16.2502, Review: Multilingualism/Lang Acquistion:SafontJorda (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2502. Mon Aug 29 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2502, Review: Multilingualism/Lang Acquistion:SafontJorda (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 27-Aug-2005
From: Qichang Ye < yqc58 at yahoo.com.cn >
Subject: Third Language Learners 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:26:24
From: Qichang Ye < yqc58 at yahoo.com.cn >
Subject: Third Language Learners 
 

AUTHOR: Safont Jorda, Maria Pilar
TITLE: Third Language Learners
SUBTITLE: Pragmatic Production and Awareness
SERIES: Second Language Acquisition 12
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-1171.html 

Zhuanglin Hu, School of Foreign Languages, Peking University

Qichang Ye, Department of English, School of Humanities and Social 
Sciences, Beijing Jiaotong University

SYNOPSIS

The book tries to provide a bridge between two applied linguistics 
subfields, namely those of interlanguage pragmatics and third language 
acquisition (henceforth: TLA). It examines the production and 
identification of request acts formulas on the part of bilingual learners 
of English in the Valencian Community (Spain). This area is officially 
considered a bilingual region where both Catalan and Castilian are 
employed. In this context, English learning is a different perspective, a 
third language acquisition (p. 1), a unique phenomenon positioned 
somewhere between the two ends of the traditional dichotomy: English as a 
foreign language (henceforth: EFL) and English as a second language 
(henceforth: ESL). Therefore, the issues in TLA include: language transfer 
from the first language or the second language (henceforth: L2) to the 
third language (henceforth: L3), metalinguistic knowledge and creative 
thinking, interactional competence, the age factor and immersion pedagogy.

Safont Jorda's study is divided into two parts. The first part contains 
three chapters (1-3), reviewing the theoretical background and the 
sociolinguistic context where the experiment was conducted, while the 
second part (4-9) has six ones on several aspects of the empirical study.

Chapter 1 presents a review of research in TLA and its defining 
characteristics as related to but also distinguished from two other areas: 
those of second language acquisition (henceforth: SLA) and bilingualism 
(p. 2). Often bilingualism is considered to relate to TLA mainly in two 
ways. Firstly, the findings obtained by bilingualism studies may 
facilitate the understanding of the processes underlying TLA. Secondly, 
bilingualism may provide further information on those processing 
mechanisms TLA learners may resort to as bilingual speakers (p. 3).

TLA is often understood as those languages learned after a second one, 
which may imply a third, fourth or fifth language (p. 11). However, TLA 
cannot be seen as a simple adding of another language to EFL or ESL; on 
the contrary, TLA possesses its own characteristics: (1) non-linearity, 
(2) language maintenance, (3) individual variation, (4) interdependence 
and quality change (p. 12) In contrast to SLA, which is usually regarded as 
linear by second language researchers, the third language researchers 
argue for non-linearity in multilingual processes on the basis of 
biological growth studies (p. 12) due to the factors of language 
attrition, language maintenance, and individual variation. These phenomena 
imply that TLA should be viewed from a dynamic perspective, including 
variation and interaction among its defining features and influencing 
factors (p. 13).

The interaction of specific features in TLA can be explored by focusing on 
the existing relationships among those languages known by learners. This 
interdependence characterizing third language learning demands considering 
learners' first, second and third languages as a whole linguistic system 
(pp. 13-14). Accordingly, multilingualism cannot be interpreted as a mere 
quantitative change in the languages known to bilingual learners, rather 
it is a qualitative linguistic change in TLA (p. 14).

This view is also the result arising from the comparison between SLA and 
TLA. As a common practice, multilingual acquisition is often considered to 
be a simple variation on bilingualism and SLA. Nevertheless, they are 
different in several aspects. Based on Cenoz (2000), these differences 
are: 
(1) the order in which languages are learned; 
(2) sociolinguistic factors, and 
(3) the psycholinguistic processes involved (p. 18). 

In SLA, few possibilities of variation exist as far as order of 
acquisition is concerned; while in TLA, the possibilities for order 
variation increase a great deal (p. 19). Sociolinguistic difference refers 
to a set of contextual and linguistic factors influencing third language 
competence and performance (p. 19). 

The third factor influencing TLA is the psychological processes involved 
(p. 21). These psychological processes will, according to the author, 
highlight TLA research, since the studies of those processes have analyzed 
the interlanguage of bilingual and multilingual learners (p. 37). The two 
interrelated aspects (metalinguistic awareness and interlanguage 
pragmatics) constitute the focus of this research. 

As a key component in language-learning and a crucial issue in TLA, 
metalinguistic awareness "is the ability to think flexibly and abstractly 
about the language; it refers to an awareness of the formal linguistic 
features of language and ability to reflect thereupon. Metalinguistic 
awareness allows the individual to step back from the comprehension or 
production of an utterance in order to consider the linguistic form and 
structure underlying the meaning of the utterance. To be 
metalinguistically aware, then, is to know how to approach and solve 
certain types of problems which themselves demand certain cognitive and 
linguistic skills"(Malakoff 1992: 518)(p. 41).

As the title of this book suggests, another focus of the research is 
interlanguage pragmatics (including interactional competence). 
Interlanguage pragmatics is concerned with the pragmatic competence and 
performance of second and foreign language learners, especially the non-
native speaker's use and acquisition of pragmatic knowledge in/of the 
target language (p. 67). Around these two interrelated topics, the questions 
the author wants to answer are: (1) How do the learners' first and second
languages influence L3 production? (2) To what extent will learners' linguistic 
and cultural background affect L3 production? (p. 39).

Chapter 2 deals with the field of interlanguage pragmatics. After 
introducing some of the most influential theories and frameworks for 
interlanguage pragmatists, the chapter focuses on developmental 
perspectives and speech acts production (the speech act of requesting). 

Several versions of communicative competence arose from different 
criticisms raised against the Chomskyan notion of linguistic competence. 
Here the author pays special attention to Celce-Murcia et al.'s (1995) 
model of communicative competence (p. 54), since this model has direct 
influence on the author's own research. The model comprises five 
constituents: linguistic competence, actional competence; sociocultural 
competence; discourse competence and strategic competence, and all these 
are interrelated. The central component in this model is discourse 
competence. All four subcomponents are influenced by the strategic 
competence as the knowledge and use of communication strategies (p. 55). 
In the author's view, a model of pragmatic competence should be: "On the 
one hand, a model of this sort should be explanatory enough to account for 
all competencies involved in its operation. In so doing, it would help us 
to ascertain how to foster foreign language learners' communicative 
competence. On the other hand, it should also present the kind of 
relationship that exists among its constitutions and its effect on the 
learners' overall communicative process"(pp. 56-57). Without doubt, 
accounting for third language learners' pragmatic production and awareness 
will expand the scope of the research on the acquisition of pragmatic 
competence (p. 83).

Chapter 3 describes the sociolinguistic context in the Valencian Community 
(p. 85). The two aims of this chapter are: The first aim is to offer a 
sociolinguistic description of the community in which the informants of 
our study live, the second, to offer further information on our 
informants' linguistic background.

Chapter 4 is devoted to describing in detail the methodological aspects of 
the present study: the informants' characteristics, the elicitation 
procedures and the methodological decisions taken in the data analysis. 
Participants in the present study were 160 female students from Jaume I 
University based in Castello, who were engaged in an English for Academic 
Purpose course which lasted one semester (p. 101). These subjects were 
from different regions within the same community, with half the number of 
subjects studying Industrial Design Technical Engineering, the other 
half studying Primary Teacher Education.

In order to examine the subjects' knowledge of request-act formulations, 
the author first distributed a pre-test which contained several prompts or 
scenarios that aimed at eliciting requests strategies (p. 104). A 
comparison was made between results from this task and those of a post-
test that was administered after the study had taken place in order to 
ascertain the effects of instruction on the subjects' use of request 
formulations (p. 105). To consider the learners' pragmatic awareness, a 
discourse-evaluation test in the form of discourse completion text 
(henceforth: DCT) was also used (p. 106). After the administration of the 
tests and tasks mentioned before (i.e. pre-test, Role-play 1 and DCT 1), 
the instructional period was started, which was to teach pragmatic items 
explicitly in the classroom (p. 107). Parametric tests, especially the 
paired t-test statistical analysis, were employed during the whole 
research process involved in the present study (p. 112).

Chapter 5 handles the role of instruction in English learners' pragmatic 
production. the author claims that "Pragmatic production should be based 
on criteria of appropriateness"(p. 114), where appropriateness should be 
evaluated on two aspects: knowledge about the language and about how to 
use it (p. 131). The following hypothesis was proposed: 

(1) Pragmatic instruction will affect the learners' degree of pragmatic 
competence (p. 114). 

Hypothesis 1 concerns the effect of pragmatic instruction on the learners' 
performance. The results showed that the learners' pragmatic competence 
was influenced by the instructional period they were engaged in. "The 
effects of instruction pointed to positive outcomes, as a trend towards 
polite behaviour in the use of request strategies was illustrated by means 
of an increase in the use of conventionally indirect strategies and a 
decrease in the use of direct formulations"(p. 126). At the same time, the 
results demonstrated that instruction not only affects pragmatic 
production, but it also seems to play a role in pragmatic awareness (p. 
128).

Chapter 6 examines the influence of learners' proficiency level in their 
use of request realizations and peripheral modification items. In order to 
obtain data concerning participants' requestive behaviour, different 
elicitation techniques are employed, leading to the following hypothesis: 

(2) There will be a mismatch between beginner and intermediate learners on 
those developmental stages concerning grammatical and pragmatic competence 
(p. 132). 

Hypothesis 2 is specified in the following Research Questions (RQ):
RQ1: Will there be a great difference between intermediate and beginner 
learners in their overall performance?
RQ2: Will their level be connected to a particular type of linguistic 
request realization?
RQ3: Will there be any difference in their global use of peripheral 
elements accompanying the request head act? 
RQ4: Will beginner bilinguals outperform beginner monolinguals? Will this 
also be case with intermediate bilingual and monolingual participants? (p. 
132.)

The results partly disconfirmed Hypothesis 2, as no mismatch was found 
between the intermediate and beginner learners' linguistic and pragmatic 
competence (p. 138). Nevertheless, the results are in line with previous 
studies dealing with the use of requests by learners at different 
proficiency levels and with longitudinal studies addressing learners at a 
beginner level (p. 138).

Chapter 7 deals with the role of the elicitation method used. Three 
different task types are employed here: those of a written production 
test, an oral production task and an awareness-raising task. The 
hypothesis proposed in this chapter is:

(3) The task performed, whether it be an oral or a written task (i.e. role-
play vs. discourse-completion test) will affect the choice and use of 
request realizations (p. 141). 

As in the case of the two previous chapters, Hypothesis 3 is formulated 
into several research questions:
RQ1: Will learners use a wider range of request-head peripheral elements 
in the oral production task?
RQ2: Will the discourse-completion task elicit more request realization 
strategies than the open role-play task?
RQ3: Will bilingual learners outperform monolingual ones in the oral and 
written task? (p. 141).

The experimental results indicated that learners seemed to employ a wider 
range of linguistic request formulae in the discourse-completion test than 
in the Role-play task (p. 142), and these differences are statistically 
significant. What is contrary to the hypothesis is that a wider use of 
modification devices was found in the written than in the oral task, the 
difference being statistically significant (p. 144). However, this phenomenon 
is task-dependent (p. 147). That showed that the nature of the task learners 
were required to carry out influenced their pragmatic production.

Chapter 8 is devoted to analyzing another aspect of the learners' 
pragmatic competence, that of pragmatic awareness. The author wants to 
consider the extent to which pragmatic awareness may be more developed in 
third than in second/foreign language learners of English. The 
participants' linguistic background is the focus of this chapter, and the 
following hypothesis is proposed. 

(4) Bilingual learners studying English as a third language will show a 
higher degree of pragmatic awareness than monolingual learners (p. 153). 

Hypothesis 4 demands answers to the following research questions:
RQ1: To what extent will bilingual learners' awareness differ from that of 
monolingual subjects?
RQ2: Will bilingual subjects provide a wider range of reasons to justify 
their judgments than monolingual learners?
RQ3: Will bilingual subjects provide more suggestions for the 
inappropriate expressions they are required to evaluate than monolingual 
subjects?
RQ4: Will bilingual subjects offer more reasons related to politeness 
phenomena in justifying their evaluation than monolingual learners?
RQ5: Will bilingual learners identify inappropriate and appropriate 
request linguistic realizations more successfully than monolingual 
subjects?
RQ6: Will bilingualism affect pragmatic production? (p. 154).

The results showed a global advantage of bilingual over monolingual 
learners of English as a foreign language regarding both pragmatic 
production and pragmatic awareness (p. 159-160).

Chapter 9 summarizes the theoretical implications deriving from the 
findings described from Chapters 5 to 8, and puts forward suggestions for 
further research related to the fields of interlanguage pragmatics and 
TLA. At the same time, the author points out the possible directions for 
further studies in third language research. 

COMMENTS

As one of the series of SLA, the author's study has empirically 
demonstrated the distinctive features of TLA. It is an important and 
timely book at the intersection of interlanguage pragmatics and TLA. It 
represents original research. This study and studies of this sort are 
original in the sense that they do not treat language acquisition as 
isolate skills training, but as a dynamic system of interactive features 
of various subsystems. The author repeatedly stresses that TLA (or: 
language learning) is not merely a quantitative but a qualitative change 
(p. 13-4, p.56-7, p.161). In view of this, multilingualism cannot be 
interpreted as a mere quantitative change in the languages known to 
bilingual learners, but "we are facing a qualitative rather than 
quantitative linguistic change in TLA" (p. 14).

Interlanguage is usually treated as a continuum (Larsen-Freeman & Long 
1991), and continuum implies a semiotic process. Semiosis is always an 
integrative process involving different factors that interact in a 
complicated fashion. Thibault (2004a, 2004b) has successfully demonstrated 
that meaning-making is always an integrative process. The strength of 
Safont Jorda's research just lies in this fact. Certainly, however, a 
research cannot be all-embracing; it always leaves some aspects to be 
desired, and Jorda's study is not an exception in this regard. 

First, Hypothesis 1 in Chapter 5 concerns the effect of pragmatic 
instruction on the learners' performance. However, in our view, the whole 
enterprise of language education is built on this premise, it is axiomatic 
rather than hypothetical. Secondly, the subjects in this study were all 
female, the author herself also admitted that the research addressed only 
female participants of a similar age group (p. 170). Tannen (1991) points 
out that women and men talk differently. Upon her argumentation, it goes 
without saying that women will use more indirect requests than men do. In 
this sense, the author's experiment is not sufficient in explaining the 
pragmatic competence of the third language learners in the Valencian 
community. Thirdly, though the importance of qualitative change in TLA 
research is emphasized, yet the cultural factors are seldom touched upon 
in the author's study. How to do things with words is always a case in 
which a social person tells somebody something in a particular way. Van 
Lier (1995: xi) tells us that language awareness can be understood as "an 
understanding of the human faculty of language and its role in thinking, 
learning and social life. It includes an awareness of power and control 
through language, and of the intricate relationships between language and 
culture". In this sense, metalinguistic awareness is to understand not 
only the linguistic form and structure but also the context in which the 
utterance takes place. From this perspective, the learners' reflexive 
element has to be included in this awareness. 

REFERENCES

Celce-Murcia, M. Dörnyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. (1995) Communicative 
competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. 
Issues in Applied Linguistics 6, 5-35.

Cenoz, J. (2000) Research on multilingual acquisition, In J. Cenoz and U. 
Jessner (eds.) English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language. 
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Michael H. Long (1991) An Introduction to Second 
Language Acquisition Research London: Longman.

Malakoff, M. E. (1992) Translation ability: A natural bilingual and 
metalinguistic skill. In J. Harris (ed.) Cognitive Processing in 
Bilinguals. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Tannen, Deborah (1991) You Just Don't Understand. London: Virago Press.

Thibault, Paul J. (2004a) Brain, Mind, and the Signifying Body: An 
Ecosocial Semiotic Theory London/New York: Continuum.

Thibault, Paul J. (2004b) Agency and Consciousness in Discourse London/New 
York: Continuum.

van Lier, Leo (1995) Introducing Language Awareness  London: Penguin Books 
Ltd. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWERS

Zhuanglin Hu is Professor, School of Foreign Languages, at Peking 
University. His main areas of interest are semiotics, pragmatics, 
functional linguistics, discourse analysis and the studies of metaphor. 

Qichang Ye is Associate Professor, School of Humanities and Social 
Sciences, at Beijing Jiaotong University. His areas of interest are 
semiotics, functional linguistics, discourse analysis and applied 
linguistics.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2502