Linguistic awareness in multilinguals: English as a third language (review)

In this volume, Jessner offers a meticulous compilation of the most relevant studies in Third Language Acquisition (TLA), while focusing on the interactions between cross-linguistic influences and linguistic awareness.

The author starts by examining a series of characteristics of English as a lingua franca in Europe, which has generated multilingualism both at the individual and societal levels. Jessner points out that the complexity of TLA involves a considerable number of combinations of circumstances under which an individual may acquire an L3, as well as other psychosocial factors like complete or partial attrition. She includes a complete overview of the main research areas in TLA, such as cross-linguistic influences and early trilingualism, as well as a summary of the newer and most salient models to approach multilingualism. In order to make reference to the various expressions of multilingualism, at the end of the second chapter (p. 34), the reader is introduced to the highly functional globalizing concept of “cross-linguisitc interaction (CLIN)” (see also Herdina and Jessner 2002). The term CLIN includes transfer and interference phenomena, as well as code switching and borrowing. In this way, it creates a liaison between two major currents of linguistic studies, language acquisition and sociolinguistics, with regards to the examination of linguistic performance in individuals who have (at least some) competence in more than one language. Even more interesting in this chapter is the introduction to the reader of a debate that the author will develop gradually throughout the book. Jessner maintains that the study of TLA requires the development of a “cumulative-enhanced model” (p. 27) that, unlike the generative perspective, offers an interpretation of the facts beyond a simple amalgamation of TLA with Second Language Acquisition (see Herdina and Jessner 2002 for an earlier less-elaborated version of this point). Although apparently unaware of it, Jessner seems to have reached the same conclusion as Leung (2005) who, in spite of having followed a generative framework in her analysis, similarly found that the L2, rather than the L1, was the main source of transfer for L3 acquisition, and that the Full Transfer-Full Access model would not be applicable to TLA (see also Bayona 2005, Ringbom 2005, among others). Currently, this is one of the most critical debates facing the language acquisition community, the resolution of which will hopefully shed a clearer light on the distinctive features of bilingualism and multilingualism.

Chapter 3 includes a section on developmental and educational psycholinguistics, and a summary of relevant research regarding metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals and multi-linguals. According to Jessner, metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals cannot be studied in isolation: it needs to be related to the qualitative changes in the learning process that transcend L2 learning. The core idea of Jessner’s proposal seems to be summarised in the conclusion of the chapter, where she states that “According to the DMM [Dynamic Model of Multilingualism; see Herdina and Jessner 2002] the heightened level of metalinguistic awareness is dependent on the multilingual’s perceived communicative needs often expressed by language mixing, and explicit knowledge and cross-linguistic awareness as expressed in reflections on their language use. [. . . ] Thus, processes of transfer across languages also affect metalinguistic skills and [in] this way metalinguistic awareness becomes evident in both language use and language acquisition” (p. 71).

Chapter 4 features an extensive analysis of the Tyrol Study, whose aim was to examine multilingual compensatory strategies such as cross-linguistic interactions and metalinguistic awareness. The study examined the text production in L3 English of 17 students from South-Tyrol who had been in contact with both German and Italian from an early age. Through a qualitative analysis of Thinking-aloud Protocols (TAPs) the researchers found that “German was preferably activated after the retrieval of the target language item [. . . while] Italian was preferably used as confirmer or safety measure” (pp. 100–101). As previous studies have shown (Cenoz et al. 2001, 2003), the Tyrol study also found that [End Page...