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 multilingualismhave 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- namic process. Although this statement can be regarded as common knowledge for many re- searchers in the eld of applied linguistics, most studies on language acquisition are nevertheless still placed within a theoretical framework work- ing with static or linear presuppositions. With an increase in the number of languages involved in multilingual development, the dynamics, that is, the changes andthe complexity of language learn- ing, 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 re- search; in other words, it is only by investigat- ing multilingual development that we can eval- uate 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 methodologi- cal tool to investigate multilingual phenomena. DST has been known in sciences such as meteo- The Modern Language Journal, 92, ii, (2008) 0026-7902/08/270283 $1.50/0 C 2008 The Modern Language Journal rology, mathematics, neurology, and psychology for some time, but was not applied to second lan- guage acquisition (SLA) until the 1990s (Bleyhl, 1997; Karpf, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Meara, 1999). Over the last decade, interest in the appli- cation 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 ac- quisition (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), can be re- garded as a rst 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 specically on the changing role of metalinguistic awareness in the use and learning of several lan- guages. I will start withthe explorationof the char- acteristics of multilingual development as ideal prerequisites for the application of DST to lan- guage acquisition research. How DST is applied Ulrike Jessner 271 to multilingualism research in the DMM will be described in the next section. The role of metalin- guistic knowledge and awareness of this knowl- edge 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 acquisi- tion or multilingualism has been increasingly in- tensied (see, e.g., Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a, 2001b, 2003a) with the main goal of describing multilingual phenom- ena in order to investigate differences and simi- larities between second (L2) and L3 acquisition. Most studies have been carried out in the elds of crosslinguistic lexical transfer, the effects of bilin- gualism on L3 learning, child trilingualism, and tertiary education (see Jessner, 2006). One of the most important questions in the eld 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 rst 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 learn- ers whose L1 is typologically unrelated to the L2 and/or L3 tend to transfer knowledge from their L2, or inthe case of bilinguals, fromthe related L1 (e.g., Ahukanna, Lund, & Gentile, 1981; Bartelt, 1989; Cenoz, 2001; Chandrasekhar, 1978). These results also have been supported by studies fo- cusing 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 inuenced by factors such as psychotypology (perceived linguis- tic distance between languages), recency of use, the level of prociency 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 learners perception of correctness of a target word (De Angelis & Selinker, 2001) (for a list of inuential factors, see also Hall & Ecke, 2003). Crosslinguistic inuence in a multilingual sys- tem not only takes place from the L1 to the L2 and vice versa. Further inuence has been de- tected from the L1 to the L3 and from the L2 to the L3 and vice versa. This expansion of transfer possibilities demonstrates that multilingual acqui- sition 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 an- other 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 dened in Zipfs law of least effort (Zipf, 1968). Consequently, using an L1 as indi- cator 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 multi- lingual system can become fossilized (i.e., will in very general terms stop growing), they will still be able to exert inuence on other parts of the system. In contrast to SLA, in third language acquisi- tion (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 consec- utively. 2. The three languages can be learned simulta- neously. 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 multi- lingualism research is problematic. For instance, L1, the term that in SLA studies is used to re- fer 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 (breadthor fre- quency 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., L1L2L3L2) (see, e.g., Faingold, 1999). From the above, it becomes clear that the de- scription of individual multilingual development (i.e., contact with more than two languages over the lifespan) has to take changes in multilin- gual prociency into account. Figure 1 (based on Herdina &Jessner, 2002, p.123) models the devel- opment of a multilingual system. It demonstrates how the speaker develops language prociency 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 de- velopment. The development of the third system is dependent on the acquisition of the rst two sys- tems, which in certain cases may take place at the same time, in the same way as simultaneous bilin- gualism. A closer look at the gure 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 sug- gest that the level of prociency of the primary language system remains constant, whereas, in fact, the level at which a language system sta- bilises is not xed and invariable [. . .] but subject to constant variation (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 113), as already mentioned. The graphs used in the DMMsimply relate language learning to time needed and predict the modications in expected language growth due to the effect of certain fac- tors assumed to affect multilinguals and ignore the fact that the level of achievement is hetero- geneous even in monolinguals let alone multilin- guals (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, pp. 8889). To summarize, it can be stated that the develop- ment 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 sys- tem on social, psycholinguistic, and individual factors (Herdina & Jessner, 2002), not to men- tion 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 model- ing to investigate properties of the dynamic adap- tation to contexts in change, is able to take all the relevant characteristics of multilingual learn- ing and use into account. In the following sec- tion, the application of the DMM to current mul- tilingualism research will be presented in more detail. APPLYING DST TO MULTILINGUALISM The DMM was conceptualized to: (a) serve as a bridge between SLA and multi- lingualism 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 multilin- gualism (c) overcome the implicit and explicit mono- lingual bias of multilingualism research through the development of anautonomous model of mul- tilingualism (d) provide a scientic means of predicting multilingual development on the basis of factors found to be involved (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, pp. 8687) Consequently, multilingualism research should avail itself of an autonomous theoretical basis, not merely relying on the ndings of L1 and/or L2 learning research since both the results and pre- dictions of research will always be distorted by the assumptions of individual language acquisi- tion studies, which are often cross-sectional. In DST, the call for studies of individual lan- guage 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 nd out about the differences and sim- ilarities between various forms of language devel- opment, 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 charac- teristics of the DMM will be presented in order to distinguish it from other, more common, ap- proaches to language acquisition research. (a) In the DMM, the discussion focuses not on lan- guages (L1/L2/L3/Ln) but on the development of in- dividual language systems (LS 1 /LS 2 /LS 3 /LS 4 , etc.) forming part of the psycholinguistic system. According to the DMM, the multilingual sys- tem is dynamic and adaptive. The multilingual system is accordingly characterized by continuous change and nonlinear growth. As an adaptive sys- tem, it possesses the property of elasticity, the abil- ity to adapt to temporary changes in the systems environment, and plasticity, the ability to develop new systems properties in response to altered con- ditions. This corresponds with van Geert (1994), who stated that a system is, by denition, a dy- namic systemandsowe dene a dynamic systemas a set of variables that mutually affect each others changes over time (p. 50; see also Briggs & Peat, 1989, p. 11). (b) In the DMM, psycholinguistic systems are de- ned as open systems depending on psychological and social factors. Linguistic aspects of individual multilingualism are shaped by the sociolinguistic settings in which the multilinguals 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 iden- tity and that the social and cultural environment plays a decisive role in the structure and speci- cations of multilinguality. In other words, lan- guage needs change according to the personal situationor evenchanges inidentity, as sometimes found in the lives of immigrants. Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2006) refer to the dynamic inter- action 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 so- cial (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 de- termined, are identied 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 lan- guage shouldbe addedtothe multilinguals reper- toire. 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 inuence 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 prociency, 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 con- tent 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 specic research factors (the aims of the study taking place . . . , the type and organization of the stimuli, the task used, etc.). (p. 5) Grosjeans work on language mode (e.g., 2001) discusses the notion of language choice in mul- tilingual speech situations and the psychologi- cal 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 activa- tion, in relation to her or his position on the language mode continuum. Activation of the vari- ous languages is strongly inuenced, among other factors, by the speakers usual language mixing habits, language prociency, socioeconomic sta- tus, 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 lan- guage maintenance. In the DMM, it is argued that the learners 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 refresh- ing 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 prociency is adjusted to the perceived communicative needs. The stability of a psycholinguistic system is dependent on the re- quirements of language maintenance; that is, the system will erode if not enough energy and time is invested in maintaining the system. Other fac- tors inuencing systems stability are the number of languages involved, the maturational age at which a language is learned and relative stabil- ity established, the level of prociency 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 com- mon phenomenon in multilingual learning. The reasons for fossilization are complex and interre- lated over time; in many cases, they are related to domain specicity 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 in- terdependent (rather than autonomous systems, as they are perceived in mainstream SLA research). The behavior of each individual language sys- tem in a multilingual system largely depends on the behavior of previous and subsequent sys- tems, 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 be- tween 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 fundamen- tal principles. By researching the dynamics of TLA or multiple language acquisition, the link between bilingualismas product and SLAas process can be understood as TLA can result from different ap- proaches 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 multilin- gual system are inuenced by individual cognitive factors such as motivation, anxiety, language ap- titude, and self-esteem as well as social factors, which can inuence linguistic aspects of the mul- tilingual system. As Briggs and Peat (1989) de- scribe, 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 princi- ples (Philips, 1992). Such a holistic view is a nec- essary presupposition of a dynamic view; a dy- namic view of multilingualism assumes that the presence of one or more language systems inu- ences 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 specically 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 estab- lished 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 bet- ter concept. Although he has shown interest in the role of the L2 in the L1 (Cook, 2003), in con- trast to the DMM, he has not focused on aspects of change in language development in his denition of language competence in bilinguals. According to Cook (2002), L2 users are charac- terized as follows: 1. The L2 user has other uses for language than the monolingual. 2. The L2 users knowledge of the second lan- guage is typically not identical to that of a native speaker. 3. The L2 users knowledge of his or her lan- guage is in some respects not the same as that of a monolingual. 4. L2 users have different minds from those of monolinguals. (pp. 48) Cooks ideas about the integration continuum, which captures different relationships between two language systems in the same mind from sep- aration to integration, thus ts 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 be- tween the L1 and the interlanguage within one mind is different from that between the interlan- guage in one mind and the L2 when the L2 has the status of an L1 in another mind (Cook, 2006). Cook himself pointed out in his plenary lecture given at the European Second Language Associa- tion Conference in 2006, that in order to capture the multilingual learners mind, we need a holis- tic approach such as that taken by Herdina and Jessner (2002) (Cook, 2006). A DST PERSPECTIVE OF MULTILINGUAL PROFICIENCY In the DMM, multilingual prociency is de- ned as the dynamic interaction among the vari- ous psycholinguistic systems (LS 1 , LS 2 , LS 3 , LS n ) 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 multilin- gual systems that distinguish a multilingual froma monolingual system, that is, all those qualities that develop in a multilingual speaker/learner due to the increase in language contact(s). As men- tioned above, language contacts depend on the perceived communicative needs of the individ- ual. Inother 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 Shar- wood Smiths (1986) crosslinguistic inuence, is described as an umbrella term, including not only transfer and interference, but also codeswitch- ing 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 de- termine the development of the systems them- selves (Jessner, 2003b; Kellerman, 1995). Such a view is also related, but not identical, to Cum- minss Common Underlying Prociency (e.g., 1991) and Kecskes and Papps Common Underly- ing Conceptual Base (2000) (see, e.g., Cook, 1991, 2002). According to the DMM, seemingly identi- cal 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 proper- ties are the result of autocatalytic effects, they are only to be found in open systems, and they are a function of the interaction between sys- tems. Yet, they are not systems properties per se (Strohner, 1995). The key factor of the M effect as it might also be referred to since it is dif- cult to decide whether it constitutes a precon- dition or a result of multilingualismis metalin- guistic awareness. It is made up of a set of skills or abilities that the multilingual user develops owing to her/his prior linguistic and metacogni- tive knowledge. The knowledge and metalinguis- tic awareness inuence 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 devel- ops certain skills and abilities that the monolin- gual speaker lacks. These are language-specic and nonlanguage-specic skills used in language learning, language management, and mainte- nance. Language management skills refer to the integration and separation of language resources 276 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008) FIGURE 2 Multilingual Prociency and the act of balancing communicative require- ments with language resources. In the DMM, the multilingual learner or user is assumed to de- velop and make use of an enhanced multilingual monitor, where monitoring goes beyond error de- tection and self-repair and fullls a separator and cross-checker function, for instance, by drawing oncommonresources inthe use of more thanone language system (see also de Bot & Jessner, 2002). Language maintenance skills are a necessary pre- requisite for the maintenance and increase of a certain level of language prociency. Language maintenance effort, which is considered a cru- cial part of individual multilingualism, mainly de- pends ontwo factors, that is, language use and lan- guage awareness. Whereas language use is seen as having a refresher or activating function that con- tributes to the maintenance of a language, lan- guage awareness refers to the conscious manipu- lation of and reection 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 lan- guage can prot from prior language learning experience, as emphasized by Hufeisen in her Factor model (e.g., 1998). Thus, multilingual sys- tems contain components that monolingual sys- tems lack, and even those components that the multilingual system shares with the monolingual system have a different signicance within the system. This stands in clear contrast to common approaches to dening language prociency in second language learning theory, including most recent attempts to dene native language pro- ciency as the goal of second language learn- ing, such as Hulstijns (2006) denition of core prociency as an alternative concept to native- speaker prociency. Such an approach neglects the cognitive skills that nonnative speakers of a language acquire on top of all of their linguis- tic skills, such as an enhanced level of metalin- guistic 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 em- phasized by Cook (2003): If the L1 of the L2 user were different from that of monolingual na- tive 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 nec- essary operationalization to be immediately ver- iable. But it is important to realize that met- alinguistic abilities, if a function of multilingual acquisition, obviously presuppose the existence of this phenomenon and are, therefore, difcult to observe in primary language acquisition, be it monolingual or multilingual. Nevertheless, they are expected to have a catalytic effect on fur- ther 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 aware- ness, which is related to reading acquisition in the native language), as pointed out by de Bot et al. (2007), researching the role of metalinguis- tic 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 buttery effect or sensi- tive 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 inuenced by the accelerat- ing effect that the development of metalinguistic awareness can have on further or L3 learning in particular. THE KEY ROLE OF METALINGUISTIC AWARENESS IN TLA Dening Metalinguistic Awareness Metalinguistic awareness encompasses the lin- guistic skills that develop at the higher level of creativity and reorganization of information (Hamers & Blanc, 1989). It can be dened as the ability to focus on linguistic form and to switch fo- cus 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 inuential study, which was published in 1962, ascribed a crucial role to the higher level of metalinguis- tic 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 journal- ists and authorsthe nature of awareness can- not be compared in both degree and quality to awareness as developed in bi- and multilin- gual 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 individ- uals living with two or three languages is seen to develop with regard to (a) divergent and cre- ative thinking (e.g., wider variety of associations, original ideas); (b) interactional and/or prag- matic competence (cultural theorems of greeting, thanking, etc.); (c) communicative sensitivity and exibility (language mode); and (d) translation skills that are considered a natural trait in the ma- jority of multilinguals (Jessner, 2006). Translation also should be included in a comprehensive list- ing, as it is a natural characteristic of bi- and mul- tilingualism, which Malakoff and Hakuta (1991) describe as a composite of communicative and metalinguistic skillsskills that are translinguis- tic, 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 multi- lingualism has so far mainly been done to explore the effects of bilingualism on L3 learning and conditions for articial 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 develop- ment. She concludes that most studies on general prociency indicate a positive effect of bilingual- ism on TLA and that this effect can be explained as related to learning strategies, metalinguistic awareness, and communicative ability, in partic- ular 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 En- glish, was found (Ringbom, 1987; Thomas, 1992; Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Lasagabaster, 1997; Sa- font, 2003). Articial Language Learning. Nation and McLaughlin (1986); Nayak, Hansen, Krueger, & McLaughlin (1990); and McLaughlin and Nayak (1989) studied the learning of articial miniature linguistic systems. The rst study showed a pos- itive 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, al- though they were found to adapt their learning strategies more easily to task requirements. The third study suggested a learning advantage for ex- pert learners over less experienced foreign lan- guage learners. Kemp (2001) found that the per- formance of multilingual adults on all six tests of grammatical awareness, including one using ar- ticial grammars, increased with the number of languages they knew. Exploring Metalinguistic Awareness in Multi- linguals. 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). Anintrospective 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 pro- duction. The theoretical background of the study was provided by the DMM. The sample consisted of 17 bilingual stu- dents (L12: ItalianGerman) from South Ty- rol (Italy) studying English (B2 on the Com- mon European Frame of Reference, describing an intermediate prociency 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 multi- lingual testing group not only had to study En- glish as a subject at Innsbruck University, but also live with families who use both Italian and Ger- man, to ensure high prociency 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 crosslinguis- tic interaction and metalinguistic awareness in the use of compensatory strategies, as dened by Poulisse, Bongaerts, and Kellerman (1997). Faerch and Kasper (1983) dened 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) howstudents think about language(s). Think-aloud protocols were chosen as method- ological tools to provide evidence of language choice during the production of writing tasks (based on Cummings Ph.D. dissertation, 1988). The analysis concentrated on (a) how students re- sorted to other languages during a lexical search either before or after the L3 item and (b) the identication of different forms and functions of codeswitching. Based on Zimmermanns index of lexical insecurity (1992), lack of knowledge and the search for alternatives were identied as the main functions of (or causes for) compensatory strategies. Analysis of the strategies that the students used to overcome their linguistic decits shows that they resorted to both Italian and German, either before or after the target language item. They produced German-based, Italian-based, and com- bined strategies. Most strikingly: (a) Before the L3 item, they produceda 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 replace- ments for L3 items. The results of the study point to several issues, which certainly need more attention in future re- search into multilingualism. They concern (a) the use of supporter languages in L3 production, and (b) the use of metalanguage (ML), the most ex- plicit expression of metalinguistic awareness. Judging by the position of switching within a sentence, German and Italian were assigned dif- ferent roles inthe productionof 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 activa- tion in initial position, Italian was used as a con- rmer of the lexical choice as students usedit after a successful search, that is, after nding the En- glish target lexical item. This supports Hammar- berg (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 (EG 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 ap- pears 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 relationshipbe- tween crosslinguistic interaction, that is, the acti- vationof languages other thanthe target language during L3 production, and metalinguistic aware- ness was the main focus of Jessner (2006). This dynamic interplay between crosslinguistic inter- action and metalinguistic awareness sheds light on key variables that form part of the M factor. James (1996) denes crosslinguistic awareness as knowledge held at the explicit (declarative) level of metacognition. In his crosslinguistic approach to language awareness, he points out that the lan- guage 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 multilin- gual production processes (see also Cumming, 1988, on bilingual writing). Crosslinguistic aware- ness 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 met- alanguage. It is argued that the use of cognates or the search for crosslinguistic similarities forms an important part of compensatory strategy use in multilingual productionand hints at the problem- atic usage of the implicit/explicit dichotomy, as shown, for instance, by B orner (1997). He tested N. Elliss (1994) claim that knowledge concern- ing formal aspects of vocabulary is stored as im- plicit knowledge while aspects of lexical mean- ing 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 anal- ysis. More recently, N. Ellis (2005) discussed dy- namic interactions between explicit and implicit knowledge. Although the ndings 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 de- nition of multilingual prociency would have to include at least two types of awareness, which are crosslinguistic awareness and metalinguistic awareness. Crosslinguistic awareness in L3 pro- duction can be dened as the awareness (tacit and explicit) of the interaction between the languages in a multilinguals mind; metalinguistic awareness adds to this by making objectication possible. Differentiation and selectivity in multilingual pro- duction 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 met- alinguistic awareness in multilinguals or multilin- gual awareness in multilingual systems have arisen from Jessner (2006). They concern, for instance: 1. The integration of different roles for sup- porter languages in (dynamic) models of multi- lingual 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 metalin- guistic knowledge in multilinguals, and the effects of raising awareness of that knowledge in multi- 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 variables involved in multiple language learn- ing over time (see Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2006). Future tests of language prociency for mul- tilingual learners or users might take a DST ap- proach to multilingual prociency into consider- ation by using a holistic approach. That is, apart from testing linguistic knowledge, tests of mul- tilingual prociency also should include tests of metalinguistic knowledge, which clearly goes be- yond grammatical knowledge because it also in- cludes 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 mul- tilingual 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 concep- tual tool for researching multilingualism. For ex- ample, DST helps to explain that there are qual- itative differences between L2 and L3 learning and that a holistic approach to multilingual pro- ciency is necessary to understand and set up goals for multilingual teaching. It makes clear that a multilingual norm ought to be used in linguis- tic research, whether research into L1, L2, L3, and so on, since research into multilingualism in- cludes all types of acquisition research. Such an approach implies that multilingual competence is not an exceptional form of linguistic compe- tence, but that monolingual language acquisition presents an exceptional model that cannot be ap- plied to multilingualism. In addition, it implies that multilingualism cannot be interpreted as ad- ditive monolingualism, but that a multilingual sys- tem 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, 311322. Ahukanna, J., Lund, N., & Gentile, R. (1981). Inter- and intra-lingual interference effects in learning a third language. Modern Language Journal, 65, 281 287. Aronin, L., &
O Laoire, M. (2003). Exploring multilin- gualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of multilinguality. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (Eds.), Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp. 1129). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingualism and bilin- gual education (3rd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilin- gual Matters. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingualism and bilin- gual education (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilin- gual Matters. Bartelt, G. (1989). The interaction of multilingual con- straints. InH. W. Dechert &M. Raupach(Eds.), In- terlingual processes (pp. 151177). T ubingen, Ger- many: Narr. Bates, E., & Carnevale, G. (1992). Developmental psychol- ogy 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 dynamis- cher und nichtlinearer Proze oder: weshalb die Bilanz des traditionellenUnterrichts undauchder Fremdsprachenforschung nicht schmeichelhaft szein kann [Foreign language learning as a dy- namic and non-linear process or: Why the out- come of both traditional teaching and research of foreign language learning cannot be attering]. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 219238. B orner, W. (1997). Implizites und explizites Wissen im fremdsprachlichen Wortschatz [Implicit and ex- plicit knowledge in the foreign language vocabu- lary]. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 26, 4467. Briggs, J., & Peat, F. (1989). Turbulent mirror. An illus- trated guide to chaos theory and the science of whole- ness. New York: Harper & Row. Cenoz, J. (2000). Research on multilingual acquisition. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Eu- rope: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 3953). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic inuence in L3 acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Crosslinguistic inuence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 820). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ulrike Jessner 281 Cenoz, J. (2003). Cross-linguistic inuence in third language acquisition: Implications of the orga- nization of the multilingual lexicon. Bulletin VALS/ASLA, 78, 111. Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education. Cleve- don, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001a). Crosslinguistic inuence in third language acquisi- tion: 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 Nether- lands: Kluwer. Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2003b). Why in- vestigate the multilingual lexicon. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 110). 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 Psy- cholinguistics, 15, 197209. Chandrasekhar, A. (1978). Base language, IRAL, XVI, 1, 6265. Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research, 7, 103117. Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 128). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the rst. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (2006, September). The nature of the L2 user . Plenary paper presented at the EUROSLA conference, Antalya, Turkey. Re- trieved September 2007 from http://homepage. nt1world.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/EURO- 2006.htm Cumming, A. (1988). Writing expertise and second lan- guage prociency in ESL writing performance. Un- published doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, Canada. Cummins, J. (1991). Language learning and bilingual- ism. Sophia Linguistica, 29, 1194. De Angelis, G. (2005a). Multilingualism and non-native lexical transfer: An identication problem. Inter- national Journal of Multilingualism, 2, 125. De Angelis, G. (2005b). Interlanguage inuence 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.). Cross- linguistic inuence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 4258). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. de Bot, K. (2000). Sociolinguistics and language pro- cessing mechanisms. Sociolinguistica, 14, 345361. de Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: Modeling selection and control. International Journal of Mul- tilingualism, 1, 1732. de Bot, K., & Clyne, M. (1989). Language reversion re- visited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 167177. de Bot, K., & Jessner, U. (2002, March). The role of the language node in multilingual processing. Paper pre- sented at the Second Language Vocabulary Acqui- sition Colloquium, Leiden, The Netherlands. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dy- namic systems theory to second language acqui- sition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 721. de Bot, K., & Makoni, S. (Eds.). (2005). Language and aging in multilingual societies. Clevedon, UK: Mul- tilingual Matters. Dewaele, J.-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French inter- language as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19, 471490. Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Variation, chaos et syst` eme en in- terlangue francaise [Variation, chaos and system in the French interlanguage]. In J.-M. Dewaele & R. Mougeon (Eds.), Lappropriation de la varia- tion en francais langue etrang` ere. AILE (Acquisi- tion et interaction en langue etrang` ere), 17, 143 167. Ellis, N. (1994). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive mediation. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 211282). London: Academic Press. Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Stud- ies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 143188. Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage commu- nication (pp. 2060). 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: Dis- course and cognition in translation and second lan- guage acquisition studies (pp. 211227). 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, 283295. Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language ac- quisition comparing adults and childrens pat- terns of development in rst, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. Interna- tional Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 316. 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 specic speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6, 467477. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilinguals language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 125). Oxford: Blackwell. Hall, C., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mech- anism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.). The multilingual lexicon (pp. 7186). Dorchrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilinguality and bilin- gualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 pro- duction and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic inuence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspec- tives (pp. 2141). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mat- ters. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2000). Multilingualism as an ecological system: The case for language mainte- nance. In B. Kettemann & H. Penz (Eds.), ECOn- structing language, nature and society: The ecolinguis- tic project revisited (pp. 131144). T ubingen, Ger- many: Stauffenburg. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism: Changing the psycholinguistic per- spective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Herwig, A. (2001). Plurilingual lexical organisation: Ev- idence from lexical processing in L1L2L3L4 translation. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic inuence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 115 137). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hufeisen, B. (1998). L3-Stand der ForschungWas bleibt zu tun? [L3-State of the artwhat 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 learn- ing (pp. 169183)]. T ubingen, Germany: Stauf- fenburg. Hulstijn, J. (2006, June). Dening and measuring the construct of second-language prociency. Plenary paper presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal, Canada. James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to lan- guage awareness. Language Awareness, 4, 138148. Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in mul- tilinguals: 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 rst (pp. 234 247). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Jessner, U. (2003b). On the nature of crosslinguis- tic interaction in multilinguals. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 4555). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Jessner, U. (2005). Multilingual metalanguage, or the way multilinguals talk about their languages. Lan- guage Awareness, 14, 5668. Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language. Edinburgh, UK: Edin- burgh University Press. Jessner, U. (2007a). Language awareness in multilin- guals. In N. Hornberger (Series Ed.) & J. Cenoz (Vol. Ed.), Knowledge about language: Vol. V. Hand- book of language and education (pp. 35369). New York: Springer. Jessner, U. (2007b). Multicompetence approaches to the development of language prociency in multi- lingual 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 sprach- lichen Ontogenese: Erst- und Fremdsprache(n) [Self- organization 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 inuence: Trans- fer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguis- tics, 15, 125150. Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1986). Crosslinguistic inuence in second language acquisi- tion. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Kemp, C. (2001). Metalinguistic awareness in multilin- guals: Implicit and explicit grammatical awareness and its relationship with language experience and language attainment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United King- dom. Kemp, C. (2006, July). Implicit and explicit knowledge of grammatical form and function in learners using three or more languages. Paper presented at the confer- ence of the Association for Language Awareness, Le Mans, France. Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and lan- guage use: An ecological perspective. New York: Con- tinuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguis- tics, 18, 141165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use froma chaos/complexity theory per- spective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisi- tion and language socialization: Ecological perspec- tives (pp. 3346). London: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Second language acquisi- tion 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. 189200). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mat- ters. 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, Mon- treal, Canada. Ulrike Jessner 283 Lasagabaster, D. (1997). Creatividad y concienca metal- ing ustica: incidencia en el aprendizaje del ingl es como L3 [Creativity and metalinguistic awareness: Ef- fects 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 ap of a but- terys 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. Bia- lystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual chil- dren (pp. 141166). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity 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. 514). T ubingen, Ger- many: Narr. Meara, P. (1999). Self organization in bilingual lexicons. In P. Broeder & J. Muure (Eds.), Language and thought in development (pp. 127144). T ubingen, Germany: Narr. Meisel, J. (1983). Transfer as a second language strategy. Language and Communication, 3, 1146. M ohle, D. (1989). Multilingual interaction in for- eign 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 acqui- sition]. T ubingen, Germany: Stauffenburg. Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Experts and novices: An information-processing approach to the good language learner problem. Applied Psy- cholinguistics, 7, 5156. Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language-learning strategies in monolin- gual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, 40(2), 221244.
O Laoire, M., & Aronin, L. (2004). Exploring multilin-
gualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of multilinguality. In C. Hoffmann & J. Ytsma (Eds.), Trilingualism in family, school and community (pp. 1129). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Peal, E., & Lambert, W. (1962). The relation of bilin- gualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76, 123. Phillips, D. (1992). The social scientists 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 inthe analysis of compensatory strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 213229). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of rst language in for- eign 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, 4369. Schmid, S. (1993). Learning strategies for closely re- lated languages: On the Italian spoken by Spanish immigrants in Switzerland. In B. Kettemann & W. Wieden (Eds.), Current issues in European second acquisition research (pp. 405419). T ubingen, Ger- many: 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 second- and third-language learning. In R. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 531545). Amsterdam: Elsevier. van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. NewYork: Har- vester Wheatsheaf. van Geert, P. (2006, June). Modelling L1 and L2 develop- ment as an iterative process. Paper presented at the AAAL/CAAL conference, Montreal, Canada. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of lan- guage 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 fromL1 and L2 narratives and L1L2 translations. In C. Mair & M. Markus (Eds.), Neue Ans atze in der Kontrastiven Linguistik [New departures in con- trastive linguistics] (pp. 301311). Innsbruck, Aus- tria: Verlag des Instituts f ur Sprachwissenschaft. Zipf, G. (1968). The Psycho-Biology of language: An intro- duction to Dynamic Philology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Left Out of Context: A Study On Second Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in Daily Interactions Among Teachers of English As A Second Language.