[ee]international journal of bilingualism-2003

7/27/2019 [EE]International Journal of Bilingualism-2003

1/18

http://ijb.sagepub.com/Bilingualism

International Journal of

http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/136700690300700105012003 7: 71International Journal of Bilingualism

Jasone CenozThe additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Journal of BilingualismAdditional services and information for

http://ijb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ijb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 2003Version of Record>>

at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013ijb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ijb.sagepub.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ijb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ijb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ijb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ijb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71.full.pdfhttp://ijb.sagepub.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71.full.pdfhttp://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ijb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ijb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71http://ijb.sagepub.com/


2/18

The additive effect of bilingualism on

third language acquisition: A review*Jasone Cenoz

University of the Basque Country

Acknowledgments*

The author wishes to thank Colin Baker, Durk Gorter, and Charlotte Hoffmann for their commentson earlier versions of this art icle.

Abstract

This article looks at the general effects of bilingualism on cognitive develop-ment and highlights the specific effects of bilingualism on third languageacquisition. First, it examines the effects of bilingualism on cognitive develop-ment, metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills and then, it focuseson the specific effects of bilingualism on third language proficiency bydiscussing the results of several research studies conducted in differentsettings and contexts. An importan t d istinction is made between studies

focusing on the acquisition of general proficiency in the third language andstudies that examine specific aspects of third language proficiency. Theeffects of bilingualism on third language acquisition are discussed as relatedto the experience acquired by third language learners in the process of second language acquisitionand the effects of bilingualism on metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills. These effectsare also discussed with reference to the concepts of additive bilingualism (Lambert, 1974), thethreshold hypothesis (Cummins, 1976) and the distinction between control of attention and analysis(Bialystok, 1991).

1 IntroductionThe study of third language acquisition has developed considerably in the last few years,reflected in the publication of several articles and volumes that cover different aspects ofthis phenomenon (see e.g. Cenoz, Hufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Cenoz &Jessner, 2000; Clyne, 1997; Hoffmann, 2001). Third language acquisition refers to theacquisition of a non-native language by learners who have previously acquired or areacquiring two other languages. The acquisition of the first two languages can be simul-taneous (as in early bilingualism) or consecutive. The study of third language acquisitionbrings together two fields which have traditiona lly ignored each other: second language

acquisition and bilingualism. Third language acquisition shares many characteristics withsecond language acquisition but it also presents differences because third language learnershave more language experience at their disposal as second language learners, are influencedby the general effects of bilingualism on cognition, and have access to two linguisticsystems when acquiring a th ird language (see also Herdina & Jessner, 2002).

71

The International Journal of Bilingualism

Effect of bilingualism: A review

Address for correspondence

Volume 7 Number 1 March 2003, 71 87

Dept of English and German Philology, University of the Basque Country, P.O. Box2111, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain;e-mail: < [email protected]>.

Key words

bilingualism

metalinguisticawareness

third languageacquisition

http://ijb.sagepub.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/http://ijb.sagepub.com/


3/18

Some studies have compared the strategies used by monolingual and bi/ multilinguallearners and have reported that multilinguals use a wider range of linguistic and mnemonicstrategies and are more flexible in their use than monolinguals (see e.g. McLaughin & Nayak,

1989). On the other hand, third language learners have the possibility of using twolanguages as base languages in third language acquisition as compared to second languagelearners who can only use their first language as the base language (see Cenoz, Hufeisen,& Jessner, 2001a).

Third language acquisition presents more temporal diversity than second languageacquisition. When two languages are involved, we only have two tempora l possibilities,the acquisition of the two languages is either simultaneous (early bilingualism) or consec-utive (first language acquisition + second language acquisition). When three languagesare acquired, we have four possibilities (see Cenoz, 2000 for 4 languages). The threelanguages can be acquired consecutively (L1L2L3); two languages could be acquiredsimultaneously before the L3 is acquired (Lx/LyL3) or after the first language (L1Lx/Ly) or the three languages could be acquired simultaneously in early trilingualism(Lx /Ly/ Lz). In this article we will focus on some specific aspects of third language acqui-sition as relating to the first two situations, that is, when the acquisition of a third languagestarts chronologically after the acquisition of the other two languages. Apart from thetemporal diversity related to the chronological order of acquisition, third language acqui-sition also presents considerable diversity regarding other factors usually considered insecond language acquisition research such as the context in which the languages havebeen acquired (natural or formal), the age of acquisition or the use of the languages.Other factors traditionally associated with research in bilingualism also add to the diver-sity of third language acquisition. Among these factors are the status of the differentlanguages involved, the degree of bilingualism and the type of bilingualism in the L1 andL2 (or Lx and Ly) presented by the learners when acquiring the th ird language.

The aim of this article is to look at the general effects of bilingualism on cognitivedevelopment and particularly on third language acquisition. According to folk wisdom, addi-tional languages are acquired by bilinguals and multilinguals more easily than by monolinguals.

That is, the more languages one knows, the easier it becomes to acquire an additionallanguage. If this is the case, bilinguals would make more progress when learning a thirdlanguage than monolinguals learning a second. Apart from rate, there is also the possi-bility that third language acquisition could present qualitative differences when comparedto second language acquisition. That is, bilinguals could follow a different route whenacquiring a third language than monolinguals acquiring a second language. In the followingsections I will review the studies on the effects of bilingualism on cognitive development,metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills and then I will discuss studies on theeffect of bilingualism on L3 proficiency and the possible explanations for those findings.

2 The effect of bilingualism on cognitive development,metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills

It is generally acknowledged that Peal and Lambert s study (1962) on the effect of bilin-gualism on cognitive development was an important landmark in the study of bilingualism(Baker, 2001; Hamers & Blanc, 2000). This study compared the results obtained in several

72


J. Cenoz



4/18

cognitive tests by bilingual (French-English) and monolingual (French or English) primaryschool children. The results of the study indicated that bilingual children scored higheron several verbal and nonverbal tests of cognitive ability. This study had a great impact

on research in bilingualism because previous results had generally found that b ilingualismwas negatively associated with cognitive development and also because Peal and Lambert(1962) had matched the bilingual and monolingual groups for variables such as sex, age,and socioeconomic level that had no t been well controlled in previous studies. Althoughsome methodological aspects of the study have been criticized, for example the exclusionof unbalanced bilinguals, this study triggered off a large number of better controlledstudies on the effect of bilingualism.

In contradiction to the studies conducted between the 1920s and the 1960s, studiescarried out in the recent decades have generally associated bilingualism with cognitive advan-tages. The main advantages observed in bilinguals lie in the following areas (see Baker,2001; Hamers & Blanc, 2000 for reviews):

1. According to research studies conducted in different contexts bilingual childrenpresent higher scores in tests of divergent thinking or creative thinking (see Baker,2001;Ricciardelli, 1992 for reviews). These advantages are more consistent in the caseof balanced bilinguals but it is important to take into account that some of theresearch studies present methodological problems, some of which will be mentionedlater (see also Baker, 2001).

2. Research on the effects of bilingualism on metalinguistic awareness has associatedbilingualism with a higher ability to reflect on language and to manipulate it (seee.g., Ben-Zeev, 1977a, 1977b; Bialystok, 1991, 2001; Cummins, 1978; Ianco Worrall,1972; R icciardelli, 1992). Bialystok (2001) reviews research on th e relationshipbetween bilingualism and metalinguistic awareness and concludes that bilingualstend to obtain better results in tasks related to word awareness and in tasks thatdemand high levels of control of attention. She also states that there are no consis-tent differences in tasks that demand high levels of analysis of representationalstructures. For example, bilinguals are not expected to be superior to monolinguals

when identifying grammatically incorrect meaningful sentences but tend to be supe-rior when ident ifying grammatically correct anomalous sentences. She also reportsthat bilinguals with a high level of proficiency in the two languages are in somecases superior to monolinguals in tasks demanding a high level of analysis. Therefore,in the case of metalinguistic awareness balanced bilingualism also seems to be asso-ciated with better results but not necessarily in all tasks.

3. According to some research studies, bilingual children are more sensitive to thecommunicative needs of their interlocutors and use more varied communicationstrategies (Genesee, Tucker, & Lambert, 1975;Thomas, 1992). This enhanced ability

could be related to the fact that bilinguals have to keep their languages separate andhave to switch languages according to the different situations.

A review of these studies is beyond the scope of this article but as an example wecan mention the study conducted by R icciardelli (1992) in South Australia using a sampleof 57 Italian-English bilinguals and 55 English monolinguals. The results of this studyindicate that highly proficient bilinguals, those who had attained a high level of proficiency

73





5/18

in the two languages, presented advantages in divergent th inking, imagination, grammat-ical awareness, perceptual organization and reading achievement.

Regarding communication skills, we can also mention the finding reported in Thomas(1992) who found that b ilinguals who were learning a third language relied more oncommunication strategies in comparison to monolinguals and in this way they were ableto maintain the conversation.

3 The effect of bilingualism on L3 proficiencyResearch on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition presents great diver-sity regarding the aims of the research studies, the languages involved and the degree ofproficiency in the different languages. Some studies have focused on the effect of bilin-gualism on general proficiency in the third language (Cenoz, 1991; Sanz, 2000) whileothers have a more limited scope and focus on very specific aspects of proficiency orspecific aspects of language processing (Gibson, Hufeisen, & Libben, 2001;Klein, 1995).

The folk idea that bilinguals learn a third language more easily than monolingualswas also proposed by researchers in the sixties and seventies (Alber t & Obler, 1978;Jacobsen & Imhoof, 1974;Lerea & Kohut, 1961;Saif & Sheldon, 1969;Vildomec, 1963).

There are different possible approaches that can be used when reviewing studies onthe effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition. In this article more holistic studies

on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition will be considered separatelyfrom stud ies on the effect of bilingualism on very specific aspects of language proficiencypart icularly because this distinction is relevant for the interpretation of the results. Thisdistinction is necessary because, even if bilingualism has an effect on third languageacquisition, it does not have to affect all aspects of third language proficiency in the sameway, and different conclusions can be drawn depending on the dimension of language profi-ciency taken into consideration.

4The effect of bilingualism on general proficiency

in the third languageThese studies focus on the effect of bilingualism on general language proficiency (ora l,written or both) in the third language. In all cases at least one of the languages involvedis a minority language in the community, that is, a less-spread language which canhave different degrees of institut ional support and can be the learners first or secondlanguage. Institutional support in the case of minority languages depends to a largeextent on the status of the languages as official which is more common in the case ofauthochthonous languages than in the case of immigrant languages. Most studies havebeen carried out in formal (e.g., school) contexts.

The studies conducted in the Basque Countr y and Catalonia (Cenoz, 1991;Lasagabaster, 1997; Muoz, 2000; Sagasta, 2001; Sanz, 2000 and this volume) examinethe acquisition of English as a third language by learners who are bilingual in Spanishand Basque or Spanish and Catalan. Although there are important differences related tothe knowledge and use of the majority language in the Basque Country and Catalonia,the socioeducational background in both communities is similar in the sense that Spanish

74


J. Cenoz



6/18

and the minority language (Basque or Catalan) are official languages and are used ineducation. Three of these studies (Cenoz, 1991; Lasagabaster, 1997; Sanz, 2000) comparethe degree of proficiency in English obtained by monolinguals and bilinguals once indi-

vidual factors such as intelligence, mot ivation or exposure to the language have beencontrolled.

Cenoz (1991, see also Cenoz & Valencia, 1994) conducted a study which included 321bilingual (Basque-Spanish) and monolingual (Spanish) secondary school students whowere acquiring English as a t hird language. Once the effect of factors such as socio-economic status, exposure to English, general intelligence and motivation ha d beencontrolled, bilingualism was found to exert a significant influence on different measuresof English language proficiency such as listening, writing, speaking, reading, grammar andvocabulary. Nevertheless, the effect of factors such as general intelligence and motiva-tion was more important than the influence of bilingualism.

The study by Lasagabaster (1997, see also Lasagabaster, 2000) is an extension of theprevious study which also compares the level of proficiency in English obtained by 252bilingual and monolingual children in the Basque Coun try. In this case, the schoolsselected were located in a non-Basque speaking area and the subjects were in the fifth yearof primary school and the second year of secondary school. Once the effect of factorssuch as socioeconomic level, exposure to the language, general intelligence and motiva-tion had been controlled, the results indicated that the level of bilingualism (Basque-Spanish)

is closely related to the level of proficiency in English as measured by several tests of oraland written proficiency. Lasagabaster (1997) also found that bilinguals presented a higherlevel of metalinguistic awareness than monolinguals.

Sanz (2000) presents the results of another study comparing bilinguals and mono-linguals. In this case the bilinguals were 124 Catalan-speaking subjects who were alsoproficient in Spanish, and the monolingual participants were 77 Spanish-speaking subjectsfrom a d ifferent a rea of Spain outside Cata lonia. All the subjects completed tests ofgrammar and vocabulary in English. Other factors such as general intelligence, exposure,attitudes, mot ivation and socioeconomic status were also controlled. The results confirmed

those obtained in the previous studies, as bilinguals obtained higher scores in the Englishtests.

The study presented by Sagasta in th is volume (see also Sagasta, 2001) examinesthe acquisition of English as a third language in the Basque Country but compares bilin-gual learners who present a different level of bilingual proficiency. The results of thisstudy are consistent with those of other studies (Gonzalez Ardeo, 2000;Lasagabaster, 1997;Muoz, 2000) and indicate that a h igher level of bilingualism is associated with higherscores in different measures of writing in English as a third language. One of these studieswas conducted by Muoz (2000) in Catalonia and she found that there were significantcorrelations between tests of Catalan, Spanish and English. Therefore those learners witha h igh level of proficiency in the L1 and the L2 also presented a high level of proficiencyin English.

Outside the Basque Country and Catalonia, Brohy (2001) conducted a study on theacquisition of French as a third language by Romansch-German bilinguals and German-speaking monolinguals in Switzerland. Brohy measured general ability in French and

75





7/18

found that bilinguals obtained significantly higher scores in the acquisition of Frenchthan monolinguals.

The results of these studies indicate that bilinguals obta in higher levels of profi-ciency in a third language. These are third language learners who are bilingual and usethe minority language as the language of instruction. In these cases, the two languagesspoken by the bilingual learners have official status in the community.

In other studies (see below) the learnersfirst language is not an official language inthe community, and although there may be a few hours devoted to the minority languagein the curriculum, it is not the main language of instruction. Some examples of thesestudies are those conducted in Canadian French immersion programs.

Bild and Swain (1989) compared the level of French proficiency attained by three

groups of learners: 16 monolingual children with English as their first language, 16 bilin-gual children (Ita lian as L1 and English as L2) and 15 bilingual children (non-Romancelanguage as L1 and English as L2). In this study, factors such as sex, age, academic achieve-ment, parental education, parental occupation, teacher and self-evaluation of Englishand French were controlled, and learners had to complete story retelling tasks and clozetests in order to measure their grammatical, discourse and strategic competence. Bothgroups of bilingual children obtained higher scores in the French tests than monolingualchildren but there were no significant differences between the two bilingual groups inspite of the typological relation between the L1 of one of the groups (Italian) and the target

language.Another study conducted by Swain, Lapkin, Rowen, and Hart (1990) goes a step further

and examines the relationships between literacy skills and typology and the influence ofbilingualism (heritage language and English) in the acquisition of French. The samplecomprises 159 learners and the four sk ills were measured: listening comprehension,reading, writing and speaking. The results of this study indicate that literacy in the heritagelanguage has a positive effect on third language learning. The effect of typology is not asimportant and when speakers of Romance and non-Romance languages were compared.The only significant measures were found in the case of global understanding and fluency.

Other studies have also report ed advantages associated with bilingualism in th irdlanguage acquisition (Edwards, Doutriaux, M cCarrey, & F u, 1977; Eisenstein, 1980;Wightman, 1981) but in other cases no differences have been reported (Edwards & Casserly,1976; Edwards, Doutriaux, McCarrey, & Fu, 1976). Some of these older studies presentmethodological problems because the sample was limited and also because other factorssuch as socioeconomic status were not controlled.

More evidence to support the advantages of multilingualism can be found in theresults of double immersion programs in which trilingual school children were comparedto children in bilingual immersion schools in Canada. These results indicate that thesimultaneous acquisition of two languages presents positive outcomes and they havebeen related to the cognitive and linguistic advantages associated with bilingualism (seee.g., Genesee, 1998).

Some European studies conducted with immigrant children have found no significantdifferences between monolinguals and bilinguals in the acquisition of a third language. Forexample, Jaspaert and Lemmens (1990) analyzed the acquisition of Dutch as a third language

76


J. Cenoz



8/18

by Italian immigrant children who also received instruction in Italian and French in the FoyerProject. Proficiency in Dutch was evaluated by using a battery of tests which included testsof grammar, writing, vocabulary, dictation, reading and a cloze test. When the level of profi-

ciency in Dutch of Ita lian-French bilinguals was compared to that of French-speakingmonolinguals, no significant differences were observed. These results are considered posi-tive taking into account that D utch was a third language for immigrant children.

Another study on th ird language acquisition was conducted by Sanders and M eijers(1995) in the Netherlands. Part icipants in this study were 46 Turkish-Dutch bilingualspeakers, 31 Moroccan-Arabic bilingual speakers and 15 Dutch speakers who were learningEnglish as a third language. Other factors such as socioeconomic status and intelligencewere controlled and several abilities were measured: grammatical judgment, spontaneouslanguage use, word comprehension, word production and word recognition. The resultsindicate that no differences were found between monolinguals and bilinguals.

Another study conducted in the Netherlands by Schoonen, van G elderen, de Glopper,Hulstijn, Snellings, Simis, and Stevenson (2002) focused on proficiency in written Englishby native speakers of Dutch and immigrants who are bilingual in their L1 and D utch andlearn English as a third language. The results of the study indicate that there are no signifi-cant differences in the different measures of writing proficiency between the two groupsin spite of the general trend for immigrant learners to present poor school achievement.The results presented by van Gelderen et al. (this volume) indicate that there are no d iffer-

ences between the same bilinguals and mono linguals in most of the scores of Englishreading proficiency although there are some significant d ifferences in two of the meas-ures. These results are explained by linguistic distance between the L1 and the L3 in thecase of immigrant learners, but other explanations related to the development of the L1and its status could also explain the results.

Mgiste (1984) report s a study conducted by Balke-Aurell and Lindblad (1982) inSweden in which the level of proficiency in English attained by native speakers of Swedishand immigrants who are bilingual in Swedish and another language was compared. A totalnumber of 2736 immigrants were tested and the battery of tests included grammar,

listening, word comprehension and reading. The general results indicate that there are nodifferences between the groups. Mgiste (1984) also presents the data in which passive bilin-guals (who only use Swedish in everyday life) and active bilinguals (who use Swedish andanother language in everyday life) are compared. The results obtained by passive bilin-guals in general proficiency are slightly higher (103.4 vs. 97.4 and 105.5 vs.100.1) but thereis no indication of whether these differences are statistically significant or not.

Therefore, these European studies indicate that , in general terms, when monolin-gual speakers of the national language and bilingual immigrants are compared there are,in general terms, no differences in third language acquisition.

Another study conducted with immigrants in the U.S. focused on the acquisition ofFrench as a third language by monolingual English-speakers and bilingual English-Spanishspeakers (Thomas, 1988). Part icipants were 16 bilinguals and 10 monolinguals and vocab-ulary, grammar and written production tests were included. Thomas controlled for otherfactors such as socioeconomic status, exposure to the language, method and teacher. Theresults indicate that b ilingual learners obtained significant ly higher scores in French than

77





9/18

their monolingual peers. In spite of the size of the sample, Thomas divided the bilingualgroup into two subgroups: those who had literacy skills in their first language (Spanish)and those who were fluent in the first language but only had literacy skills in English. It

was observed that , as in the case of Canadian immersion (Swain et al., 1990), literacy inthe first language exerted a positive influence on the acquisition of French as a th irdlanguage. Thomas explains these findings in terms of metalinguistic awareness andconsiders that bilinguals have developed a sensitivity to language as a system which helpsthem perform better on those activities usually associated with formal language learning(Thomas, 1988, p. 240).

Opposite results were obtained by Tena (1988) who compared monolinguals and bilin-guals in the acquisition of English in the Philippines. This doctoral dissertation included 120subjects who either had Tagalog/ Filipino or a vernacular language as a first language andwere instructed thorough the medium of Tagalog/ F ilipino and they were all learn ingEnglish as a third language. The tests included writing, a cloze test and school grades inEnglish. Tena found that bilinguals presented significantly higher scores in all tests ofEnglish than monolinguals.

In sum, studies on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition conductedin different contexts tend to associate bilingualism with a dvantages in th ird languageacquisition. However, not all research studies report positive effects of bilingualism on thirdlanguage acquisition. As we have seen, some studies comparing the degree of proficiency

achieved in the third language by bilingual immigrant students and majority languagestudents have reported no differences, and exceptionally, some studies have reported thatbilinguals obtain lower results than monolinguals. The findings of the latter studies onthird language acquisition share some characteristics with the results of other studies onthe effects of bilingualism because those studies in which bilinguals present no advantagesusually involve subtractive contexts (Lambert, 1974).

5 The effect of bilingualism on specific aspects of L3proficiency

Some studies have focused on specific areas of language proficiency such as the phonetics,lexis, syntax or pragmatics. Studies on phonetic discrimination (Cohen, Tucker, & Lambert,1967; Davine, Tucker, & Lambert, 1971; Enomoto, 1994; Werker, 1986) present mixedresults. In an early study, Davine, Tucker, and Lambert (1971) compared the phoneticdiscrimination abilities of bilinguals (French-English) and monolinguals (English) in anadditiona l language and found no differences between the two groups. Similarly, Werker(1986) found no differences between multilinguals and monolinguals in the discrimina-tion of H indi sounds that did not exist in the languages they could speak. On the otherhand, Cohen, Tucker, and Lambert (1967) reported the superiority of bilinguals (English-French) when discriminating sounds not included in the French and English phoneticsystems. In a more recent study, Enomoto (1994) compared the discrimination of morasounds in Japanese by five bilingual and five monolingual subjects and observed thatbilinguals had advantages over monolinguals.

Some studies have analyzed the differences between monolinguals and multilingualsin some specific aspects of syntax. For example, Zobl (1993) used a grammaticality judg-

78


J. Cenoz



10/18

ment test to measure several structures such as adjacency of verb and ob ject, indirect anddirect object passive, indirect and d irect object wh-movement. Part icipants were 18 mono-lingual and 15 multilingual learners of English and the scores of the grammaticality

judgment test did no t present differences. Zobl indicated that multilinguals formulatewider grammars, that is, they accept as correct more incorrect sentences than mono-linguals. According to Zobl this difference between monolinguals and bilinguals could explainwhy bilinguals have advantages when learning additional languages. Monolinguals tendto formulate grammars that are just powerful enough to fit the input data , that is theirgrammars are more restricted but include fewer errors. Multilinguals generate larger gram-mars which include incorrect sentences but allow them to progress faster.

Klein (1995) conducted a study with 17 monolinguals and 15 multilinguals learning

English and tested specific verbs and their prepositional complements (lexical learning)preposition stranding (syntactic learning). Multilinguals presented significantly higherscores in both constructions, but both groups presented the same types of errors and thisis interpreted as a difference in rate but not in route.

Some studies in which bilinguals and monolinguals have been compared have notreported advantages for b ilinguals. For example, Mgiste (1984) mentions a study byJung (1981) who compared the command of monolinguals and bilinguals for somemorphological and syntactic elements (possessive pronouns, personal pronouns, plural,copula). Jung found that German learners of English presented higher scores than immi-

grants bilingual learners, but does not indicate whether the differences are statisticallysignificant.

Okita and Jun Hai (2001) compared monolingual Chinese-speakers to bilingualChinese-English speakers in the acquisition of Japanese writing characters. The specificwriting system was Kanji which is close to the Chinese system (Hanzi). The results of thestudy indicate that the scores obtained by monolinguals (Chinese) are higher than thoseobtained by bilinguals (Chinese-English). The explanation provided by the researchers isthat the bilinguals, who were from Singapore, did not have a strong command of theChinese writing system and therefore could not transfer it to Japanese as the Chinese

monolinguals did.Safont (this volume) focused on a specific area of pragmatic competence and

compared monolingual (Spanish) and bilingual (Catalan-Spanish) learners in the acqui-sition of requests in English. She found that bilinguals obtained significantly higher scoresthan monolinguals on d ifferent measures of pragmatic competence.

Gibson, Hufeisen, and Libben (2001) examined the acquisition of German prepo-sitions by learners who were studying German as an L2 or as an L3 (or L4). They foundno statistical differences between the two groups. They consider that the specific charac-

teristics of the task and interference from other languages could explain these results.The studies on specific areas of language proficiency tend to evidence mixed results, andtheir comparability is severely limited by their diversity regarding the specific areas oflanguage proficiency tested and their different research techniques.

79





11/18

6 Explanations for positive, neutral, and negative effectsof bilingualism on third language acquisition

An overview of the research studies reported here suggests that bilingualism has no nega-tive effect on th ird language acquisition and in many cases can enhance the acquisitionof a third language. Nevertheless, we can observe that the results vary according to thecontext and the different aspects of language proficiency taken into consideration. Generalaspects of L3 proficiency show more favorable to bilinguals than those studies in whichvery specific aspects of language proficiency were analyzed. Third language acquisitionis a complex process that can be affected by many factors and therefore it is not possibleto provide a simple explanation to account for the results of the studies. Third language

acquisition studies are related both to second language acquisition research and researchon bilingualism, two areas that have unfortunately tended to be isolated from each otherover the years. Second language acquisition research has focused on the process of acquiringa second language and the results of this process, that is the general level of proficiencyatta ined in the ta rget language or in specific areas of the ta rget language (see e.g. Ellis,1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). On the other hand, research on bilingualism hasmainly focused on the level of bilingual proficiency and on the influence of bilingualismon cognition. In this section, these two approaches are considered in order to explain theresults mentioned in the previous sections.

7 Explanations related to the influenceof the process of SLA on TLA

Explanations take into account the experience acquired by third language learners whileacquiring the second language. That is, third language learners can be considered expertlanguage learners as compared to novice second language learners. The process ofacquiring a second language may influence the process of acquiring a third language.Therefore it could be that third language learners use more efficient strategies than secondlanguage learners. That is, they may have developed specific learn ing / processing strate-gies when they learned a second language and they may benefit from the use of thosestrategies.

Several studies have been carried out comparing monolinguals and multilinguals inthe completion of learning and processing tasks. In a series of studies, McLaughlin andNayak (1989), Nation and M cLaughlin (1986), and N ayak et al. (1990) compared mono-linguals and multilinguals learning artificial linguistic systems. In general, these series ofstudies report that multilingual subjects were superior to monolinguals in three differentways (1) they demonstrated greater flexibility in switching strategies according to the

demand characteristics of the task, (2) they were more likely to modify strategies thatwere not effective in language learning, and (3) they were more effective using implicit learn-ing strategies. Although these studies confirm the advantages presented by bilinguals theyalso have certain limitations. They do not deal with the acquisition of natura l languagesbut miniature ar tificial systems. Also, these studies were conducted under laboratoryconditions. These characteristics have some advantages regarding experimental compa-rability, but do not necessarily imply that the same differences will be found in the case

80


J. Cenoz



12/18

of third language acquisition in natural or formal settings (i.e., when the third languageis an acquired natural language). Another limitation of these studies is that they onlyfocus on specific aspects of linguistic competence that are not necessarily the most influ-

ential in communication. Unfortunately, the studies on third language acquisition reportedin the previous section do not focus on processing strategies and cannot p rovide evidenceon this issue.

Missler (2000) used a different approach to analyze the relationship between expe-rience in foreign language learning and t he development of learn ing strat egies. Sheexamined the relationship between measures of experience in foreign language learningand the use of learning strategies as report ed by her subjects. The results of this study indi-cate that experienced language learners use more frequently learning strategies than otherlearners. These results are interesting but do not confirm that learners who use more

strategies make necessarily more progress when acquiring additional languages.

Another well known study on processing skills was conducted by M giste (1979).She compared reaction times presented by monolinguals, bilinguals and t rilinguals whencompleting some encoding and decoding tasks. The results indicated that multilingualspresented longer reaction t imes than monolinguals. Although this study is often quotedas evidence for possible problems in language processing in the case of third language acqui-sition, it is important to remember that in this study monolinguals, bilinguals and trilingualsmay not have the same level regarding proficiency in the languages tested. Trilingualshave longer latencies when completing tasks in two of their languages but this does notimply that they would progress more slowly than monolinguals or bilinguals if they wereall acquiring a non-native language.

The studies discussed in this section may be relevant to analyzing the influence ofthe SLA process on the TLA process, but they do not specifically compare the twoprocesses. They also present limitat ions because they focus on very specific aspects oflanguage processing and language learning strategies. Even if bilinguals benefit from theirexpertise acqu ired when learning their second language, research in th is area is still in itsinfancy and there are many questions that need to be answered. Such questions includethe following: Do early bilinguals have similar p rocessing strategies as bilinguals whohave acquired their second language at a later stage? When do monolinguals develop thesame processing strategies as bilinguals? Do differences between monolinguals and bilin-guals disappear when monolinguals have advanced in the process of becoming bilinguals?

In spite of its limitations, research conducted so far in this area is useful because itprovides some insights into the different stra tegies used by monolinguals and multilingualsand these differences could help to explain the effect of bilingualism on general proficiency.They also provide hypotheses for testing in future research.

8 Explanations related to the outcomesof bilingualismMost research studies on the positive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisitionrelate the advantages presented by bilinguals to the influence of bilingualism on cogni-tive development (concept formation, creativity, visual-spatial abilities) and specificallyto metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills (see e.g. Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; Jessner,

81





13/18

1999). In this case we are referring to an indirect effect of bilingualism, that is, bilin-gualism affects cognition, metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills and thesein turn , affect third language acquisition.

The explanat ions related to the outcomes of bilingualism are interesting because theycan explain both positive and negative outcomes depending on the conditions in whichbilingualism takes place. These conditions have been explained by Lambert (1974) asadditive and subtractive bilingualism depending on the status and use of the languagesin the community. When the first language is valued, and when acquisition of a secondlanguage does not replace the first language, bilingualism is associated with positive cogni-tive consequences. The opposite situation would be subtract ive bilingualism, and in th iscase bilinguals can evidence disadvantages. Cummins (1976, 1991) has explained theoutcomes of bilingualism as related to the level of proficiency acquired in the two languages(threshold hypothesis) and the po tential transfer of academic proficiency between thelanguages (interdependence hypothesis). H igh levels of proficiency in two languages(upper threshold) are associated with positive cognitive consequences while low levels ofproficiency (lower threshold) with neutral or even occasional negative cognitive effects.If this hypothesis is extended to th ird language acquisition, we can expect that an upperthreshold of bilingual proficiency would lead to cognitive advantages. According to theinterdependence hypothesis (Cummins, 1991) bilinguals are able to transfer skills from theirfirst language for use in their second language and it could be expected that they can alsobe capable of transferring skills from the two languages they know to a third language.The sociolinguistic context and the level of bilingual proficiency can explain why learnerswith a minority language as their first language have advantages when their L1 is valuedin society and they have acquired literacy skills in their L1 as it is report ed in most of thestudies on the general effects of bilingualism.

The study of the cognitive outcomes of bilingualism has had an important devel-opment in the last decades and can provide some useful explanations regarding the specificrole of bilingualism in third language acquisition. These explanations seem to be moreappropriate to explain the study of the effect of bilingualism on general proficiency in the

L3 than for the effect on the specific aspects of proficiency. Nevertheless, here, too, thereare many questions that need to be answered. Some of these questions are the following:Is the effect of bilingualism different at varying stages of the language acquisition process?Why are advantages sometimes reported even in the case of subtractive contexts? Whichfactors determine the difference between neutra l and negative effects?

9 ConclusionStudies on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition tend to confirm the

advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals in language learning. The results concerninggeneral aspects of proficiency are more consistent than those in which very specific aspectsof proficiency have been ana lyzed. The two approaches have been considered whenproviding explanations on the relationship of bilingualism and third language acquisition:one of them is linked to the more process-oriented tradition of SLA research and theother to the product-oriented tradition of research in bilingualism. Both approachesare necessary and complement each other, and they are both more useful in providing

82


J. Cenoz



14/18

explanat ions regarding the effect of bilingualism on general than on specific aspects ofproficiency. Most studies on general aspects of proficiency indicate that bilingualism hasa positive effect on third language acquisition when L3 acquisition takes place in addi-

tive contexts and bilinguals have acquired literacy skills in both their languages. Thiseffect can be explained a s related to learning strategies, metalinguistic awareness andcommunicative ability, but it can also be linked to the fact that bilinguals have a widerlinguistic repertoire that can be used as a basis in th ird language acquisition. This posi-tive transfer between languages is enhanced if languages are typologically close (see e.g.,R ingbom, 1987).

The effect of bilingualism on specific aspects of proficiency is less consistent and onepossible explanation is related to Bialystoks (2001) findings that bilinguals do not demon-strate advantages on all aspects of metalinguistic awareness. Extending these findings tothird language acquisition, it can be expected that the advantages are only observed in somespecific aspects related to high levels of control of attention but not high levels of repre-sentat ional ana lysis (see Bialystok, 2001, pp. 145 151 for the differences betweenmonolinguals and bilinguals). Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that thirdlanguage acquisition is a complex phenomenon affected by a large number of individualand contextual factors and b ilingualism is one of these factors but not necessarily the mostimportant factor in third language acquisition (see e.g., Cenoz & Valencia, 1994). In sum,when comparing bilinguals and monolinguals, it is important to take into account differentaspects related to the ou tcomes of bilingualism but also other factors that influencelanguage acquisition.

In spite of the important development of studies in third language acquisition andthe t rends discussed in this article, research studies conducted so far have different aimsand use different methodological approaches. In some cases research generalizes findingsconcerning very specific aspects of proficiency to general development of the third language.It is necessary to conduct more research that takes into account the specific characteris-tics of third language acquisition and consider that multicompetence is not the sum ofmonolingual competences (Cook, 1993). Third language learners can be expected to developdifferent new skills as compared to second language learners (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).

References

ALBERT, M. L., & OBLER, L. K. (1978). The bilingual brain. New York: Academic Press.BAKER, C. (2001).Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.BALKE-AURELL, G., & LINBLAD, T. (1982).Immigrant children and their languages. Department

of Education Research, University of Go thenburg.BEN-ZEE V, S. (1977a). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive development and cognitive

strategy. Child Development, 48, 1009 1018.BEN-ZEEV, S. (1977b). The effects of bilingualism in children from Spanish-English lower economic

neighborhoods on cognitive development and cognitive strategy. Working Papers in Bilingualism,14, 83122.

BIALYSTOK , E. (1991).Meta linguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency. In E. Bialystok(Ed.),Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 113140). Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

83





15/18

BIALYSTOK, E. (2001).Bilingualism in development. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress.

BILD, E. R ., & SWAIN, M. (1989). Minority language students in a French Immersion programme:

Their French proficiency.Journal of Multilingual and M ulticultural Development, 10, 255274.BROHY, C. (2001). Generic and/ or specific advantages of bilingualism in a dynamic plurilingual

situation: The case of French as official L3 in the school of Samedan (Switzerland).InternationalJournal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 3849.

CENOZ, J. (1991).Enseanza-aprendizaje del ingls como L 2 o L3. Leioa: Universidad del PasVasco.

CENOZ, J. (2000). Research on multilingual acquisition. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.),Englishin Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp.3953). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

CENOZ, J., & GEN ESEE, F. (1998). Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multi-lingual education. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.),Beyond bilingualism: M ultilingualism and

multilingual education (pp.16 32). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CENOZ, J., HUFEISEN, B., & JESSNER, U. (Eds.). (2001a). Third language acquisition in the

school context [Special issue].International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 4.CENOZ, J., HUFEISEN, B., & JESSNER, U. (Eds.). (2001b).Looking beyond second language acqui-

sition: S tudies in tri-and multilingualism. Tbingen: Stauffenburg.CENOZ, J., HUF EISEN, B., & JESSNER, U. (Eds.). (2001c). Cross-linguistic influence in third

language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CENOZ, J., & JESSNER, U. (Eds.). (2000).English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CENOZ, J., & VALEN CIA, J. F. (1994).Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country.

Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195 207.CLYNE, M. (1997). Some of the things trilinguals do. The International Journal of Bilingualism,

1, 95116.COHEN, S. P., TUCKER, R., & LAMBERT, W. E. (1967).The comparative skills of monolinguals

and bilinguals in perceiving phoneme sequences.Language and Speech, 10, 159168.COOK , V. (1993). Wholistic multicompetence: Jeu desprit or paradigm shift? In B. Kettemann &

W. Wieden (Eds.), Current issues in European second language acquisition research (pp.39).Tbingen: Narr.

CUMMINS, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth. Working Papers onBilingualism, 9, 143.

CUMM INS, J. (1978). Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness.Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 11311149.

CUMM INS, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second language proficiency. In E. Bialystok(Ed.),Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 7089). Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

DAVINE, M., TUCK ER, R., & LAMBERT, W. E. (1971). The perception of phoneme sequencesby monolingual and bilingual elementary school children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,3, 72 76.

EDWARDS, H. P. , & CASSERLY, M. C. (1976).Research and evaluation of second language( French) research programs. Toronto: Ministry of Education, Ontario.

EDWARDS, H. P., DOUTRIAUX, C. W., McCARREY, H., & FU, L. (1976).Evaluation of secondlanguage programs: Annual report 1975 1976. Ottawa: Ottawa Roman Catholic SeparateSchool Board .

EDWARDS, H. P., DOUTRIAUX, C. W., McCARREY, H., & FU, L. (1977).Evaluation of thefederally and provincially funded extensions of the second language programs in the schools of

the Ottawa R oman Catholic separate school board. Ottawa: Ottawa Roman Catholic SeparateSchool Board .

84


J. Cenoz



16/18


17/18

MGISTE, E. (1979).The competing language systems of the multilingual: A developmenta l studyof decoding and encoding processes.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 7989.

MGISTE, E. (1984). Learning a third language.Journal of M ultilingual and M ult icultural

Development, 5, 415 421.McLAUG HLIN, B., & NAYAK, N. (1989). Processing a new language: Does knowing other

languages make a difference? In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.),Interlingual processes(pp. 5 16). Tbingen: Gunter Narr.

MISSLER , B. (2000). Previous experience of foreign language learning and its contribution t o thedevelopment of learning strategies. In S. Dentler, B. Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Tertirund Drittsprachen (pp. 7 21). Tbingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

MU OZ, C. (2000). Bilingualism and t rilingualism in school students in Catalonia. In J. Cenoz &U. Jessner (Eds.),English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language(pp.157178). Clevedon:Multilingual Mat ters.

NATION, R ., & McLAU GH LIN, B. (1986). Novices and experts: An information processingapproach to the good language learner problem.Applied Psycholinguistics, 7, 4156.

NAYAK, N., HANSEN, N., KRUEGER, N., & McLAUGHLIN, B. (1990). Language-learning strate-gies in monolingual and multilingual adults.Language Learning, 40, 221 244.

OKITA, Y., & JUN HAI, G. (2001). Learning of Japanese Kanji character by bilingual and mono-lingual Chinese speakers. In J. Cenoz; B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.),Looking beyond secondlanguage acquisition: S tudies in tri- and multilingualism(pp.63 73). Tbingen: Stauffenburg.

PEAL, E., & LAMBERT, W. E. (1962).The relationship of bilingualism to intelligence. PsychologicalM onographs, 76, 123.

RICCIAR DELLI, L. A. (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to thresholdtheory.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 301316.RINGBOM, H. (1987). The role of the f irst language in foreign language learning. Clevedon:

Multilingual Mat ters.SAIF, P. S., & SHELDON, M. E. (1969). An investigation of the experimental French Program at

Bedford Park and Allenby Public Schools. Toronto: Toronto Board of Education.SAGASTA, M. P. (2001).La produccin escrita en euskara, castellano e ingls en el modelo D y en

el modelo de inmersin. Leioa: Universidad del Pas Vasco.SANDER S, M., & MEIJERS, G. (1995). English as L3 in the elementary school.IT L Review of

Applied Linguistics, 1078, 5978.

SANZ, C. (2000).Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia.Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 23 44.

SCHOONEN, R. , GELDEREN, A. van , GLOPPER, K. de, HULSTIJN, J., SNELLINGS, P.,SIMIS, A., & STEVENSON, M. (2002). Linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledgeand retrieval speed in L1, L2 and EF L writing. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.),Newdirections for research in L 2 writing (pp.101122).Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

SWAIN, M., LAPKIN, S., ROWEN, N., & HART, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacyin third language learning.Language, Culture and Curriculum, 3, 6581.

TENA, V. G. S. (1988).The effects of bilingualism versus trilingualism on English literacy achieve-ment in a Philippine high school. Unpublished D octoral D issertation. Stanford University.

THOMAS, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third languagelearning.Journal of M ultilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 235 246.

THOMAS, J. (1992). Metalinguistic awareness in second- and th ird-language learning. In R. J.Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 531 545). Amsterdam: North Holland.

VILDOMEC, V. (1963).M ultilingualism. Berlin: Sythoff-Leyden.WER KER , J. (1986). The effect of multilingualism on phonetic perceptual flexibility.Applied

Psycholinguistics, 7, 141156.

86


J. Cenoz



18/18

WIGHTMAN, M. (1981). The French listening comprehension skills of grade-six English programstudents; Second year of testing. Ottawa: Research Center / Center de Recherches. OttawaBoard of Education.

ZOBL, H. (1993). Prior linguistic knowledge and the conservation of the learning procedure:Grammaticality judgments of unilingual and multilingual learners. In S. M. Gass & L.Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp.176 196). Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

87Effect of bilingualism: A review

[ee]international journal of bilingualism-2003

Documents