A DST Model of Multilingualism and the Role of Metalinguistic Awareness

ULRIKE JESSNER University of Innsbruck English Department Innrain 52/III A-6020 Innsbruck Austria Email: [email protected]

This paper suggests that a dynamic systems theory (DST) provides an adequate conceptual metaphor for discussing multilingual development. Multilingual acquisition is a nonlinear and complex dynamic process depending on a number of interacting factors. Variability plays a crucial role in the multilingual system as it changes over time (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). A number of studies on multilingualism have shown that there are qualitative differences between second and third language learning and that these can be related to an increased level of metalinguistic awareness. From a DST-perspective, metalinguistic knowledge and awareness of this knowledge play a crucial role in the development of individual multilingualism.

Language development is a complex and dy- rology, mathematics, neurology, and psychology namic process. Although this statement can be for some time, but was not applied to second lan- regarded as common knowledge for many re- guage acquisition (SLA) until the 1990s (Bleyhl, searchers in the field of applied linguistics, most 1997; Karpf, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Meara, studies on language acquisition are nevertheless 1999). Over the last decade, interest in the appli- still placed within a theoretical framework work- cation of DST to SLA has grown considerably (de ing with static or linear presuppositions. With an Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; de Bot & Makoni, increase in the number of languages involved in 2005; Dewaele, 2002; Kramsch, 2002; Larsen- multilingual development, the dynamics, that is, Freeman, 2002; van Lier, 2004), and is also shown the changes and the complexity of language learn- by this Special Issue of The Modern Language ing, become even more evident. Consequently, a Journal. number of researchers have argued that language The Dynamic Model of Multilingualism development only can be adequately researched (DMM), which applies DST to multilingual ac- by applying a multilingual norm to linguistic re- quisition (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), can be re- search; in other words, it is only by investigat- garded as a first step toward the exploitation of ing multilingual development that we can eval- the method in research on multilingualism. In the uate language development (e.g., Abunawara, DMM, metalinguistic knowledge and awareness 1992; Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2003b; Cook, of that knowledge have been detected as crucial 1991; De Angelis & Selinker, 2001; Flynn, Foley, factors contributing to the catalytic effects that & Vinnitskaya, 2004; Herdina & Jessner, 2002). bilingualism can show on third language (L3) In this paper, Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) learning (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). This paper will be presented as an adequate methodologi- will discuss the advantages that the application cal tool to investigate multilingual phenomena. of DST to multilingualism can offer, by focusing DST has been known in sciences such as meteo- specifically on the changing role of metalinguistic awareness in the use and learning of several lan- guages. I will start with the exploration of the char- The Modern Language Journal, 92, ii, (2008) acteristics of multilingual development as “ideal” 0026-7902/08/270–283 $1.50/0 prerequisites for the application of DST to lan- C 2008 The Modern Language Journal guage acquisition research. How DST is applied Ulrike Jessner 271 to multilingualism research in the DMM will be sition is a far more complex process than SLA, described in the next section. The role of metalin- where the role of the L1 in the development guistic knowledge and awareness of this knowl- of the L2 has been researched extensively. This edge in multilingual learning and processing will discussion also makes evident that learning an- be studied with a special focus on a recent study other language (e.g., an L3) can counteract the carried out with trilingual learners. Finally, future maintenance of an L2 or L1. In other words, avenues of research on multilingualism will be language attrition or loss appears more often in discussed. multilingual than in bilingual contexts. In this case, the L3 will become more dominant than CHARACTERISTICS OF MULTILINGUAL the L2 owing to the limitation of resources for DEVELOPMENT languages, as defined in Zipf’s law of least effort (Zipf, 1968). Consequently, using an L1 as indi- Over the last few years, research on L3 acquisi- cator for “permanent” language dominance over tion or multilingualism has been increasingly in- the lifespan will turn out to be problematic in tensified (see, e.g., Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Cenoz, a multilingual context (see also Jessner, 2003a). Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a, 2001b, 2003a) with Language attrition processes also point to the fact the main goal of describing multilingual phenom- that language learning consists of nonlinear and ena in order to investigate differences and simi- reversible processes (i.e., development refers to larities between second (L2) and L3 acquisition. both acquisition and attrition) (Cook, 2003; de Most studies have been carried out in the fields of Bot & Clyne, 1989; de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, crosslinguistic lexical transfer, the effects of bilin- 2007; Jessner, 2003a). Even if parts of the multi- gualism on L3 learning, child trilingualism, and lingual system can become fossilized (i.e., will in tertiary education (see Jessner, 2006). very general terms stop growing), they will still One of the most important questions in the be able to exert influence on other parts of the field is related to the status of the L2 in L3 use and system. acquisition. In various studies of multilingualism, In contrast to SLA, in third language acquisi- it turned out that the speakers did not rely on tion (TLA), the routes of learning or order of their first language (L1) as expected, but on their acquisition show greater diversity, as can be seen L2. In several studies of learning an L3 of Indo- in the following: European origin, it could be shown that L3 learn- ers whose L1 is typologically unrelated to the L2 and/or L3 tend to transfer knowledge from their SLA versus TLA L2, or in the case of bilinguals, from the related L1 1L1→ L2 1 L1 → L2 → L3 (e.g., Ahukanna, Lund, & Gentile, 1981; Bartelt, 2 Lx/Ly 2 Lx/Ly/Lz → 1989; Cenoz, 2001; Chandrasekhar, 1978). These 3Lx/Ly L3 → results also have been supported by studies fo- 4L1 Lx/Ly cusing only on Indo-European languages (e.g., De Angelis, 2005a, 2005b; De Angelis & Selinker, 2001; Dewaele, 1998). The activation of languages In contrast to SLA, where we have to deal with two other than the target language is influenced by possible acquisition orders, in TLA there may be factors such as psychotypology (perceived linguis- at least four acquisition orders: tic distance between languages), recency of use, 1. The three languages can be learned consec- the level of proficiency in the target language utively. (Hammarberg, 2001), the foreign language effect 2. The three languages can be learned simulta- (i.e., the tendency in language learners to activate neously. an earlier L2 in L3 performance; Meisel, 1983), 3. L1 and L2 are learned simultaneously before and the learner’s perception of correctness of a learning the L3. target word (De Angelis & Selinker, 2001) (for 4. L2 and L3 are learned simultaneously after a list of influential factors, see also Hall & Ecke, the acquisition of the L1 (see also Cenoz, 2000). 2003). Crosslinguistic influence in a multilingual sys- Studies on multilingual development also have tem not only takes place from the L1 to the L2 made clear that the use of terminology in multi- and vice versa. Further influence has been de- lingualism research is problematic. For instance, tected from the L1 to the L3 and from the L2 to L1, the term that in SLA studies is used to re- the L3 and vice versa. This expansion of transfer fer to the dominant language of the bilingual possibilities demonstrates that multilingual acqui- system, cannot easily be applied to a multiple 272 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) learning context since dominance (breadth or fre- of the development of learner multilingualism quency of use) does not necessarily correspond to (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 125). chronological order of acquisition and is subject For modeling purposes, the authors use an to change. This issue becomes most relevant when ideal learning curve, although this seems to sug- we think about processes of interruption, that is, gest that the level of proficiency of the primary when learning or using a particular language is language system remains constant, whereas, in given up for a while due to changes in needs fact, “the level at which a language system sta- or motivation and/or relearning of languages bilises is not fixed and invariable [...]butsubject (e.g., L1→L2→L3→L2) (see, e.g., Faingold, to constant variation” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, 1999). p. 113), as already mentioned. The graphs used in From the above, it becomes clear that the de- the DMM “simply relate language learning to time scription of individual multilingual development needed and predict the modifications in expected (i.e., contact with more than two languages over language growth due to the effect of certain fac- the lifespan) has to take changes in multilin- tors assumed to affect multilinguals and ignore gual proficiency into account. Figure 1 (based on the fact that the level of achievement is hetero- Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p.123) models the devel- geneous even in monolinguals let alone multilin- opment of a multilingual system. It demonstrates guals” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, pp. 88–89). how the speaker develops language proficiency in To summarize, it can be stated that the develop- more than two languages over a certain period of ment of a multilingual repertoire or multilingual time. Whereas the primary language system(s) of development: changes over time; is nonlinear; is the speaker remain(s) dominant during this time, reversible, resulting in language attrition and/or the secondary or incipient system undergoes de- loss; and is complex. velopment. The development of the third system Variation in multilingual development and use is dependent on the acquisition of the first two sys- is strongly linked to the dependence of the sys- tems, which in certain cases may take place at the tem on social, psycholinguistic, and individual same time, in the same way as simultaneous bilin- factors (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), not to men- gualism. A closer look at the figure shows that tion the mode of language learning in the form transitional bilingualism forms an integral part of either natural or instructional learning, but

FIGURE 1 Development of Learner Multilingualism Ulrike Jessner 273 also various combinations of both (see Cenoz & dividual language systems (LS1/LS2 /LS3 /LS4 , etc.) Genesee, 1998). forming part of the psycholinguistic system. A DST approach, which uses dynamic model- According to the DMM, the multilingual sys- ing to investigate properties of the dynamic adap- tem is dynamic and adaptive. The multilingual tation to contexts in change, is able to take all system is accordingly characterized by continuous the relevant characteristics of multilingual learn- change and nonlinear growth. As an adaptive sys- ing and use into account. In the following sec- tem, it possesses the property of elasticity, the abil- tion, the application of the DMM to current mul- ity to adapt to temporary changes in the systems tilingualism research will be presented in more environment, and plasticity, the ability to develop detail. new systems properties in response to altered con- ditions. This corresponds with van Geert (1994), APPLYING DST TO MULTILINGUALISM who stated that “a system is, by definition, a dy- namic system and so we define a dynamic system as The DMM was conceptualized to: a set of variables that mutually affect each other’s (a) serve as a bridge between SLA and multi- changes over time” (p. 50; see also Briggs & Peat, lingualism research 1989, p. 11). (b) indicate that future language acquisition (b) In the DMM, psycholinguistic systems are de- studies should go beyond studies of the contact fined as open systems depending on psychological and between two languages, turning their attention social factors. toward trilingualism and other forms of multilin- Linguistic aspects of individual multilingualism gualism are shaped by the sociolinguistic settings in which (c) overcome the implicit and explicit mono- the multilingual’s life takes place. OLaoireand´ lingual bias of multilingualism research through Aronin (2004) present an ecological model of the development of an autonomous model of mul- multilinguality. They state that multilinguality is tilingualism intertwined with many, if not all, aspects of iden- (d) provide a scientific means of predicting tity and that the social and cultural environment multilingual development on the basis of factors plays a decisive role in the structure and speci- found to be involved (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, fications of multilinguality. In other words, lan- pp. 86–87) guage needs change according to the personal situation or even changes in identity, as sometimes Consequently, multilingualism research should found in the lives of immigrants. Larsen-Freeman avail itself of an autonomous theoretical basis, not and Cameron (2006) refer to the dynamic inter- merely relying on the findings of L1 and/or L2 action between psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, learning research since both the results and pre- and situational aspects as “intrinsic dynamics of dictions of research will always be distorted by the learner,” that is, the interaction between the the assumptions of individual language acquisi- social context, the physical environment, and the tion studies, which are often cross-sectional. cognitive context (task). They also point out that In DST, the call for studies of individual lan- learning and change is at once individual and so- guage acquisition is more pronounced than that cial (see also de Bot, 2000). for group studies. Thus far, developmental aspects have not been a prime object of investigation in (c) In the DMM, language choice or use depends on the sense of longitudinal studies. However, if our the perceived communicative needs of the multilingual goal is to find out about the differences and sim- speaker. ilarities between various forms of language devel- In the model, perceived communicative needs, opment, in particular between SLA and TLA, we which are psychologically and sociologically de- need to change our focus of attention and our termined, are identified as the driving force of conceptual approach. language learning and use. The speaker decides which language to use with whom and in which MAIN FEATURES OF THE DMM situation, and also when and why another lan- guage should be added to the multilingual’s reper- In this part of the discussion, the main charac- toire. Baker (2001) states that “language choice— teristics of the DMM will be presented in order who will speak what language, when and to whom to distinguish it from other, more common, ap- (Fishman, 1965)—can be the result of a large and proaches to language acquisition research. interacting set of factors” (p. 13). (a) In the DMM, the discussion focuses not on lan- Several factors have been said to influence guages (L1/L2/L3/Ln) but on the development of in- the decision to speak a particular language to 274 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) a particular person at a particular moment. this takes place, and the time span over which the Grosjean (2001) suggests including the following: language system is maintained (see also Jessner, 2003a). A well-known example of the stabilizing effect ...... the participant(s) (this includes such factors of a language system is fossilization, a very com- as language proficiency, language mixing habits mon phenomenon in multilingual learning. The and attitudes, usual mode of interaction, kinship reasons for fossilization are complex and interre- relation, socioeconomic status, etc.), the situation (physical location, presence of monolinguals, degree lated over time; in many cases, they are related to of formality and of intimacy), the form and con- domain specificity in bi- or multilingual contexts tent of the message being uttered or listened to (see Larsen-Freeman, 2006, for a critical study of (language used, topic, type of vocabulary needed, research on fossilization). amount of mixed language), the function of the (e) In the DMM, language systems are seen as in- ... language act and specific research factors (the terdependent (rather than autonomous systems, as they aims of the study taking place ..., the type and are perceived in mainstream SLA research). organization of the stimuli, the task used, etc.). (p. 5) The behavior of each individual language sys- tem in a multilingual system largely depends Grosjean’s work on language mode (e.g., 2001) on the behavior of previous and subsequent sys- discusses the notion of language choice in mul- tems, and it would therefore not make sense to tilingual speech situations and the psychologi- look at the systems in isolation (see also Bates & cal and sociological conditions of change in that Carnevale, 1992, p. 11, on nonlinear behavior). choice. According to Grosjean (2001), a trilingual Furthermore, the DMM establishes a bridge be- person can function in a monolingual, bilingual, tween SLA (process) and bilingualism (product) or trilingual mode with various levels of activa- because it provides a tool that can be used to view tion, in relation to her or his position on the learner systems and stable systems as variants of language mode continuum. Activation of the vari- multilingual systems obeying the same fundamen- ous languages is strongly influenced, among other tal principles. By researching the dynamics of TLA factors, by the speaker’s usual language mixing or multiple language acquisition, the link between habits, language proficiency, socioeconomic sta- bilingualism as product and SLA as process can be tus, the presence of mono- and bilinguals, and understood as TLA can result from different ap- the degree of formality (see also de Bot, 2004, on proaches to language learning. the concept of the language node). (f) In the DMM, the holistic approach is a necessary (d) In the DMM, systems stability is related to lan- prerequisite for understanding the dynamic interaction guage maintenance. between complex systems in multilingualism. In the DMM, it is argued that the learner’s The complexity and variability, as a measure resources are limited; that is, the learner has a of stability (see van Geert, 2006) of the multilin- certain amount of time and energy available to gual system are influenced by individual cognitive spend on learning and maintaining a language. factors such as motivation, anxiety, language ap- Consequently, in a psycholinguistic context, the titude, and self-esteem as well as social factors, learner will gradually lose access to knowledge if which can influence linguistic aspects of the mul- not enough time and energy is spent on refresh- tilingual system. As Briggs and Peat (1989) de- ing the knowledge of an L2 or L3 so that positive scribe, “every complex system is a changing part growth can counteract the negative growth that of a greater whole, a nesting of larger and larger eventually results in language attrition or gradual wholes” (p. 148). language loss. Thus, maintenance of a language TheDMMcanbeusedtotakeaholisticview system results in an adaptive process in which the of multilingualism; that is, a multilingual system level of language proficiency is adjusted to the should be modeled according to holistic princi- perceived communicative needs. The stability of ples (Philips, 1992). Such a holistic view is a nec- a psycholinguistic system is dependent on the re- essary presupposition of a dynamic view; a dy- quirements of language maintenance; that is, the namic view of multilingualism assumes that the system will erode if not enough energy and time presence of one or more language systems influ- is invested in maintaining the system. Other fac- ences the development not only of the L2, but tors influencing systems stability are the number also the development of the overall multilingual of languages involved, the maturational age at system. which a language is learned and relative stabil- In other holistic approaches, the relationship ity established, the level of proficiency at which between the dynamics of language development Ulrike Jessner 275 and holism has not specifically been discussed. The latter refers to all the effects in multilin- Since the publication of the DMM in 2002, the gual systems that distinguish a multilingual from a term multicompetence, created by Cook (e.g., 1991; monolingual system, that is, all those qualities that based on Grosjean, e.g., 1985, 2001), has estab- develop in a multilingual speaker/learner due lished itself as the most widely used term for to the increase in language contact(s). As men- bilingual and multilingual competence in applied tioned above, language contacts depend on the linguistics. Recently, Cook himself has given up perceived communicative needs of the individ- on using “bilingual” since he considers it biased. ual. In other words, the psycholinguistic systems of Instead, he has introduced the L2 use as a bet- the multilingual individual, which are in constant ter concept. Although he has shown interest in change, interact with each other in a nonadditive the role of the L2 in the L1 (Cook, 2003), in con- but cumulative way. trast to the DMM, he has not focused on aspects of Crosslinguistic interaction in multilinguals, change in language development in his definition seen as a wider concept than Kellerman and Shar- of language competence in bilinguals. wood Smith’s (1986) crosslinguistic influence, is According to Cook (2002), L2 users are charac- described as an umbrella term, including not only terized as follows: transfer and interference, but also codeswitch- ing and borrowing. Furthermore, it is also meant 1. The L2 user has other uses for language than to cover another set of phenomena, including the monolingual. the cognitive effects of multilingual development. 2. The L2 user’s knowledge of the second lan- These are nonpredictable dynamic effects that de- guage is typically not identical to that of a native termine the development of the systems them- speaker. selves (Jessner, 2003b; Kellerman, 1995). Such a 3. The L2 user’s knowledge of his or her lan- view is also related, but not identical, to Cum- guage is in some respects not the same as that of mins’s Common Underlying Proficiency (e.g., a monolingual. 1991) and Kecskes and Papp’s Common Underly- 4. L2 users have different minds from those of ing Conceptual Base (2000) (see, e.g., Cook, 1991, monolinguals. (pp. 4–8) 2002). According to the DMM, seemingly identi- cal phenomena of transfer can lead to divergent Cook’s ideas about the integration continuum, results in different multilingual systems, even if which captures different relationships between they are transitionally commanded by the same two language systems in the same mind from sep- speaker, as shown in Figure 1 or 2. aration to integration, thus fits with the DMM; The M(ultilingualism) factor is an emergent that is, “it sees the language system of the L2 user property that can contribute to the catalytic or as a whole rather than as an interaction between accelerating effects in TLA. Emergent proper- separate language components” (Cook, 2003, p. ties are the result of autocatalytic effects, they 11). This also implies that the relationship be- are only to be found in open systems, and they tween the L1 and the interlanguage within one are a function of the interaction between sys- mind is different from that between the interlan- tems. Yet, they are not systems properties per se guage in one mind and the L2 when the L2 has (Strohner, 1995). The key factor of the M effect— the status of an L1 in another mind (Cook, 2006). as it might also be referred to since it is diffi- Cook himself pointed out in his plenary lecture cult to decide whether it constitutes a precon- given at the European Second Language Associa- dition or a result of multilingualism—is metalin- tion Conference in 2006, that in order to capture guistic awareness. It is made up of a set of skills the multilingual learner’s mind, we need a holis- or abilities that the multilingual user develops tic approach such as that taken by Herdina and owing to her/his prior linguistic and metacogni- Jessner (2002) (Cook, 2006). tive knowledge. The knowledge and metalinguis- tic awareness influence further language learning A DST PERSPECTIVE OF MULTILINGUAL or learning a second foreign language (see Kemp, PROFICIENCY 2001). The multilingual system is not only in constant In the DMM, multilingual proficiency is de- change, but the multilingual learner also devel- fined as the dynamic interaction among the vari- ops certain skills and abilities that the monolin- ous psycholinguistic systems (LS1,LS2,LS3,LSn) gual speaker lacks. These are language-specific in which the individual languages (L1, L2, L3, and nonlanguage-specific skills used in language Ln) are embedded, crosslinguistic interaction, learning, language management, and mainte- and what is called the M(ultilingualism) factor. nance. Language management skills refer to the integration and separation of language resources 276 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) FIGURE 2 Multilingual Proficiency

and the act of balancing communicative require- change in further language learning, has been ments with language resources. In the DMM, the detected in experienced language learners. multilingual learner or user is assumed to de- These new skills contribute to a metasystem in velop and make use of an enhanced multilingual multilinguals, which is the result of a bilingual monitor, where monitoring goes beyond error de- norm; in contrast, in SLA the learner refers to tection and self-repair and fulfills a separator and a monolingual norm (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). cross-checker function, for instance, by drawing Additionally, the learner of a second foreign lan- on common resources in the use of more than one guage can profit from prior language learning language system (see also de Bot & Jessner, 2002). experience, as emphasized by Hufeisen in her Language maintenance skills are a necessary pre- Factor model (e.g., 1998). Thus, multilingual sys- requisite for the maintenance and increase of a tems contain components that monolingual sys- certain level of language proficiency. Language tems lack, and even those components that the maintenance effort, which is considered a cru- multilingual system shares with the monolingual cial part of individual multilingualism, mainly de- system have a different significance within the pends on two factors, that is, language use and lan- system. This stands in clear contrast to common guage awareness. Whereas language use is seen as approaches to defining language proficiency in having a refresher or activating function that con- second language learning theory, including most tributes to the maintenance of a language, lan- recent attempts to define native language pro- guage awareness refers to the conscious manipu- ficiency as the goal of second language learn- lation of and reflection on the rules of a language ing, such as Hulstijn’s (2006) definition of core (Herdina & Jessner, 2000). proficiency as an alternative concept to native- What these skills and abilities have in common speaker proficiency. Such an approach neglects is their relationship with a heightened level of the cognitive skills that nonnative speakers of a metalinguistic awareness in multilingual learners language acquire on top of all of their linguis- and users (see, e.g., Lightbown & Spada, 1990). tic skills, such as an enhanced level of metalin- In particular, in the case of typologically related guistic awareness; these skills are part of the M languages, a catalytic effect, that is, a qualitative factor in the DMM. Belief in the native speaker Ulrike Jessner 277 standard is also one reason why the effects of the crucial role to the higher level of metalinguis- L2 on the L1 have been so little studied, as em- tic awareness as contributing to the success of phasized by Cook (2003): “If the L1 of the L2 their bilingual subjects over their monolingual user were different from that of monolingual na- counterparts, interest in the nature of this skill tive speakers, SLA research that used the native has grown considerably. Although monolingual speaker as the target would be based on shifting speakers also develop metalinguistic awareness— sand” (p. 5). mainly those groups of professionals working As already noted in Herdina and Jessner with language on a daily basis such as journal- (2002), metalinguistic abilities still lack the nec- ists and authors—the nature of awareness can- essary operationalization to be immediately ver- not be compared in both degree and quality ifiable. But it is important to realize that met- to awareness as developed in bi- and multilin- alinguistic abilities, if a function of multilingual gual users or nonprofessionals. Vygotsky (1986) acquisition, obviously presuppose the existence pointed out that contact with a foreign language of this phenomenon and are, therefore, difficult helps children sharpen their knowledge of the to observe in primary language acquisition, be it L1. monolingual or multilingual. Nevertheless, they Metalinguistic awareness developing in individ- are expected to have a catalytic effect on fur- uals living with two or three languages is seen ther language learning processes, as explicated to develop with regard to (a) divergent and cre- below in more detail. In other words, even if it ative thinking (e.g., wider variety of associations, might appear to be impossible at the moment original ideas); (b) interactional and/or prag- to determine the effect of initial conditions on matic competence (cultural theorems of greeting, L2 development (apart from phonological aware- thanking, etc.); (c) communicative sensitivity and ness, which is related to reading acquisition in flexibility (language mode); and (d) translation the native language), as pointed out by de Bot skills that are considered a natural trait in the ma- et al. (2007), researching the role of metalinguis- jority of multilinguals (Jessner, 2006). Translation tic knowledge and awareness of this knowledge also should be included in a comprehensive list- can help to shed light on the differences between ing, as it is a natural characteristic of bi- and mul- SLA and TLA. Following meteorology (Lorenz, tilingualism, which Malakoff and Hakuta (1991) 1972), which uses the “butterfly effect” or sensi- describe as a “composite of communicative and tive dependence on initial conditions to refer to metalinguistic skills—skills that are ‘translinguis- the predictability of dynamic systems, an M effect tic,’ in the sense that they are not particular to any might be assumed to exist in multilingual systems one language” (p. 142). where development is influenced by the accelerat- Whereas cognitive style was investigated in ing effect that the development of metalinguistic earlier studies on bilingualism, recent research awareness can have on further or L3 learning in has shown more interest in the process of particular. bilingual thinking (Baker, 2006). Research into metalinguistic awareness in studies of multi- lingualism has so far mainly been done to THE KEY ROLE OF METALINGUISTIC explore the effects of bilingualism on L3 AWARENESS IN TLA learning and conditions for artificial language Defining Metalinguistic Awareness learning.

Metalinguistic awareness encompasses the lin- Studies of Metalinguistic Awareness in TLA guistic skills that develop at the higher level of creativity and reorganization of information Effects of Bilingualism on TLA. Based on an (Hamers & Blanc, 1989). It can be defined as the extensive overview of research on bilingualism ability to focus on linguistic form and to switch fo- and additional language learning, Cenoz (2003) cus between form and meaning. Individuals who presents a detailed critical review of the studies on are metalinguistically aware are able to categorize the effects of bilingualism on cognitive develop- words into parts of speech; switch focus between ment. She concludes that most studies on general form, function, and meaning; and explain why a proficiency indicate a positive effect of bilingual- word has a particular function (see also Jessner, ism on TLA and that this effect can be explained 2007a; Kemp, 2006). as related to learning strategies, metalinguistic Since Peal and Lambert in their influential awareness, and communicative ability, in partic- study, which was published in 1962, ascribed a ular if the languages in contact are typologically 278 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) close (see also Jessner, 1999). In a number of The goal of the study was to investigate whether studies, mainly carried out in Scandinavia and there was evidence for increased metalinguistic in the Basque Country, such an additive effect awareness in the production of English as the of bilingualism on L3 learning, in both cases En- L3 of the students. In particular, there was a glish, was found (Ringbom, 1987; Thomas, 1992; focus on the relationship between crosslinguis- Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Lasagabaster, 1997; Sa- tic interaction and metalinguistic awareness in font, 2003). the use of compensatory strategies, as defined by Poulisse, Bongaerts, and Kellerman (1997). Artificial Language Learning. Nation and Faerch and Kasper (1983) defined strategies as McLaughlin (1986); Nayak, Hansen, Krueger, & potentially conscious and, therefore, different McLaughlin (1990); and McLaughlin and Nayak facets of metalinguistic awareness were chosen (1989) studied the learning of artificial miniature for investigation: (a) how students think in a linguistic systems. The first study showed a pos- (third) language and (b) how students think about itive transfer of learning strategies only for the language(s). domain of implicit learning. In the second, there Think-aloud protocols were chosen as method- was no clear evidence for a general superiority ological tools to provide evidence of language of multilinguals in language learning abilities, al- choice during the production of writing tasks though they were found to adapt their learning (based on Cumming’s Ph.D. dissertation, 1988). strategies more easily to task requirements. The The analysis concentrated on (a) how students re- third study suggested a learning advantage for ex- sorted to other languages during a lexical search pert learners over less experienced foreign lan- either before or after the L3 item and (b) the guage learners. Kemp (2001) found that the per- identification of different forms and functions of formance of multilingual adults on all six tests of codeswitching. Based on Zimmermann’s index of grammatical awareness, including one using ar- lexical insecurity (1992), lack of knowledge and tificial grammars, increased with the number of the search for alternatives were identified as the languages they knew. main functions of (or causes for) compensatory Exploring Metalinguistic Awareness in Multi- strategies. linguals. An increasing number of studies of Analysis of the strategies that the students used crosslexical consultation, that is, how bi- and to overcome their linguistic deficits shows that multilinguals search for words in their other they resorted to both Italian and German, either languages when they meet linguistic problems before or after the target language item. They in the target language, have been carried out produced German-based, Italian-based, and com- in various linguistic settings over the last 20 bined strategies. Most strikingly: years (e.g., Cenoz, 2003; Faerch & Kasper, 1986; Herwig, 2001; Mohle,¨ 1989; Muller-Lanc¨ e,´ 2003; (a) Before the L3 item, they produced a larger Singleton, 1999). An introspective study by Jessner number of switches to German (...Steven Pinker (2006) will be presented here in more detail as it ...added, (G) hinzugefugt¨ , some, (G) eigene, some is one of very few studies on multilingual adults personal evidence ...). aimed at exploring different aspects of awareness (b) After the L3 item, they produced a larger of metalinguistic knowledge in multilingual pro- number of switches to Italian (OK,thisisproved, duction. The theoretical background of the study no this is sustained, (I) sostenere, sustained by the was provided by the DMM. theory that...). The sample consisted of 17 bilingual stu- (c)Germanwasclearlydominantinreplace- dents (L1–2: Italian–German) from South Ty- ments for L3 items. rol (Italy) studying English (B2 on the Com- mon European Frame of Reference, describing The results of the study point to several issues, an intermediate proficiency level) at Innsbruck which certainly need more attention in future re- University (Tyrol, Austria). The relatively small search into multilingualism. They concern (a) the number of subjects is not surprising when it is use of supporter languages in L3 production, and taken into account that members for the multi- (b) the use of metalanguage (ML), the most ex- lingual testing group not only had to study En- plicit expression of metalinguistic awareness. glish as a subject at Innsbruck University, but also Judging by the position of switching within a live with families who use both Italian and Ger- sentence, German and Italian were assigned dif- man, to ensure high proficiency levels in both ferent roles in the production of English. Whereas languages. German was described as the main supporter Ulrike Jessner 279 language functioning as a springboard in case of in the case of switches that are introduced by met- lexical problems because of its dominant activa- alanguage. It is argued that the use of cognates tion in initial position, Italian was used as a con- or the search for crosslinguistic similarities forms firmer of the lexical choice as students used it after an important part of compensatory strategy use in a successful search, that is, after finding the En- multilingual production and hints at the problem- glish target lexical item. This supports Hammar- atic usage of the implicit/explicit dichotomy, as berg (2001), who also found differences between shown, for instance, by Borner¨ (1997). He tested the roles of supporter languages and suggested N. Ellis’s (1994) claim that knowledge concern- that they should be integrated into future models ing formal aspects of vocabulary is stored as im- of multilingual production. plicit knowledge while aspects of lexical mean- Furthermore, a relationship between the use of ing are stored as explicit knowledge and found ML and the use of compensatory strategies was only partial support for the claim. Borner¨ points detected. Analysis of the use of ML showed that: out that the formal characteristics of cognates are learned implicitly, whereas their syntactic (a) ML can precede switches and exert and morphological features are stored as explicit a control function in production (E→G knowledge, that is, resulting from conscious anal- wie sagt man da? [how do you say this?] →I ysis. More recently, N. Ellis (2005) discussed dy- come quelli [like those] →G Plural →E). namic interactions between explicit and implicit (b) The language of the ML can be considered knowledge. an indicator of language dominance; in this case, Although the findings of the study have to German ML was used most often. be seen as rather limited considering the small (c) The number of ML-related switches ap- database, produced by a very distinct population, pears to be related to the number of languages it can be concluded from the results that a defi- involved in a compensatory strategy; that is, most nition of multilingual proficiency would have to ML-related switches were found in combined include at least two types of awareness, which strategies (see also Jessner, 2005, on multilingual are crosslinguistic awareness and metalinguistic ML). awareness. Crosslinguistic awareness in L3 pro- Relationship Between Crosslinguistic Interaction duction can be defined as the awareness (tacit and and Metalinguistic Awareness. The relationship be- explicit) of the interaction between the languages tween crosslinguistic interaction, that is, the acti- in a multilingual’s mind; metalinguistic awareness vation of languages other than the target language adds to this by making objectification possible. during L3 production, and metalinguistic aware- Differentiation and selectivity in multilingual pro- ness was the main focus of Jessner (2006). This duction seem to be governed by different levels of dynamic interplay between crosslinguistic inter- awareness that should clearly lead us to question action and metalinguistic awareness sheds light a bipolar discussion of multilingual phenomena on key variables that form part of the M factor. (see also Cenoz, 2003). James (1996) defines crosslinguistic awareness as knowledge held at the explicit (declarative) level FUTURE RESEARCH ON MULTILINGUAL of metacognition. In his crosslinguistic approach AWARENESS to language awareness, he points out that the “lan- guage transfer issue of classical Contrastive Analysis Several questions concerning the force of met- becomes a new issue of metalinguistic transfer— alinguistic awareness in multilinguals or multilin- and its relationship to cross-linguistic awareness” gual awareness in multilingual systems have arisen (p. 143; emphasis in original; see also Schmid, from Jessner (2006). They concern, for instance: 1993; Schweers, 1996). According to the results of Jessner (2006), 1. The integration of different roles for sup- learners express their crosslinguistic awareness by porter languages in (dynamic) models of multi- making use of supporter languages. This process lingual processing. is marked by the search for similarities, which is 2. The relationship between a heightened level part of metalinguistic thinking during multilin- of attention and a heightened level of awareness gual production processes (see also Cumming, in multilingual production. 1988, on bilingual writing). Crosslinguistic aware- 3. The implicit/explicit dichotomy in research ness in multilingual production is described as on language acquisition. (a) tacit awareness shown by the use of cognates 4. Approaches to multilingual awareness in the in the supporter languages (mainly in the use of classroom. combined strategies) and (b) explicit awareness 5. How TLA might be modeled. 280 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)

For further insight into the nature of metalin- this Special Issue, and four anonymous reviewers for guistic knowledge in multilinguals, and the effects their valuable comments and various discussions on this of raising awareness of that knowledge in multi- issue. lingual learners, future studies of multilingualism should consider applying a DST approach to lan- guage development to be able to explore and un- derstand the complex interrelationships among REFERENCES variables involved in multiple language learn- ing over time (see Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, Abunawara, E. (1992). The structure of the trilingual 2006). lexicon. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 311–322. Future tests of language proficiency for mul- Ahukanna, J., Lund, N., & Gentile, R. (1981). Inter- tilingual learners or users might take a DST ap- and intra-lingual interference effects in learning a proach to multilingual proficiency into consider- third language. Modern Language Journal, 65, 281– ation by using a holistic approach. That is, apart 287. from testing linguistic knowledge, tests of mul- Aronin, L., & O´ Laoire, M. (2003). Exploring multilin- tilingual proficiency also should include tests of gualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of metalinguistic knowledge, which clearly goes be- multilinguality. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (Eds.), yond grammatical knowledge because it also in- Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp. cludes knowledge of crosslinguistic interaction in 11–29). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. multilingual learners (Jessner, 2006; Jessner, in Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingualism and bilin- gual education (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilin- press a, b). The challenging enterprise for the gual Matters. future will be to model the role of metalinguistic Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingualism and bilin- awareness as a force or emergent property in mul- gual education (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilin- tilingual systems since it is itself affected by other gual Matters. variables, is capable of affecting other variables, Bartelt, G. (1989). The interaction of multilingual con- and changes in terms of its magnitude and effect straints. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), In- on other variables over time. terlingual processes (pp. 151–177). Tubingen,¨ Ger- many: Narr. Bates, E., & Carnevale, G. (1992). Developmental psychol- A NEW WAY OF THINKING FOR ogy in the 1990s: Language development. Project in MULTILINGUALISM RESEARCH Cognitive Neurodevelopment. (CRL Tech. Rep. No. 9204). University of California, San Diego: This article presents DST as a useful concep- Center for Research in Language. tual tool for researching multilingualism. For ex- Bleyhl, W. (1997). Fremdsprachenlernen als dynamis- ample, DST helps to explain that there are qual- cher und nichtlinearer Prozeß oder: weshalb die itative differences between L2 and L3 learning Bilanz des traditionellen Unterrichts und auch der and that a holistic approach to multilingual profi- Fremdsprachenforschung “nicht schmeichelhaft” ciency is necessary to understand and set up goals szein kann [Foreign language learning as a dy- for multilingual teaching. It makes clear that a namic and non-linear process or: Why the out- multilingual norm ought to be used in linguis- come of both traditional teaching and research of tic research, whether research into L1, L2, L3, foreign language learning cannot be “flattering”]. and so on, since research into multilingualism in- Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 219–238. cludes all types of acquisition research. Such an Borner,¨ W. (1997). Implizites und explizites Wissen im approach implies that multilingual competence fremdsprachlichen Wortschatz [Implicit and ex- is not an exceptional form of linguistic compe- plicit knowledge in the foreign language vocabu- tence, but that monolingual language acquisition lary]. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 44–67. presents an exceptional model that cannot be ap- Briggs, J., & Peat, F. (1989). Turbulent mirror. An illus- plied to multilingualism. In addition, it implies trated guide to chaos theory and the science of whole- that multilingualism cannot be interpreted as ad- ness.NewYork:Harper&Row. ditive monolingualism, but that a multilingual sys- Cenoz, J. (2000). Research on multilingual acquisition. tem must be interpreted as a different system with In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Eu- different rules. rope: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 39–53). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS status and age on cross-linguistic influence in L3 acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in third language The author would like to thank Jasone Cenoz, Paul acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8–20). van Geert, Charlotte Kemp, Kees de Bot, the editor of Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ulrike Jessner 281

Cenoz, J. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence in third Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 42–58). Clevedon, language acquisition: Implications of the orga- UK: Multilingual Matters. nization of the multilingual lexicon. Bulletin de Bot, K. (2000). Sociolinguistics and language pro- VALS/ASLA, 78, 1–11. cessing mechanisms. Sociolinguistica, 14, 345–361. Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Beyond bilingualism: de Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: Modeling Multilingualism and multilingual education. Cleve- selection and control. International Journal of Mul- don, UK: Multilingual Matters. tilingualism, 1, 17–32. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001a). de Bot, K., & Clyne, M. (1989). Language reversion re- Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisi- visited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, tion: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK: 167–177. Multilingual Matters. de Bot, K., & Jessner, U. (2002, March). The role of the Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001b). language node in multilingual processing. Paper pre- Looking beyond second language acquisition. Studies sented at the Second Language Vocabulary Acqui- in tri- and multilingualism.Tubingen,¨ Germany: sition Colloquium, Leiden, The Netherlands. Stauffenburg. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dy- Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2003a). namic systems theory to second language acqui- The multilingual lexicon. Dorchrecht, The Nether- sition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, lands: Kluwer. 7–21. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2003b). Why in- de Bot, K., & Makoni, S. (Eds.). (2005). Language and vestigate the multilingual lexicon. In J. Cenoz, B. aging in multilingual societies. Clevedon, UK: Mul- Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual tilingual Matters. lexicon (pp. 1–10). Dorchrecht, The Netherlands: Dewaele, J.-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French inter- Kluwer. language as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19, Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2000). English in Europe: 471–490. The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon, UK: Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Variation, chaos et systeme` en in- Multilingual Matters. terlangue franc¸aise [Variation, chaos and system Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism: in the French interlanguage]. In J.-M. Dewaele & Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psy- R. Mougeon (Eds.), L’appropriation de la varia- cholinguistics, 15, 197–209. tion en franc¸ais langue etrang´ ere.` AILE (Acquisi- Chandrasekhar, A. (1978). Base language, IRAL, XVI, 1, tion et interaction en langue etrang´ ere),` 17, 143– 62–65. 167. Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument Ellis, N. (1994). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and multi-competence. Second Language Research, and outs of explicit cognitive mediation. In N. Ellis 7, 103–117. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook 211–282). London: Academic Press. (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–28). Clevedon, Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions UK: Multilingual Matters. of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Stud- Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on ies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 143–188. the first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in Cook, V. (2006, September). The nature of the foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & L2 user. Plenary paper presented at the G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage commu- EUROSLA conference, Antalya, Turkey. Re- nication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman. trieved September 2007 from http://homepage. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). One learner-two nt1world.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/EURO- languages: Investigating types of interlanguage 2006.htm knowledge. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Cumming, A. (1988). Writing expertise and second lan- Interlingual and intercultural communication: Dis- guage proficiency in ESL writing performance.Un- course and cognition in translation and second lan- published doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, guage acquisition studies (pp. 211–227). Tubingen,¨ Canada. Germany: Narr. Cummins, J. (1991). Language learning and bilingual- Faingold, E. (1999). The re-emergence of Spanish and ism. Sophia Linguistica, 29, 1–194. Hebrew in a multilingual adolescent. International De Angelis, G. (2005a). Multilingualism and non-native Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2, lexical transfer: An identification problem. Inter- 283–295. national Journal of Multilingualism, 2, 1–25. Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The De Angelis, G. (2005b). Interlanguage influence of cumulative-enhancement model for language ac- function words. Language Learning 55(3), 379– quisition comparing adults’ and children’s pat- 414. terns of development in first, second and third De Angelis, G., & Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage language acquisition of relative clauses. Interna- transfer and competing linguistic systems. In J. tional Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–16. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). Cross- Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science.NewYork: linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Viking. 282 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)

Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but Jessner, U. (2005). Multilingual metalanguage, or the specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and way multilinguals talk about their languages. Lan- Multicultural Development, 6, 467–477. guage Awareness, 14, 56–68. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual English as a third language. Edinburgh, UK: Edin- language processing (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Blackwell. burgh University Press. Hall, C., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mech- Jessner, U. (2007a). Language awareness in multilin- anism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In J. Cenoz, guals. In N. Hornberger (Series Ed.) & J. Cenoz B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). The multilingual (Vol. Ed.), Knowledge about language: Vol. V. Hand- lexicon (pp. 71–86). Dorchrecht, The Netherlands: book of language and education (pp. 35–369). New Kluwer. York: Springer. Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilinguality and bilin- Jessner, U. (2007b). Multicompetence approaches to gualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. the development of language proficiency in multi- Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 pro- lingual education. In N. Hornberger (Series Ed.) duction and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & J. Cummins (Vol. Ed.), Bilingual education: Vol. & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in VI. Handbook of language and education (pp. 91– third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspec- 103). New York: Springer. tives (pp. 21–41). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mat- Karpf, A. (1990). Selbstorganisationsprozesse in der sprach- ters. lichen Ontogenese: Erst- und Fremdsprache(n) [Self- Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2000). Multilingualism as an organization in linguistic ontogenesis: First- and ecological system: The case for language mainte- foreign language(s)]. Tubingen,¨ Germany: Narr. nance. In B. Kettemann & H. Penz (Eds.), ECOn- Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and structing language, nature and society: The ecolinguis- mother tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. tic project revisited (pp. 131–144). Tubingen,¨ Ger- Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Trans- many: Stauffenburg. fer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguis- Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of tics, 15, 125–150. multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic per- Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1986). spective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisi- Herwig, A. (2001). Plurilingual lexical organisation: Ev- tion. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. idence from lexical processing in L1–L2–L3–L4 Kemp, C. (2001). Metalinguistic awareness in multilin- translation. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner guals: Implicit and explicit grammatical awareness (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language and its relationship with language experience and acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 115– language attainment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, 137). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United King- Hufeisen, B. (1998). L3-Stand der Forschung—Was dom. bleibt zu tun? [L3-State of the art—what needs to Kemp, C. (2006, July). Implicit and explicit knowledge of be done?]. In B. Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.), grammatical form and function in learners using three L2-L3 und ihre zwischensprachliche Interaktion: Zu or more languages. Paper presented at the confer- individueller mehrsprachigkeit und gesteuertem lernen ence of the Association for Language Awareness, [L2-L3 and their crosslinguistic interaction: About Le Mans, France. individual multilingualism and instructed learn- Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and lan- ing (pp. 169–183)]. Tubingen,¨ Germany: Stauf- guage use: An ecological perspective.NewYork:Con- fenburg. tinuum. Hulstijn, J. (2006, June). Defining and measuring the Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science construct of second-language proficiency. Plenary and second language acquisition. Applied Linguis- paper presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, tics, 18, 141–165. Montreal, Canada. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to lan- language use from a chaos/complexity theory per- guage awareness. Language Awareness, 4, 138–148. spective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisi- Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in mul- tion and language socialization: Ecological perspec- tilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language tives (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum. learning. Language Awareness, 3 & 4, 201– Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Second language acquisi- 209. tion and the issue of fossilization: There is no end, Jessner, U. (2003a). A dynamic approach to language and there is no state. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), attrition in multilingual systems. In V. Cook (Ed.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 234– (pp. 189–200). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mat- 247). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. ters. Jessner, U. (2003b). On the nature of crosslinguis- Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2006, June). tic interaction in multilinguals. In J. Cenoz, B. Research methodology on language development Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual from a complex systems theory perspective.Paper lexicon (pp. 45–55). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, Mon- Kluwer. treal, Canada. Ulrike Jessner 283

Lasagabaster, D. (1997). Creatividad y concienca metal- Phillips, D. (1992). The social scientist’s bestiary: A guide ingu¨´ıstica: incidencia en el aprendizaje del ingles´ como to fabled threats to, and defenses of, Naturalistic Social L3 [Creativity and metalinguistic awareness: Ef- Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. fects on learning English as L3]. Doctoral thesis, Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1987). The University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of Spain. compensatory strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. corrective feedback in communicative language 213–229). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. teaching: Effects on second language learning. Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of first language in for- Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 429– eign language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual 448. Matters. Lorenz, E. (1972). Predictability: Does the flap of a but- Safont Jorda,` M. (2003). Metapragmatic awareness and terfly’s wing in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? pragmatic production of third language learners Paper presented at the American Association of of English: A focus on request acts realisations. the Advancement of Sciences, Washington, DC. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 43–69. Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and Schmid, S. (1993). Learning strategies for closely re- metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E. Bia- lated languages: On the Italian spoken by Spanish lystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual chil- immigrants in Switzerland. In B. Kettemann & W. dren (pp. 141–166). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Wieden (Eds.), Current issues in European second versity Press. acquisition research (pp. 405–419). Tubingen,¨ Ger- McLaughlin, B., & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new many: Narr. language: Does knowing other languages make a Schweers, W. (1996, July). Metalinguistic awareness and difference? In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), language transfer: One thing leads to another.Paper Interlingual processes (pp. 5–14). Tubingen,¨ Ger- presented at the conference of the Association for many: Narr. Language Awareness, Dublin, Ireland. Meara, P. (1999). Self organization in bilingual lexicons. Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental In P. Broeder & J. Muure (Eds.), Language and lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. thought in development (pp. 127–144). Tubingen,¨ Strohner, H. (1995). Kognitive Systeme. Eine Einfuhrung¨ Germany: Narr. in die Kognitionswissenschaft [Cognitive systems: Meisel, J. (1983). Transfer as a second language strategy. An introduction to the science of cognition]. Language and Communication, 3, 11–46. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Mohle,¨ D. (1989). Multilingual interaction in for- Thomas, J. (1992). Metalinguistic awareness in second- eign language production. In H. Dechert & M. and third-language learning. In R. Harris (Ed.), Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 179– Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 531–545). 194). Tubingen,¨ Germany: Narr. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Muller-Lanc¨ e,´ J. (2003). Der Wortschatz romanischer van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Sprachen im Tertiarspracherwerb¨ [The vocabulary Change between complexity and chaos.NewYork:Har- of Romance languages in third language acqui- vester Wheatsheaf. sition]. Tubingen,¨ Germany: Stauffenburg. van Geert, P. (2006, June). Modelling L1 and L2 develop- Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Experts and ment as an iterative process. Paper presented at the novices: An information-processing approach to AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal, Canada. the “good language learner” problem. Applied Psy- van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of lan- cholinguistics, 7, 51–56. guage learning. A sociocultural perspective.NewYork: Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B. Kluwer Academic Publishers. (1990). Language-learning strategies in monolin- Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, gual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 40(2), 221–244. Zimmermann, R. (1992). Lexical knowledge: Evidence O´ Laoire, M., & Aronin, L. (2004). Exploring multilin- from L1 and L2 narratives and L1–L2 translations. gualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of In C. Mair & M. Markus (Eds.), Neue Ansatze¨ in der multilinguality. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (Eds.), Kontrastiven Linguistik [New departures in con- Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp. trastive linguistics] (pp. 301–311). Innsbruck, Aus- 11–29). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. tria: Verlag des Instituts fur¨ Sprachwissenschaft. Peal, E., & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilin- Zipf, G. (1968). The Psycho-Biology of language: An intro- gualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, duction to Dynamic Philology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, 76, 1–23. MA: Cambridge University Press.