Content uploaded by Jasone Cenoz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jasone Cenoz on Nov 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
LanguageTeaching
http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA
AdditionalservicesforLanguageTeaching:
Emailalerts:Clickhere
Subscriptions:Clickhere
Commercialreprints:Clickhere
Termsofuse:Clickhere
Theinfluenceofbilingualismonthirdlanguage
acquisition:Focusonmultilingualism
JasoneCenoz
LanguageTeaching/Volume46/Issue01/January2013,pp7186
DOI:10.1017/S0261444811000218,Publishedonline:15June2011
Linktothisarticle:http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444811000218
Howtocitethisarticle:
JasoneCenoz(2013).Theinfluenceofbilingualismonthirdlanguageacquisition:Focuson
multilingualism.LanguageTeaching,46,pp7186doi:10.1017/S0261444811000218
RequestPermissions:Clickhere
Downloadedfromhttp://journals.cambridge.org/LTA,IPaddress:158.227.184.22on04May2013
Lang. Teach. (2013), 46.1, 71–86 c
Cambridge University Press 2011
doi:10.1017/S0261444811000218 First published online 15 June 2011
The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus
on multilingualism
Jasone Cenoz University of the Basque Country
jasone.cenoz@ehu.es
This paper focuses on the advantages that bilinguals have over monolinguals when acquiring
an additional language. Bilinguals are more experienced language learners and have
potentially developed learning strategies to a larger extent than monolinguals. They also have
a larger linguistic and intercultural repertoire at their disposal. In this paper the methodology
and results of studies on the influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition (TLA) will
be reviewed and their contribution to the study of multilingualism discussed. A new
perspective,
FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM,
is presented as a more appropriate way to analyse the
effect of bilingualism on TLA. This perspective is holistic and focuses on multilingual speakers
and their linguistic repertoires, including the interaction between their languages.
1. Introduction
Many people learn and use a third language. This is particularly true in multilingual settings,
where several languages are part of everyday life. Asia and Africa are the most multilingual
continents but third language acquisition (TLA) is common in many other parts of the world
as well. TLA is more common among the immigrant population and speakers of minority
languages but second, third and additional languages can also be learned in monolingual
contexts.
Third language acquisition is a relatively new area of research that has expanded rapidly
in recent years, highlighting the differences between acquiring a second and third language.
The term ‘TLA’ usually denotes ‘the acquisition of a language that is different from the first
and the second and is acquired after them’ (Cenoz forthcoming a); it is also used to denote the
STUDY of third language acquisition. Although there are different terminological proposals
(see, for example, Hammarberg 2010), in this article I use ‘third language’ to mean a language
acquired chronologically after the first and the second or after the two first languages in the
case of early bilinguals.
Differences between second language acquisition (SLA) and TLA have been neglected
in SLA research and in studies on bilingualism. For this reason, TLA can be considered
Revised version of a plenary address given atthe 22nd Inter national Conference on Foreign/Second Language Acquisition
in Szczyrk, Poland, 28 May, 2010.
72 PLENARY SPEECHES
as a reaction. The intense activity in TLA is reflected in the number of monographs,
special issues and edited volumes published recently on different aspects of TLA (see, for
example, Safont 2005; De Angelis 2007; Cenoz 2009; Aronin & Hufeisen 2009; Leung
2009; Lindqvist & Bartel 2010). In 2004, a specialized journal, the International Journal of
Multilingualism made its appearance. Other activities are the bi-annual conference on TLA,
the International Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism and the
International Association of Multilingualism.
TLA is a broad area and research focuses on different processes and factors affecting
its development. Research in TLA can also adopt a variety of methodologies. The term
TLA is sometimes used as synonymous for ‘multilingualism’, but in a strict sense it means
the acquisition of a third language, and multilingualism is a much broader term that does
not necessarily refer to acquisition. TLA can be regarded as a specific aspect of the study
of multilingualism (see Cenoz forthcoming b). The areas of TLA that have received most
attention are cross-linguistic influence on TLA and the influence of bilingualism or prior
linguistic knowledge on the acquisition of a third language.
With regard to the first of these areas, learners are influenced by both their L1 and L2
when learning an L3 and research on cross-linguistic influence in TLA has tried to identify
the patterns of this influence at the phonological, lexical and syntactic levels as well as the
factors that can predict this influence (De Angelis 2007; Ringbom 2007; Hammarberg 2009;
Lindqvist & Bartel 2010; Wrembel, Gut & Mehlhorn 2010).
In this paper I will focus on the second area, that is, the influence of bilingualism or prior
linguistic knowledge on the acquisition of a third language. The question that needs to be
answered and discussed here is this:
Do bilinguals have advantages over monolinguals when learning an additional language?
In section 2, I will compare SLA and TLA and in section 3, I will provide a brief review
of research on TLA. Then, in section 4, I will argue that the research approach used so far
in TLA research poses some problems, and I will discuss an alternative approach, FOCUS ON
MULTILINGUALISM. The last section of this paper briefly mentions the teaching implications
of this approach.
2. Second language acquisition and the acquisition of additional languages
TLA shares many of the characteristics of SLA, but there are also important differences
because third language learners already have at least two languages in their linguistic
repertoire. Third language learners can use this broader linguistic repertoire when learning
a third language. For example, they can relate new structures, new vocabulary or new ways
of expressing communicative functions to the two languages they already know, not just to
one of them, as in the case of monolinguals. Learners who have gone through the process
of learning a second language are also more experienced language learners and it is likely
that they have developed certain skills and strategies for achieving the language-learning
task. When facing the task of learning a third language, these skills and strategies can be
JASONE CENOZ: BILINGUALISM AND THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 73
reactivated and adapted to the new challenge. We could compare this experience to walking
(L1), then learning to drive a car (L2) and then facing the challenge of driving a bus (L3). The
experience of driving a car, despite involving different skills and strategies, can nevertheless be
extremely useful when driving another type of vehicle: the starting point is not the same as for
an absolute beginner. Even though the difference seems clear, it has not been acknowledged
in SLA studies that refer to any target language as ‘L2’, paying little attention to the learners’
language learning background or experience.
When multilingual speakers, who have gone through the process of acquiring an L3 (L4 or
L5), reflect on how they acquire languages, they do explain that other languages are useful and
that they are used as a basis. Take the case of Humphrey Tonkin (2009: 201), a multilingual
speaker, brought up in a monolingual English home, with experience in Esperanto, Latin,
English, French, German, Italian and Dutch: ‘The art of language learning may lie not in
the acquisition of an individual language but in mastery of the learning process itself’.
Elka Todeva (2009: 68), a multilingual speaker with Bulgarian as a first language and
with experience in languages such as English, French, Italian, Norwegian, German, Spanish,
Latin, Greek, Japanese and Russian, also acknowledges the role played by other languages,
particularly those that are closer to the target language:
...my rich language learning experience assists me tremendously in breaking the code of new languages,
particularly if they belong to a language family from which I already know one or more languages.
The usefulness of prior linguistic knowledge, acknowledged by these multilinguals who
acquired first their mother tongue and, later, other languages, is shared by early bilinguals,
who acquired two languages as a child. For example, Hayan Hu (2009: 219), an early bilingual,
explains the advantages of having acquired two languages as first languages:
My background as a speaker of two first languages, the dialects Huihui and Yunnan, helped me develop
an inventory of sounds and an almost innate awareness of different sentence structures, which I believe
has facilitated my learning of English, Japanese, Mandarin, Cantonese and Spanish as an adult.
Another noticeable difference between SLA and TLA is related to diversity of learning
contexts. ‘SLA’ usually means a second language that is learned chronologically after the
first language. However, that second language can be learned in a variety of significantly
different ways. For example, a second language can be studied as a foreign language for a few
hours a week at school, or it may be the language of instruction or the main language of the
community. There can be differences related to many other factors such as age, instructional
methods or motivation. In the case of TLA, this diversity exists not only for the target language
but is also related to the way the second language was acquired. Moreover, it is important
to take into account that TLA is very common among early bilinguals who have acquired
their two first languages simultaneously. There can be also important differences in the use
of the languages. Some L3 learners are active bilinguals who use their other two languages
in everyday life, while others live in a monolingual context and use their second language, in
this case a foreign language, only occasionally.
However, as we would expect, TLA shows not only differences from but also strong
similarities with SLA. They are both processes of acquiring a non-native language, but TLA
74 PLENARY SPEECHES
brings together SLA and bilingualism because it is related to the outcomes of bilingualism
along with other cognitive and social outcomes such as metalinguistic awareness or creativity
(see, for example, Baker 2011).
3. Do bilinguals and multilinguals have advantages over monolinguals in L3
acquisition?
Beliefs about the advantages of prior linguistic knowledge reported by multilinguals are
usually shared by the general public. According to folk wisdom, the more languages a person
knows, the easier it becomes to acquire an additional language. Does research on TLA
confirm these beliefs? In this section I summarize the main trends observed in research on
this issue.
Studies in the 1960s and 1970s reported that bilinguals had some advantages over
monolinguals in phonetic discrimination skills and auditory discrimination tests. They also
found that more balanced bilinguals (those with similar competence in their two languages)
made fewer errors than less balanced bilinguals (see Cenoz 2003 for a review). Laboratory
studies with artificial linguistic systems in the 1980s and early 1990s also reported that
multilingual learners demonstrated greater flexibility than monolinguals in the use of learning
strategies (Nation & McLaughlin 1986; McLaughlin & Nayak 1989; Nayak et al. 1990).
At about the same time, studies on TLA were conducted in bilingual education programs in
Canada. Bild & Swain (1989) and Swain et al. (1990) compared the level of French proficiency
attained by learners who had English as an L1 and French as an L2 and immigrant children
who could speak English and another language and were learning L3 French. The results
indicate that bilingual children obtained higher scores in the French tests than monolingual
children. Another study involving bilingual immigrant learners of an L3 was carried out in
Brussels by Jaspaert & Lemmens (1990). Participants in this project were Italian immigrant
children who were in a bilingual program in their L1 (Italian) and French and were learning
Dutch as a third language. When the level of proficiency in Dutch of these Italian-French
bilinguals was compared to that of French-speaking monolinguals, no significant differences
were observed. These results were considered very positive, given that immigrant students
often face more difficulties and obtain lower scores at school than local children.
Some years later, four studies were conducted in bilingual schools in three bilingual
communities in Spain – the Basque Country, Catalonia and Valencia – where a minority
language (Basque or Catalan) is an official language alongside Spanish and is extensively used
in education (Cenoz & Valencia 1994; Lasagabaster 2000; Sanz 2000; Safont 2005). In these
studies, bilingual learners outperformed monolingual learners in the third language, English.
The first three studies looked at general oral and written proficiency in English, and the study
by Safont (2005) focused on the acquisition of pragmatic competence in English. Another
study on the effect of bilingualism on TLA, conducted with minority language speakers in
Switzerland, was carried out by Brohy (2001). She analysed the acquisition of French as a
third language by Romansch-German bilinguals, who were in a bilingual programme, and
German-speaking monolinguals. She reported that bilinguals obtained significantly higher
scores than monolinguals in the acquisition of French as a third language. Taken together,
JASONE CENOZ: BILINGUALISM AND THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 75
these research studies carried out within the context of bilingual education indicate that
bilinguals have advantages over monolinguals in TLA.
TLA also takes place outside the context of bilingual education, as is frequently the case
with immigration. Several studies have been carried out with immigrant bilingual learners
in the Netherlands. For example, Sanders & Meijers (1995) reported no differences in the
acquisition of English as a third language between immigrant Turkish-Dutch or Arabic-
Dutch bilingual learners and monolingual Dutch learners. Schoonen et al. (2002) focused on
proficiency in written English by immigrants who were bilingual in their L1 and Dutch (L2)
and Dutch L1 learners of English. No significant differences were found between the two
groups in this study.
In another study with the same participants Van Gelderen et al. (2003) reported
different results because bilingual speakers obtained significantly lower scores in the reading
comprehension measures. Some studies conducted in Sweden have also compared immigrant
bilinguals and monolinguals learning English. Balke-Aurell & Lindblad (1982) reported no
differences between these groups in tests of general proficiency in English. M¨
agiste (1984)
compared English proficiency by monolingual Swedish speakers, passive bilinguals and active
bilinguals, and reported that passive bilinguals obtained the best scores. Another study
conducted with immigrants was carried out in the United States. Thomas (1988) focused
on the acquisition of French by monolingual English-speakers and bilingual English-Spanish
speakers and found that bilingual learners obtained significantly higher scores in French
than monolinguals. Bilingual learners acquiring a third language obtained good results in a
study conducted by Clyne, Hunt & Isaakidis (2004) in Australia. In this study, L3 learners
outperformed L2 learners when learning Greek or Spanish as a third language.
In sum, these studies comparing immigrant learners of an L3 and non-immigrant learners
of an L2 tend to confirm the advantages of bilingualism when learning an L3, but the
results are not as conclusive as in the case of the bilingual programmes. However, it is
important to remember that immigrant learners may also be at a disadvantage because of
their socioeconomic status or other social and cultural factors.
Some studies on TLA have focused on very specific aspects of language proficiency, such
as the acquisition of particular phonemes (Enomoto 1994), writing systems (Okita & Jun
Hai 2001), specific syntactic structures (Zobl 1993; Klein 1995) or prepositions (Gibson,
Hufeisen & Libben 2001), vocabulary (Keshavarz & Astaneh 2004), reading comprehension
(Modirkhamene 2006), vocabulary and verbal morphology (Griessler 2001). Most of these
studies associate prior linguistic knowledge with advantages in TLA, but there are some
studies that report no differences between monolinguals and bilinguals.
The advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals in TLA have been explained in different
ways, but most researchers associate them with three factors, firstly, metalinguistic awareness,
secondly, learning strategies and thirdly, the broader linguistic repertoire that is available in
TLA as compared to SLA. We explore these factors in a little more detail in the next three
paragraphs.
First, TLA leaners can develop a higher level of metalinguistic awareness on the basis
of their previous experience of the task of learning a language and their knowledge of two
linguistic systems. The idea is that bilingual learners can think about language in a more
abstract way and regard it as an object (Moore 2006; Ransdell, Barbier & Niit 2006; Jessner
76 PLENARY SPEECHES
2008). Bilinguals have also been shown to have advantages over monolinguals in some other
non-linguistic areas of cognition (Bialystok 2010), and research findings even show that they
may benefit from a delay in the decrease in cognitive functioning resulting from ageing (Craik,
Bialystok & Freedman 2010).
A second explanation for the advantages of bilinguals in TLA is related to their experience
as language learners. As a result of this experience, bilinguals have developed a wider range of
learning strategies that help them to learn the third language. Bowden, Sanz & Stafford (2005:
122) described these strategies as follows: ‘They look for more sources of input, make an early
effort to use the new language, and show self-direction and a positive attitude toward the
task’. This wider and more frequent use of learning strategies, outlined above in the research
studies using artificial linguistic systems in the 1980s and early 1990s, has also been identified
in other studies. Kemp (2007) reported that language learners who knew more languages
used a larger number of grammar-learning strategies and used them more frequently than
learners with less language learning experience. Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou (2009) found
that trilingual students reported the use of more strategies than bilingual students.
Thirdly, the fact that bilinguals have a broader linguistic repertoire at their disposal has also
been associated with advantages in TLA. The positive influence of the linguistic repertoire
has been associated with language distance, which would mean that closely related languages
would be more useful for bilinguals learning a third language (Cenoz, Hufeisen & Jessner
2001, 2003; De Angelis 2007; Ringbom 2007; Jarvis & Pavlenko 2008).
As Cenoz & Todeva (2009: 278) point out, ‘multilinguals get many “free rides” when
learning additional languages as their prior linguistic knowledge helps on all levels of
language – grammar, pragmatics, lexicon, pronunciation, and orthography’.
The positive effects of bilingualism on TLA are also related to contextual variables.
Socioeconomic and socioeducational status have an important influence and can explain
to a certain extent the mixed results reported in studies with bilingual immigrant learners.
The development of the first language and the acquisition of literacy skills in that language
have also been found to be associated with advantages in TLA in the case of immigrants
(Thomas 1988; Bild & Swain 1989) and minority language speakers (see Sanz 2007; Cenoz
2009 for a review). However, more studies are needed to confirm the effect of literacy,
because instruction in a second language without literacy in the first does not always hinder
the acquisition of a third language (Wagner, Spratt & Ezzaki 1989).
Another factor that has been related to the advantages of bilinguals in TLA is the degree
of proficiency in the languages involved. How proficient does a learner have to be in the
previously acquired language(s) to have advantages in TLA? It was expected that balanced
bilinguals with a high level of proficiency in the two languages would have advantages over
unbalanced bilinguals: this hypothesis has been confirmed in some cases but not in others.
Sagasta (2003) reported that more balanced bilinguals had developed more advanced writing
skills in English as a third language than less balanced bilinguals. However, Gallardo (2007)
did not find any differences between more or less balanced bilinguals in the acquisition of
phonetic competence in English as a third language, although this may be related to the
similar phonetic characteristics of the other two languages. Sanz (2007) reported a different
effect of balanced bilingualism for different tests in TLA, balanced bilinguals obtaining higher
scores in measures of grammatical proficiency but not in lexical proficiency. A related issue
JASONE CENOZ: BILINGUALISM AND THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 77
is the analysis of the differences between early and late bilinguals in TLA. Stafford, Sanz
& Bowden (2010) reported strong similarities between early and late bilinguals in TLA in
adulthood when acquiring Latin in a controlled experiment.
Another question related to proficiency is to analyse at what stage of TLA bilinguals can
benefit more from their prior linguistic knowledge. Dewaele (2010) observed that knowledge of
other languages facilitates TLA at intermediate levels of proficiency in the L3. Peyer, Kayser &
Berthele (2010) found a positive effect of English-reading competence in a German-reading
test for less advanced readers of German. These studies are both cross-sectional, and the
results need to be supported by longitudinal studies that show in more detail the influence of
bilingualism at different stages of TLA.
Different results from studies on the effect of bilingualism on TLA are also related to how
language proficiency is tested. Research studies that focus on overall L3 achievement and
use a number of tests to measure different dimensions of proficiency report more advantages
for bilinguals than studies that focus on a very specific aspect of language proficiency. These
findings are not surprising, since bilinguals do not necessarily have advantages across-the-
board in every aspect of TLA, so studies that select a narrow linguistic focus may not
find any differences. Another important point that has to be taken into account is that
the effect of bilingualism on TLA may not be as strong as that of other variables such as
intelligence, socioeconomic status, motivation and exposure, and may even be hidden by those
variables.
In sum, bilingualism has in most cases a positive effect on TLA, but language acquisition
is a complex phenomenon that is also influenced by many other factors. Research conducted
so far has been successful in identifying some trends. However, it is difficult to generalise
the results because of the enormous diversity that can be found in research methodology,
characteristics of the learners, learning situations, measurement of proficiency and control
of other variables. There is also a need for better controlled studies and, in particular, for
longitudinal studies.
4. Focus on multilingualism
So far I have summarised research in one of the most relevant areas of TLA by looking at the
effect of prior linguistic knowledge and the possible advantages of bilinguals over multilinguals
when learning an additional language. In this section I am going to reflect critically on the
approach taken in this research and discuss an alternative.
I consider that studies on TLA in general, and on the positive effect of bilingualism on
TLA in particular, are an important contribution to the study of language acquisition. They
certainly fill a gap by considering the presence and contribution of languages other than
the L1 on the process of acquiring additional languages. We know more about language
acquisition now that we also consider prior linguistic knowledge. However, I argue that most
of these studies paradoxically adopt a ‘monolingual’ rather than a ‘multilingual’ focus. TLA
is often labelled as ‘multilingual’ because it involves situations with three languages. However,
the research approach used in the TLA studies summarised here is not very different from
78 PLENARY SPEECHES
that of traditional SLA approaches and can be regarded as ‘monolingual’ for the following
reasons:
1. It uses the native speaker as a reference when measuring overall proficiency in the L3
or specific linguistic aspects of proficiency in the L3. The native speaker has traditionally
been the reference in studies on SLA and bilingualism and TLA brings together these
disciplines, so it is not surprising that this is the case. However, TLA studies sometimes
discuss the contributions made by Cook (2003, 2007) in the field of SLA and Grosjean
(1992, 2008) in the field of bilingualism, who consider that a ‘second language user’ and a
‘bilingual’ are different and cannot be judged against the yardstick of monolingual speakers
of their languages. The idea is that bilinguals and multilinguals achieve a different type of
knowledge that is not comparable to that of monolinguals (Herdina & Jessner 2002). In
spite of this awareness, TLA research has so far not tried to measure this special type of
knowledge, but instead uses traditional language tests.
2. TLA research focuses on what Li Wei (forthcoming) calls ‘one language only’ or ‘one
language at a time’. When analysing the effect of bilingualism on TLA, most studies look
at proficiency or some aspects of proficiency in the L3 only (‘one language only’) after
dividing learners into two groups, monolinguals and bilinguals. Some studies examine
overall proficiency or some aspects of proficiency in the three languages, but in these
cases the focus is usually also on ‘one language at a time’. This was already the case in
SLA studies and even in some studies on bilingualism, despite the fact that theoretical
contributions in the study of TLA and multilingualism highlight ‘the dynamic interaction
between complex systems’ (Jessner 2008: 26).
Apart from these two problems related to a monolingual approach, there are other issues
that deserve attention.
In general, the study of TLA has received more influence from SLA than from studies
on bilingualism. The focus has been mainly on the psycholinguistic aspects of language
processing, and little attention has been paid to the role of social and educational factors.
Some studies on the influence of prior linguistic knowledge on TLA have been carried out
in laboratories and even with artificial languages; others have just asked students to fill in
questionnaires and carry out language tests. Studies on the influence of bilingualism on TLA
focus on cognition rather than social context and do not seem to echo the ‘social turn’ in SLA
(Block 2003). Social aspects of language acquisition are seldom mentioned unless they are ad
hoc explanations offered when analysing results. For example, there is very little information
about what it means for a bilingual person to include an additional language in his/her
repertoire for daily language use.
Another issue that deserves attention is that, although TLA research brings SLA and
bilingualism together, which is in principle very positive for both areas (Ortega 2010), there
are some distinctions that may be methodologically important when analysing the effect of
prior linguistic knowledge on TLA. Some learners are bilinguals who actively use their two
languages in everyday life and are learning a third language. They may be early bilinguals
exposed to two languages from birth, but may also have acquired a second language at school.
For example, this applies to immigrant children who speak one language at home and learn
another at school, or speakers of a majority language in bilingual educational programs. We
JASONE CENOZ: BILINGUALISM AND THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 79
can call these L3 learners ‘active bilinguals’. In contrast, there are many other learners who
have acquired a foreign language (either at school and/or in contact with the community of
speakers) and are in the process of acquiring a third language, which is an additional foreign
language. We can call these L3 learners ‘foreign language users’. Studies on bilingualism
have highlighted more than SLA studies the use of the two languages in the case of bilingual
learners, rather than focusing on the acquisition of a second or foreign language.
Both types of learners are L3 learners but this is an important distinction when looking at
the effect of prior linguistic knowledge on TLA. The two types of learner are not exclusive
categories but should rather be seen as positions on a continuum on which there are many
possibilities; in addition, situations can change over time. The following vignettes illustrate
the differences between the two situations I refer to.
Vignette1: An active bilingual
Miren acquired Basque, a regional minority language, as a first language at home but was soon exposed
to Spanish, the majority language. She attends a Basque-medium school that aims at bilingualism and
has Basque as the main language of instruction. Now that she is 15, she is fully competent in Spanish
as well. She studies Spanish at school but she has learned the language talking to her Spanish-dominant
friends, and in her leisure activities (television, cinema, internet, sports, etc.). She is equally confident
using Basque and Spanish but she thinks her Basque is stronger. She usually mixes Basque and Spanish a
lot when talking to her friends, but her teachers do not allow her to switch languages in front of them or in
writing. She started to learn English at the age of four and has had a lot of exposure to the language when
visiting English-speaking countries during holidays and family visits abroad. She can manage in English
very well although her English is weaker than her Spanish or Basque. Sometimes she mixes Basque,
Spanish and English when she chats on the internet.
Vignette 2: A foreign language user
Mario acquired Italian, his first language, at home. Italian is also the language of instruction at school.
He started learning English as a subject at school at the age of ten, and two years later he also started
learning French at school. He had the opportunity to improve his English last summer when he spent one
month in England. Now he can manage quite well in English but he does not use any English or French
outside school. He always uses Italian with his friends in his leisure time. His French is still quite limited.
When he chats on the internet he only uses Italian.
Miren and Mario have been exposed to their three languages consecutively: first their L1,
then the L2 and finally the L3. In both cases English, which is either the L2 or L3, is not used
in their daily communication. However, the main difference between them is that Miren lives
in a bilingual context where she uses her resources in Basque and Spanish while engaging
in multilingual language practices. These practices include the use of code-switching and
code-mixing as a way of expressing her communicative intent better.
Scholars working on bilingualism look at TLA as related to the outcomes of bilingualism
along with the effect of bilingualism on cognitive development or communicative skills. Those
working on SLA (or foreign language acquisition) look at prior linguistic knowledge as one of
the factors influencing SLA, along with cognitive, affective or contextual factors (see Hufeisen
& Marx 2007). The fact that ‘TLA’ refers to both situations is not in itself problematic, but
it may be a mistake not to be aware of the important differences between both types (active
80 PLENARY SPEECHES
Focus on multilingualism
The multilingual speaker The whole linguistic repertoire The context
Figure 1 Focus on multilingualism
bilinguals vs. foreign language users) or to ignore the implications of dealing with one situation
rather than the other.
In the rest of this section I discuss an alternative perspective, FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM,
as a more appropriate way to analyse the effect of bilingualism on TLA and other areas of
TLA (see also Cenoz & Gorter forthcoming). Figure 1 shows its main elements.
FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM is a holistic approach to the study of multilingualism and
the acquisition of third and additional languages. This approach can be characterised by its
focus on the following three elements.
1. Focus on the multilingual speaker
The first idea is that a multilingual speaker cannot be compared to several monolingual
speakers of different languages because multilingual competence is a different type of
competence (Grosjean 1992, 2008; Cook 2003, 2007). Kecskes (2010: 100) explains that
these differences are not only quantitative but also qualitative because ‘monolingual and
bilingual children do not differ in what they do with language, but in how they do it’.
According to Kecskes there are conceptual differences between monolinguals and bilinguals,
because bilinguals use strategies such as code-switching and translanguaging (Garc´
ıa 2008;
Creese & Blackledge 2010). As Li Wei & Wu (2009: 193) point out, code-switching is ‘the most
distinctive behaviour of the bilingual speaker’. FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM is an approach
that looks at the characteristics of multilingual speakers and poses two questions:
i. Is it appropriate to make comparisons between monolinguals and bilinguals?
ii. Can all third language learners be considered bilinguals?
Studies on the effect of bilingualism on TLA have compared monolingual and bilingual
speakers, but this means that two different types of competence are being compared. If it is not
fair to expect a bilingual speaker to behave in the same way as a monolingual in each of his/her
languages, it can be also questioned whether it is appropriate to compare monolinguals and
bilinguals in TLA. This does not mean that studies on the effect of bilingualism on TLA are
no longer interesting, but it is important to be aware of the fact that monolingual and bilingual
speakers are different types of speakers. The second question relates to the difference between
JASONE CENOZ: BILINGUALISM AND THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 81
the two types of third language learners identified above. ‘Active bilinguals’ alternate and mix
languages in their multilingual practices. As Canagarajah (2007: 925) explains, when referring
to multilingual contexts where English is used alongside other languages, this competence is
distinct because ‘it derives from their multilingual life’. Psycholinguistic studies have usually
compared ‘active bilinguals’ and monolinguals, relating bilingualism to cognitive advantages
and enhanced metalinguistic awareness (see, for example, Bialystok 2007). Do these cognitive
advantages also exist in the case of third language learners who are foreign language users?
If the cognitive differences between monolinguals and bilinguals are related to being ‘active
bilinguals’, learners who have just acquired a foreign language but do not use it regularly
in multilingual contexts may not count as bilinguals. FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM looks at
multilingual speakers and proposes looking at the different types of L3 learners, attending
to how bilingual speakers integrate a third language into their linguistic repertoire and the
fluidity between their three languages. By focusing on the multilingual person as a speaker
we can obtain a deeper knowledge of the different types of L3 learners and the effects of their
prior linguistic knowledge.
2. Focus on the whole linguistic repertoire
Instead of focusing on ‘one language only’ or ‘one language at a time’, FOCUS ON
MULTILINGUALISM looks at all the languages in the multilingual speakers’ repertoire. It
considers the complexity of multilingualism and how the different subsystems are connected
across the languages in their development, and in the way they support each other. The
idea of ‘connected growers’ discussed by De Bot, Lowie & Verspoor (2007) when explaining
dynamic systems theory in SLA can be useful when applied to the effect of bilingualism on
TLA. In fact, by looking at the interaction among languages in the multilingual learner’s
whole linguistic repertoire, ‘connected growers’ that facilitate TLA might be identified. When
Miren and Mario learn how to organise a written text and use cohesive devices in their first
languages (Basque or Italian), they can apply the skills they have learned to their second and
third languages. The interaction between different languages can be seen when the scores in
three languages are correlated (see, for example, Mu˜
noz 2000, Cenoz & Gorter forthcoming)
and also when the multidirectionality of cross-linguistic interaction is analysed (Jessner 2006;
Cenoz & Gorter forthcoming). By looking at the whole linguistic repertoire we see not just
one part of the picture – as in studies focusing only on the third language – but the whole
picture of the interaction among the languages.
3. Focus on context
Context is a crucial element in FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM, because multilinguals build up
their competence in social interaction. If we look at the vignettes, we can see that language
practices are multilingual in the case of Miren and monolingual in the case of Mario. Miren’s
languages are fluid and she navigates between her L1 and L2 and occasionally even adds
elements from her L3. This experience in communication is different from that of Mario,
82 PLENARY SPEECHES
who does not switch between languages. Multilingual speakers use languages as a resource
for communicating successfully and developing their own identities through multilingual
practices. As Li Wei (2008: 144) explains, linguistic knowledge is more than a matter of
mental representation: bilingualism and multilingualism can be examined as ‘a matter of
ideology, communicative practice and social process’. FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM proposes
highlighting the importance of context when analysing the effect of bilingualism on TLA, to
show how the L3 is incorporated into the multilingual speaker’s language practices.
5. Conclusion
FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM is an alternative approach to the study of multilingualism in
general and to the study of the influence of bilingualism on TLA in particular. It is a holistic
approach based on a range of theoretical proposals (for example Grosjean 1992, 2008; Cook
2003, 2007) that looks at the whole linguistic repertoire and the interaction between languages
(Herdina & Jessner 2002; Li Wei forthcoming). At the same time FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM
looks at the acquisition and use of languages in relation to the social context.
In this article I have applied the approach FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM to the study of
bilingualism on TLA, a specific area of research on multilingualism. Unlike previous research
on TLA, FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM takes multilingual speakers and their repertories as the
starting point, with the aim of analysing how bilingual third language learners use their prior
linguistic knowledge in their multilingual practices when acquiring a third language. Research
that distinguishes between ‘active bilinguals’ and ‘foreign language users’ will be crucial. At
the same time, there are important challenges regarding language testing in the light of an
approach like FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM (see, for example, Shohamy forthcoming).
The process of acquiring a third language often takes place in school contexts. As we
saw in the vignettes, TLA can be part of a bi/multilingual educational programme or a
regular programme in which two foreign languages are taught. In either case, the FOCUS ON
MULTILINGUALISM approach has some important teaching implications.
First, schools that have multilingualism as one of their educational goals cannot view
TLA learners as imitation monolinguals, but as possessing unique forms of competence, or
competencies, in their own right. This idea had already been proposed by Grosjean (1992)
and Cook (2003) for the two language situation, but it is even more relevant when three
or more are involved. Third language learners cannot be monolingual speakers of three
languages, but in practice their proficiency is often measured against the yardstick of native
speakers of the target language both in research and at school. FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM
proposes looking at proficiency in the L3 as related to proficiency in the L1 and the L2,
including interaction phenomena such as code-switching and code-mixing.
Second, school curricula and teaching practices could benefit from relating the different
languages so that TLA learners have the opportunity to develop metalinguistic awareness
based on their knowledge and use of two or more languages (Elorza & Mu˜
noa 2008; Cenoz &
Goikoetxea 2010). In this way, what is learned in one language can be reinforced in the other
languages. By looking at the relationship between the different languages and encouraging
JASONE CENOZ: BILINGUALISM AND THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 83
learners to use the resources at their disposal, FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM takes the learner
and his/her languages, not the third language, as the centre in both teaching and research.
In sum, FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM is focused on the learner, and can provide new insights
when studying the influence of bilingualism on TLA because it looks at the way multilingual
speakers acquire and use languages rather than at ‘one language only’ or ‘one language at a
time’ from a monolingual perspective.
Acknowledgments
This research was carried out with the assistance of research grant EDU2009–11601 from
the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology and Basque Government funding for the
research group ‘Donostia Research on Education and Multilingualism (DREAM)’.
References
Aronin, L. & B. Hufeisen (eds.) (2009). The exploration of multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Balke-Aurell, G. & T. Linblad (1982). Immigrant children and their languages. Department of Education
Research, University of Gothenburg.
Bialystok, E. (2007). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language
Learning 57, 45–77.
Bialystok, E. (2010). Global-local and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond
inhibition. Developmental Psychology 46, 93–105.
Bild, E. R. & M. Swain (1989). Minority language students in a French immersion programme: Their
French proficiency. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10, 255–274.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Bowden, H. W., C. Sanz & C. A. Stafford (2005). Individual differences: Age, sex, working memory,
and prior knowledge. In C. Sanz (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press, 105– 140.
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). International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 4, 38–49.
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition.
TheModernLanguageJournal91, 923–939.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. The
International Journal of Bilingualism 7, 71– 88.
Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. (forthcoming a). Third language acquisition. In C. Chapelle (ed.) (forthcoming).
Cenoz, J. (forthcoming b). Multilingualism. In C. Chapelle (ed.) (forthcoming).
Cenoz, J. & N. Goikoetxea (2010). Aiming at multilingual competence in the school context. In S.
Erhart,C.H
´
elot & A. Le Nevez (eds.), Plurilinguisme et formation des enseignants/Plurilingualism and teacher
education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 59– 79.
Cenoz, J. & D. Gorter (forthcoming). Focus on multilingualism: A study of trilingual writing. The Modern
Language Journal.
Cenoz, J., B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds.) (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition:
Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds.) (2003). The multilingual lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Cenoz, J. & E. Todeva (2009). The well and the bucket: The emic and etic perspectives combined. In
E. Todeva & J. Cenoz (eds.), 265–292.
84 PLENARY SPEECHES
Cenoz, J. & J. Valencia (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied
Psycholinguistics 15, 157–209.
Chapelle, C. (ed.) (forthcoming). The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Clyne, M., C. R. Hunt & Y. Isaakidis (2004). Learning a community language as a third language. The
International Journal of Multilingualism 1, 33–52.
Cook, V. (ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (2007). The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multi-competence
among second language users? In J. Cummins & C. Davison (eds.), International handbook of English
language teaching. New York: Springer, 237– 248.
Craik, F. I. M., E. Bialystok & M. Freedman (2010). Delaying the onset of Alzheimer’s disease:
Bilingualism as a form of cognitive reserve. Neurology 75, 1726–1729.
Creese, A. & A. Blackledge (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning
and teaching. TheModernLanguageJournal94, 103–115.
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
De Bot, K., W. Lowie & M. Verspoor (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language
acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10, 7–21.
Dewaele, J. M. (2010). Multilingualism and affordances: Variation in self-perceived communicative
competence and communicative anxiety in French L1, L2, L3 and L4. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching 48, 105–129.
Elorza, I. & I. Mu˜
noa (2008). Promoting the minority language through integrated plurilingual
language planning: The case of the ikastolas. Language, Culture and Curriculum 21, 85–101.
Enomoto, K. (1994). L2 perceptual acquisition: The effect of multilingual linguistic experience on the
perception of a ‘less novel’ contrast. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 5, 15–29.
Gallardo, F. (2007). Is L3 phonological competence affected by the learner’s level of bilingualism?
International Journal of Multilingualism 4, 1–16.
Garc´
ıa, O. (ed.) (2008). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gibson, M., B. Hufeisen & G. Libben (2001). Learners of German as an L3 and their production
of German prepositional verbs. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds.), Cross-linguistic
influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
138–148.
Griessler, M. (2001). The effects of third language learning on L2 proficiency: An Austrian example.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4, 50–60.
Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. In R. J. Harris (ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals.
Amsterdam: North Holland, 51–62.
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hammarberg, B. (2009). Processes in third language acquisition. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Hammarberg, B. (2010). The languages of the multilingual: Some conceptual and terminological
issues. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48, 91–104.
Herdina, P. & U. Jessner (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hu, H. (2009). A multilingual journey from East to West. In E. Todeva & J. Cenoz (eds.), 209–221.
Hufeisen, B. & N. Marx (2007). How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept
of receptive multilingualism? Theoretical and practical considerations. In J. Thije & L. Zeevaert
(eds.), Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts.Amsterdam:John
Benjamins, 307–321.
Jarvis, S. & A. Pavlenko (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York/London:
Routledge.
Jaspaert, K. & G. Lemmens (1990). Linguistic evaluation of Dutch as a third language. In M. Byram
& J. Leman (eds.), Bicultural and trilingual education: The Foyer model in Brussels. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 30–56.
Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges. Language Teaching 41,
15–56.
Kecskes, I. (2010). Dual and multilanguage systems. International Journal of Multilingualism 7, 91–109.
Kemp, C. (2007). Strategic processing in grammar learning: Do multilinguals use more strategies?
International Journal of Multilingualism 4, 241–261.
Keshavarz, M. H. & H. Astaneh (2004). The impact of bilinguality on the learning of English vocabulary
as a foreign language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7, 295–302.
JASONE CENOZ: BILINGUALISM AND THIRD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION 85
Klein, E. C. (1995). Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a difference? Language Learning
45, 419–465.
Lasagabaster, D. (2000). Three languages and three linguistic models in the Basque Educational
System. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, 179–197.
Leung, Y. I. (2009). Third language acquisition and universal grammar. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Li, Wei (2008). Research perspectives on bilingualism and bilingual education. In K. A. King & N. H.
Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 10: Research methods in language and
education. Berlin: Springer, 137–149.
Li, Wei (forthcoming). Multilinguality, multimodality and multicompetence: Code- and mode-switching
by minority ethnic children in complementary schools. TheModernLanguageJournal.
Li, Wei & C. Wu (2009). Polite Chinese revisited: Creativity and the use of codeswitching in the Chinese
complementary school classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12, 193–
211.
Lindqvist, C. & C. Bartel (2010). Approaches to third language acquisition: Introduction. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48, 87–90.
M¨
agiste, E. (1984). Learning a third language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 5,
415–421.
McLaughlin, B. & N. Nayak (1989). Processing a new language: Does knowing other languages make
a difference? In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (eds.), Interlingual processes.T
¨
ubingen: Gunter Narr,
5–16.
Modirkhamene, S. (2006). The reading achievement of third language versus second language learners
of English in relation to the interdependence hypothesis. International Journal of Multilingualism 3, 280–
295.
Moore, D. (2006). Plurilinguismes et ´
ecole [Multilingualism and school]. Collection LAL, Paris: Didier.
Mu˜
noz, C. (2000). Bilingualism and trilingualism in school students in Catalonia. In J. Cenoz & U.
Jessner (eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
157–178.
Nation, R. & B. McLaughlin (1986). Experts and novices: An information processing approach to the
‘good language learner’ problem. Applied Psycholinguistics 7, 41–56.
Nayak, N., N. Hansen, N. Krueger & B. McLaughlin (1990). Language-learning strategies in
monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning 40, 221–244.
Okita, Y. & G. Jun Hai (2001). Learning of Japanese Kanji character by bilingual and monolingual
Chinese speakers. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds.), Looking beyond second language acquisition:
Studies in tri- and multilingualism.T
¨
ubingen: Stauffenburg, 63–73.
Ortega, L. (2010). The bilingual turn in SLA. Plenary address at the American Association for Applied
Linguistics Conference 2010, Atlanta, GA, 6–9 March.
Peyer, E., I. Kayser & R. Berthele (2010). The multilingual reader: Advantages in understanding
and decoding German sentence structure when reading German as an L3. International Journal of
Multilingualism 7, 225–239.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Z. Kantaridou (2009). Plurilingualism, language learning strategy use and learning
style preferences. International Journal of Multilingualism 6, 460– 474.
Ransdell, S., M. L. Barbier & T. Niit (2006). Metacognitions about language skill and working memory
among monolingual and bilingual college students: When does multilingualism matter? International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9, 728–741.
Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Safont, M. P. (2005). Third language lear ners. Pragmatic production and awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Sagasta, M. P. (2003). Acquiring writing skills in a third language: The positive effects of bilingualism.
International Journal of Bilingualism 7, 27–42.
Sanders, M. & G. Meijers (1995). English as L3 in the elementary school. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics
107–108, 59–78.
Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia.
Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 23–44.
Sanz, C. (2007). The role of bilingual literacy in the acquisition of a third language. In C. Perez-Vidal,
A. Bel & M. J. Garau (eds.), A portrait of the young in the new multilingual Spain. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 220–240.
86 PLENARY SPEECHES
Schoonen, R., A. van Gelderen, K. De Glopper, J. Hulstijn, P. Snellings, A. Simis & M. Stevenson
(2002). Linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and retrieval speed in L1, L2 and EFL
writing. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing.Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101–122.
Shohamy, E. (forthcoming). Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting construct valid assessment
policies. TheModernLanguageJournal.
Stafford, C. A., C. Sanz & H. Bowden (2010). An experimental study of early L3 development: Age,
bilingualism and classroom exposure. International Journal of Multilingualism 7, 162–183.
Swain, M., S. Lapkin, N. Rowen & D. Hart (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language
learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum 3, 65–81.
Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9, 235–46.
Todeva, E. (2009). Multilingualism as a kaleidoscopic experience: The mini universes within. In E.
Todeva & J. Cenoz (eds.), 53–74.
Todeva, E. & J. Cenoz (eds.) (2009). The multiple realities of multilingualism. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tonkin, H. (2009). Where art and nature meet. In E. Todeva & J. Cenoz (eds.), 191–208.
Wagner, D. A., J. E. Spratt & A. Ezzaki (1989). Does learning to read in a second language always put
the child at a disadvantage? Some counterevidence from Morocco. Applied Psycholinguistics 10, 31–48.
Van Gelderen, A., R. Schoonen, K. De Glopper, J. Hulstijn, P. Snellings, A. Simis & M. Stevenson
(2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and
L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation modelling approach. The International Journal of
Bilingualism 7, 7–25.
Wrembel, M., U. Gut & G. Mehlhorn (eds.) (2010). Phonetics/phonology in third language acquisition.
International Journal of Multilingualism 7 (special issue), 1–90.
Zobl, H. (1993). Prior linguistic knowledge and the conservation of the learning procedure:
grammaticality judgements of unilingual and multilingual learners. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker
(eds.), Language transfer in language learning Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 176–196.
JASONE CENOZ is Professor of Research Methods in Education at the University of the Basque
Country. Her research focuses on bilingualism and multilingualism in education. She is the editor
of The International Journal of Multilingualism (Taylor and Francis), and is on the executive boards
of AILA (International Association of Applied Linguistics) and IAM (International Association of
Multilingualism). She has published extensively on bilingualism and multilingualism. Her most recent
books are Towards multilingual education (2009, Multilingual Matters) and, with Elka Todeva, The multiple
realities of multilingualism (2009, Mouton de Gruyter).