International Journal of Bilingualism http://ijb.sagepub.

com/

The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review

Jasone Cenoz International Journal of Bilingualism 2003 7: 71 DOI: 10.1177/13670069030070010501 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for International Journal of Bilingualism can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ijb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ijb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://ijb.sagepub.com/content/7/1/71.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 2003 What is This?

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

Volume 7 Number March 2003,A7review 1 87 Effect 1 of bilingualism:

71

The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review*

Jasone Cenoz
University of the Basque Country

Acknowledgments*
The author wishes to thank Colin Baker, D urk Gorter, and Charlotte Hoffmann for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

Abstract

Key words

This article looks at the general effects of bilingualism on cognitive developbilingualism ment and highlights the specific effects of bilingualism on third language acquisition. First, it examines the effects of bilingualism on cognitive developmetalinguistic ment, metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills and then, it focuses awareness on the specific effects of bilingualism on third language proficiency by discussing the results of several research studies conducted in different settings and contexts. An important distinction is made between studies third language focusing on the acquisition of general proficiency in the third language and acquisition studies that examine specific aspects of third language proficiency. The effects of bilingualism on third language acquisition are discussed as related to the experience acquired by third language learners in the process of second language acquisition and the effects of bilingualism on metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills. These effects are also discussed with reference to the concepts of additive bilingualism (Lambert, 1974), the threshold hypothesis (Cummins, 1976) and the distinction between control of attention and analysis (Bialystok, 1991).

1 Introduction

The study of third language acquisition has developed considerably in the last few years, reflected in the publication of several articles and volumes that cover different aspects of this phenomenon (see e.g. Cenoz, H ufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Clyne, 1997; H offmann, 2001). Third language acquisition refers to the acquisition of a non-native language by learners who have previously acquired or are acquiring two other languages. The acquisition of the first two languages can be simultaneous (as in early bilingualism) or consecutive. The study of third language acquisition brings together two fields which have traditionally ignored each other: second language acquisition and bilingualism. Third language acquisition shares many characteristics with second language acquisition but it also presents differences because third language learners have more language experience at their disposal as second language learners, are influenced by the general effects of bilingualism on cognition, and have access to two linguistic systems when acquiring a third language (see also H erdina & Jessner, 2002).
Address for correspondence

Dept of English and German Philology, University of the Basque Country, P.O. Box 2111, 01006 Vitoria-G asteiz, Spain; e-mail: < fipceirj@vc.ehu.es>.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

72

J. Cenoz

Some studies have compared the strategies used by monolingual and bi/ multilingual learners and have reported that multilinguals use a wider range of linguistic and mnemonic strategies and are more flexible in their use than monolinguals (see e.g. McLaughin & N ayak, 1989). On the other hand, third language learners have the possibility of using two languages as base languages in third language acquisition as compared to second language learners who can only use their first language as the base language (see Cenoz, H ufeisen, & Jessner, 2001a). Third language acquisition presents more temporal diversity than second language acquisition. When two languages are involved, we only have two temporal possibilities, the acquisition of the two languages is either simultaneous (early bilingualism) or consecutive (first language acquisition + second language acquisition). When three languages are acquired, we have four possibilities (see Cenoz, 2000 for 4 languages). The three languages can be acquired consecutively (L1 L2 L3); two languages could be acquired simultaneously before the L3 is acquired (Lx / Ly L3) or after the first language (L1 Lx / Ly) or the three languages could be acquired simultaneously in early trilingualism (Lx / Ly/ Lz). In this article we will focus on some specific aspects of third language acquisition as relating to the first two situations, that is, when the acquisition of a third language starts chronologically after the acquisition of the other two languages. Apart from the temporal diversity related to the chronological order of acquisition, third language acquisition also presents considerable diversity regarding other factors usually considered in second language acquisition research such as the context in which the languages have been acquired (natural or formal), the age of acquisition or the use of the languages. Other factors traditionally associated with research in bilingualism also add to the diversity of third language acquisition. Among these factors are the status of the different languages involved, the degree of bilingualism and the type of bilingualism in the L1 and L2 (or Lx and Ly) presented by the learners when acquiring the third language. The aim of this article is to look at the general effects of bilingualism on cognitive development and particularly on third language acquisition. According to folk wisdom, additional languages are acquired by bilinguals and multilinguals more easily than by monolinguals. That is, the more languages one knows, the easier it becomes to acquire an additional language. If this is the case, bilinguals would make more progress when learning a third language than monolinguals learning a second. Apart from rate, there is also the possibility that third language acquisition could present qualitative differences when compared to second language acquisition. That is, bilinguals could follow a different route when acquiring a third language than monolinguals acquiring a second language. In the following sections I will review the studies on the effects of bilingualism on cognitive development, metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills and then I will discuss studies on the effect of bilingualism on L3 proficiency and the possible explanations for those findings.

effect of bilingualism on cognitive development, 2 The metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills
It is generally acknowledged that Peal and Lamberts study (1962) on the effect of bilingualism on cognitive development was an important landmark in the study of bilingualism (Baker, 2001; H amers & Blanc, 2000). This study compared the results obtained in several
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

Effect of bilingualism: A review

73

cognitive tests by bilingual (French-English) and monolingual (French or English) primary school children. The results of the study indicated that bilingual children scored higher on several verbal and nonverbal tests of cognitive ability. This study had a great impact on research in bilingualism because previous results had generally found that bilingualism was negatively associated with cognitive development and also because Peal and Lambert (1962) had matched the bilingual and monolingual groups for variables such as sex, age, and socioeconomic level that had not been well controlled in previous studies. Although some methodological aspects of the study have been criticized, for example the exclusion of unbalanced bilinguals, this study triggered off a large number of better controlled studies on the effect of bilingualism. In contradiction to the studies conducted between the 1920 s and the 1960 s, studies carried out in the recent decades have generally associated bilingualism with cognitive advantages. The main advantages observed in bilinguals lie in the following areas (see Baker, 2001; H amers & Blanc, 2000 for reviews): 1. According to research studies conducted in different contexts bilingual children present higher scores in tests of divergent thinking or creative thinking (see Baker, 2001; R icciardelli, 1992 for reviews). These advantages are more consistent in the case of balanced bilinguals but it is important to take into account that some of the research studies present methodological problems, some of which will be mentioned later (see also Baker, 2001). 2. Research on the effects of bilingualism on metalinguistic awareness has associated bilingualism with a higher ability to reflect on language and to manipulate it (see e.g., Ben-Zeev, 1977a, 1977b; Bialystok, 1991, 2001; Cummins, 1978; Ianco Worrall, 1972; R icciardelli, 1992). Bialystok (2001) reviews research on the relationship between bilingualism and metalinguistic awareness and concludes that bilinguals tend to obtain better results in tasks related to word awareness and in tasks that demand high levels of control of attention. She also states that there are no consistent differences in tasks that demand high levels of analysis of representational structures. For example, bilinguals are not expected to be superior to monolinguals when identifying grammatically incorrect meaningful sentences but tend to be superior when identifying grammatically correct anomalous sentences. She also reports that bilinguals with a high level of proficiency in the two languages are in some cases superior to monolinguals in tasks demanding a high level of analysis. Therefore, in the case of metalinguistic awareness balanced bilingualism also seems to be associated with better results but not necessarily in all tasks. 3. According to some research studies, bilingual children are more sensitive to the communicative needs of their interlocutors and use more varied communication strategies (G enesee, Tucker, & Lambert, 1975; Thomas, 1992). This enhanced ability could be related to the fact that bilinguals have to keep their languages separate and have to switch languages according to the different situations. A review of these studies is beyond the scope of this article but as an example we can mention the study conducted by R icciardelli (1992) in South Australia using a sample of 57 Italian-English bilinguals and 55 English monolinguals. The results of this study indicate that highly proficient bilinguals, those who had attained a high level of proficiency
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

74

J. Cenoz

in the two languages, presented advantages in divergent thinking, imagination, grammatical awareness, perceptual organization and reading achievement. Regarding communication skills, we can also mention the finding reported in Thomas (1992) who found that bilinguals who were learning a third language relied more on communication strategies in comparison to monolinguals and in this way they were able to maintain the conversation.

3 The effect of bilingualism on L3 proficiency

Research on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition presents great diversity regarding the aims of the research studies, the languages involved and the degree of proficiency in the different languages. Some studies have focused on the effect of bilingualism on general proficiency in the third language (Cenoz, 1991; Sanz, 2000) while others have a more limited scope and focus on very specific aspects of proficiency or specific aspects of language processing (G ibson, H ufeisen, & Libben, 2001; K lein, 1995). The folk idea that bilinguals learn a third language more easily than monolinguals wa s also proposed by researchers in the sixties and seventies (Albert & Obler, 1978; Jacobsen & Imhoof, 1974; Lerea & Kohut, 1961; Saif & Sheldon, 1969; Vildomec, 1963). There are different possible approaches that can be used when reviewing studies on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition. In this article more holistic studies on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition will be considered separately from studies on the effect of bilingualism on very specific aspects of language proficiency particularly because this distinction is relevant for the interpretation of the results. This distinction is necessary because, even if bilingualism has an effect on third language acquisition, it does not have to affect all aspects of third language proficiency in the same way, and different conclusions can be drawn depending on the dimension of language proficiency taken into consideration.

effect of bilingualism on general proficiency 4 The in the third language

These studies focus on the effect of bilingualism on general language proficiency (oral, written or both) in the third language. In all cases at least one of the languages involved is a minority language in the community, that is, a less-spread language which can have different degrees of institutional support and can be the learners first or second language. Institutional support in the case of minority languages depends to a large extent on the status of the languages as official which is more common in the case of authochthonous languages than in the case of immigrant languages. M ost studies have been carried out in formal (e.g., school) contexts. The studies cond uct ed in the Basque C ountr y and Catalonia (Cenoz, 1991; Lasagabaster, 1997; M uoz, 2000; Sagasta, 2001; Sanz, 2000 and this volume) examine the acquisition of English as a third language by learners who are bilingual in Spanish and Basque or Spanish and Catalan. Although there are important differences related to the knowledge and use of the majority language in the Basque Country and Catalonia, the socioeducational background in both communities is similar in the sense that Spanish
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

Effect of bilingualism: A review

75

and the minority language (Basque or Catalan) are official languages and are used in education. Three of these studies (Cenoz, 1991; Lasagabaster, 1997; Sanz, 2000) compare the degree of proficiency in English obtained by monolinguals and bilinguals once individual factors such as intelligence, motivation or exposure to the language have been controlled. Cenoz (1991, see also Cenoz & Valencia, 1994) conducted a study which included 321 bilingual (Basque-Spanish) and monolingual (Spanish) secondary school students who were acquiring English as a third language. Once the effect of factors such as socioeconomic status, exposure to English, general intelligence and motivation had been controlled, bilingualism was found to exert a significant influence on different measures of English language proficiency such as listening, writing, speaking, reading, grammar and vocabulary. N evertheless, the effect of factors such as general intelligence and motivation was more important than the influence of bilingualism. The study by Lasagabaster (1997, see also Lasagabaster, 2000) is an extension of the previous study which also compares the level of proficiency in English obtained by 252 bilingual and monolingual children in the Basque Country. In this case, the schools selected were located in a non-Basque speaking area and the subjects were in the fifth year of primary school and the second year of secondary school. Once the effect of factors such as socioeconomic level, exposure to the language, general intelligence and motivation had been controlled, the results indicated that the level of bilingualism (Basque-Spanish) is closely related to the level of proficiency in English as measured by several tests of oral and written proficiency. Lasagabaster (1997) also found that bilinguals presented a higher level of metalinguistic awareness than monolinguals. Sanz (2000) presents the results of another study comparing bilinguals and monolinguals. In this case the bilinguals were 124 Catalan-speaking subjects who were also proficient in Spanish, and the monolingual participants were 77 Spanish-speaking subjects from a different area of Spain outside Catalonia. All the subjects completed tests of grammar and vocabulary in English. Other factors such as general intelligence, exposure, attitudes, motivation and socioeconomic status were also controlled. The results confirmed those obtained in the previous studies, as bilinguals obtained higher scores in the English tests. The study presented by Sagasta in this volume (see also Sagasta, 2001) examines the acquisition of English as a third language in the Basque Country but compares bilingual learners who present a different level of bilingual proficiency. The results of this study are consistent with those of other studies (G onzalez Ardeo, 2000; Lasagabaster, 1997; M uoz, 2000) and indicate that a higher level of bilingualism is associated with higher scores in different measures of writing in English as a third language. One of these studies was conducted by M uoz (2000) in Catalonia and she found that there were significant correlations between tests of Catalan, Spanish and English. Therefore those learners with a high level of proficiency in the L1 and the L2 also presented a high level of proficiency in English. Outside the Basque Country and Catalonia, Brohy (2001) conducted a study on the acquisition of French as a third language by Romansch-G erman bilinguals and G ermanspeaking monolinguals in Switzerland. Brohy measured general ability in F rench and
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

76

J. Cenoz

found that bilinguals obtained significantly higher scores in the acquisition of French than monolinguals. The results of these studies indicate that bilinguals obtain higher levels of proficiency in a third language. These are third language learners who are bilingual and use the minority language as the language of instruction. In these cases, the two languages spoken by the bilingual learners have official status in the community. In other studies (see below) the learnersfirst language is not an official language in the community, and although there may be a few hours devoted to the minority language in the curriculum, it is not the main language of instruction. Some examples of these studies are those conducted in Canadian French immersion programs. Bild and Swain (1989) compared the level of French proficiency attained by three groups of learners: 16 monolingual children with English as their first language, 16 bilingual children (Italian as L1 and English as L2) and 15 bilingual children (non-Romance language as L1 and English as L2). In this study, factors such as sex, age, academic achievement, parental education, parental occupation, teacher and self-evaluation of English and French were controlled, and learners had to complete story retelling tasks and cloze tests in order to measure their grammatical, discourse and strategic competence. Both groups of bilingual children obtained higher scores in the French tests than monolingual children but there were no significant differences between the two bilingual groups in spite of the typological relation between the L1 of one of the groups (Italian) and the target language. Another study conducted by Swain, Lapkin, Rowen, and Hart (1990) goes a step further and examines the relationships between literacy skills and typology and the influence of bilingualism (heritage language and English) in the acquisition of French. The sample comprises 159 learners and the four skills were measured: listening comprehension, reading, writing and speaking. The results of this study indicate that literacy in the heritage language has a positive effect on third language learning. The effect of typology is not as important and when speakers of Romance and non-Romance languages were compared. The only significant measures were found in the case of global understanding and fluency. Other studies have also reported advantages associated with bilingualism in third language acquisition (Edwards, D outriaux, M cCarrey, & F u, 1977; Eisenstein, 1980; Wightman, 1981) but in other cases no differences have been reported (Edwards & Casserly, 1976; Edwards, D outriaux, M cCarrey, & F u, 1976). Some of these older studies present methodological problems because the sample was limited and also because other factors such as socioeconomic status were not controlled. M ore evidence to support the advantages of multilingualism can be found in the results of double immersion programs in which trilingual school children were compared to children in bilingual immersion schools in Canada. These results indicate that the simultaneous acquisition of two languages presents positive outcomes and they have been related to the cognitive and linguistic advantages associated with bilingualism (see e.g., G enesee, 1998). Some European studies conducted with immigrant children have found no significant differences between monolinguals and bilinguals in the acquisition of a third language. For example, Jaspaert and Lemmens (1990) analyzed the acquisition of Dutch as a third language
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

Effect of bilingualism: A review

77

by Italian immigrant children who also received instruction in Italian and French in the Foyer Project. Proficiency in Dutch was evaluated by using a battery of tests which included tests of grammar, writing, vocabulary, dictation, reading and a cloze test. When the level of proficiency in D utch of Italian-French bilinguals was compared to that of French-speaking monolinguals, no significant differences were observed. These results are considered positive taking into account that D utch was a third language for immigrant children. Another study on third language acquisition was conducted by Sanders and M eijers (1995) in the N etherlands. Participants in this study were 46 Turkish-D utch bilingual speakers, 31 M oroccan-Arabic bilingual speakers and 15 Dutch speakers who were learning English as a third language. Other factors such as socioeconomic status and intelligence were controlled and several abilities were measured: grammatical judgment, spontaneous language use, word comprehension, word production and word recognition. The results indicate that no differences were found between monolinguals and bilinguals. Another study conducted in the N etherlands by Schoonen, van G elderen, de G lopper, H ulstijn, Snellings, Simis, and Stevenson (2002) focused on proficiency in written English by native speakers of D utch and immigrants who are bilingual in their L1 and D utch and learn English as a third language. The results of the study indicate that there are no significant differences in the different measures of writing proficiency between the two groups in spite of the general trend for immigrant learners to present poor school achievement. The results presented by van G elderen et al. (this volume) indicate that there are no differences between the same bilinguals and monolinguals in most of the scores of English reading proficiency although there are some significant differences in two of the measures. These results are explained by linguistic distance between the L1 and the L3 in the case of immigrant learners, but other explanations related to the development of the L1 and its status could also explain the results. M giste (1984) reports a study conducted by Balke-Aurell and Lindblad (1982) in Sweden in which the level of proficiency in English attained by native speakers of Swedish and immigrants who are bilingual in Swedish and another language was compared. A total number of 2736 immigrants were tested and the battery of tests included grammar, listening, word comprehension and reading. The general results indicate that there are no differences between the groups. M giste (1984) also presents the data in which passive bilinguals (who only use Swedish in everyday life) and active bilinguals (who use Swedish and another language in everyday life) are compared. The results obtained by passive bilinguals in general proficiency are slightly higher (103.4 vs. 97.4 and 105.5 vs.100.1) but there is no indication of whether these differences are statistically significant or not. Therefore, these European studies indicate that, in general terms, when monolingual speakers of the national language and bilingual immigrants are compared there are, in general terms, no differences in third language acquisition. Another study conducted with immigrants in the U.S. focused on the acquisition of French as a third language by monolingual English-speakers and bilingual English-Spanish speakers (Thomas, 1988). Participants were 16 bilinguals and 10 monolinguals and vocabulary, grammar and written production tests were included. Thomas controlled for other factors such as socioeconomic status, exposure to the language, method and teacher. The results indicate that bilingual learners obtained significantly higher scores in F rench than
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

78

J. Cenoz

their monolingual peers. In spite of the size of the sample, Thomas divided the bilingual group into two subgroups: those who had literacy skills in their first language (Spanish) and those who were fluent in the first language but only had literacy skills in English. It was observed that, as in the case of Canadian immersion (Swain et al., 1990), literacy in the first language exerted a positive influence on the acquisition of F rench as a third language. Thomas explains these findings in terms of metalinguistic awareness and considers that bilinguals have developed a sensitivity to language as a system which helps them perform better on those activities usually associated with formal language learning (Thomas, 1988, p. 240). Opposite results were obtained by Tena (1988) who compared monolinguals and bilinguals in the acquisition of English in the Philippines. This doctoral dissertation included 120 subjects who either had Tagalog/ F ilipino or a vernacular language as a first language and were instructed thorough the medium of Tagalog / F ilipino and they were all learning English as a third language. The tests included writing, a cloze test and school grades in English. Tena found that bilinguals presented significantly higher scores in all tests of English than monolinguals. In sum, studies on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition conducted in different contexts tend to associate bilingualism with advantages in third language acquisition. H owever, not all research studies report positive effects of bilingualism on third language acquisition. As we have seen, some studies comparing the degree of proficiency achieved in the third language by bilingual immigrant students and majority language students have reported no differences, and exceptionally, some studies have reported that bilinguals obtain lower results than monolinguals. The findings of the latter studies on third language acquisition share some characteristics with the results of other studies on the effects of bilingualism because those studies in which bilinguals present no advantages usually involve subtractive contexts (Lambert, 1974).

effect of bilingualism on specific aspects of L3 5 The proficiency

Some studies have focused on specific areas of language proficiency such as the phonetics, lexis, syntax or pragmatics. Studies on phonetic discrimination (Cohen, Tucker, & Lambert, 1967; D avine, Tucker, & Lambert, 1971; Enomoto, 1994; Werker, 1986) present mixed results. In an early study, D avine, Tucker, and Lambert (1971) compared the phonetic discrimination abilities of bilinguals (F rench-English) and monolinguals (English) in an additional language and found no differences between the two groups. Similarly, Werker (1986) found no differences between multilinguals and monolinguals in the discrimination of H indi sounds that did not exist in the languages they could speak. On the other hand, Cohen, Tucker, and Lambert (1967) reported the superiority of bilinguals (EnglishF rench) when discriminating sounds not included in the French and English phonetic systems. In a more recent study, Enomoto (1994) compared the discrimination of mora sounds in Japanese by five bilingual and five monolingual subjects and observed that bilinguals had advantages over monolinguals. Some studies have analyzed the differences between monolinguals and multilinguals in some specific aspects of syntax. For example, Zobl (1993) used a grammaticality judgThe International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

Effect of bilingualism: A review

79

ment test to measure several structures such as adjacency of verb and object, indirect and direct object passive, indirect and direct object wh-movement. Participants were 18 monolingual and 15 multilingual learners of English and the scores of the grammaticality judgment test did not present differences. Zobl indicated that multilinguals formulate wider grammars, that is, they accept as correct more incorrect sentences than monolinguals. According to Zobl this difference between monolinguals and bilinguals could explain why bilinguals have advantages when learning additional languages. M onolinguals tend to formulate grammars that are just powerful enough to fit the input data, that is their grammars are more restricted but include fewer errors. M ultilinguals generate larger grammars which include incorrect sentences but allow them to progress faster. K lein (1995) conducted a study with 17 monolinguals and 15 multilinguals learning English and tested specific verbs and their prepositional complements (lexical learning) preposition stranding (syntactic learning). M ultilinguals presented significantly higher scores in both constructions, but both groups presented the same types of errors and this is interpreted as a difference in rate but not in route. Some studies in which bilinguals and monolinguals have been compared have not reported advantages for bilinguals. For example, M giste (1984) mentions a study by Jung (1981) who compared the command of monolinguals and bilinguals for some morphological and syntactic elements (possessive pronouns, personal pronouns, plural, copula). Jung found that G erman learners of English presented higher scores than immigrants bilingual learners, but does not indicate whether the differences are statistically significant. Okita and Jun H ai (2001) compared monolingual Chinese-speakers to bilingual Chinese-English speakers in the acquisition of Japanese writing characters. The specific writing system was Kanji which is close to the Chinese system (H anzi). The results of the study indicate that the scores obtained by monolinguals (Chinese) are higher than those obtained by bilinguals (Chinese-English). The explanation provided by the researchers is that the bilinguals, who were fro m Singapore, did not have a strong command of the Chinese writing system and therefore could not transfer it to Japanese as the Chinese monolinguals did. Safont (this volume) focused on a specific area of pragmatic competence and compared monolingual (Spanish) and bilingual (Catalan-Spanish) learners in the acquisition of requests in English. She found that bilinguals obtained significantly higher scores than monolinguals on different measures of pragmatic competence. G ibson, H ufeisen, and Libben (2001) examined the acquisition of G erman prepositions by learners who were studying G erman as an L2 or as an L3 (or L4). They found no statistical differences between the two groups. They consider that the specific characteristics of the task and interference from other languages could explain these results. The studies on specific areas of language proficiency tend to evidence mixed results, and their comparability is severely limited by their diversity regarding the specific areas of language proficiency tested and their different research techniques.

The International Journal of Bilingualism

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

80

J. Cenoz

for positive, neutral, and negative effects 6 Explanations of bilingualism on third language acquisition
An overview of the research studies reported here suggests that bilingualism has no negative effect on third language acquisition and in many cases can enhance the acquisition of a third language. N evertheless, we can observe that the results vary according to the context and the different aspects of language proficiency taken into consideration. General aspects of L3 proficiency show more favorable to bilinguals than those studies in which very specific aspects of language proficiency were analyzed. Third language acquisition is a complex process that can be affected by many factors and therefore it is not possible to provide a simple explanation to account for the results of the studies. Third language acquisition studies are related both to second language acquisition research and research on bilingualism, two areas that have unfortunately tended to be isolated from each other over the years. Second language acquisition research has focused on the process of acquiring a second language and the results of this process, that is the general level of proficiency attained in the target language or in specific areas of the target language (see e.g. Ellis, 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). On the other hand, research on bilingualism has mainly focused on the level of bilingual proficiency and on the influence of bilingualism on cognition. In this section, these two approaches are considered in order to explain the results mentioned in the previous sections.

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

Explanations take into account the experience acquired by third language learners while acquiring the second language. That is, third language learners can be considered expert language learners as compared to novice second language learners. The process of acquiring a second language may influence the process of acquiring a third language. Therefore it could be that third language learners use more efficient strategies than second language learners. That is, they may have developed specific learning / processing strategies when they learned a second language and they may benefit from the use of those strategies. Several studies have been carried out comparing monolinguals and multilinguals in the completion of learning and processing tasks. In a series of studies, M cLaughlin and N ayak (1989), N ation and M cLaughlin (1986), and N ayak et al. (1990) compared monolinguals and multilinguals learning artificial linguistic systems. In general, these series of studies report that multilingual subjects were superior to monolinguals in three different ways (1) they demonstrated greater flexibility in switching strategies according to the demand characteristics of the task, (2) they were more likely to modify strategies that were not effective in language learning, and (3) they were more effective using implicit learning strategies. Although these studies confirm the advantages presented by bilinguals they also have certain limitations. They do not deal with the acquisition of natural languages but miniature artificial systems. Also, these studies were conducted under laboratory conditions. These characteristics have some advantages regarding experimental comparability, but do not necessarily imply that the same differences will be found in the case
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

Effect of bilingualism: A review

81

of third language acquisition in natural or formal settings (i.e., when the third language is an acquired natural language). Another limitation of these studies is that they only focus on specific aspects of linguistic competence that are not necessarily the most influential in communication. U nfortunately, the studies on third language acquisition reported in the previous section do not focus on processing strategies and cannot provide evidence on this issue. M issler (2000) used a different approach to analyze the relationship between experience in foreign language learning and the development of learning strategies. She examined the relationship between measures of experience in foreign language learning and the use of learning strategies as reported by her subjects. The results of this study indicate that experienced language learners use more frequently learning strategies than other learners. These results are interesting but do not confirm that learners who use more strategies make necessarily more progress when acquiring additional languages. Another well known study on processing skills was conducted by M giste (1979). She compared reaction times presented by monolinguals, bilinguals and trilinguals when completing some encoding and decoding tasks. The results indicated that multilinguals presented longer reaction times than monolinguals. Although this study is often quoted as evidence for possible problems in language processing in the case of third language acquisition, it is important to remember that in this study monolinguals, bilinguals and trilinguals may not have the same level regarding proficiency in the languages tested. Trilinguals have longer latencies when completing tasks in two of their languages but this does not imply that they would progress more slowly than monolinguals or bilinguals if they were all acquiring a non-native language. The studies discussed in this section may be relevant to analyzing the influence of the SL A process on the TLA process, but they do not specifically compare the two processes. They also present limitations because they focus on very specific aspects of language processing and language learning strategies. Even if bilinguals benefit from their expertise acquired when learning their second language, research in this area is still in its infancy and there are many questions that need to be answered. Such questions include the following: D o early bilinguals have similar processing strategies as bilinguals who have acquired their second language at a later stage? When do monolinguals develop the same processing strategies as bilinguals? D o differences between monolinguals and bilinguals disappear when monolinguals have advanced in the process of becoming bilinguals? In spite of its limitations, research conducted so far in this area is useful because it provides some insights into the different strategies used by monolinguals and multilinguals and these differences could help to explain the effect of bilingualism on general proficiency. They also provide hypotheses for testing in future research.

related to the outcomes 8 Explanations of bilingualism

M ost research studies on the positive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition relate the advantages presented by bilinguals to the influence of bilingualism on cognitive development (concept formation, creativity, visual-spatial abilities) and specifically to metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills (see e.g. Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; Jessner,
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

82

J. Cenoz

1999). In this case we are referring to an indirect effect of bilingualism, that is, bilingualism affects cognition, metalinguistic awareness and communicative skills and these in turn, affect third language acquisition. The explanations related to the outcomes of bilingualism are interesting because they can explain both positive and negative outcomes depending on the conditions in which bilingualism takes place. These conditions have been explained by Lambert (1974) as additive and subtractive bilingualism depending on the status and use of the languages in the community. When the first language is valued, and when acquisition of a second language does not replace the first language, bilingualism is associated with positive cognitive consequences. The opposite situation would be subtractive bilingualism, and in this case bilinguals can evidence disadvantages. Cummins (1976, 1991) has explained the outcomes of bilingualism as related to the level of proficiency acquired in the two languages (threshold hypothesis) and the potential transfer of academic proficiency between the languages (interdependence hypothesis). H igh levels of proficiency in two languages (upper threshold) are associated with positive cognitive consequences while low levels of proficiency (lower threshold) with neutral or even occasional negative cognitive effects. If this hypothesis is extended to third language acquisition, we can expect that an upper threshold of bilingual proficiency would lead to cognitive advantages. According to the interdependence hypothesis (Cummins, 1991) bilinguals are able to transfer skills from their first language for use in their second language and it could be expected that they can also be capable of transferring skills from the two languages they know to a third language. The sociolinguistic context and the level of bilingual proficiency can explain why learners with a minority language as their first language have advantages when their L1 is valued in society and they have acquired literacy skills in their L1 as it is reported in most of the studies on the general effects of bilingualism. The study of the cognitive outcomes of bilingualism has had an important development in the last decades and can provide some useful explanations regarding the specific role of bilingualism in third language acquisition. These explanations seem to be more appropriate to explain the study of the effect of bilingualism on general proficiency in the L3 than for the effect on the specific aspects of proficiency. N evertheless, here, too, there are many questions that need to be answered. Some of these questions are the following: Is the effect of bilingualism different at varying stages of the language acquisition process? Why are advantages sometimes reported even in the case of subtractive contexts? Which factors determine the difference between neutral and negative effects?

9 Conclusion

Studies on the effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition tend to confirm the advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals in language learning. The results concerning general aspects of proficiency are more consistent than those in which very specific aspects of proficiency have been analyzed. The two approaches have been considered when providing explanations on the relationship of bilingualism and third language acquisition: one of them is linked to the more process-oriented tradition of SLA research and the other to the product-oriented tradition of research in bilingualism. Both approaches are necessary and complement each other, and they are both more useful in providing
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

The International Journal of Bilingualism

Effect of bilingualism: A review

83

explanations regarding the effect of bilingualism on general than on specific aspects of proficiency. M ost studies on general aspects of proficiency indicate that bilingualism has a positive effect on third language acquisition when L3 acquisition takes place in additive contexts and bilinguals have acquired literacy skills in both their languages. This effect can be explained as related to learning strategies, metalinguistic awareness and communicative ability, but it can also be linked to the fact that bilinguals have a wider linguistic repertoire that can be used as a basis in third language acquisition. This positive transfer between languages is enhanced if languages are typologically close (see e.g., R ingbom, 1987). The effect of bilingualism on specific aspects of proficiency is less consistent and one possible explanation is related to Bialystoks (2001) findings that bilinguals do not demonstrate advantages on all aspects of metalinguistic awareness. Extending these findings to third language acquisition, it can be expected that the advantages are only observed in some specific aspects related to high levels of control of attention but not high levels of represen tation al analysis (see Bialystok, 2001, pp. 145 151 fo r t he differences between monolinguals and bilinguals). F urthermore, it is important to bear in mind that third language acquisition is a complex phenomenon affected by a large number of individual and contextual factors and bilingualism is one of these factors but not necessarily the most important factor in third language acquisition (see e.g., Cenoz & Valencia, 1994). In sum, when comparing bilinguals and monolinguals, it is important to take into account different aspects related to the outcomes of bilingualism but also other factors that influence language acquisition. In spite of the important development of studies in third language acquisition and the trends discussed in this article, research studies conducted so far have different aims and use different methodological approaches. In some cases research generalizes findings concerning very specific aspects of proficiency to general development of the third language. It is necessary to conduct more research that takes into account the specific characteristics of third language acquisition and consider that multicompetence is not the sum of monolingual competences (Cook, 1993). Third language learners can be expected to develop different new skills as compared to second language learners (H erdina & Jessner, 2002).

References
ALBERT, M . L., & OBLER , L. K. (1978). T he bilingual brain. N ew York: Academic Press. BAK ER , C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: M ultilingual Matters. BALK E-AU RELL, G., & LINBLAD, T. (1982). Immigrant children and their languages. Department of Education Research, U niversity of G othenburg. BEN -ZEE V, S. (1977a). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive development and cognitive strategy. Child Development, 48, 1009 1018. BEN -ZEEV, S. (1977b). The effects of bilingualism in children from Spanish-English lower economic neighborhoods on cognitive development and cognitive strategy. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 14, 83 122. BIALYSTOK , E. (1991). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency . In E. Bialystok (Ed.), L anguage processing in bilingual children (pp. 113 140). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge U niversity Press.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

84

J. Cenoz

BIALYSTOK , E. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Cambridge, U.K .: Cambridge U niversity Press. BILD, E. R ., & SWAIN, M . (1989). M inority language students in a French Immersion programme: Their French proficiency . Journal of M ultilingual and M ulticultural Development, 10, 255 274. BROH Y, C. (2001). G eneric 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. CEN OZ, J. (1991). Enseanza-aprendizaje del ingls como L 2 o L 3. Leioa: Universidad del Pas Vasco. CEN OZ, J. (2000). Research on multilingual acquisition. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: T he acquisition of a third language (pp. 39 53). Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. CEN OZ, J., & G EN ESEE, F. (1998). Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz & F. G enesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: M ultilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 16 32). Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. CEN OZ, J., H UF EISEN, B., & JESSN ER , U. (Eds.). (2001a). Third language acquisition in the school context [Special issue]. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 4. CEN OZ, J., HUF EISEN, B., & JESSN ER , U. (Eds.). (2001b). Looking beyond second language acquisition: S tudies in tri-and multilingualism. Tbingen: Stauffenburg. CEN OZ, J., H UF EISEN, B., & JESSN ER , U. (Eds.). (2001c). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. CEN OZ, J., & JESSN ER , U. (Eds.). (2000). English in Europe: T he acquisition of a third language. Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. CEN OZ, J., & VALEN CIA, J. F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195 207. CLYN E, M . (1997). Some of the things trilinguals do. T he International Journal of Bilingualism, 1, 95 116. COH EN, S. P., TU CKER , R ., & LAM BERT, W. E. (1967). The comparative skills of monolinguals and bilinguals in perceiving phoneme sequences. L anguage and S peech, 10, 159 168. COOK , V. (1993). Wholistic multicompetence: Jeu desprit or paradigm shift? In B. Kettemann & W. Wieden (Eds.), Current issues in European second language acquisition research (pp. 3 9). Tbingen: N arr. CU M M IN S, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1 43. CU M M IN S, J. (1978). Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 1131 1149. CU M M IN S, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second language proficiency. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), L anguage processing in bilingual children (pp. 70 89). Cambridge, U.K .: Cambridge U niversity Press. DAVIN E, M ., TU CK ER , R ., & LAM BERT, W. E. (1971). The perception of phoneme sequences by monolingual and bilingual elementary school children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 3, 72 76. ED WAR D S, H . P., & CASSER LY, M . C. (1976). R esearch and evaluation of second language ( French) research programs. Toronto: M inistry of Education, Ontario. EDWAR D S, H . P., D OU TR IAU X, C. W., M cCAR R EY, H ., & FU, L. (1976). Evaluation of second language programs: A nnual report 1975 1976. Ottawa: Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board. ED WAR D S, H. P., DOU TR IAU X, C. W., M cCAR R EY, H ., & F U, L. (1977). Evaluation of the federally and provincially funded extensions of the second language programs in the schools of the Ottawa R oman Catholic separate school board. Ottawa: Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

Effect of bilingualism: A review

85

EISEN STEIN, M . (1980). Childhood bilingualism and adult language learning aptitude. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Applique, 29, 159 172. ELLIS, R . (1994). T he study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford U niversity Press. EN OM OTO, K . (1994). L2 perceptual acquisition: The effect of multilingual linguistic experience on the perception of a less novel contrast. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied L inguistics, 5, 15 29. GEN ESEE, F. (1998). A case study of multilingual education in Canada. In J. Cenoz & F. G enesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: M ultilingualism and multilingual education (pp.243258). Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. GEN ESEE, F., TU CK ER , R ., & LAM BERT, W. (1975). Communication skills in bilingual children. Child Development, 46, 1010 1014. GIBSON, M., HUFEISEN, B., & LIBBEN, G. (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: M ultilingual M atters. G ON ZALEZ -AR D EO, J. (2000). Engineering students and ESP in the Basque Country: SL A versus TLA. In J. Cenoz, B. H ufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), L ooking beyond second language acquisition: S tudies in tri- and multilingualism (pp. 75 95). Tbingen: Stauffenburg. HAM ER S, J., & BLAN C, M . (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, U.K .: Cambridge U niversity Press. HER DINA, P., & JESSN ER , U. (2002). A dynamic model of multilingualism. Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. HOF F M AN N, C. (2001). Towards a description of trilingual competence. T he International Journal of Bilingualism, 5, 1 17. IAN CO WOR R ALL, A. (1972). Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development, 43, 1390 1400. JACOBSEN, M., & IMHOOF, M. (1974). Predicting the success in learning a second language. M odern L anguage Journal, 58, 329 336. JASPAERT, K ., & LEM M ENS, G. (1990). Linguistic evaluation of D utch as a third language. In M . Byram & J. Leman (Eds.), Bicultural and trilingual education: T he Foyer model in Brussels (pp. 30 56). Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. JESSN ER , U. (1999). M etalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language learning. L anguage Awareness, 8, 201 209. JU N G, U. O. H . (1981). Englisch als Fremdsprache fr K inder mit D eutcsch als Zweitsprache. Grazer L inguistische Studien, 14, 83 97. K LEIN, E. C. (1995). Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a different? L anguage L earning, 45, 419 465. LAM BERT, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. E. Abour & R. D. M eade (Eds.), Cultural factors in learning and education (pp.91122). Bellingham, Washington: 5th Western Washington Symposium on Learning. LAR SEN -F REEM AN, D., & LON G, M . (1991). A n introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman. LASAG ABASTER , D. (1997). Creatividad y conciencia metalingstica: Incidencia en el aprendizaje del ingls como L 3. Leioa: U niversidad del Pas Vasco. LASAG ABASTER , D. (2000). Three languages and three linguistic models in the Basque educational system. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: T he acquisition of a third language (pp. 179 197). Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. LER EA, L., & KOH U T, S. (1961). A comparative study of monolinguals and bilinguals in a Verbal Task Performance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17, 49 52.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

86

J. Cenoz

M GISTE, E. (1979). The competing language systems of the multilingual: A developmental study of decoding and encoding processes. Journal of Verbal L earning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 7989. M G IST E, E. (1984). Learning a t hird language. Journal of M ultilingual and M ulticultural Development, 5, 415 421. M cLAU G H LIN, B., & NAYAK , N. (1989). Processing a new language: D oes knowing ot her languages make a difference? In H . W. D echert & M . Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 5 16). Tbingen: G unter N arr. M ISSLER , B. (2000). Previous experience of foreign language learning and its contribution to the development of learning strategies. In S. Dentler, B. Hufeisen & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Tertir und Drittsprachen (pp. 7 21). Tbingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. M U OZ, C. (2000). Bilingualism and trilingualism in school students in Catalonia. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: T he acquisition of a third language (pp.157178). Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. N ATION, R ., & M cLAU G H LIN, B. (1986). N ovices and experts: An information processing approach to the good language learner problem. A pplied Psycholinguistics, 7, 41 56. NAYAK, N., HANSEN, N., KRUEGER , N., & McLAUGHLIN, B. (1990). Language-learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults. L anguage L earning, 40, 221 244. OK ITA, Y., & JU N H AI, G. (2001). Learning of Japanese Kanji character by bilingual and monolingual Chinese speakers. In J. Cenoz; B. H ufeisen & U. Jessner (Eds.), L ooking beyond second language acquisition: S tudies in tri- and multilingualism (pp.63 73). Tbingen: Stauffenburg. PEAL, E., & LAM BERT, W. E. (1962). The relationship of bilingualism to intelligence . Psychological M onographs, 76, 1 23. R ICCIAR D ELLI, L. A. (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to threshold theory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 301 316. R IN G BOM , H . (1987). T he role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. SAIF, P. S., & SH ELD ON, M . E. (1969). An investigation of the experimental French Program at Bedford Park and Allenby Public Schools. Toronto: Toronto Board of Education. SAG ASTA, M . P. (2001). L a produccin escrita en euskara, castellano e ingls en el modelo D y en el modelo de inmersin. Leioa: U niversidad del Pas Vasco. SAN D ER S, M ., & M EIJER S, G. (1995). English as L3 in the elementary school. IT L R eview of Applied L inguistics, 107 8, 59 78. SAN Z, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 23 44. SCH OON EN, R ., G ELD ER EN, A. van, G LOPPER , K . de, H U LSTI JN, J., SN ELL IN G S, P., SIM IS, A., & STEVEN SON, M . (2002). Linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and retrieval speed in L1, L2 and EF L writing. In S. Ransdell & M .-L. Barbier (Eds.), N ew directions for research in L 2 writing (pp. 101 122). D ordrecht: K luwer Academic Publishers. SWAIN, M ., LAPK IN, S., ROWEN, N., & H ART, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language learning. L anguage, Culture and Curriculum, 3, 65 81. TEN A, V. G. S. (1988). The effects of bilingualism versus trilingualism on English literacy achievement in a Philippine high school. U npublished D octoral D issertation. Stanford University. TH OM AS, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. Journal of M ultilingual and M ulticultural Development, 9, 235 246. TH OM AS, J. (1992). M etalinguistic awareness in second- and third-language learning. In R . J. H arris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 531 545). Amsterdam: N orth Holland. VILD OM EC, V. (1963). M ultilingualism. Berlin: Sythoff-Leyden. WER K ER , J. (1986). The effect of multilingualism on phonetic perceptual flexibility. A pplied Psycholinguistics, 7, 141 156.
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013

Effect of bilingualism: A review

87

WIG H TM AN, M . (1981). T he French listening comprehension skills of grade-six English program students; S econd year of testing. Ottawa: Research Center / Center de Recherches. Ottawa Board of Education. ZOBL, H . (1993). Prior linguistic knowledge and the conservation of the learning procedure: G rammaticality judgments of unilingual and multilingual learners. In S. M . G ass & L. Selinker (Eds.), L anguage transfer in language learning (pp. 176 196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

The International Journal of Bilingualism

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com at Univ of Education, Winneba on July 27, 2013