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: ulrike.jessner@uibk.ac.at
This paper suggests that a dynamic systems theory (DST) provides an adequate conceptual
metaphor for discussing multilingual development. Multilingual acquisition is a nonlinear and
complex dynamic process depending on a number of interacting factors. Variability plays a
crucial role in the multilingual system as it changes over time (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). A
number of studies on multilingualism have shown that there are qualitative differences between
second and third language learning and that these can be related to an increased level of
metalinguistic awareness. From a DST-perspective, metalinguistic knowledge and awareness of
this knowledge play a crucial role in the development of individual multilingualism.
Language development is a complex and dynamic
process. Although this statement can be
regarded as common knowledge for many researchers
in the field of applied linguistics, most
studies on language acquisition are nevertheless
still placed within a theoretical framework working
with static or linear presuppositions. With an
increase in the number of languages involved in
multilingual development, the dynamics, that is,
the changes and the complexity of language learning,
become even more evident. Consequently, a
number of researchers have argued that language
development only can be adequately researched
by applying a multilingual norm to linguistic research;
in other words, it is only by investigating
multilingual development that we can evaluate
language development (e.g., Abunawara,
1992; Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2003b; Cook,
1991; De Angelis & Selinker, 2001; Flynn, Foley,
& Vinnitskaya, 2004; Herdina & Jessner, 2002).
In this paper, Dynamic Systems Theory (DST)
will be presented as an adequate methodological
tool to investigate multilingual phenomena.
DST has been known in sciences such as meteo-
The Modern Language Journal, 92, ii, (2008)
0026-7902/08/270–283 $1.50/0
C_2008 The Modern Language Journal

rology, mathematics, neurology, and psychology

for some time, but was not applied to second language
acquisition (SLA) until the 1990s (Bleyhl,
1997; Karpf, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Meara,
1999). Over the last decade, interest in the application
of DST to SLA has grown considerably (de
Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; de Bot & Makoni,
2005; Dewaele, 2002; Kramsch, 2002; Larsen-
Freeman, 2002; van Lier, 2004), and is also shown
by this Special Issue of The Modern Language
Journal.
The Dynamic Model of Multilingualism
(DMM), which applies DST to multilingual acquisition
(Herdina & Jessner, 2002), can be regarded
as a first step toward the exploitation of
the method in research on multilingualism. In the
DMM, metalinguistic knowledge and awareness
of that knowledge have been detected as crucial
factors contributing to the catalytic effects that
bilingualism can show on third language (L3)
learning (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). This paper
will discuss the advantages that the application
of DST to multilingualism can offer, by focusing
specifically on the changing role of metalinguistic
awareness in the use and learning of several languages.
I will start with the exploration of the characteristics
of multilingual development as “ideal”
prerequisites for the application of DST to language
acquisition research. How DST is applied
Ulrike Jessner 271
to multilingualism research in the DMM will be
described in the next section. The role ofmetalinguistic
knowledge and awareness of this knowledge
in multilingual learning and processing will
be studied with a special focus on a recent study
carried out with trilingual learners. Finally, future
avenues of research on multilingualism will be
discussed.
CHARACTERISTICS OF MULTILINGUAL
DEVELOPMENT
Over the last few years, research on L3 acquisition
or multilingualism has been increasingly intensified
(see, e.g., Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Cenoz,
Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a, 2001b, 2003a) with
the main goal of describing multilingual phenomena
in order to investigate differences and similarities
between second (L2) and L3 acquisition.
Most studies have been carried out in the fields of
crosslinguistic lexical transfer, the effects of bilingualism
on L3 learning, child trilingualism, and
tertiary education (see Jessner, 2006).
One of the most important questions in the
field is related to the status of the L2 in L3 use and
acquisition. In various studies of multilingualism,
it turned out that the speakers did not rely on
their first language (L1) as expected, but on their
L2. In several studies of learning an L3 of Indo-
European origin, it could be shown that L3 learners
whose L1 is typologically unrelated to the L2
and/or L3 tend to transfer knowledge from their
L2, or in the case of bilinguals, from the related L1
(e.g., Ahukanna, Lund, & Gentile, 1981; Bartelt,
1989; Cenoz, 2001; Chandrasekhar, 1978). These
results also have been supported by studies focusing
only on Indo-European languages (e.g.,
De Angelis, 2005a, 2005b; De Angelis & Selinker,
2001; Dewaele, 1998). The activation of languages
other than the target language is influenced by
factors such as psychotypology (perceived linguistic
distance between languages), recency of use,
the level of proficiency in the target language
(Hammarberg, 2001), the foreign language effect
(i.e., the tendency in language learners to activate
an earlier L2 in L3 performance; Meisel, 1983),
and the learner’s perception of correctness of a
target word (De Angelis & Selinker, 2001) (for
a list of influential factors, see also Hall & Ecke,
2003).
Crosslinguistic influence in a multilingual system
not only takes place from the L1 to the L2
and vice versa. Further influence has been detected
from the L1 to the L3 and from the L2 to
the L3 and vice versa. This expansion of transfer
possibilities demonstrates that multilingual acquisition
is a far more complex process than SLA,
where the role of the L1 in the development
of the L2 has been researched extensively. This
discussion also makes evident that learning another
language (e.g., an L3) can counteract the
maintenance of an L2 or L1. In other words,
language attrition or loss appears more often in
multilingual than in bilingual contexts. In this
case, the L3 will become more dominant than
the L2 owing to the limitation of resources for
languages, as defined in Zipf’s law of least effort
(Zipf, 1968). Consequently, using an L1 as indicator
for “permanent” language dominance over
the lifespan will turn out to be problematic in
a multilingual context (see also Jessner, 2003a).
Language attrition processes also point to the fact
that language learning consists of nonlinear and
reversible processes (i.e., development refers to
both acquisition and attrition) (Cook, 2003; de
Bot & Clyne, 1989; de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor,
2007; Jessner, 2003a). Even if parts of the multilingual
system can become fossilized (i.e., will in
very general terms stop growing), they will still
be able to exert influence on other parts of the
system.
In contrast to SLA, in third language acquisition
(TLA), the routes of learning or order of
acquisition show greater diversity, as can be seen
in the following:
SLA versus TLA
1 L1→L2 1 L1→L2→L3
2 Lx/Ly 2 Lx/Ly/Lz
3 Lx/Ly→L3
4 L1→Lx/Ly
In contrast to SLA, where we have to deal with two
possible acquisition orders, in TLA there may be
at least four acquisition orders:
1. The three languages can be learned consecutively.
2. The three languages can be learned simultaneously.
3. L1 and L2 are learned simultaneously before
learning the L3.
4. L2 and L3 are learned simultaneously after
the acquisition of the L1 (see also Cenoz, 2000).
Studies on multilingual development also have
made clear that the use of terminology in multilingualism
research is problematic. For instance,
L1, the term that in SLA studies is used to refer
to the dominant language of the bilingual
system, cannot easily be applied to a multiple
272 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
learning context since dominance (breadth or frequency
of use) does not necessarily correspond to
chronological order of acquisition and is subject
to change. This issue becomes most relevant when
we think about processes of interruption, that is,
when learning or using a particular language is
given up for a while due to changes in needs
or motivation and/or relearning of languages
(e.g., L1→L2→L3→L2) (see, e.g., Faingold,
1999).
From the above, it becomes clear that the description
of individual multilingual development
(i.e., contact with more than two languages over
the lifespan) has to take changes in multilingual
proficiency into account. Figure 1 (based on
Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p.123) models the development
of a multilingual system. It demonstrates
how the speaker develops language proficiency in
more than two languages over a certain period of
time. Whereas the primary language system(s) of
the speaker remain(s) dominant during this time,
the secondary or incipient system undergoes development.
The development of the third system
is dependent on the acquisition of the first two systems,
which in certain cases may take place at the
same time, in the same way as simultaneous bilingualism.
A closer look at the figure shows that
transitional bilingualism forms an integral part
FIGURE 1
Development of Learner Multilingualism
of the development of learner multilingualism
(Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 125).
For modeling purposes, the authors use an
ideal learning curve, although this seems to suggest
that the level of proficiency of the primary
language system remains constant, whereas, in
fact, “the level at which a language system stabilises
is not fixed and invariable [. . .] but subject
to constant variation” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002,
p. 113), as already mentioned. The graphs used in
theDMM“simply relate language learning to time
needed and predict the modifications in expected
language growth due to the effect of certain factors
assumed to affect multilinguals and ignore
the fact that the level of achievement is heterogeneous
even in monolinguals let alone multilinguals”
(Herdina & Jessner, 2002, pp. 88–89).
To summarize, it can be stated that the development
of a multilingual repertoire or multilingual
development: changes over time; is nonlinear; is
reversible, resulting in language attrition and/or
loss; and is complex.
Variation in multilingual development and use
is strongly linked to the dependence of the system
on social, psycholinguistic, and individual
factors (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), not to mention
the mode of language learning in the form
of either natural or instructional learning, but
Ulrike Jessner 273
also various combinations of both (see Cenoz &
Genesee, 1998).
A DST approach, which uses dynamic modeling
to investigate properties of the dynamic adaptation
to contexts in change, is able to take all
the relevant characteristics of multilingual learning
and use into account. In the following section,
the application of the DMM to current multilingualism
research will be presented in more
detail.
APPLYING DST TO MULTILINGUALISM
The DMM was conceptualized to:
(a) serve as a bridge between SLA and multilingualism
research
(b) indicate that future language acquisition
studies should go beyond studies of the contact
between two languages, turning their attention
toward trilingualism and other forms of multilingualism
(c) overcome the implicit and explicit monolingual
bias of multilingualism research through
the development of an autonomous model of multilingualism
(d) provide a scientific means of predicting
multilingual development on the basis of factors
found to be involved (Herdina & Jessner, 2002,
pp. 86–87)
Consequently, multilingualism research should
avail itself of an autonomous theoretical basis, not
merely relying on the findings of L1 and/or L2
learning research since both the results and predictions
of research will always be distorted by
the assumptions of individual language acquisition
studies, which are often cross-sectional.
In DST, the call for studies of individual language
acquisition is more pronounced than that
for group studies. Thus far, developmental aspects
have not been a prime object of investigation in
the sense of longitudinal studies. However, if our
goal is to find out about the differences and similarities
between various forms of language development,
in particular between SLA and TLA, we
need to change our focus of attention and our
conceptual approach.
MAIN FEATURES OF THE DMM
In this part of the discussion, the main characteristics
of the DMM will be presented in order
to distinguish it from other, more common, approaches
to language acquisition research.
(a) In the DMM, the discussion focuses not on languages
(L1/L2/L3/Ln) but on the development of individual
language systems (LS1/LS2/LS3/LS4 , etc.)
forming part of the psycholinguistic system.
According to the DMM, the multilingual system
is dynamic and adaptive. The multilingual
system is accordingly characterized by continuous
change and nonlinear growth. As an adaptive system,
it possesses the property of elasticity, the ability
to adapt to temporary changes in the systems
environment, and plasticity, the ability to develop
new systems properties in response to altered conditions.
This corresponds with van Geert (1994),
who stated that “a system is, by definition, a dynamic
system and so we define a dynamic system as
a set of variables that mutually affect each other’s
changes over time” (p. 50; see also Briggs & Peat,
1989, p. 11).
(b) In the DMM, psycholinguistic systems are defined
as open systems depending on psychological and
social factors.
Linguistic aspects of individual multilingualism
are shaped by the sociolinguistic settings in which
the multilingual’s life takes place. O´ Laoire and
Aronin (2004) present an ecological model of
multilinguality. They state that multilinguality is
intertwined with many, if not all, aspects of identity
and that the social and cultural environment
plays a decisive role in the structure and specifications
of multilinguality. In other words, language
needs change according to the personal
situation or even changes in identity, as sometimes
found in the lives of immigrants. Larsen-Freeman
and Cameron (2006) refer to the dynamic interaction
between psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic,
and situational aspects as “intrinsic dynamics of
the learner,” that is, the interaction between the
social context, the physical environment, and the
cognitive context (task). They also point out that
learning and change is at once individual and social
(see also de Bot, 2000).
(c) In the DMM, language choice or use depends on
the perceived communicative needs of the multilingual
speaker.
In the model, perceived communicative needs,
which are psychologically and sociologically determined,
are identified as the driving force of
language learning and use. The speaker decides
which language to use with whom and in which
situation, and also when and why another language
should be added to the multilingual’s repertoire.
Baker (2001) states that “language choice—
who will speak what language, when and to whom
(Fishman, 1965)—can be the result of a large and
interacting set of factors” (p. 13).
Several factors have been said to influence
the decision to speak a particular language to
274 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
a particular person at a particular moment.
Grosjean (2001) suggests including the following:
. . . the participant(s) . . . (this includes such factors
as language proficiency, language mixing habits
and attitudes, usual mode of interaction, kinship
relation, socioeconomic status, etc.), the situation
(physical location, presence of monolinguals, degree
of formality and of intimacy), the form and content
of the message being uttered or listened to
(language used, topic, type of vocabulary needed,
amount of mixed language), the function of the
language act . . . and specific research factors (the
aims of the study taking place . . . , the type and
organization of the stimuli, the task used, etc.).
(p. 5)
Grosjean’s work on language mode (e.g., 2001)
discusses the notion of language choice in multilingual
speech situations and the psychological
and sociological conditions of change in that
choice. According to Grosjean (2001), a trilingual
person can function in a monolingual, bilingual,
or trilingual mode with various levels of activation,
in relation to her or his position on the
language mode continuum. Activation of the various
languages is strongly influenced, among other
factors, by the speaker’s usual language mixing
habits, language proficiency, socioeconomic status,
the presence of mono- and bilinguals, and
the degree of formality (see also de Bot, 2004, on
the concept of the language node).
(d) In the DMM, systems stability is related to language
maintenance.
In the DMM, it is argued that the learner’s
resources are limited; that is, the learner has a
certain amount of time and energy available to
spend on learning and maintaining a language.
Consequently, in a psycholinguistic context, the
learner will gradually lose access to knowledge if
not enough time and energy is spent on refreshing
the knowledge of an L2 or L3 so that positive
growth can counteract the negative growth that
eventually results in language attrition or gradual
language loss. Thus, maintenance of a language
system results in an adaptive process in which the
level of language proficiency is adjusted to the
perceived communicative needs. The stability of
a psycholinguistic system is dependent on the requirements
of language maintenance; that is, the
system will erode if not enough energy and time
is invested in maintaining the system. Other factors
influencing systems stability are the number
of languages involved, the maturational age at
which a language is learned and relative stability
established, the level of proficiency at which
this takes place, and the time span over which the
language system is maintained (see also Jessner,
2003a).
A well-known example of the stabilizing effect
of a language system is fossilization, a very common
phenomenon in multilingual learning. The
reasons for fossilization are complex and interrelated
over time; in many cases, they are related to
domain specificity in bi- or multilingual contexts
(see Larsen-Freeman, 2006, for a critical study of
research on fossilization).
(e) In the DMM, language systems are seen as interdependent
(rather than autonomous systems, as they
are perceived in mainstream SLA research).
The behavior of each individual language system
in a multilingual system largely depends
on the behavior of previous and subsequent systems,
and it would therefore not make sense to
look at the systems in isolation (see also Bates &
Carnevale, 1992, p. 11, on nonlinear behavior).
Furthermore, the DMM establishes a bridge between
SLA (process) and bilingualism (product)
because it provides a tool that can be used to view
learner systems and stable systems as variants of
multilingual systems obeying the same fundamental
principles. By researching the dynamics of TLA
or multiple language acquisition, the link between
bilingualism as product and SLA as process can be
understood as TLA can result from different approaches
to language learning.
(f) In the DMM, the holistic approach is a necessary
prerequisite for understanding the dynamic interaction
between complex systems in multilingualism.
The complexity and variability, as a measure
of stability (see van Geert, 2006) of the multilingual
system are influenced by individual cognitive
factors such as motivation, anxiety, language aptitude,
and self-esteem as well as social factors,
which can influence linguistic aspects of the multilingual
system. As Briggs and Peat (1989) describe,
“every complex system is a changing part
of a greater whole, a nesting of larger and larger
wholes” (p. 148).
The DMM can be used to take a holistic view
of multilingualism; that is, a multilingual system
should be modeled according to holistic principles
(Philips, 1992). Such a holistic view is a necessary
presupposition of a dynamic view; a dynamic
view of multilingualism assumes that the
presence of one or more language systems influences
the development not only of the L2, but
also the development of the overall multilingual
system.
In other holistic approaches, the relationship
between the dynamics of language development
Ulrike Jessner 275
and holism has not specifically been discussed.
Since the publication of the DMM in 2002, the
term multicompetence, created by Cook (e.g., 1991;
based on Grosjean, e.g., 1985, 2001), has established
itself as the most widely used term for
bilingual and multilingual competence in applied
linguistics. Recently, Cook himself has given up
on using “bilingual” since he considers it biased.
Instead, he has introduced the L2 use as a better
concept. Although he has shown interest in
the role of the L2 in the L1 (Cook, 2003), in contrast
to the DMM, he has not focused on aspects of
change in language development in his definition
of language competence in bilinguals.
According to Cook (2002), L2 users are characterized
as follows:
1. The L2 user has other uses for language than
the monolingual.
2. The L2 user’s knowledge of the second language
is typically not identical to that of a native
speaker.
3. The L2 user’s knowledge of his or her language
is in some respects not the same as that of
a monolingual.
4. L2 users have different minds from those of
monolinguals. (pp. 4–8)
Cook’s ideas about the integration continuum,
which captures different relationships between
two language systems in the same mind from separation
to integration, thus fits with the DMM;
that is, “it sees the language system of the L2 user
as a whole rather than as an interaction between
separate language components” (Cook, 2003, p.
11). This also implies that the relationship between
the L1 and the interlanguage within one
mind is different from that between the interlanguage
in one mind and the L2 when the L2 has
the status of an L1 in anothermind (Cook, 2006).
Cook himself pointed out in his plenary lecture
given at the European Second Language Association
Conference in 2006, that in order to capture
the multilingual learner’s mind, we need a holistic
approach such as that taken by Herdina and
Jessner (2002) (Cook, 2006).
A DST PERSPECTIVE OF MULTILINGUAL
PROFICIENCY
In the DMM, multilingual proficiency is defined
as the dynamic interaction among the various
psycholinguistic systems (LS1, LS2, LS3, LSn)
in which the individual languages (L1, L2, L3,
Ln) are embedded, crosslinguistic interaction,
and what is called the M(ultilingualism) factor.
The latter refers to all the effects in multilingual
systems that distinguish a multilingual from a
monolingual system, that is, all those qualities that
develop in a multilingual speaker/learner due
to the increase in language contact(s). As mentioned
above, language contacts depend on the
perceived communicative needs of the individual.
In other words, the psycholinguistic systems of
the multilingual individual, which are in constant
change, interact with each other in a nonadditive
but cumulative way.
Crosslinguistic interaction in multilinguals,
seen as a wider concept than Kellerman and Sharwood
Smith’s (1986) crosslinguistic influence, is
described as an umbrella term, including not only
transfer and interference, but also codeswitching
and borrowing. Furthermore, it is also meant
to cover another set of phenomena, including
the cognitive effects of multilingual development.
These are nonpredictable dynamic effects that determine
the development of the systems themselves
(Jessner, 2003b; Kellerman, 1995). Such a
view is also related, but not identical, to Cummins’s
Common Underlying Proficiency (e.g.,
1991) and Kecskes and Papp’s Common UnderlyingConceptual
Base (2000) (see, e.g.,Cook, 1991,
2002). According to the DMM, seemingly identical
phenomena of transfer can lead to divergent
results in different multilingual systems, even if
they are transitionally commanded by the same
speaker, as shown in Figure 1 or 2.
The M(ultilingualism) factor is an emergent
property that can contribute to the catalytic or
accelerating effects in TLA. Emergent properties
are the result of autocatalytic effects, they
are only to be found in open systems, and they
are a function of the interaction between systems.
Yet, they are not systems properties per se
(Strohner, 1995). The key factor of theMeffect—
as it might also be referred to since it is difficult
to decide whether it constitutes a precondition
or a result of multilingualism—is metalinguistic
awareness. It is made up of a set of skills
or abilities that the multilingual user develops
owing to her/his prior linguistic and metacognitive
knowledge. The knowledge and metalinguistic
awareness influence further language learning
or learning a second foreign language (see Kemp,
2001).
The multilingual system is not only in constant
change, but the multilingual learner also develops
certain skills and abilities that the monolingual
speaker lacks. These are language-specific
and nonlanguage-specific skills used in language
learning, language management, and maintenance.
Language management skills refer to the
integration and separation of language resources
276 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
FIGURE 2
Multilingual Proficiency
and the act of balancing communicative requirements
with language resources. In the DMM, the
multilingual learner or user is assumed to develop
and make use of an enhanced multilingual
monitor, wheremonitoring goes beyond error detection
and self-repair and fulfills a separator and
cross-checker function, for instance, by drawing
on common resources in the use ofmore than one
language system (see also de Bot & Jessner, 2002).
Language maintenance skills are a necessary prerequisite
for the maintenance and increase of a
certain level of language proficiency. Language
maintenance effort, which is considered a crucial
part of individual multilingualism, mainly depends
on two factors, that is, language use and language
awareness. Whereas language use is seen as
having a refresher or activating function that contributes
to the maintenance of a language, language
awareness refers to the conscious manipulation
of and reflection on the rules of a language
(Herdina & Jessner, 2000).
What these skills and abilities have in common
is their relationship with a heightened level of
metalinguistic awareness in multilingual learners
and users (see, e.g., Lightbown & Spada, 1990).
In particular, in the case of typologically related
languages, a catalytic effect, that is, a qualitative
change in further language learning, has been
detected in experienced language learners.
These new skills contribute to a metasystem in
multilinguals, which is the result of a bilingual
norm; in contrast, in SLA the learner refers to
a monolingual norm (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).
Additionally, the learner of a second foreign language
can profit from prior language learning
experience, as emphasized by Hufeisen in her
Factor model (e.g., 1998). Thus, multilingual systems
contain components that monolingual systems
lack, and even those components that the
multilingual system shares with the monolingual
system have a different significance within the
system. This stands in clear contrast to common
approaches to defining language proficiency in
second language learning theory, including most
recent attempts to define native language proficiency
as the goal of second language learning,
such as Hulstijn’s (2006) definition of core
proficiency as an alternative concept to nativespeaker
proficiency. Such an approach neglects
the cognitive skills that nonnative speakers of a
language acquire on top of all of their linguistic
skills, such as an enhanced level of metalinguistic
awareness; these skills are part of the M
factor in the DMM. Belief in the native speaker
Ulrike Jessner 277
standard is also one reason why the effects of the
L2 on the L1 have been so little studied, as emphasized
by Cook (2003): “If the L1 of the L2
user were different from that of monolingual native
speakers, SLA research that used the native
speaker as the target would be based on shifting
sand” (p. 5).
As already noted in Herdina and Jessner
(2002), metalinguistic abilities still lack the necessary
operationalization to be immediately verifiable.
But it is important to realize that metalinguistic
abilities, if a function of multilingual
acquisition, obviously presuppose the existence
of this phenomenon and are, therefore, difficult
to observe in primary language acquisition, be it
monolingual or multilingual. Nevertheless, they
are expected to have a catalytic effect on further
language learning processes, as explicated
below in more detail. In other words, even if it
might appear to be impossible at the moment
to determine the effect of initial conditions on
L2 development (apart from phonological awareness,
which is related to reading acquisition in
the native language), as pointed out by de Bot
et al. (2007), researching the role of metalinguistic
knowledge and awareness of this knowledge
can help to shed light on the differences between
SLA and TLA. Following meteorology (Lorenz,
1972), which uses the “butterfly effect” or sensitive
dependence on initial conditions to refer to
the predictability of dynamic systems, an M effect
might be assumed to exist in multilingual systems
where development is influenced by the accelerating
effect that the development of metalinguistic
awareness can have on further or L3 learning in
particular.
THE KEY ROLE OF METALINGUISTIC
AWARENESS IN TLA
Defining Metalinguistic Awareness
Metalinguistic awareness encompasses the linguistic
skills that develop at the higher level
of creativity and reorganization of information
(Hamers & Blanc, 1989). It can be defined as the
ability to focus on linguistic form and to switch focus
between form and meaning. Individuals who
are metalinguistically aware are able to categorize
words into parts of speech; switch focus between
form, function, and meaning; and explain why a
word has a particular function (see also Jessner,
2007a; Kemp, 2006).
Since Peal and Lambert in their influential
study, which was published in 1962, ascribed a
crucial role to the higher level of metalinguistic
awareness as contributing to the success of
their bilingual subjects over their monolingual
counterparts, interest in the nature of this skill
has grown considerably. Although monolingual
speakers also develop metalinguistic awareness—
mainly those groups of professionals working
with language on a daily basis such as journalists
and authors—the nature of awareness cannot
be compared in both degree and quality
to awareness as developed in bi- and multilingual
users or nonprofessionals. Vygotsky (1986)
pointed out that contact with a foreign language
helps children sharpen their knowledge of the
L1.
Metalinguistic awareness developing in individuals
living with two or three languages is seen
to develop with regard to (a) divergent and creative
thinking (e.g., wider variety of associations,
original ideas); (b) interactional and/or pragmatic
competence (cultural theorems of greeting,
thanking, etc.); (c) communicative sensitivity and
flexibility (language mode); and (d) translation
skills that are considered a natural trait in the majority
of multilinguals (Jessner, 2006). Translation
also should be included in a comprehensive listing,
as it is a natural characteristic of bi- and multilingualism,
which Malakoff and Hakuta (1991)
describe as a “composite of communicative and
metalinguistic skills—skills that are ‘translinguistic,’
in the sense that they are not particular to any
one language” (p. 142).
Whereas cognitive style was investigated in
earlier studies on bilingualism, recent research
has shown more interest in the process of
bilingual thinking (Baker, 2006). Research into
metalinguistic awareness in studies of multilingualism
has so far mainly been done to
explore the effects of bilingualism on L3
learning and conditions for artificial language
learning.
Studies of Metalinguistic Awareness in TLA
Effects of Bilingualism on TLA. Based on an
extensive overview of research on bilingualism
and additional language learning, Cenoz (2003)
presents a detailed critical review of the studies on
the effects of bilingualism on cognitive development.
She concludes that most studies on general
proficiency indicate a positive effect of bilingualism
on TLA and that this effect can be explained
as related to learning strategies, metalinguistic
awareness, and communicative ability, in particular
if the languages in contact are typologically
278 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
close (see also Jessner, 1999). In a number of
studies, mainly carried out in Scandinavia and
in the Basque Country, such an additive effect
of bilingualism on L3 learning, in both cases English,
was found (Ringbom, 1987; Thomas, 1992;
Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Lasagabaster, 1997; Safont,
2003).
Artificial Language Learning. Nation and
McLaughlin (1986); Nayak, Hansen, Krueger, &
McLaughlin (1990); and McLaughlin and Nayak
(1989) studied the learning of artificial miniature
linguistic systems. The first study showed a positive
transfer of learning strategies only for the
domain of implicit learning. In the second, there
was no clear evidence for a general superiority
of multilinguals in language learning abilities, although
they were found to adapt their learning
strategies more easily to task requirements. The
third study suggested a learning advantage for expert
learners over less experienced foreign language
learners. Kemp (2001) found that the performance
of multilingual adults on all six tests of
grammatical awareness, including one using artificial
grammars, increased with the number of
languages they knew.
Exploring Metalinguistic Awareness in Multilinguals.
An increasing number of studies of
crosslexical consultation, that is, how bi- and
multilinguals search for words in their other
languages when they meet linguistic problems
in the target language, have been carried out
in various linguistic settings over the last 20
years (e.g., Cenoz, 2003; Faerch & Kasper, 1986;
Herwig, 2001; M¨ohle, 1989; M¨uller-Lanc´e, 2003;
Singleton, 1999).An introspective study by Jessner
(2006) will be presented here in more detail as it
is one of very few studies on multilingual adults
aimed at exploring different aspects of awareness
of metalinguistic knowledge in multilingual production.
The theoretical background of the study
was provided by the DMM.
The sample consisted of 17 bilingual students
(L1–2: Italian–German) from South Tyrol
(Italy) studying English (B2 on the Common
European Frame of Reference, describing
an intermediate proficiency level) at Innsbruck
University (Tyrol, Austria). The relatively small
number of subjects is not surprising when it is
taken into account that members for the multilingual
testing group not only had to study English
as a subject at Innsbruck University, but also
live with families who use both Italian and German,
to ensure high proficiency levels in both
languages.
The goal of the study was to investigate whether
there was evidence for increased metalinguistic
awareness in the production of English as the
L3 of the students. In particular, there was a
focus on the relationship between crosslinguistic
interaction and metalinguistic awareness in
the use of compensatory strategies, as defined
by Poulisse, Bongaerts, and Kellerman (1997).
Faerch and Kasper (1983) defined strategies as
potentially conscious and, therefore, different
facets of metalinguistic awareness were chosen
for investigation: (a) how students think in a
(third) language and (b) how students think about
language(s).
Think-aloud protocols were chosen as methodological
tools to provide evidence of language
choice during the production of writing tasks
(based on Cumming’s Ph.D. dissertation, 1988).
The analysis concentrated on (a) how students resorted
to other languages during a lexical search
either before or after the L3 item and (b) the
identification of different forms and functions of
codeswitching. Based on Zimmermann’s index of
lexical insecurity (1992), lack of knowledge and
the search for alternatives were identified as the
main functions of (or causes for) compensatory
strategies.
Analysis of the strategies that the students used
to overcome their linguistic deficits shows that
they resorted to both Italian and German, either
before or after the target language item. They
produced German-based, Italian-based, and combined
strategies. Most strikingly:
(a) Before the L3 item, they produced a larger
number of switches to German (. . . Steven Pinker
. . . added, (G) hinzugef¨ugt, some, (G) eigene, some
personal evidence . . .).
(b) After the L3 item, they produced a larger
number of switches to Italian (OK, this is proved,
no this is sustained, (I) sostenere, sustained by the
theory that. . .).
(c) German was clearly dominant in replacements
for L3 items.
The results of the study point to several issues,
which certainly need more attention in future research
into multilingualism. They concern (a) the
use of supporter languages in L3 production, and
(b) the use of metalanguage (ML), the most explicit
expression of metalinguistic awareness.
Judging by the position of switching within a
sentence, German and Italian were assigned different
roles in the production of English. Whereas
German was described as the main supporter
Ulrike Jessner 279
language functioning as a springboard in case of
lexical problems because of its dominant activation
in initial position, Italian was used as a confirmer
of the lexical choice as students used it after
a successful search, that is, after finding the English
target lexical item. This supports Hammarberg
(2001), who also found differences between
the roles of supporter languages and suggested
that they should be integrated into future models
of multilingual production.
Furthermore, a relationship between the use of
ML and the use of compensatory strategies was
detected. Analysis of the use of ML showed that:
(a) ML can precede switches and exert
a control function in production (E→G
wie sagt man da? [how do you say this?] →I
come quelli [like those]→G Plural→E).
(b) The language of the ML can be considered
an indicator of language dominance; in this case,
German ML was used most often.
(c) The number of ML-related switches appears
to be related to the number of languages
involved in a compensatory strategy; that is, most
ML-related switches were found in combined
strategies (see also Jessner, 2005, on multilingual
ML).
Relationship Between Crosslinguistic Interaction
and Metalinguistic Awareness. The relationship between
crosslinguistic interaction, that is, the activation
of languages other than the target language
during L3 production, and metalinguistic awareness
was the main focus of Jessner (2006). This
dynamic interplay between crosslinguistic interaction
and metalinguistic awareness sheds light
on key variables that form part of the M factor.
James (1996) defines crosslinguistic awareness as
knowledge held at the explicit (declarative) level
of metacognition. In his crosslinguistic approach
to language awareness, he points out that the “language
transfer issue of classical Contrastive Analysis
becomes a new issue of metalinguistic transfer—
and its relationship to cross-linguistic awareness”
(p. 143; emphasis in original; see also Schmid,
1993; Schweers, 1996).
According to the results of Jessner (2006),
learners express their crosslinguistic awareness by
making use of supporter languages. This process
is marked by the search for similarities, which is
part of metalinguistic thinking during multilingual
production processes (see also Cumming,
1988, on bilingual writing). Crosslinguistic awareness
in multilingual production is described as
(a) tacit awareness shown by the use of cognates
in the supporter languages (mainly in the use of
combined strategies) and (b) explicit awareness
in the case of switches that are introduced by metalanguage.
It is argued that the use of cognates
or the search for crosslinguistic similarities forms
an important part of compensatory strategy use in
multilingual production and hints at the problematic
usage of the implicit/explicit dichotomy, as
shown, for instance, by B¨orner (1997). He tested
N. Ellis’s (1994) claim that knowledge concerning
formal aspects of vocabulary is stored as implicit
knowledge while aspects of lexical meaning
are stored as explicit knowledge and found
only partial support for the claim. B¨orner points
out that the formal characteristics of cognates
are learned implicitly, whereas their syntactic
and morphological features are stored as explicit
knowledge, that is, resulting from conscious analysis.
More recently, N. Ellis (2005) discussed dynamic
interactions between explicit and implicit
knowledge.
Although the findings of the study have to
be seen as rather limited considering the small
database, produced by a very distinct population,
it can be concluded from the results that a definition
of multilingual proficiency would have to
include at least two types of awareness, which
are crosslinguistic awareness and metalinguistic
awareness. Crosslinguistic awareness in L3 production
can be defined as the awareness (tacit and
explicit) of the interaction between the languages
in a multilingual’s mind; metalinguistic awareness
adds to this by making objectification possible.
Differentiation and selectivity in multilingual production
seem to be governed by different levels of
awareness that should clearly lead us to question
a bipolar discussion of multilingual phenomena
(see also Cenoz, 2003).
FUTURE RESEARCH ON MULTILINGUAL
AWARENESS
Several questions concerning the force of metalinguistic
awareness in multilinguals or multilingual
awareness in multilingual systems have arisen
from Jessner (2006). They concern, for instance:
1. The integration of different roles for supporter
languages in (dynamic) models of multilingual
processing.
2. The relationship between a heightened level
of attention and a heightened level of awareness
in multilingual production.
3. The implicit/explicit dichotomy in research
on language acquisition.
4. Approaches to multilingual awareness in the
classroom.
5. How TLA might be modeled.
280 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
For further insight into the nature of metalinguistic
knowledge in multilinguals, and the effects
of raising awareness of that knowledge in multilingual
learners, future studies of multilingualism
should consider applying a DST approach to language
development to be able to explore and understand
the complex interrelationships among
variables involved in multiple language learning
over time (see Larsen-Freeman & Cameron,
2006).
Future tests of language proficiency for multilingual
learners or users might take a DST approach
to multilingual proficiency into consideration
by using a holistic approach. That is, apart
from testing linguistic knowledge, tests of multilingual
proficiency also should include tests of
metalinguistic knowledge, which clearly goes beyond
grammatical knowledge because it also includes
knowledge of crosslinguistic interaction in
multilingual learners (Jessner, 2006; Jessner, in
press a, b). The challenging enterprise for the
future will be to model the role of metalinguistic
awareness as a force or emergent property in multilingual
systems since it is itself affected by other
variables, is capable of affecting other variables,
and changes in terms of its magnitude and effect
on other variables over time.
A NEW WAY OF THINKING FOR
MULTILINGUALISM RESEARCH
This article presents DST as a useful conceptual
tool for researching multilingualism. For example,
DST helps to explain that there are qualitative
differences between L2 and L3 learning
and that a holistic approach to multilingual proficiency
is necessary to understand and set up goals
for multilingual teaching. It makes clear that a
multilingual norm ought to be used in linguistic
research, whether research into L1, L2, L3,
and so on, since research into multilingualism includes
all types of acquisition research. Such an
approach implies that multilingual competence
is not an exceptional form of linguistic competence,
but that monolingual language acquisition
presents an exceptional model that cannot be applied
to multilingualism. In addition, it implies
that multilingualism cannot be interpreted as additive
monolingualism, but that a multilingual system
must be interpreted as a different system with
different rules.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Jasone Cenoz, Paul
van Geert, Charlotte Kemp, Kees de Bot, the editor of
this Special Issue, and four anonymous reviewers for
their valuable comments and various discussions on this
issue.
REFERENCES
Abunawara, E. (1992). The structure of the trilingual
lexicon. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4,
311–322.
Ahukanna, J., Lund, N., & Gentile, R. (1981). Interand
intra-lingual interference effects in learning a
third language. Modern Language Journal, 65, 281–
287.
Aronin, L., & ´O Laoire, M. (2003). Exploring multilingualism
in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of
multilinguality. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (Eds.),
Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp.
11–29). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingualism and bilingual
education (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingualism and bilingual
education (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Bartelt, G. (1989). The interaction of multilingual constraints.
InH.W.Dechert&M. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual
processes (pp. 151–177). T¨ubingen, Germany:
Narr.
Bates, E., & Carnevale, G. (1992). Developmental psychology
in the 1990s: Language development. Project in
Cognitive Neurodevelopment. (CRL Tech. Rep.
No. 9204). University of California, San Diego:
Center for Research in Language.
Bleyhl, W. (1997). Fremdsprachenlernen als dynamischer
und nichtlinearer Prozeß oder: weshalb die
Bilanz des traditionellenUnterrichts und auch der
Fremdsprachenforschung “nicht schmeichelhaft”
szein kann [Foreign language learning as a dynamic
and non-linear process or: Why the outcome
of both traditional teaching and research of
foreign language learning cannot be “flattering”].
Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 219–238.
B¨orner, W. (1997). Implizites und explizites Wissen im
fremdsprachlichen Wortschatz [Implicit and explicit
knowledge in the foreign language vocabulary].
Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 44–67.
Briggs, J., & Peat, F. (1989). Turbulent mirror. An illustrated
guide to chaos theory and the science of wholeness.
New York: Harper & Row.
Cenoz, J. (2000). Research on multilingual acquisition.
In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe:
The acquisition of a third language (pp. 39–53).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2
status and age on cross-linguistic influence in L3
acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner
(Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in third language
acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8–20).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ulrike Jessner 281
Cenoz, J. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence in third
language acquisition: Implications of the organization
of the multilingual lexicon. Bulletin
VALS/ASLA, 78, 1–11.
Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Beyond bilingualism:
Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001a).
Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition:
Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001b).
Looking beyond second language acquisition. Studies
in tri- and multilingualism. T¨ubingen, Germany:
Stauffenburg.
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2003a).
The multilingual lexicon. Dorchrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2003b). Why investigate
the multilingual lexicon. In J. Cenoz, B.
Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual
lexicon (pp. 1–10). Dorchrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2000). English in Europe:
The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism:
Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics,
15, 197–209.
Chandrasekhar, A. (1978). Base language, IRAL, XVI, 1,
62–65.
Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument
and multi-competence. Second Language Research,
7, 103–117.
Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook
(Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–28). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on
the first. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (2006, September). The nature of the
L2 user . Plenary paper presented at the
EUROSLA conference, Antalya, Turkey. Retrieved
September 2007 from http://homepage.
nt1world.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/EURO-
2006.htm
Cumming, A. (1988). Writing expertise and second language
proficiency in ESL writing performance. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, University of Toronto,
Canada.
Cummins, J. (1991). Language learning and bilingualism.
Sophia Linguistica, 29, 1–194.
De Angelis, G. (2005a). Multilingualism and non-native
lexical transfer: An identification problem. International
Journal of Multilingualism, 2, 1–25.
De Angelis, G. (2005b). Interlanguage influence of
function words. Language Learning 55(3), 379–
414.
De Angelis, G., & Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage
transfer and competing linguistic systems. In J.
Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). Crosslinguistic
influence in third language acquisition:
Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 42–58). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
de Bot, K. (2000). Sociolinguistics and language processing
mechanisms. Sociolinguistica, 14, 345–361.
de Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: Modeling
selection and control. International Journal of Multilingualism,
1, 17–32.
de Bot, K., & Clyne, M. (1989). Language reversion revisited.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11,
167–177.
de Bot, K., & Jessner, U. (2002, March). The role of the
language node in multilingual processing . Paper presented
at the Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition
Colloquium, Leiden, The Netherlands.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic
systems theory to second language acquisition.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10,
7–21.
de Bot, K., & Makoni, S. (Eds.). (2005). Language and
aging in multilingual societies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage
as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19,
471–490.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Variation, chaos et syst`eme en interlangue
franc¸aise [Variation, chaos and system
in the French interlanguage]. In J.-M. Dewaele &
R. Mougeon (Eds.), L’appropriation de la variation
en franc¸ais langue ´etrang`ere. AILE (Acquisition
et interaction en langue ´etrang`ere), 17, 143–
167.
Ellis, N. (1994). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins
and outs of explicit cognitivemediation. InN. Ellis
(Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.
211–282). London: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions
of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 143–188.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in
foreign language communication. In C. Faerch &
G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication
(pp. 20–60). London: Longman.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). One learner-two
languages: Investigating types of interlanguage
knowledge. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.),
Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse
and cognition in translation and second language
acquisition studies (pp. 211–227). T¨ubingen,
Germany: Narr.
Faingold, E. (1999). The re-emergence of Spanish and
Hebrew in a multilingual adolescent. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2,
283–295.
Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The
cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition
comparing adults’ and children’s patterns
of development in first, second and third
language acquisition of relative clauses. International
Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 3–16.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York:
Viking.
282 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but
specific speaker-hearer. Journal ofMultilingual and
Multicultural Development, 6, 467–477.
Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In
J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual
language processing (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hall, C., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanism
in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In J. Cenoz,
B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). The multilingual
lexicon (pp. 71–86).Dorchrecht, TheNetherlands:
Kluwer.
Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production
and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen,
& U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in
third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives
(pp. 21–41). Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2000). Multilingualism as an
ecological system: The case for language maintenance.
In B. Kettemann & H. Penz (Eds.), ECOnstructing
language, nature and society: The ecolinguistic
project revisited (pp. 131–144). T¨ubingen, Germany:
Stauffenburg.
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of
multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic perspective.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Herwig, A. (2001). Plurilingual lexical organisation: Evidence
from lexical processing in L1–L2–L3–L4
translation. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner
(Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language
acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 115–
137). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hufeisen, B. (1998). L3-Stand der Forschung—Was
bleibt zu tun? [L3-State of the art—what needs to
be done?]. In B.Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.),
L2-L3 und ihre zwischensprachliche Interaktion: Zu
individueller mehrsprachigkeit und gesteuertem lernen
[L2-L3 and their crosslinguistic interaction: About
individual multilingualism and instructed learning
(pp. 169–183)]. T¨ubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.
Hulstijn, J. (2006, June). Defining and measuring the
construct of second-language proficiency. Plenary
paper presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference,
Montreal, Canada.
James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to language
awareness. Language Awareness, 4, 138–148.
Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals:
Cognitive aspects of third language
learning. Language Awareness, 3 & 4, 201–
209.
Jessner, U. (2003a). A dynamic approach to language
attrition in multilingual systems. In V. Cook (Ed.),
Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 234–
247). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Jessner, U. (2003b). On the nature of crosslinguistic
interaction in multilinguals. In J. Cenoz, B.
Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual
lexicon (pp. 45–55). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Jessner, U. (2005). Multilingual metalanguage, or the
way multilinguals talk about their languages. Language
Awareness, 14, 56–68.
Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals:
English as a third language. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh
University Press.
Jessner, U. (2007a). Language awareness in multilinguals.
In N. Hornberger (Series Ed.) & J. Cenoz
(Vol. Ed.), Knowledge about language: Vol. V. Handbook
of language and education (pp. 35–369). New
York: Springer.
Jessner, U. (2007b). Multicompetence approaches to
the development of language proficiency in multilingual
education. In N. Hornberger (Series Ed.)
& J. Cummins (Vol. Ed.), Bilingual education: Vol.
VI. Handbook of language and education (pp. 91–
103). New York: Springer.
Karpf, A. (1990). Selbstorganisationsprozesse in der sprachlichen
Ontogenese: Erst- und Fremdsprache(n) [Selforganization
in linguistic ontogenesis: First- and
foreign language(s)]. T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr.
Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and
mother tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer
to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
15, 125–150.
Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1986).
Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Kemp, C. (2001). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals:
Implicit and explicit grammatical awareness
and its relationship with language experience and
language attainment. Unpublished doctoral thesis,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Kemp, C. (2006, July). Implicit and explicit knowledge of
grammatical form and function in learners using three
or more languages. Paper presented at the conference
of the Association for Language Awareness,
Le Mans, France.
Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language
use: An ecological perspective. New York: Continuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science
and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,
18, 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and
language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective.
In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition
and language socialization: Ecological perspectives
(pp. 33–46). London: Continuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Second language acquisition
and the issue of fossilization: There is no end,
and there is no state. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.),
Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition
(pp. 189–200). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2006, June).
Research methodology on language development
from a complex systems theory perspective. Paper
presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal,
Canada.
Ulrike Jessner 283
Lasagabaster, D. (1997). Creatividad y concienca metaling
¨u´ıstica: incidencia en el aprendizaje del ingl´es como
L3 [Creativity and metalinguistic awareness: Effects
on learning English as L3]. Doctoral thesis,
University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz,
Spain.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and
corrective feedback in communicative language
teaching: Effects on second language learning.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 429–
448.
Lorenz, E. (1972). Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s
wing in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?
Paper presented at the American Association of
the Advancement of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skill and
metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In E. Bialystok
(Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children
(pp. 141–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McLaughlin, B., & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new
language: Does knowing other languages make a
difference? In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.),
Interlingual processes (pp. 5–14). T¨ubingen, Germany:
Narr.
Meara, P. (1999). Self organization in bilingual lexicons.
In P. Broeder & J. Muure (Eds.), Language and
thought in development (pp. 127–144). T¨ubingen,
Germany: Narr.
Meisel, J. (1983). Transfer as a second language strategy.
Language and Communication, 3, 11–46.
M¨ohle, D. (1989). Multilingual interaction in foreign
language production. In H. Dechert & M.
Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 179–
194). T¨ubingen, Germany: Narr.
M¨uller-Lanc´e, J. (2003). Der Wortschatz romanischer
Sprachen im Terti¨arspracherwerb [The vocabulary
of Romance languages in third language acquisition].
T¨ubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.
Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Experts and
novices: An information-processing approach to
the “good language learner” problem. Applied Psycholinguistics,
7, 51–56.
Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B.
(1990). Language-learning strategies in monolingual
and multilingual adults. Language Learning,
40(2), 221–244.
´O
Laoire, M., & Aronin, L. (2004). Exploring multilingualism
in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of
multilinguality. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (Eds.),
Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp.
11–29). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Peal, E., & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilingualism
to intelligence. Psychological Monographs,
76, 1–23.
Phillips, D. (1992). The social scientist’s bestiary: A guide
to fabled threats to, and defenses of, Naturalistic Social
Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1987). The
use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of
compensatory strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp.
213–229). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of first language in foreign
language learning . Clevedon, UK:Multilingual
Matters.
Safont Jord`a, M. (2003). Metapragmatic awareness and
pragmatic production of third language learners
of English: A focus on request acts realisations.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 43–69.
Schmid, S. (1993). Learning strategies for closely related
languages: On the Italian spoken by Spanish
immigrants in Switzerland. In B. Kettemann & W.
Wieden (Eds.), Current issues in European second
acquisition research (pp. 405–419). T¨ubingen, Germany:
Narr.
Schweers, W. (1996, July). Metalinguistic awareness and
language transfer: One thing leads to another. Paper
presented at the conference of the Association for
Language Awareness, Dublin, Ireland.
Singleton, D. (1999). Exploring the second language mental
lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strohner, H. (1995). Kognitive Systeme. Eine Einf¨uhrung
in die Kognitionswissenschaft [Cognitive systems:
An introduction to the science of cognition].
Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Thomas, J. (1992). Metalinguistic awareness in secondand
third-language learning. In R. Harris (Ed.),
Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 531–545).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development:
Change between complexity and chaos. NewYork:Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
van Geert, P. (2006, June). Modelling L1 and L2 development
as an iterative process. Paper presented at the
AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal, Canada.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language
learning. A sociocultural perspective.NewYork:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin,
Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zimmermann, R. (1992). Lexical knowledge: Evidence
from L1 and L2 narratives and L1–L2 translations.
In C. Mair & M. Markus (Eds.), Neue Ans¨atze in der
Kontrastiven Linguistik [New departures in contrastive
linguistics] (pp. 301–311). Innsbruck, Austria:
Verlag des Instituts f ¨ur Sprachwissenschaft.
Zipf, G. (1968). The Psycho-Biology of language: An introduction
to Dynamic Philology (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.