BICS test subjects know, constantly compete with each other which could explicate the trend towards attrition. This does not account for the fact that these language competences could not be reactivated when language exposure sets in again. Herdina and Jessner explain that in the DMM approach, MLA functions as a “refresher” in a language (sub-)system (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 106).

10.1 Outlook and Teaching Implications The following chapter will sum up the present thesis and will state implications for the future. A tendency towards language attrition could be observed in different areas. This raises the question if and to what extent this process of decline could have been prevented. When taking MLA as a potential element to counteract attrition, it could be argued that foreign language teaching should aim at teaching and implicating multilingual teaching methods in lessons. Connections between languages should be highlighted in order to focus on cross- linguistic similarities and differences. Jessner (2006) points out that teachers should be able to do activities which raise awareness and consciousness towards MLA to guide pupils through metalinguistic processes. If language teaching is not perceived isolated anymore, students could develop language strategies in general, could reflect on similarities and differences between known languages, and could alter their perception of languages due to an overall understanding of language systems. MLA has to be seen as something to build on, to work with in order to facilitate and enhance further language learning (Jessner, 2013). In general, it can be said that the general research question, whether MLA plays a pervasive role in the language attrition process, can be answered with yes. Considering the overall trend towards preservation or even increase of language proficiency from TT1 to TT2 in FL 1, 2 and 3, especially with students who attained an enhanced level of MLA, the importance of MLA can clearly be seen. Through different processing strategies, the test subjects managed to maintain their language competences, seen by the comparison of C-test results and LLAMA_F scores. However, at this

130 point it has to be mentioned that MLA does not seem to be sufficient for the preservation of the participants’ L4s, considering the tendency towards language attrition in Italian and Spanish in LAILA, as well as in LAILA-BICS in French. Nevertheless, we argue that these language competences are not lost, but can be reactivated quickly. Reasons for this loss, e.g., less important language for an individual, too little cross-linguistic interaction between the languages in the foreign language classroom, different non-functioning teaching and learning strategies or no to too little focus on multilingual awareness, could be hypotheses for further research to investigate correlations between attrition and other variables. In addition to that, Herdina and Jessner (2002) claim that there is a close interaction between metalinguistic awareness and motivation and that both form a part of the DMM. Hence, motivation seems to be a driving element of this dynamic system, wherefore foreign language teaching should also focus on increasing motivation in the classroom. If motivation is in the position to significantly influence language preservation or foreign language loss, it should be considered intentionally by teachers. Findings of this study prove that future foreign language lessons should distance from the assumption that language learning is a linear process, since there is no final point which can be achieved. Jessner and Allgäuer-Hackel (2020) state that the process of acquiring a language should always be seen as an up-and-down movement with fossilisation, qualitive transfers, accumulative effects and many individual developments. According to this, teachers should also accept the fact that every language acquisition is connected to various phases and that regress, e.g., after a longer holiday break, can occur. Especially children who are at the beginning of acquiring a new language, can easily be affected by language attrition after a short break of input (Jessner & Allgäuer-Hackel, 2020). To increase sustainability of foreign language teaching, references to other languages should be drawn. Cenoz and Gorter (2013) explain that a dominant concept towards isolation of languages rules at schools instead of linking new language input to the existing language systems of the pupils. This notion of monolingualism in society (one country – one language) is rooted deeply and explains why students and teachers pretend to be monolinguals in the foreign language classroom which places an unreachable aim of becoming ‘native-like’ and which hinders the connection of all known languages (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013). Therefore, holistic plurilingual approaches should be used in language teaching in order to build metalinguistic awareness and enable the students’ experience of a plurilingual speaker. This leads to the possibility to progress faster in language learning since different language repertoires can be accessed (e.g., pragmatic knowledge or writing competences). This present discussion leads to the conclusion that integrated syllabi are needed which allow the

131 communication between language teachers in order to work together and to reinforce the students’ experience (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013). Plurilingualism should be seen as a resource and not as an obstacle. Foreign language lessons should aim at preparing students for the future in terms of language maintenance and language preservation, as well as management and organisation of language competences to be scaffolded for a multilingual society; hence, they should be encouraged to engage with people from different countries and with different nationalities. As the number of participants for the LAILA-BICS study was smaller than the one for the LAILA study, a study with a more extensive number of test subjects would render the analysis more reliable, especially in terms of comparison. Further studies could also focus on the same research aim but within different contexts. For instance, the monolingual population could be taken from the monolingual country Liechtenstein and compare the gathered data with test takers living in bilingual regions in Switzerland, such as Bern. In that case, the focus would be not on Italian like it was for the studies used in this thesis, but rather on French as an L2 for the bilingual region and as an L3 in the monolingual country Liechtenstein. However, if one would focus on the Italian-speaking Canton of Ticino in Switzerland, a similar comparative study might be conducted. In addition to that, it would be very interesting to test participants of the 2012-LAILA and 2012-LAILA-BICS cohorts once again in the year 2021; hence, almost ten years later in order to see how the language attrition process develops and how the DMM proves to be true in this longitudinal development. Results could be interpreted more reliably and clear trends towards attrition or language preservation in connection with high MLA could be analysed. In one argument above it was claimed that language proficiency plays a decisive role in the development of language systems, which could also be proved to be correct or incorrect. According to the DMM (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), language maintenance effort is determined by language usage - activation and renewal of language systems – and the application of explicit language knowledge. Both factors could be detected by a questionnaire which gathers information about the participants’ history and their engagement with the foreign language. Correlations between these answers and language attrition or language maintenance could be traced back.

132 11 Bibliography Alastair, H., & Davydenko, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2015). The Anatomy of Directed Motivational Currents: Exploring Intense and Enduring Periods of L2 Motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 329-345. Ammerlaan, T. (1996). You get a bit wobbly. Exploring Bilingual Lexical Retrieval Processes in the Context of First Language Attrition. Nijmegen: Radboud University Press. ASTAT. (2020). South Tyrol in figures. Retrieved from Landesinstitut für Statistik ASTAT: https://astat.provinz.bz.it/downloads/Siz_2020-eng.pdf ASTAT. (2021a, January 4). Demografische Daten 2019. Retrieved from Landesinstitut für Statistik ASTAT: https://astat.provinz.bz.it/de/aktuelles-publikationen- info.asp?news_action=300&news_image_id=1093450 ASTAT. (2021b). Bildung in Zahlen - Schuljahr 2019/20. Retrieved from Landesinstitut für Statistik ASTAT: https://astat.provinz.bz.it/de/aktuelles-publikationen- info.asp?news_action=300&news_image_id=1097497 Atkinson, R.C., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 2, 89-195. Austria-Forum, das Wissensnetz. (2016, march 25). austria-forum.org. Retrieved from Sprache des Österreichers (english): https://austria- forum.org/af/AEIOU/Sprache_des_%C3%96sterreichers/Sprache_des_%C3%96sterrei chers_english Baddeley A.D., & Hitch, G.J. (1974). Working memory. Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation, 8, 47-89. Bahrick, B.P. (1984). Fifty Years of Second Language Attrition: Implications for Programmatic research. The Modern Language Journal, 68(2), 105-118. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Stringer, D. (2010). Variables in Second Language Attrition – Advancing the State of the Art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 1-45. Baker, C., & Hornberger, N. H. (2001). An Introductory Reader to the Writings of Jim Cummins. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Bialystok, E. (1994). Representation and ways of knowing: three issues in second language acquisition. In N. Ellis, Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 549–69). San Diego, CA: Academic Press,

133 Bialystok, E., & Hakuta K. (1994). In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second- Language Acquisition. New York: Basic Books. Bickley, A. C., & Billie, J. E., & Bickley, R. T. (1970). The Cloze Procedure: A Conspectus. Journal of Reading Behavior, 2(3), 232-249. Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic Performance and Interlinguistic Competence. Berlin: Springer. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. BMBWF. (2020). Bildungswege in Österreich 2020/21: Deutsch. Retrieved from bmbwf.gv.at :https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahU KEwiM1qGEvtXuAhWD2aQKHQHpB4kQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F% 2Fpubshop.bmbwf.gv.at%2Findex.php%3Frex_media_type%3Dpubshop_download %26rex_media_file%3D191223_bildungswege_de_bf.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3q9imPjTt uB6ZOO4N4CVNu BMBWF. (2020, June 5). Schülerinnen und Schüler mit anderen Erstsprachen als Deutsch . Retrieved from oesterreich.gv.at: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/bildung_und_neue_medien/schule/Seite.110005 .html Carroll, J. (1973). Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theory for foreign language learning. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2, 5-14. Carroll, J., & Sapon. S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test – Form A. New York: Psychological Corporation. Clément R., & Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417-448. Cenoz, J. (2000). Research on multilingual acquisition. In J. Cenoz, & U. Jessner, English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language (pp. 39-53). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2001). The Effect of Linguistic Distance, L2 Status and Age on Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition. In C. Jasone, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner, Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

134 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2013). Towards a Plurilingual Approach in English Language Teaching: Softening the Boundaries Between Languages. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 47(3), pp. 591-599. Clyne, M. (1997). Multilingualism. In F. Coulmas, The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 301- 314). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Cohen, A. D. (1974). The Culver Spanish Immerison Program: How does summer recess affect Spanish speaking ability?. Language Learning, 24, 55-68. Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Final Report: High Level Group on Multilingualism. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/- /publication/b0a1339f-f181-4de5-abd3-130180f177c7 Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Langauge Research, 7(2), 103-117. Cook, V. J. (2007). Multi-Competence: Black Hole or Wormhole for Second Language Acquisition Research? In H. ZhaoHong, Understanding Second Language Process (pp. 16-26). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. (2008). Language Education Policy Profile: Austria. Retrieved from rm.coe.int: https://rm.coe.int/language-education-policy-profile-austria/16807b3b9d Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511486999 Cummins, J. (1987). Bilingualism, language proficiency and metalinguistic development. Cambridge: University Press Daneman M., & Carpenter P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behavior, 19, 450-466. De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Bot, K. (2007). Dynamic systems theory, lifespan development and language attrition. In B. Köpke et al. Language attrition. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 53-68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7-21.

135 De Cillia, R. (2002). Fremdsprachenunterricht in Österreich nach 1945. In E. Lechner, Formen und Funktionen des Fremdsprachenunterrichts im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts (pp. 115-128). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. De Cillia, R. (2006). Sprachen der Welt - Sprachen in Österreich. In Ö. Sprachen-Kompetenz- Zentrum, KINDER ENTDECKEN SPRACHEN: 3.1 Von den Sprachen des Kindes zu den Sprachen der Welt (pp. 35-43). Graz: Österreichisches Sprachen-Kompetenz- Zentrum. De Cillia, R., & Krumm, H.-J. (2010). Fremdsprachenunterricht in Österreich. sociolingustica(24), 153-169. De Maine, J., & Gasteiger, S. (2020). The Role of Metalinguistic Awareness in the Attrition Process of the 3rd and 4th Learned Foreign Language: A comparative anlaysis of the LAILA and LAILA-BICS research 2012. Dewaele, J., & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Language and Emotions: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(2),93-93. Deutsches Schulamt. (2009, August). Rahmenrichtlinien für die Grund- und Mittelschule in Südtirol. Bozen, South Tyrol, Italy. Deutsches Schulamt. (2011, September). Rahmenrichtlinien für die Gymnasien und Fachoberschulen in Südtirol. Bozen, South Tyrol, Italy. Diebold Jr, A. R. (1961, Jan. - Marc.). Incipient Bilingualism. Language, 37(1), 97-112. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, Orientation, and Motivations in Language Learning. Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing, 3-32. Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Researching Motivation: From Integrativeness To The Ideal L2 Self. Introducing Applied Linguistics: Concepts And Skills, 74-83. Eckes, T., R. Grotjahn (2006). A closer look at the construction validity of C-tests," Language Testing, 23(3), 290-325. Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Eltens, B., & Grendel, M. (1993). Attrition of vocabulary knowledge. In R. Schreuder, & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 135-157). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Engelbrecht, H. (1988). Geschichte des österreichischen Bildungswesens Erziehung und Unterricht auf dem Boden Österreichs: Band 5: Von 1918 bis zur Gegenwart. Wien: Österreichischer Bundesverlag. European Commission. (2017, November 14). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE

136 OF THE REGIONS Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture The European Commission's contribution to the Leaders' meeting in Gothenburg, 17 November 2017. Strasbourg, France. Eurydice. (2021, March 20). Italy Overview - Key features of the education system. Retrieved from European Commission: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national- policies/eurydice/content/italy_en Evaluationsstelle für das deutsche Bildungssystem. (n.d.). Landesbericht Südtirol 2019 - Lernstandserhebungen. Bozen, South Tyrol, Italy. Franceschini, R. (1999). Sprachadoption: der Einfluss von Minderheitensprachen auf die Mehrheit oder: Welche Kompetenzen der Minderheitensprachen haben Mehrheitssprecher? In: Bulletin VALS-ASLA, 1999, vol. 69, no. 2, p. 137-153. Franceschini, R. (2003). Modellbildung über die Mehrsprachigkeit hinaus: für eine Linguistik der Potentialitaät (LP). In L. Mondada, & S. Pekarek Doehler, Plurilinguisme / Mehrsprachigkeit / Plurilingualism: Enjeux Identitaires, Socio-culturels et éducatifs (pp. 247-259). Tübingen: Francke. Franceschini, R. (2016). Multilingualism research. In V. Cook, & L. Wei, The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence (pp. 97-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R. (1985). The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery: Technical Report. Retrieved from: https://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/docs/AMTBmanual.pdf, 25.04.2021. Gardner, R. (2007). Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Porta Linguarum, 8, University of Western Ontario, 9-20. Gardner, R. C. et al. (1997). Towards a Full Model of Second Language Learning: An Empirical Investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 344-362. Geert, P. (1990). Dynamic Systems of Development: Change between Complexity and Chaos. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Gleick, J. (1998). Chaos: Making a New Science. London: Vintage. Gombert, E. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

137 Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, Beware! The Bilingual Is Not Two Monolinguals in One Person. Brain and Langauge, 36, 3-15. Grosjean, F. (2003): Transfer and language mode. Cambridge: University Press. Hafner, L. E. A (1965). One-month experiment in teaching context aids in fifth grade. Journal of Educational Research, 58, 472-474. Hansen, L. (1999). Not a total loss: The attrition of Japanese negation over three decades. In L. Hansen (Ed.), Second language attrition in Japanese contexts (pp. 142–153). New York: Oxford University Press. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Homel, M. P., & D. Aaronson (1987). Childhood Bilingualism: Aspects of Linguistic, Cognitive, and Social Development. Hillsdale, 57–75. Hoffmann, C. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman. Horak, A., Moser, W., Nezbeda, M., & Schober, M. (2010). Der Gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der Unterrichtspraxis: ÖSZ Praxisreihe 12. Graz: ÖSZ. Horwitz, E.K., & Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132. James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. Language Awareness, 5(3), 138-148. James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. London: Longman. Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: G. Allen & Unwin. Jessner, U. (2003). A Dynamic Approach to Language Attrition in Multilingual Systems. In: V. Cook, Effects of the Second Language on the First (pp. 215-234). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD. Jessner, U. (2003). The Nature of Cross-linguistic Interaction in the Multilingual System. In B. H. J. Cenoz, The Multilingual Lexicon (pp. 45-55). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Jessner, U. (2008). A DST Model of Multilingualism and the Role of Metalinguistic Awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 270-283.

138 Jessner, U., & Allgäuer-Hackl, E. (2020). Multilingual awareness and metacognition in multilingually diverse classrooms. Journal of Multilingual Theories and Practices, 1(1), 66-88. Jessner, U., & Pellegrini, C., & Cossarini, C., & Török, V. (2018). Lexical and morphological L3 attrition in an Austrian school context. Journal of applied psycholinguistics, 18(2), 17-36. Jessner, U., & Oberhofer, K., & Megens, M. (2020). The attrition of school-learned foreign languages: A multilingual perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42, 19-50. Kayman, M. A. (2004). The state of English as a global language: communicating culture, Textual Practice, 18:1, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/0950236032000140131 Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign Language and Mother Tongue. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and Non-Transfer: Where We Are Now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 37-57. Komorowska, H., & Krajka, J. (2016). Monolingualism - Bilingualism - Multilingualism: The Teacher's Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165. Laurie, S. S. (1890). Lectures on Language and Linguistic Method in the School: Delivered in the University of Cambridge, Easter Term, 1889. Cambridge: University Press. Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An Exploration of Foreign Language Anxiety and English Learning Motivation. Education Research International, 1-8. Macnamara, J. (1967). The Bilingual's Linguistic Performance - A Psychological Overview. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 58-77. Malakoff, M. (1992). Translation ability: a natural bilingual and metalinguistic skill. In R. Harris (ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 515-530). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1990). The relationship between first and second languages: language proficiency and language aptitude. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins and M. Swain (eds), The Development of Second Language Proficiency (pp. 158-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meara, P. (2004). Modelling Vocabulary Loss. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 137-155.

139 Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Swansea: Lognostics. Mehotcheva, T. H. (2010). After the Fiesta is over: Foreign Language Attrition of Spanish in Dutch and German Erasmus students. Groningen: University of Groningen, RECERCAT.

Melitz J. (2016) English as a Global Language. In: Ginsburgh V., Weber S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-32505-1_21 Meraner, R. (2004). Sprache, Sprachunterricht und Sprachenpolitik in Südtirol. Bildung und Erziehung, 57(1), 53-76. Meraner, R. (2011, January/February 1-2). Südtirol – Paradies zum Sprachenlernen? Erziehung und Unterricht, 162-169. Mickan, A., & McQueen, J., & Lemhöfer, K. (2019). Bridging the Gap Between Second Language Acquisition Research and Memory Science: The Case of Foreign Language Attrition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Speech and Language. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00397, 31.08.2020. Murtagh, L. (2003). Retention and Attrition of Irish as a Second Language. A longitudinal study of general and communicative proficiency in Irish among second level school leavers and the influence of instruction background, language use and attitude/motivation variables. Rijksuniversiteit: Groningen. Noels, K. A. (2001). New Orientation in Language Learning Motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation”. Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, Zoltán Dörnyei and Richard Schmidt, University of Hawaii, 2001, 43-68. Noels, K. A., & Pelletier, L. G., & Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why Are You Learning a Second Language? Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination Theory. In Z. Dörnyei, Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications (33-63). New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing. Oestreicher, J. (1974). The Early Teaching of a Modern Language. Oxford: T,J Press Ltd. Pallier, C. (2007). Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. In B. Köpke et al., Language attrition. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 155-168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

140 Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76(27), 1-23. Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gain in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-124. Rampillon, U. (1997). Be aware of awareness - oder: beware of awareness? Gedanken zur Metakognition im Fremdsprachenunterricht der Sekundarstufe I. In U. Rampillon, G. Z. (eds), Strategien und Techniken beim Erwerb fremder Sprachen (pp. 173-184). München: Hueber. Robinson, P. (2019). Aptitude in Second Language Acquisition. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 1-5. Rogers, V., Meara, P., Barnett-Legh, T., Curry, C., & Davie, E. (2017). Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 1(1), 46-60. Scheuringer, H. (1996). Das Deutsche als pluriareale Sprache: Ein Beitrag gegen staatlich begrenzte Horizonte in der Diskussion um die deutsche Sprache in Österreich. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 29(2), 147-153. Schmid, M. S. (2011). Language Attrition. Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: University Press. Schmid, M. & Mehotcheva, T. (2012). Foreign language attrition. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1-26. Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26. Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, 129-142. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209-231. Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second Language Learning. London: Longman. Sharwood Smith, M., & Kellerman, E. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition: an introduction. In E. Kellerman, & M. Sharwood Smith, Cross-linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1-9). Oxford: Pergamon. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: University Press. Skehan, P. (2002): Theorizing and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson, Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69-93). Amsterdam: Benjamins, International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 10, 1, 5–14.

141 Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Modern Language Journal, 77, 289-302. Sparks R., & Humbach, N., & Patton, J., & Ganschow, L. (2011). Subcomponents of Second- Language Aptitude and Second-Language Proﬁciency. The Mordern Language Journal, 95, 253-273. Statistik Austria. (2007, June 01). statistik.at. Retrieved from Bevölkerung 2001 nach Umgangssprache, Staatsangehörigkeit und Geburtsland: https://www.statistik.at/web_de/static/bevoelkerung_2001_nach_umgangssprache_sta atsangehoerigkeit_und_geburtsland_022896.pdf Statistik Austria. (2019a, November 26). statistik.at. Retrieved from Fremdsprachenunterricht der Schülerinnen und Schüler im Schuljahr 2017/18: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahU KEwiIluCSo87uAhWLKewKHXnoCLYQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2F www.statistik.at%2Fwcm%2Fidc%2Fidcplg%3FIdcService%3DGET_PDF_FILE%2 6RevisionSelectionMethod%3DLatestReleased%26dDocName%3D064757&usg=A OvVaw1_fhyMHEj4CrPH8qBpzhBa Statistik Austria. (2019b, November 26). statistik.at. Retrieved from Anzahl der erlernten Fremdsprachen der Schülerinnen und Schüler im Schuljahr 2017/18: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahU KEwiGhKm70MHvAhWjmIsKHa8CAdMQFjAAegQIAxAD&url=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.statistik.at%2Fwcm%2Fidc%2Fidcplg%3FIdcService%3DGET_PDF_FILE% 26RevisionSelectionMethod%3DLatestReleased%26dDocName%3D064758&usg=A OvVaw1z2W65aYzJ0MKU8XpjRK4F Statistik Austria. (2020a, July 06). statistik.at. Retrieved from Bevölkerung zu Jahresbeginn 2002-2020 nach detaillierter Staatsangehörigkeit: https://www.statistik.at/wcm/idc/idcplg?IdcService=GET_PDF_FILE&RevisionSelec tionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName=071715 Statistik Austria. (2020b, October 22). statistik.at. Retrieved from Schülerinnen und Schüler 2018/19, für die Deutsch nicht die erstgenannte im Alltag gebrauchte Sprache ist: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&u act=8&ved=2ahUKEwif1fmKgcnuAhVQKuwKHbWiCisQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.statistik.at%2Fwcm%2Fidc%2Fidcplg%3FIdcService%3DGE T_PDF_FILE%26RevisionSelectionMethod%3DLatestReleased%26dDocName%3D 029650&usg=AOvVaw1QnPjiDvMHLrjNM1ZENYB0

142 Statistik Austria. (2020c, July 06). statistik.at. Retrieved from Bevölkerung zu Jahresbeginn 2002-2020 nach detaillierter Staatsangehörigkeit - Tirol: https://www.statistik.at/wcm/idc/idcplg?IdcService=GET_PDF_FILE&RevisionSelec tionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName=023442 Steininger, R. (2003). Südtirol - Vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis zur Gegenwart. Innsbruck: Studienverlag. Titone, R. (1994). Bilingual education and the development of metalinguistic abilities: A research project. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 10(27), 5-14. Török, V., & Jessner, U. (2017). Multilingual awareness in Ln (foreign language) learners’ strategies and processing. http://alkalmazottnyelvtudomany.hu/wordpress/wp- content/uploads/Török_Ulrike.pdf, 06.02.2021. Tomiyama, M. (2008). Age and Proficiency in L2 Attrition: Data from Two Siblings. Applied Linguistics 30, 2, 253-275. Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Beyond Global English: Motivation to Learn Languages in a Multicultural World: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 451-454. Verra, R. (2008). Die Entwicklung der drei Schulmodelle in Südtirol seit 1945. Ladinia, 223- 260. Weltens, B. (1988). The attrition of French as a foreign language. Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications. Weltens, B., & Grendel, M. (1993). Attrition of vocabulary knowledge. In R. Schreuder, B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 135-157). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

143 Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaire LAILA-BICS

144

145 Appendix B: LLAMA_F test examples

146 Appendix C: C-Test example – English and French

147

148