Content uploaded by Jasenka Čengić
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jasenka Čengić on Jun 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
15
33
48
71
95
116
128
148
Contents
i
Preface
The
Editors
1
Some
components
of
second
language
learning
experiences:
An
interview
study
with
English
teachers
in
Hungary
Kata
Csizér
Exploring
the
language
development
of
a
young
multilingual:
A
case
study
of
metalinguistic
awareness
Jasenka
Čengić
Pre-service
teachers’
perceptions
of
research
engagement
during
teaching
practice
in
TEFL
Stefka
Barócsi
Language
learners’
beliefs
about
learner
autonomy
and
their
reported
practices:
A
questionnaire
study
Krisztina
Szőcs
Exploring
Turkish
EFL
teacher
trainees’
willingness
and
unwillingness
to
communicate
Reyhan
Yildiz
and
Katalin
Piniel
The
dynamics
of
young
EFL
learners’
motivation
Gabriella
Lőcsey
A
comparative
analysis
of
Business
English
examinations
Zoltán
Lukácsi
Diversity
in
the
lexical
and
syntactic
complexity
of
essays
written
by
first-year
English
teacher
trainees
Doró
Katalin
Evaluating
student
understanding
of
various
peer-assessment
criteria
Krisztián
Simon
177
189
205
223
252
271
294
Language
learning
gains
and
motivation
of
L2
and
L3
learners
of
ESP
Borbála
Fűköh
Lost
in
translation:
A
corpus-based
investigation
of
BA
students’
solutions
for
potential
translation
problems
Huszárné
Prikler
Renáta
Creating
multimodal
narratives:
Interviews
with
illustrators
and
editors
of
English
language
readers
Nóra
Nagy
A
mixed
methods
study
on
Hungarian
English
majors’
individual
differences
and
linguistic
identity
construction
Adrienn
Fekete
The
interplay
between
language
and
music
aptitude:
A
case
study
Sándor
Hetesi
Emerging
themes
in
study
abroad
medical
students’
personal
accounts
Zoltán
Krommer
A
contrastive
analysis
of
interpersonal
metadiscourse
in
MA
thesis
literature
review
sections:
The
case of
L1
Chinese
students
Jing
Feng
Exploring the
language
development
of
a
young
multilingual:
A
case
study
of
metalinguistic
awareness
Jasenka
Čengić
Zagreb
University,
Croatia
jasenka.cengic@gmail.com
1
Introduction
Multilingualism
is
an
emerging
phenomenon
in
today’s
globalized
world.
The
recognition
of
its
importance
is
reflected
in
European
language
education
documents
recommending
learning
at
least
two
foreign
languages
from
a
very
early
age, thus
promoting
child
multilingualism
(European
Comission,
2002).
The
multitude
and
complexity
of
factors
influencing
childhood
multilingual
development
have been
the
reason
for
the
increased
use
of
case
studies
in
this
field
of
research.
According
to
Duff
and
Anderson
(2015)
“the
essence
and
value
of case
study
resides in
its
holistic
and
in-depth
characterization
of
individual
entities
within
a
particular
context”
(p.
112).
Because
of
the
fact that
the
entity
under
research
is
a
person,
case
study
methodology
was
the
choice
that
could
provide
especially
interesting
and
crucial
insights
for
the
understanding
of
such
a
complex
construct
like
metalinguistic
awareness.
In
the
case
study
described
in
this
paper
we
attempted
to
look
more
closely
into
childhood
multilingual
development
by
including
metalinguistic
awareness
as
a
central
variable.
Research
into
metalinguistic
awareness
(MA)
in
children
is
still
rather
scarce
and
we
hope
our
study
will
make
a
valuable
contribution
to
this
area
of
study.
2
Theoretical
background
2.1
Defining
multilingualism
There
is
no
single
definition
of
multilingualism.
Many
researchers
have
attempted
to
define
multilingualism
(e.g.,,
Cenoz,
2013;
Kemp,
2009).
One
of
the
problems
with
defining
multilingualism
is
the
fact that
it
can
be
observed
from
various
perspectives.
The
European
Commission
(2007)
defines
multilingualism
as “the
ability
of
societies,
institutions,
groups
and
15
individuals
to
engage,
on
a
regular
basis,
with
more
than
one
language
in
their
day-to-day
lives”
(p.
6).
There
are
a
number
of
research
studies
dealing
with
the
advantages
of
bilingualism
and
multilingualism.
Among
those
advantages
are
language
learning
strategies
and
metalinguistic
awareness
(see
Kemp,
2009;
Jessner,
2006).
The
most
relevant
aspect
of
multilingualism
for
the
research
described
in
this
paper
is
metalinguistic
awareness
(MA).
Therefore,
we
will
look
into
this
aspect
in
more
detail
below.
2.2
Multilingualism
and
metalinguistic
awareness
In
the
most
widely
accepted
model
of
multilingualism,
the
Dynamic
Model
of
Multilingualism,
metalinguistic
awareness
is
considered
as
“a
key
component
in
the
cognitive
aspects
involved
in
language
learning”
(Jessner,1999,
p.
203).
The
importance
of
MA
is
even
more
evident
when
there
is
more
than
one
language
involved
in
a
speaker’s
linguistic
biography.
According
to
Bialystok
(2001),
metalinguistic
awareness
is
the
domain
in
research
that
claimed
consistent
advantages
for
bilingual
children
over
their
monolingual
peers.
There
are
a
number
of
studies
dealing
with
the
differences
in
processing
between
monolinguals,
bilinguals
and
multilinguals
(
e.g.,,
Stavans
&
Swisher,
2006;
Gibson,
Hufeisen
&
Libben,
2001).
Jessner
(1999)
points
out
that
the
dynamics
and
the
complexity
of
language
processing
increase
with
each
new
language
added
to
the
system.
As
a
result
of
the
increased
experience
in
language
learning,
multilinguals
demonstrate
higher
levels
of
metalinguistic
awareness.
2.3
How
can
metalinguistic
awareness
be
defined?
Clearly
the
very
notion of
metalinguistic
awareness
is
considered
to
be
highly
important
for
understanding
multilingual
development.
The
very
complexity
of
this
concept
is
reflected
in
the
abundance
of
definitions
of
metalinguistic
awareness
found
in
the
literature.
Thus,
Jessner
(2006)
defines
MA
as
a
speaker’s
ability
to
“focus
attention
on
language
as
an
object
in
itself
or
to
think
abstractly
about
language,
and
consequently,
to
play
with
or
manipulate
language”
(p.
42).
Sharwood
Smith
(2008)
sees
MA
as
“…something
that
happens
to
us very
early
on
when,
as
children,
we
play
games
with
words”
(p.
179).
Pinto
(2011)
describes
MA
as
the
strongest
predictor
of
good
proficiency
in
second
or
third
language
acquisition.
Finally,
various authors
claim
that
children’s
metalinguistic
awareness
is
best
observed
in
the
context
of
the
child’s
overall
linguistic
and
cognitive
development
(Kecskes
&
Papp,
2000;
Pinto,
1999;
Ranta,
2008).
16
Bialystok
(2001)
distinguishes
between
metalinguistic
knowledge,
ability
and
awareness.
Metalinguistic
knowledge
is
defined
by
Bialystok
as
the
“the
explicit
representation
of
abstract
aspects
of
linguistic
structure
that
become
accessible
through
knowledge
of
a
particular
language”
(2001,
p.
124).
For
example,
a
child
possessing
metalinguistic
knowledge
would
be
able
to
understand
that
altering
the
word
order
in
a
sentence
would
completely
change
its
meaning.
According
to
Bialystok,
metalinguistic
ability
“describes
the
capacity
to
use
knowledge
about
language
as
opposed
to
the
capacity
to
use
language”
(p.
124).
Lastly,
she
claims
that
metalinguistic
awareness
requires
conscious
knowledge
about
language
in
that
it
is
“a
momentary
phenomenon,
something
achieved
at
a
point
in
real
time
because
attention
has
been
focused
on
certain
mental
representation”
(p.
127).
Following
the
view
of
metalinguistic
awareness
as
conscious
knowledge
Karmiloff-Smith,
Grant,
Sims,
Jones,
and
Cuckle
(1996)
one
of
the
most
prominent
researchers
of
childhood
language
development,
states
that
metalinguistic
awareness
involves
“conscious
reflection
on,
analysis
of,
or
intentional
control
over
various
aspects
of
language
outside
the
normal
unconscious
processes
of
production
or
comprehension”
(1996,
p.
198).
She
also
claims
that
apart
from
mastering
the
way
language
is
used,
children
form
“explicit
representations
of
various
ways
in
which
language
functions”
(p.
198)
The
exploration
of
metalinguistic
awareness
has
been
of
particular
interest
to
developmental
psycholinguists
(see
Liberman,
1971;
Bialystok
&
Ryan,
1985).
Within
the
cognitive
developmental
perspective
on
metalinguistic
awareness,
probably
the
most
widely
used
conceptualization
of
metalinguistic
awareness
is
the
control
and
analysis
framework
proposed
by
Bialystok
and
Ryan
(1985)
which
will
be
described
in
the
next
section.
2.3.1
Bialystok
and
Ryan’s
(1985)
model
of
metalinguistic
awareness
Bialystok
and
Ryan
(1985)
proposed a
model
of
metalinguistic
awareness
consisting
of
two
components:
control
of
linguistic
processing
and
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge.
While
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
has
been
defined
as
the
executive
component
of
the
framework,
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
refers
to
the
explicit
mental
representations
in
an
individual’s
mind
(Bialystok,
2001).
Control
of
linguistic
processing,
drawing
on
executive
control,
includes
placing
attention
on
distinct
task
characteristics
and
somehow
managing
those
task
aspects
that
tend
to
be
irrelevant
(Bialystok,
2001).
Tasks
that
could
be
used
for
measuring
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
are
those
that
require
allocating
attention
away
from
the
meaning
(Bialystok,
2001).
Such
tasks
are
sentence
segmentation
tasks,
symbol
substitution
tasks,
tasks
17
requiring
the
repetition
of
deviant
sentences,
and
Piaget’s
sun/moon
problem
(Roehr-Brackin,
2018).
Analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
refers
to
the
ability
to
form
explicit
mental
representations
which
are
considered
to
be
responsible
for
the
structuring
and
explication
of
linguistic
knowledge
(Bialystok,
2001).
Tasks
that
require
accessing
and
elaborating
upon
linguistic
knowledge
are
typically
used
to
measure
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
(Ricciardellli,
1993).
Those
tasks
usually
draw
on
awareness
of
syntax,
awareness
of
the
concept
of
word,
detecting
errors
and
/or
correcting
ungrammatical
sentences
and
explaining
detected
errors
(Roehr-Brackin,
2018).
The
framework
describing
MA
proposed
by
Bialystok
and
Ryan
(1985)
focuses
on
crucial
cognitive
mechanisms
for
language
acquisition
and
use
and
as
such
has
a broad
application
to
cognitive
development
more
generally.
Futhermore
this
framework
is
aimed
at
addressing
some
other
factors,
such
as
individual
differences
(Roehr-Brackin,
2018).
Because
of
its
wide
applicability,
Bialystok
and
Ryan’s
framework
of
control
and
analysis
has
often
been
used
in
constructing
specific
tasks
for
measuring
MA
like
in
the
battery
used
for
this
study.
2.4
Measuring
MA
in
children
When
we
talk
about
measuring
MA
in
children
it
is
possible
to
distinguish
two
types
of
measures.
One
of
them
is
informed
by
the
cognitive
developmental
perspective
and
the
other
is
informed
by
the
educational
perspective.
The
cognitive
developmental
perspective
tends
to
be
informed
by
the
control
and
analysis
framework
(Bialystok
&
Ryan,
1985).
Ricciardelli
(1993)
designed
seven
tasks
following
Bialystok
and
Ryan’s
(1985)
control
and
analysis
framework.
Each
of
the
two
components
of
MA,
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
and
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge,
was
assessed
by
four
metalinguistic
tasks.
Three
tasks
drew
on
control
of
linguistic
processing
and
three
on
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge,
while
one
task
was
meant
to
load
on
both
components.
A
detailed
description
of
the
tasks
can
be
found
in
the
results
section
of
this
paper.
Altogether
83
English
speaking
monolinguals
between
ages
five
and
seven
participated
in
the
study.
Factor
analysis
showed
support
for
the
two-component
model
of
MA,
with
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
supported
more
strongly
than
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge.
Namely,
two
tasks
that
were
supposed
to
load
on
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge,
the
symbol
substitution
task
and
grammar
judgements
task,
were
not
found
to
do
so
and
did not
correlate
with
other
metalinguistic
tasks.
It
therefore,
seemed
that
these
two
tasks
measured
something
different
from
what
they
were
believed
to
measure
(Ricciardelli,
1993).
18
Although
the
tasks
were
meant
to
be
used
with
English
speaking
monolingual
children,
in
a
PhD
study
by
Cohen
(2011)
the
tasks
were
used
to
measure
MA
of
38
French-English
bilinguals
aged
between
six
and
eight.
In
order
to
access
MA
in
the
participants’
two
languages,
the
tasks
had
to
be
translated
to
French.
The
results
showed
that
high
level
balanced
bilinguals
outperformed
dominant
bilinguals
on
high
control
tasks
and
on
certain
analysis
tasks.
In
addition
to
this,
the
results
supported
Bialystok
and
Ryan’s
(1985)
framework.
The
children
performed
differently
on
the
MA
measures
with
regard
to
the
languages
they
were
administered
in.
In
the
MA
measure
in
English,
the
children
performed
best
on
the
following
tasks:
word
order
repetition
loading
on
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
and
symbol
substitution
and
word
order
correction
loading
on
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge.
The
tasks
they
found
most
difficult
were
symbol
substitution,
grammar
judgements
and
form-meaning
judgements
which
loaded
on
the
control
of
linguistic
processing.
For
French,
the
highest
scores
were
obtained
for
grammar
judgements
and
word
order
repetition
loading
on
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
and
grammar
judgements
loading
on
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge.
The
most
difficult
tasks
proved
to
be
word
renaming
and
symbol
substitution
loading
on
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
and
the
symbol
substitution
task
loading
on
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge.
3
The
study
The
goal
of
our
study
was
to
provide
insight
into
evidence
of
MA
of
a
young
multilingual.
Our
focus
was
on
the
relationship
of
MA
and
various
individual
and
contextual
factors.
More
particularly,
we
looked
into
the
results
of
an
MA
measure
composed
by
Ricciardelli
(1993)
and
the
data
provided
by
the
participant’s
mother
and
teacher
which
added
the
necessary
information
on
the
linguistic
development
of
our
participant
along
with
the
observed
linguistic
behavior
in
various
contexts.
3.1
The
participant
Ute
is
a
native
speaker
of
Estonian,
who
also
speaks
English
and
Croatian.
Living
in
a
multilingual
family
Ute had
been
surrounded
by
different
languages
all
her
life.
She
was
only
one
month
old
when
the
family
moved
from
Estonia
to
Turkey due
to
Ute’s
father’s
work
requirements.
From
the
age
of
only
ten
months
Ute
was
exposed
to
Turkish
by
a
Turkish
nanny
who
spoke
only
Turkish
to
Ute.
Ute’s
mother
reported
Ute
being
able
to
speak
Turkish,
however
Ute
does
not
remember
this.
Ute’s
linguistic
development
followed
a
regular
trajectory.
Her
mother
reported
that
Ute
was
always
fond
of
speaking
and
observing
the
way
other
people
around
her
spoke.
The
family
spoke
to
19
Ute
in
Estonian,
while
she
was
also
exposed
to
English
being
surrounded
by
the
English-speaking
international
community
her family
formed
part
of.
Ute’s
exposure
to
English
was
enhanced
by
her
older
sister’s
attending
a
British
preschool
in
Turkey.
According
to
the
mother,
Ute
was
able
to
speak
English
well
by
the
time
she
began
attending
a
Montessori
kindergarten
in
Turkey
when
she
was
approximately
two
and
a
half
years
old.
Even
though
the
language
of
the
kindergarten
was
English,
it
was
drawn
to
our
attention
that
half
of
the
children
attending
the
kindergarten
were
Turkish
as
well
as the
teachers
who
often
spoke
Turkish
to
each
other.
Upon
the
family’s
arrival
to
Croatia,
Ute
was
about
four
years
old.
She
attended
an
English
kindergarten
in
Zagreb.
Like
in
the
case
of
Turkish,
it
is
in
the
English
kindergarten
in
Zagreb
that
Ute’s
exposure
to
Croatian
started.
Listening
to
children
speaking
in
Croatian,
Ute’s
exposure
to
Croatian
in
kindergarten
was
crucial
for
the
beginning
of
her
acquisition
of
Croatian.
Ute
began
her
preschool
education
in
the
fall
of
2016.
Both
Ute’s
parents
have
worked
in
international
contexts
in
which
they
have
actively
used
foreign
languages.
The
mother
studied
Scandinavian
languages
and
currently
works
as
an
office
manager
in
Zagreb.
Moreover,
she
reported
being
able
to
generally
acquire
languages
with
ease.
Apart
from
Estonian,
Ute’s
mother
reported
being
able
to
actively
use
English,
Croatian,
Swedish,
Danish,
Norwegian,
and
Turkish.
She
also
reported
using
Russian
passively.
Ute’s
father
works
in
finance
as
a
head
of
the
department
and
a
partner
in
a
company.
Apart
from
Estonian,
he
speaks
English
and
Turkish
fluently.
In
addition
to
these
languages,
Ute’s
father
also
speaks
some
Croatian
and
has
knowledge
of
the
Russian
language
which
he
acquired
during
his
education
in
Estonia.
Ute’s
sister
speaks
Estonian
and
English
fluently
and
has
also
been
surrounded
by
an
international
community
of
students
from
an
early
age.
Unlike
Ute,
her
sister
attended
kindergarten
in
Estonia
and due
to
this
acquired
preliteracy
skills
in
Estonian.
3.2
Methodology
All
the
data
was
collected
during
spring
2017.
Ute
was
six
years
old
at
the
time
the
research
was
conducted.
For
data
collection
we
relied
on
the
MA
measure
results
(Ricciardelli,
1993).
The
results
of
the
MA
measure
were
complemented
by
the
data
on
Ute’s
MA
gathered
by
means
of
in-school
observation
over
several
months,
Ute’s
self-reports
and
semi-structured
interviews
with
Ute’s
mother
and
preschool
teacher.
Ute’s
self-reports
were
gathered
through
an
informal
conversation
the
researcher
had
with
her
before
the
administration
of
the
MA
measure.
Ute’s
attitudes
to
foreign
languages,
beliefs
about
language
learning,
motivation
for
learning
English
and
Croatian
and
self-perception
of
competence
in
non-native
languages
were
provided
by
20
Ute
herself
during
the
interview.
The
conversation
lasted
for
10
minutes
and
administering
the
MA
measure
lasted
for
20
minutes.
The
conversation
and
the
MA
measure
were
voice
recorded,
which
was
previously
approved
by
Ute’s
mother.
Both
the
MA
measure
and
the
interview
were
conducted
in
one
sitting.
In
addition
to
the
data
on
Ute’s
MA,
the
data
compiled
in
this
research
includes
information
on
Ute’s
language
development,
contexts
in
which
Ute’s
languages
were
acquired,
family
socio-economic
status,
parents’
knowledge
of
and
attitudes
towards
learning
foreign
languages
provided
by
Ute’s
mother.
Ute’s
learner
profile
was
created
based
on
information
obtained
from
her
teacher,
who
was
asked
to
describe
Ute’s
English
language
usage
in
the
classroom
which
could
be
observed
during
the
2016/2017
school
year.
4
Results
As
we
previously
explained,
Ute’s
language
use
was
observed
from
three
different
perspectives:
language
use
in
school
as
observed
by
her
teacher,
at
home
as
observed
by
her
mother
and
the
way
Ute
reported
perceiving
it
herself.
The
following
paragraphs
provide
an
account
of
how
Ute
used
English,
Estonian
and
Croatian
and
how
it
was
observed.
4.1
Language
use
in
school
At
the
time
this
research
was
conducted
Ute had
already
been
attending
an
English
medium
preschool
for
seven
months.
During
classes
Ute’s
linguistic
skills
would
mostly
stand
out
when
she
would
offer
to
explain
the
meaning
of
different
words
her
peers
would
not
understand.
Ute
was
described
by
her
teacher
as
having
wide
general
knowledge,
displaying
creativity
and
not
being
afraid
of
taking
on
the
role
of
the
leader
in
many
activities.
Also,
she
proved
to
be
very
eager
to
find
new
information
on
a
wide
range
of
topics
dealt
with
in
preschool.
Ute’s
teacher
reported
on
Ute’s
exceptionally
clever
questions
during
time
spent
in
preschool.
Furthermore,
she
would
be
able
to
explain
the
meaning
of
words
in
English
that
her
native
English-speaking
peers
did not
even
know
the
meaning
of.
Her
excellent
pronunciation
of
English
was
very
evident.
One
of
the
teachers
who
is
herself
a
native
speaker
of
American
English,
mistook
Ute
for
a
native
speaker. In
addition
to
that,
Ute’s
perception
of
errors
in
spoken
English
was
precise
and
correct.
In
class
Ute
liked to
make
references
to
Estonian
and
Croatian
showing
her
awareness
of
the
different
languages
she
could
name
things
in.
She
was
unusually
interested
in
the
language
her
teachers
used
while
talking to
each
other.
Since
the
researcher
was
also
one
of
the
teachers
in
the
school
Ute
attended,
some
of
the
instances
of
MA
were
observed
directly
by
the
researcher.
One
of
such
occasions
happened
when
Ute
came
up
to
the
teachers
21
and
paid
very
close
attention
to
the
conversation
led
in
Croatian
without
being
involved
in
it
in
any
way.
When
the
conversation
was
over,
one
of
the
teachers
noticed
Ute
listening
closely.
Ute
pointed
out
that
she
understood
everything
that
was
said.
Moreover,
Ute
displayed
her
active
usage
of
Croatian
trying
to
help
other
preschool
students
who
spoke
Croatian
but
were
not
yet
able
to
express
themselves
in
English.
Croatian
did not
seem
to
cause
Ute
any
difficulty
during
interactions
she
had
with
her
Croatian
speaking
peers
in
the
school
playground
or
the
staff
at
the
doctor’s
office.
Ute’s
mother
reported
on
an
occasion
in
which
she
was
surprised
by
Ute’s
willingness
to
talk
to
the
doctor
in
Croatian
and
the
ease
she
spoke
with
while
using
Croatian.
The
mother
reported
this
happening
not
long
before
the
research
was
conducted.
4.2
Language
use
at
home
At
home
Ute
would
combine
English
and
Estonian.
Ute’s
mother
remembered
this
happening
very
early
in
Ute’s
language
usage.
She
would
insert
Estonian
vocabulary
in
the
English
phrases
she
picked
up
in
kindergarten
while
the
family
still
lived
in
Turkey.
Ute
would
also
mix
the
grammar
of
the
two
languages
in
everyday
conversation
mostly
by
applying
the
suffixes
of
one
language
to
the
other.
Since
Ute
started
attending
preschool,
the
majority
of
her
days
were
spent
immersed
in
English.
When
she
would
come
home
and
was
asked
about
her
day
in
preschool,
she
would
automatically
start
speaking
in
English.
The
same
would
happen
when
she
could
not
find
the
words
in
Estonian
to
express
herself.
Knowing
her
parents
and
sister
spoke
fluent
English
and
could
understand
what
she
wanted
to
say
gave
Ute
an
excuse
to
use
English
even
at
home.
It
seems
that
the
input
Ute
received
in
English
affected
her
use
of
Estonian
which
was
constrained
to
the
conversations
Ute
had
with
her
parents
and
her
older
sister.
Ute’s
mother
reported
on
Ute
sticking
to
Estonian without
mixing
it
with
English
only
in
communication
with
Ute’s
grandmother
via
Skype,
thus
showing
her
ability
to
manipulate
the
languages
she
was
using
when
she
knew
that
mixing
was
not
an
option.
Ute’s
mother
reported
teaching
Estonian
to
Ute,
however
Ute
would
quickly
lose
her
motivation
to
continue
learning
and
would
give
up
easily
because
she
found
learning
Estonian
difficult.
Moreover,
watching
cartoons
and
movies
in
Estonian
was
also
something
Ute
found
challenging.
On
the
other
hand,
watching
cartoons
and
videos
in
English
at
age
six
was
something
Ute
could
do
for
hours
without
end.
Ute’s
mother
reported
that
Ute’s
time
spent
with
her
headphones
on
and
her
iPad
was
something
she
enjoyed
the
most
because
of
the
exposure
to
English
she
got.
The summers
Ute
would
spend
in
Estonia
would
be
a
clear
proof
of
just
how
much
English
and
Croatian
had
already
occupied
her
linguistic
repertoire.
Establishing
and
maintaining
communication
with
her
peers
was
possible
in
English
and
Croatian
without
22
many
obstacles,
but
in
Estonian
this
was
not
the
case.
At
age
six
it
was
clear
that
she
missed
the
basic
Estonian
vocabulary
necessary
for
communication
with
children
her
age.
Ute’s
mother
observed
that
this
was
logical
since
the
native
speakers
who
surrounded
Ute
on
a
daily
basis
ever
since
she
was
ten
months
old,
her
family
members
were
already
using
a
different
register
due
to
their
age
and
cognitive
maturity.
During
spring
2017,
at
the
time
this
research
was
conducted,
it
was
clear
from
the
fluency
and
accuracy
with
which
Ute
spoke
English
that
it
was
her
primary
language.
During
the
conversation
the
researcher
had
with
Ute,
she
stated
her
preference
and
confidence
in
using
English,
because
she
“liked
to
sound
American”.
With
Croatian,
on
the
other
hand,
she
stated
being
very
shy
because
she
felt
she
“did
not
sound
like
they
do”,
the
native
speakers of
Croatian.
Ute’s
wish
was
to
become
“a
famous
writer”.
Ute’s
self-awareness
was
not
only
reflected
in
her
language
use,
it
was
also
during
her
conversations
with
her
family
and
teachers
that
she
proved
to
have
a
mind
of
her
own
and
to
be
highly
communicative.
That
was
particularly
visible
in
Ute’s
smart
and
sharp
remarks
made
both
in
school
and
at
home.
She
was
very
interested
in
how
others
see
her.
In
the
following
section,
the
evidence
from
Ute’s
language
use
described
above
will
be
considered
in
light
of
her
results
on
MA
tasks
(Ricciardelli,
1993).
4.3
Evidence
of
MA-Test
results
The
test
results
are
presented
following
the
original
structure
of
Ricciardelli’s
(1993)
MA
measure.
In
the
study
done
by
Ricciardelli
(1993)
the
age
group
tested
was
the
same
age
as
the
participant
in
this
study.
Ricciardelli
(1993)
designed
a
set
of
seven
tasks
in
English
meant
to
be
used
for
children
aged
five
to
eight.
The
tasks
followed
the
two
cognitive
components
of
Bialystok’s
analysis
and
control
framework.
The
first
group
measured
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
and
included
the
following
tasks:
word
order
repetition,
word
renaming
and
symbol
substitution.
The
second
group
measured
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
and
consisted
of
the
following
tasks:
symbol
substitution,
word
order
correction
and
form-meaning
judgements.
The
third
and
last
group
measured
control
and
analysis
and
comprised
a
grammar
judgement
task.
Each
of
the
tasks
measured
different
underlying
constructs
and
were
based
on
work
done
by
other
researchers.
4.1.1
Tasks
used
to
measure
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
Control
of
linguistic
processing
component
is
measured
by
the
following
tasks:
word
order
repetition,
word
renaming
and
symbol
substitution.
The
first
23
task
drawing
on
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
is
word
order
repetition
which
is
based
on
work
by
Bowey
(1986).
The
underlying
construct
this
task
is
supposed
to
measure
is
grammatical
awareness.
In
word
order
repetition
Ute’s
task
was
to
repeat
twelve
ungrammatical
sentences.
This
task
clearly
draws
on
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
component
of
MA
because
the
participant
had
to
focus
her
attention
on
the
form
of
the
task
disregarding
the
meaning
which
were
distorted
due
to
the
ungrammaticality
of
the
sentence.
The
grammar
violations
appearing
in
the
sentences
were
simple
word
order
violations
(e.g.,
The
cat
has
fur
black.
Dad
at
home
is.
Apples
not
are
purple.)
Ute
managed
to
repeat
all
twelve
sentences
included
in
this
task.
The
second
task
pertaining
to
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
is
word
renaming.
This
task
was
influenced
by
previous
work
done
by
Piaget
(1929).
The
task
is
supposed
to
assess
children’s
ability
to
understand
word
referent
relationships.
Ute
was
asked
to
imagine
if
words
could
change
their
linguistic
referents
and
persuaded
to
actually
try
to
change
the
names
of
things
so
as
to,
for
example,
call
the
sun
the
moon,
and
the
moon
the
sun.
Following
that
Ute
was
asked
a
question
relating
to
one
of
the
referents
in
order
to
check
if
she
was
fully
able
to
replace
the
meaning
of
the
referents.
The word
renaming
task
contained
twelve
questions
in
total.
Ute
scored
the
maximum
number
of
points
answering
all
twelve
questions
correctly.
Example
1
Researcher:
The
game
we
are
going
to
play
now
is
about
changing
names.
Suppose
you
could
call
the
sun
the
“moon”
and
the
moon
the
“sun”.
What
would
you
call
the
thing
in
the
sky
when
you
go
to
bed
at
night?
U:
Sun.
Researcher:
What
would
the
sky
look
like
when
you’re
going
to
bed?
U:
Blue.
The
third
task
in
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
part
of
the
framework
is
symbol
substitution.
This
task
is
supposed
to
assess
the
arbitrary
nature
of
language
and
was
based
on
work
done
by
Ben
Zeev
(1977).
Ute
was
asked
to
replace
the
given
word
for
a
target
word
in
a
sentence.
The
result
was
an
ungrammatical
sentence.
The
example
below
provides
an
example
of
one
of
the
sentences
from
the
task
in
question.
Example
2
Researcher:
This
is
a
naming
game,
and
each
time
we
are
going
to
swap
words
without
changing
anything
else.
Sometimes
things
may
sound
wrong
or
funny,
but
that’s
alright.
If
I
say
“I”
is
“ice”,
how
do
we
say
“I
am
cold”?
24
U:
I
am
cold
ice.
This
was
the
first
task
in
which
Ute
encountered
problems.
Instead
of
just
replacing
I
with
ice
Ute
tried
to
insert
the
word
ice
in
the
given
sentence,
trying
to
make
it
meaningful
saying
“I
am
cold
ice”.
After
four
items
in
which
Ute
continued
to
change
the
rest
of
the
sentence
after
replacing
the
given
word
with
the
target
word,
the
researcher
moved
on
to
the
next
task.
Example
3
Researcher:
OK,
let’s
move
on
to
the
next
one.
If
I
say
“she”
is
“fish”,
how
do
we
say
“She
likes
swimming”?
U:
She
likes
fish
swimming.
She
likes
fish.
R:
If
I
say
“they”
is
“he”,
how
do
we
say
“They
were
running”?
U:
He
is
running.
R:
If
I
say
“I”
is
“summer”,
how
do
we
say
“Summer
is
hot”?
U:
I
am
hot.
Focusing
on
form
disregarding
the
meaning
might
be
very
difficult
for
young
learners.
So,
it
turned
out
to
be
the
case
with
Ute.
Interestingly
so,
Ute
did not
find
it
difficult
to
repeat
sentences
containing
erroneous
word
order,
as
in
the
word
order
repetition
task,
however,
creating
an
ungrammatical
sentence
seemed
to
be
very
confounding.
However,
her
solutions,
although
not
like
the
ones
expected
in
this
task,
were
all
attempts
to
produce
grammatical
and
logical
sentences.
The
three
tasks
loading
on
control
of
linguistic
processing
include
a
lot
of
repetition
strongly
loading
on
short
term
memory
while
suppressing
and
objectifying
the
meaning
of
the
produced
language.
It
can
be
observed
that
two
constructs
underlying
the
described
tasks
present
no
challenge
for
Ute,
and
those
are
grammatical
awareness
and
the
ability
to
understand
word
referent
relationships.
In
the
first
task
Ute had
to
simply
repeat
sentences
containing
a
word
order
mistake
without
correcting
the
mistakes. In the
second
task
Ute had
to
switch
the
forms
of
words
controlling
for
their
meaning.
What
emerged
as
a
problem
was
the
third
task
which
was
supposed
to
assess
the
arbitrary
nature
of
language.
Ute had
to
construct
illogical
and
ungrammatical
sentences,
controlling for
the
form
of
the
sentence
and
disregarding
its
meaning.
The
reasons
for
this
could
be
that
Ute
did
not
fully
understand
the
given
instruction,
or
simply
had
difficulties
with
abstracting
from
what
she
knew
was
acceptable.
The
way
we
saw
this
was
that
Ute’s
conception
of
what
language
was
and
what
rules
it
was
governed
by was
exactly
what
did
not
allow
for
an
ungrammatical
sentence
to
be
a
possible
solution
to
the
problem.
With
his,
Ute
clearly
demonstrated
her
ability
to
interpret
language
in
the
25
complexity
of
its
form
and
meaning
relationship,
not allowing
for
the
illogical
and
ungrammatical
sentences
to
be
possible.
This
could
also
be
taken
as
evidence
of
Ute’s
metalinguistic
ability.
Tasks
used
to
measure
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
offer
additional
insights
into
Ute’s
metalinguistic
awareness.
4.1.2
Tasks
used
to
measure
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
Analysis
of
linguistic
processing
is
measured
by
the
following
three
tasks:
symbol
substitution,
word
order
correction
and
form-meaning
judgements.
The
first
task
measuring
the
analysis
component
of
the
framework
is
symbol
substitution.
This
task
was
based
on
the
same
task
used
for
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
component.
In
other
words,
Ute
was
supposed
to
replace
the
given
word
for
the
target
word,
but
this
time
she
was
expected
to
change
all
other
necessary
sentence
elements
in
order
to
make
the
sentence
grammatical.
The
score
was
seven
out
of
seven.
Although
the
total
number
of
sentences
contained
in
the
original
task
was
twelve,
the
researcher
decided
to
stop
at
number
seven
due
to
the
previous
seven
correct
solutions,
and
the
observed
fatigue in
the
participant.
Interestingly,
unlike
the
participants
in
Ricciardelli’s
study
(1993)
whose
performance
on
this
task
was
somehow
interfered
by
the
similarity
of
the
previous
task,
Ute’s
performance
on
this
task
was
highly
successful.
This
result
proved
to
be
consistent
with
the
results
reported
by
Cohen
(2011).
The
English-French
bilinguals
participating
in
Cohen’s
(2011)
study
scored
worse
on
the
symbol
substitution
task
loading
on
the
control
of
linguistic
processing
than
on
the
same
task
loading
on
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge.
Furthermore,
for
the
English
measure
the
control
version
of
the
symbol
substitution
task
proved
to
be
the
most
difficult
one,
and
the
analysis
version
one
of
the
tasks
where
the
bilingual
participants
scored
the
highest.
Example
4
Researcher:
This
is
another
naming
game
a
bit like
the
one
we
did
before,
but
this
time
when
I
ask
you
to
swap
words,
I
also
want
you
to
change
things
so
that
it
does
not
sound
wrong.
Let’s
have
some
practice
first!
In
this
part
we
say
“mum”
to
say
“they”.
So
how
do
we
say
“Mum
is
home?”
U:
They
are
home.
The
symbol
substitution
task
loading
on
the
control
of
linguistic
knowledge
provoked
confusion
for
Ute due
to
the
fact that
it
required
restructuring
given
sentences
and
producing
ungrammatical
items.
However,
the
symbol
26
substitution
task
loading
on
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
proved
to
be
much
more
logical
for
Ute
since
it
allowed
for
changing
the
sentence
structure
in
order
to
make
it
grammatical.
It
was
very
interesting
to
observe
Ute’s
consistency
in
dealing
with
this
task.
This
can
be
observed
as
a
proof of
Ute’s
awareness
of
language
as
being
a
rule-governed
system
in
which
certain
structures
are
not
present,
therefore
they
are
not
allowed.
As
noted
earlier,
the
symbol
substitution
task
loading
on
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
did
not
correlate
significantly
with
any
other
metalinguistic
task
used
in
the
Ricciardelli’s
(1993)
study.
In
other
words,
it
seems
this
task
measures
different
underlying
constructs
form
the
ones
it
is
supposed
to
measure.
The
second
task
is
word
order
correction.
Measuring
grammatical
awareness
this
task
was
based
on
previous
work by
Pratt,
Tunmer
and
Bowey
(1984).
The
task
draws
on
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge
due
to
the
fact
that
Ute
was
supposed
to
correct
as
well
as
repeat
the
word
order
violations
heard
in
the
sentences.
The
word
order
correction
task
was
different
from
the
previous
one,
in
that
Ute
was
asked
to
repeat the sentence,
without
the
mistake.
In
other
words,
the
participant
had
to
correct
the
mistake
in
the
sentence
and
produce
the
correct
sentence.
Ute
provided
the
expected
correction
for
all
the
twelve
sentences
included
in
the
task.
Example
5
Researcher:
This time
I
want
you
to
fix
up
what
I
say.
I’ll
keep
saying
everything
with
a
mistake
in
it.
Then
I
want
you
to
say
them
the
way
I
should
have
said
them.
Researcher:
The
lawn
not
is
wet.
U:
The
lawn
is
not
wet.
The
final
task
in
the
analysis
of
linguistic
component
part
of
the
framework
is
form-meaning
judgements.
In
this
task
Ute
was
assessed
for
word
awareness
with
a
task
based
on
previous
work
done
by
Bialystok
and
Niccols
(1989).
The
idea
underlying
the
task
is
to
match
the
words
for
their
sound
or
meaning
depending
on
what
is
required
in
the
task.
Example
6
Researcher:
In
this
game
you
have
to
listen
very
carefully
and
tell
me
whether
words
sound
alike
or
whether
they
mean
similar
things.
R:
What
word
sounds
something
like
cat?
Hat
or
kitten?
U:
Hat.
R:
What
word
means
something
like
fool?
Trick
or
pool?
U:
Pool.
27
Whether
it
was
the
fact that
this
was
the
sixth
task
Ute
was
required
to
do,
or
the
mere
fact that
the
exchanging
of
sound
and
mean
took
turns
unexpectedly,
thus
adding
another
element
the
participant
had
to
concentrate
on,
this
task
caused
Ute
to
make
some
mistakes
like
in
the
example
shown.
The
score
was
six
out
of
eight.
Having
seen
Ute
struggling
with
these
sentences
the
researcher
decided
to
cut the
task
from
twelve
to eight
sentences,
keeping
in
mind
the
final
task
the
participant
had
to
perform.
4.1.3
Grammar
judgment
task
The
last
task
aimed
to
measure
both
control
and
analysis
is
the
grammar
judgement
task.
The
underlying
construct
assessed
by
this
task
is
grammatical
awareness.
Due
to
the
complexities
of
measuring
the
two
components
of
MA
as
proposed
in
the
framework
by
Bialystok
and
Ryan
(1985),
there
are
not
many
tasks
that
could
be
used
to
measure
both
components
in
equal
measure.
One
of
such
tasks
is
the
grammar
judgement
task
(Biyalistok,
1986).
This
specific
task
is
used
to
measure
the
grammaticality
of
sentences
in
four
conditions:
grammatically
and
semantically
correct
(
e.g.,
Apples
grow
on
trees.);
grammatically
incorrect
and
semantically
correct
(e.g.,
Apples
on
trees
grow);
grammatically
correct
but
semantically
anomalous
(e.g.,
Apples
grow
on
noses);
grammatically
and
semantically
incorrect
(e.g.,
Apples
on
noses
grow).
The
ungrammatical
but
meaningful
sentences
were
supposed
to
measure
the
analysis
component
and
the
anomalous
but
grammatical
sentences
were
to
measure
the
control
component
of
MA.
The
sentences
were
presented
in
a
mixed
order.
Out
of
the
30
sentences
Ute
was
asked
to
judge,
she
scored
25
out
of
30.
Here
is
an
example:
Example
7
Researcher:
In
this
game
I
am
going
to
say
something,
and
then
I
want
you
to
tell
me
it
is
the
wrong
or
the
right
way
round.
I
might
say
something
that
sounds
sounds
silly
for
fun,
but
you
have
to
tell
me
each
time
if
it’s
the
right
way
of
the
wrong
way
round,
not
if
it’s
funny.
Researcher:
Rabbits
not
can
sing
songs.
U:
Wrong.
People
like
books
funny.
U:
I’m
not
sure,
but
I’ll
give
it
a
yes.
Researcher:
There
are
three
purple
oranges.
U:
No!
(smiling)
In
line
with
the
findings
reported
in
Ricciardelli
(1993)
the
grammar
judgement
task
proved
to
be
somewhat
confusing
to
Ute.
The
reason
could
be
found
it
the
fact that
the
items
loading
on
control
of
linguistic
processing
were
28
mixed
up
with
the
items
loading
on
the
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge.
That
way
the
task
structure
made
it
very
difficult
for
the
participants
in
Ricciardelli’s
study
(1993)
and Ute
in
the
present
study
to
apply
the
same
criteria
to
all
the
items.
5
Conclusion
The
aim
of
this
chapter
was
to
show
how
different
types
of
factors
(individual,
contextual,
linguistic
etc.)
interact
with
the
development
of
multilingualism
at
a
young
age.
Gathering
information
about
the
participant’s
linguistic
development,
observed
linguistic
behavior
and
metalinguistic
awareness
along
with
the
triangulation
of
the
obtained
information
was
described.
The
very
idea
for
conducting
this
research
emerged
in
a
multilingual
surrounding
where
one
particular
individual
stood out
with
extraordinary
linguistic
skills
as
well
as
pragmatic
skills.
Being
surrounded
with
a
multilingual
community
all
her
life,
as
well
as
attending
an
English
medium
kindergarten
and
preschool,
the
young
multilingual
described
in
this
case
study,
developed
various
linguistic
and
pragmatic
skills.
Those
skills,
along
with
certain
individual
and
contextual
factors
enabled
Ute
to
acquire
the
languages
she
was
exposed
to.
The
individual
factors
that
were
observed
as
playing
a
very
important
role
in
Ute’s
metalinguistic
awareness
development
were
the
ease
with
which
the
participant
managed
to
“pick-up”
the
languages
she
was
surrounded
by
in
different
contexts
whether
educational
or
not.
Furthermore,
the
very
awareness
of
the
ways
different
languages
sound
and
how
Ute
herself
fits
into
the
native-speaker
norm
she
noticed,
proves
her
to
be
very
much
self
aware
of
her
competence
in
the
languages
she
is
able
to
use.
An
important
influence
in
the
development
of
Ute’s
insights
into
the
ways
different
languages
function
was
provided
by
the
multilingual
family
she
comes
from.
Lastly,
the
program
of
the
school
Ute
is
attending,
although
fully
conducted
in
English,
strives
to create
a
rich
multilingual
environment
which
caters
for
the
language
needs
of
its
students.
High
scores
on
the
MA
measure
offered
convincing
evidence
that
there
was
indeed
a
strong
case
for
looking
into
the
MA
of
a
child
whose
linguistic
skills
were
otherwise
highly
observable.
The
very
complexity
of
the
tasks
and
the
accuracy
with
which
Ute
managed
to
comply
to
their
demands
were
surely
a
proof
of
her
metalinguistic
abilities.
The
results
on
certain
tasks
proved
to
be
somewhat
different
from
the
ones
obtained
by
Ricciardelli
(1993).
Namely,
Ute’s
performance
on
the
symbol
substitution
tasks
provided
some
very
interesting
insights
into
her
view
of
language.
The
interference
of
the
tasks
noted
in
the
study
conducted
by
Ricciardelli
(1993)
where
the
monolingual
English-speaking
participants
failed
to correct
the
sentences
in
the
second
symbol
substitution
task,
did not
reoccur
in
this
study.
In
fact,
Ute’s
score
is
29
more
consistent
with
the
results
reported
in
Cohen
(2011).
This
could
indeed
be
indicative
of
the
different
way
in
which
bilingualism
as
in
the
Cohen’s
study
and
multilingualism
in
this
study
can
make
a
difference
in
dealing
with
certain
metalinguistic
tasks.
Although
the
results
of
a
case
study
cannot
be
used
to
generalize
from,
the
insights
gained
from
this
study
can
shed
light
on
the
intricacies
of
multilingual
language
development.
We
tried
to
show
instances
of
MA
whose
emergence
is
evident
at
a
very
young
age
provided
the
necessary
individual
learner
characteristics
as
well
as
contextual
factors
are
present.
We
hope
that
the
results
presented
in
this
paper
shed
some
light
on
the
complex
and
multidimensional
nature
of
multilingualism
at
a
young
age.
More
research
is
needed
in
exploring
the
MA
development
in
early
trilingualism,
especially
research
into
the
MA
development
in
third
language
acquisition.
References
Ben-Zeev,
S.
(1977).
The
influence
of
bilingualism
on
cognitive
strategy
and
cognitive
development.
Child
Development,
48,
1009-1018.
Bialystok,
E.,
&
Ryan,
E.B.
(1985).
A
metacognitive
framework
for
the
development
of
first
and
second
language
skills.
In
D.L.
Forrest
Pressley,
G.E.
Mackinnon,
&
T.G.
Waller
(Eds.),
Meta-cognition,
cognition,
and
human
performance
(pp.
207–252).
New
York:
Academic
Press.
Bialystok,
E.
(1986). Factors
in
the
growth
of
linguistic
awareness.
Child
Development,
57,
498–510.
Bialystok,
E.,
&
Niccols,
A.
(1989).
Children's
control
over
attention
to
phonological
and
semantic
properties
of
words.
Journal
of
Psycholinguistic
Research,
18,
369-387.
Bialystok,
E.
(2001).
Bilingualism
in
development:
Language,
literacy
and
cognition.
New
York,
NY:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Bialystok,
E.,
&
Martin,
M.M.
(2004).
Attention
and
inhibition
in
bilingual
children:
Evidence
from
the
dimensional
change
card
sort
task.
Developmental
Science,
7,
325–
339.
Bowey,
J.
A.
(1986).
Syntactic
awareness
in
relation
to
reading
skills
and
ongoing
reading
comprehension
monitoring.
Journal
of
Experimental
Child
Psychology,
41,
282-299.
Cohen,
C.
(2011).
Input
factors,
language
experiences
and
metalinguistic
awareness
in
bilingual
children.
Unpublished
Doctoral
Dissertation.
Retrieved
from
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01079231
30
Council
of
the
European
Union.
(2002).
Presidency
Conclusions
-
Barcelona
European
Council
15.
and
16
March
2002.
http://ec.europa.eu/investinresearch/pdf/download_en/barcelona_europ
ean_council.pdf
Cenoz,
J.
(2013).
Defining
multilingualism.
Annual
Review
of
Applied
Linguistics,
33,
3-18.
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X
Duff,
P.
&
Anderson,
T.
(2015).
Case
study
research.
In
J.D.
Brown
&
C.
Coombs
(Eds.),
Cambridge
guide
to
language
research
(pp.
112-118).
Cambridge,
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
European
Commission.
(2007).
Final
report:
High
level
group
on
multilingualism.
Luxembourg:
European
Communities.
Retrieved
from
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf
Gibson,
M.,
Hufeisen,
B.
&
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
(pp.
138.148).
Clevedon:
Multilingual
Matters
Jessner,
U.
(1999).
Metalinguistic
awareness
in
multilinguals.
Cognitive
aspects
of
third
language
learning.
Language
Awareness,
8(3&4),
201
209.
Jessner,
U.
(2006).
Linguistic
awareness
in
multilinguals:
English
as
a
third
language.
Edinburgh,
UK:
Edinburgh
University
Press.
Karmiloff-Smith,
A.,
Grant,
J.,
Sims,
K.,
Jones,
M-C.,
&
Cuckle,
P. (1996).
Rethinking
metalinguistic
awareness:
representing
and
accessing
knowledge
about
what
counts
as
a
word.
Cognition,
58(2),
197-219.
Kecskes,
I.
&
Tünde
Papp.
(2000).
Foreign
language
and
mother
tongue.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.
Kemp,
C.
(2009).
Defining
multilingualism.
In
L.
Aronin
&
B.
Hufeisen
(Eds.),
The
exploration
of
multilingualism.
Development
of
research
on
L3,
multilingualism
and
multiple
language
acquisition
(pp.
11-26).
Amsterdam,
Philadelphia:
John
Benjamins.
Liberman,
I.Y.
(1971).
Basic
research
in
speech
and
lateralization
of
language:
some
implications
for
reading
disability.
Bulletin
of
the
Orton
Society,
21,
71-87.
Piaget,
J.
(1929).
The
child's
conception
of
the
world.
London:
Kegan
Paul.
Pinto,
M.A.,
Titone,
R.,
&
Trusso,
F.
(1999).
Metalinguistic
awareness.
Theory,
development
and
measurement
instruments.
Roma:
Instituti
Editoriali
e
Poligrafici
Internazionali.
31
Pinto,
M.A.,
Iliceto,
P.,
&
Melogno,
S. (2011).
Argumentative
abilities
in
metacognition
andin
metalinguistics.
A
study
on
university
students.
European
Journal
of
Psychology
of
Education,
27(1),
35-58.
Pratt,
C,
Tunmer,
W.
E.,
&
Bowey,
J.
A.
(1984).
Children's
capacity
to
correct
grammatical
violations
in
sentences.
Journal
of
Child
Language,
11,
129-141.
Ranta,
L.
(2008).
Metalinguistic
knowledge
and
oral
production.
In
J.
Cenoz
&
N.
Hornberger
(Eds.),
Encyclopedia
of
language
and
education
(2nd
ed.).
Vol.
6:
Knowledge
about
language
(pp.
205-216).
New
York:
Springer.
Roehr-Brackin,
K.,
(2018).
Metalinguistic
awareness
and
second
language
acquisition.
New
York:
Routledge.
Ricciardelli,
L.
(1993).
Two
components
of
metalinguistic
awareness: Control
of
linguistic
processing
and
analysis
of
linguistic
knowledge.
Applied
Psycholinguistics,
14(3),
349-367.
Stavans,
A.
&
Swisher,
V.
(2006).
Language
switching
as
a
window
on
trilingual
acquisition.
International
Journal
of
Multilingualism,
3(3),
193
-
220.
Sharwood
Smith,
M.
(2008).
Revisiting
the
role
of
consciousness
with
MOGUL.
In
Z.
Han
(Ed.).
Understanding
second
language
processes
(pp.
1-15).
Clevedon:
Multilingual
Matters.
32
