Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Multilingualism and Metalinguistic Awareness

Fo
Journal: The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Manuscript ID: AL-2009-0213.R1

Wiley - Manuscript type: article

r

Date Submitted by the

Pe

Author:

Complete List of Authors: Sanz, Cristina

Applied Psychology, Cognitive Development, heritage languages,

Keywords:
er

Language in the Classroom, Language Maintenance, multilingualism

Re
vi
ew

John Wiley & Sons

Page 1 of 11 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

1
2
3 Multilingualism and Metalinguistic Awareness
4
5
Cristina Sanz
6 Georgetown University
7 sanzc@georgetown.edu
8 Word Count: (3878)
9 Reference Word Count: (966)
10
11
12 <A> Introduction
13 Metalinguistic awareness or explicit, conscious knowledge of form/meaning
14 relationships in a language, usually manifested as the ability to verbalize thoughts about
15 language, is one of the best-documented differences between bilinguals and
16 monolinguals. General findings suggest that speakers of multiple languages have greater
17
18
metalinguistic awareness and develop this awareness at an earlier age than those who
19 speak only one language (Ianco-Worrall, 1972; Ben-Zeev, 1977; Díaz, 1985; Thomas,
20 1988; Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990; Galambos & Hakuta, 1988; Bialystok, 1991;
Fo

21 Yelland, Poland, y Mercury, 1993; Ricciardelli 1992 a, 1992 b). There are different
22 types of metalinguistic awareness, namely word (Ben-Zeev, 1977; Bialystok, 1988;
23
Ricciardelli, 1992), syntactic (Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990; Gathercole, 1997,
24
Bialystok, 1986), phonological (Yelland, Pollard, & Mercuri, 1993) Bialystok,
rP

25
26 Majumder and Martin (2003), and semantic awareness (Ianco-Worrall, 1972).
27 Metalinguistic awareness is only one of the cognitive advantages resulting from
28 living with two languages. Although in comparison, the results for positive effects of
29
ee

multilingualism on the development of metalinguistic awareness are quite robust, a

30
31
number of variables, including age, level of proficiency (Cummins, 1976, 1981),
32 biliteracy (Sanz 2007), language typology of the bilingual (Al-Dossari, 2004), and the
rR

33 nature of the task used to measure the effects (Bialystok 1999, 2001) are believed to
34 interact and explain some of the contradictory findings regarding positive effects of
35 multilingualism on different aspects of cognition. Differences in metalinguistic
36
awareness between monolinguals and bilinguals have been found for adults too
37
ev

38 (Thomas, 1992). Metalinguistic awareness is posited as a key factor in explaining the

39 bilingual edge; i.e., multilinguals’ enhanced capacity to learn further languages (Cenoz
40 & Valencia 1994; Sanz 2000; Swain et al 1990) and to achieve literacy (Bialystok
41
iew

2007).
42 Research on multilingualism and metalinguistic awareness is varied in approach:
43
44
Some of the research are case studies (Moreno-Zazo 1998; Maneva 2004); reports on
45 action research (Kenner et al 2008); and comparisons of mono, bi- and multilinguals in
46 laboratory settings (Nation & McLaughlin, 1986) or classroom/school settings (Sanz
47 2007). Naturally, the procedures implemented in this research are as varied as the
48 research itself: From participant observation to language proficiency tests and language
49
tasks that elicit superordinates, communicatively adequate definitions, rich/poor object
50
51 descriptions, word/object associations, grammaticality and/or semantic congruence
52 judgements, error correction, sound substitution, and word length, to name just a few.
53
54 <A> Multilingualism & General Cognitive Advantages
55 Metalinguistic awareness is only one of the cognitive advantages resulting from
56
57 living with two languages. The study of the effects of bilingualism on cognition has also
58 implemented non-verbal tasks, such as mathematical and numerical (e. g., Bialystok &
59 Codd, 1997), creativity (Kessler & Quinn, 1980), and problem-solving tasks (Bialystok,
60 1999; Bialystok & Majumder, 1998; Bialystok & Martin, 2004), with findings
supporting those from verbal tasks (Kessler and Quinn 1980, 1987) showing that

John Wiley & Sons

 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics Page 2 of 11

1
2
3 language experience may play an important role in the development of abstract thought
4
5
(Rosenblum & Pinker, 1983) and semantic creativity. All these studies compared
6 monolinguals and bilinguals completing tasks that varied in their degree of difficulty,
7 with the most demanding tasks requiring that participants ignore irrelevant information
8 that would interfere with the actual task if given attention. These results support
9 previous research (Bialystok, 1986, 1988) showing that bilinguals are better than
10
monolinguals at solving problems that are based on conflict and attention.
11
12 Although the majority of studies have looked at the cognitive effects that child
13 bilingualism has on cognition, research has also indicated that some of the results found
14
15
in children can be replicated with adults, and that, in fact, bilingualism attenuates the
16 effect of aging on cognitive control (Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan, 2004;
17 Kefi et al., 2004). Moreover, some studies showed that the positive effects associated
18 with bilingualism may decrease in young adults, who are at the peak of their attentional
19 abilities, when compared to children or older adults (Bialystok, Craik, & Ruocco, 2006;
20 Bialystok, Craik, & Ryan, 2006; Bialystok, Martin, & Viswanathan, 2005).
Fo

21
22
23 More accurate descriptions of how bilingualism affects cognitive performance,
24 according to Bialystok (2007), has led to the interpretation that bilingualism must be
rP

25 considered in terms of both advantages and disadvantages. This has been investigated
26 in studies of cognitive and linguistic processing in adults and in chiildren (see section
27
28
on metalinguistic awareness and reading). For adult bilinguals, recent research has
29 shown that they are at a disadvantage on tasks measuring lexical retrieval and fluency
ee

30 (Michael & Gollan, 2005) but that they are better at controlling attention when
31 performing a challenging task (Bialystok, Craik, Klein, & Viswanathan, 2004).
32 However, the lack of conclusive results in some of the areas investigated suggests that
rR

33
further research is still needed to fully understand the complex nature of the relationship
34
35 between bilingualism and cognition, including metalinguistic awareness. Given that the
36 majority of the research has been carried out with bilingual children as subjects,
37 research must further expand on the recent findings that have examined the
ev

38 consequences of adult bilingualism, especially in young adults, an age group where the
39 bilingual advantage seems to be less obvious.
40
41
iew

42 The language teaching profession considers that the body of empirical studies
43 showing that second language learning fosters cognitive development and contributes to
44 stronger native language skills, especially in writing, is significant enough that they can
45 use it as a convincing argument in favor of the strengthening of foreign languages in
46
school and college curricula (Kecskes & Papp, 2000). Foreign language learning, even
47
48 at an intermediate level “improves critical thinking and context-dependent processing of
49 language material, enhances the development of interpersonal relations, and teaches
50 self-reflection on language behavior” (Sanders, 2006)
51
52
53
54
55 <A> Types of Metalinguistic Awareness
56 Research investigating cognitive advantages for bilingual children has revealed
57 that bilingualism helps develop higher levels of mental flexibility and metalinguistic
58 awareness at an earlier age. Children exhibit bilingual awareness after their second
59
birthday through self-repair, other-repair, translation, and labeling of languages
60
(Mishina-Mori 2004). Two year olds can make corrections, criticisms or initiate
language games (Moreno-Zazo 1998). Bialystok (2001) summarizes several studies that

John Wiley & Sons

Page 3 of 11 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

1
2
3 investigated the effects of bilingualism on word awareness, syntactic awareness, and
4
5
phonological awareness. In word awareness, a number of studies agree on the
6 advantage of bilinguals over monolinguals in their ability to separate word and meaning
7 (Ben-Zeev, 1977; Bialystok, 1988; Ricciardelli, 1992). However, counterevidence also
8 exists: In a study by Rosemblum and Pinker (1983), a group of monolingual and
9 bilingual preschoolers were equally capable of associating objects with new arbitrary
10
names. Nevertheless, monolinguals and bilinguals varied in the way they referred to the
11
12 properties of an object. Whereas monolinguals were more likely to talk about the
13 physical attributes, bilinguals emphasized the social context in which objects could be
14 used, thus revealing bilinguals as more capable of extrapolating the meaning of a word
15 and connecting it to the real world.
16
17
18
In the field of syntactic awareness, research has observed an advantage for
19 bilingual children over monolinguals when performing tasks that require noting and
20 correcting errors (Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990) or avoiding misleading
Fo

21 information (Bialystok, 1986, 1988). Galambos and Goldin-Meadow argue both that
22 bilingual children have a greater awareness of linguistic forms than monolingual
23
children, and that metalinguistic awareness improves with intellectual development.
24
However, studies dealing with morphosyntactic structures have also shown that there
rP

25
26 are areas in which bilinguals do not outperform monolinguals, such as the acquisition of
27 the mass/count distinction in English (Gathercole, 1997). This study examined whether
28 bilingual children differ from monolingual in the way they draw inferences about the
29
ee

referents of new nouns based on mass/count structures such as an X and some X. The
30
31
results showed that young monolinguals (7 years old) outperformed bilinguals of the
32 same age. However, at 9 years old, bilinguals seemed to have achieved the same levels
rR

33 of performance as their monolingual counterparts. Gathercole (1997) provided a number

34 of possible explanations for these results; the one that seemed more plausible is that
35 bilinguals may just need more time to acquire this specific feature. The differences in
36
results between this and other studies in the area may also lie in the nature of the task. In
37
ev

38 this case, either an elicitation task (Gathercole, 1997) or a grammaticality judgment task
39 that requires the inhibition of misleading information (Bialystok, 1986, 1988;
40 Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990) were used. In addition, this study suggests that the
41
iew

difficulty of the task proposed may play an important role on the effects of bilingualism
42 on cognition depending upon the age and developmental stage of the participants.
43
44
45 In phonological awareness, positive findings for bilingual children are revealed
46 in aspects such as the ability to judge whether objects in pictures had long or short
47 names (Yelland, Pollard, & Mercuri, 1993). However, Bialystok, Majumder and Martin
48 (2003) did not find any difference in performance between bilingual and monolingual
49
children who were requested to substitute a sound in the target word with another sound
50
51 from another word.
52
53 According to Ianco-Worrall, bilingual children appear to develop semantic
54 understanding before monolingual children, although this difference diminishes over
55 time. Ben-Zeev concludes that bilingual children are better prepared to reorganize their
56
57 perceptions than their monolingual counterparts, and that bilingual children are prepared
58 to treat words as units separate from their semantic content within a greater syntactic
59 system.
60

John Wiley & Sons

 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics Page 4 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 <A> Conditions affecting the development or use of metalinguistic awareness
8 <B> Proficiency Thresholds in two languages
9 To resolve some of the contradictory findings from studies investigating the
10
relationship between child bilingualism and cognition and specifically to explain some
11
12 of the negative findings that had been obtained in research with minority and migrant
13 bilingual children in subtractive contexts (i.e., where two languages are competing),
14 Cummins developed a new framework (1976), the Threshold Hypothesis. Cummins
15 related cognitive development in children, internal in nature, to the attainment of
16 proficiency thresholds in their L1 and L2, and this to a combination of external (i.e.,
17
18
social, attitudinal, educational) factors. Under the model, bilinguals are expected to
19 develop cognitive advantages, including metalinguistic awareness, when compared to
20 monolinguals only after a certain threshold is reached in their L2 (second threshold in
Fo

21 Cummins’ terms).
22
23
Bialystok pointed out to the importance of the factor ‘level of bilingualism’
24
proposed by Cummins in determining different levels of metalinguistic awareness, and
rP

25
26 proposed the inclusion of a more fine-grained distinction that incorporates different
27 degrees of proficiency (not just balanced or unbalanced). This proposal is supported by
28 the findings on the effects of a range of levels of proficiency, which included not only
29
ee

benefits for partial bilingualism (Bialystok, 1988; Yelland, Pollard, & Mercuri, 1993),
30
31
but also advantages only for fully balanced bilinguals (Ricciardelli, 1992), a greater
32 advantage for fully balanced bilinguals (Cromdall, 1999; Bialystok, 1988), or
rR

33 disadvantages for partial bilingualism (Gathercole, 1997). Consequently, an explanation

34 of the bilingual advantage requires the inclusion of more complex factors that should
35 interact with the ‘level’ explanation.
36
37
ev

38 Research has in fact provided evidence that higher levels of bilingualism are
39 associated with cognitive advantages when compared to lower levels of bilingualism not
40 only in children (Bialystok, 1988; Bialystok & Majumder, 1998; Ricciardelli, 1992) but
41
iew

also in adults (Kefi et al., 2004; Thomas, 1988). For children, studies such as Yelland,
42 Pollard, and Mercury (1993) found that children who had received partial instruction in
43
44
Italian (i.e., they were not totally biliterate) as second language were better than
45 monolinguals at judging whether a number of pictures contained long or short names.
46 Other studies also suggest that being partially proficient in a second language confer
47 participants with a cognitive advantage when compared to monolinguals in tasks that
48 involved metalinguistic awareness. Bialystok (1988) compared three groups of children:
49
20 English monolinguals, 20 partially French-English bilinguals, and 17 fluent French-
50
51 English bilinguals. Participants were exposed to two tasks: Arbitrariness of language,
52 and Concept of word. Whereas the first one assessed the child’s understanding of the
53 arbitrary connection between linguistic form and reference in the world, the Concept of
54 word task assessed the child’s knowledge of the abstract concept of a word. The results
55 revealed that the two bilingual groups outperformed the monolingual group on the
56
57 Arbitrariness of language task, and that the fully-bilingual group performed
58 significantly better than the other two groups on the Concept of word task. Similarly,
59 Demont (2001) shows an advantage for children who attended German/French bilingual
60 classes since kindergarten at grammatical judgment and correction tasks and word
recognition, while Dillon’s comparison (2009) of children in both early total immersion

John Wiley & Sons

Page 5 of 11 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

1
2
3 schools (Gaelscoileanna), where Irish is the language of instruction, and English-
4
5
medium schools, where Irish is taught as L2 concluded that more balanced bilinguals
6 are more likely to independently display higher levels of metalinguistic awareness and
7 evidence of cross-linguistic transfer. Parallel conclusions were drawn by Kenner (2008)
8 for 2nd and 3rd generation Bengalis heritage language learners in the UK. In conclusion
9 then, evidence suggests that the higher the level of bilingualism, the more cognitive
10
advantages, but when a partial level of bilingualism is reached, benefits also appear
11
12 when compared to monolinguals.
13
14
15 Studies with adult participants, like that of Thomas (1988), show comparable
16 results: with more linguistic experience comes greater metalinguistic awareness.
17
18
Thomas maintains that bilinguals who have learned a second language in the classroom
19 show a greater ability to learn a third language than bilinguals who have not received
20 formal instruction in their second language, and therefore have not been exposed to
Fo

21 grammar explanations. According to Thomas, instruction aides in the development of

22 sensitivity to grammar. More recent research by Ransdell et al (2006) compares
23
working memory capacity and metalinguistic awareness as it applies to reading in
24
monolingual, bilingual and multilingual university students within three cultural
rP

25
26 contexts, America, Estonia and France. Their results show that bilingual and
27 multilingual students have better metalinguistic awareness of their language skills in
28 reading and greater working memory capacity than do students who are monolingual,
29
ee

but who have comparable native language skills. Also, Gibson et al 2006 concluded that
30
31
multilingual learners of English are highly metalinguistically aware and adept at sifting
32 formal grammatical information from semantic information both in listenting and
rR

33 written task. In conclusion, more research is needed to determine where, on a scale from
34 low to balanced adult bilingualism, Cummins’ second threshold can be placed. In
35 addition, another relevant issue should be addressed: whether there is more than one
36
adult threshold and whether these thresholds are held constant for different cognitive
37
ev

38 abilities and external conditions.

39
40 <B> Within the discussion on levels of proficiency, some scholars attribute the
41
iew

cognitive benefits of bilingualism to literacy in two languages (Cook, 1997; Cummins,

42 1981, Swain et al, 1990; Bialystok, 1986-2004). For example, Swain and colleagues
43
44
investigated the effect of L1 literacy on L3 learning among 319 eighth graders in
45 Toronto. Results of this study suggest that the crucial factor in successful L3 acquisition
46 is development of heritage language literacy skills, rather than exclusively oral skills as
47 well as language typology of the bilinguals. Likewise, Sanz (2007) establishes a
48 relationship between literacy development in two languages and enhanced ability to
49
learn an L3. As expected, no effects were found for balance in oral skills, but
50
51 regressions show level of biliteracy is a predictor, and ANOVAs show that there is a
52 specific level of development of literacy in both languages that needs to be reached
53 before we can observe enhanced ability to learn the L3, possible in socieducational
54 situations that promote additive bilingualism. In considering these arguments, the reader
55 should bear in mind the typological relationship between the languages involved. Both
56
57 Catalan and Spanish are Romance languages, therefore further research is necessary that
58 incorporates the same variables in a comparable socioeducational context that involves
59 typologically different languages, as it is possible that biliteracy in two distant
60 languages further enhances metalinguistic awareness.

John Wiley & Sons

 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics Page 6 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
<B> Nature of Task
6 A second explanation to account for contradicting behavior elicited by
7 metalinguistic tasks was proposed by Bialystok (1999, 2001b). Her framework
8 describes to what degree task characteristics determine a bilingual’s performance
9 depending on the involvement of two processing components: analysis and control.
10
Whereas analysis is defined as the ability to represent explicit and abstract rules, control
11
12 is described as the ability to attend to specific aspects of the input, especially in
13 situations that include ambiguous information. In order to test how bilingualism
14 interacts with these external conditions, the task is manipulated such that demands of
15 analysis and control are increased. Reexamining the results in this way reveals that
16 bilingual advantages occur reliably on tasks that make high demands on control but are
17
18
not evident in tasks that make high demands on analysis
19
20 Bilinguals’ greater attention to language form to constantly determine which
Fo

21 language to use and how to switch between languages develops the component of
22 control which serves as a guide during this linguistic process. Also, reading,
23
decontextualized language in comparison to oral exercises, demand a greater
24
understanding of the grammatical structure, making easier the development of the
rP

25
26 analysis component. Biliteracy is key in developing the analysis component.
27
28
29
ee

30
31
32 <A> What is metalinguistic awareness useful for? Learning to read,
rR

33 learning other languages.

34
35 <B> Metalinguistic awareness enhances acquisition of non-native languages
36
37
ev

38 A number of factors involved in language acquisition may be enhanced as a

39 result of the language learning experience of bilinguals, including cognitive flexibility,
40 automatization of skills, and metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok 2005, Cromdall 1999,
41
iew

Cummins 1976).
42
43
44
Such factors have been posited to explain the advantage shown by bilinguals
45 over monolinguals in the acquisition of a third language (L3) both in classroom (Swain,
46 Lapkin, Rowen & Hart, 1990; Cenoz & Valencia,1994; Sanz, 2000) and in laboratory
47 studies (McLaughlin and colleagues, 1986, 1989, 1990). Classroom studies conclude
48 that instruction in the minority language is associated with improved competence in an
49
L3 at no cost either to competence in the majority language or to academic
50
51 development. In Sanz (2000) Spanish-Catalan biliterates were shown to have an
52 advantage over Spanish monolinguals as learners of English as an L3. She conlcudes
53 that in general, bilinguals are more efficient language learners because they are faster
54 and consequently achieve a higher level of attainment in the L3. But what gives
55 multilinguals the edge? From a cognitive psychology perspective, bilinguals are
56
57 experienced language learners and users and experience allows them to approach the
58 task of learning a new language in a different, more efficient way. From a second
59 language research perspective, metalinguistic awareness works as advanced organizer
60 for incoming linguistic stimuli.

John Wiley & Sons

Page 7 of 11 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

1
2
3 In second language acquisition research, whether conscious knowledge of a
4
5
language (metalinguistic knoweldge) can be transformed into implicit, unconscious
6 knowledge (considered true competence) is a matter of discussion, but most agree that it
7 can help in the acquisition process by acting as an advanced organizer, focusing
8 learners' attention on the relevant features of the language. That is, bilinguals'
9 heightened metalinguistic awareness, which results from exposure to more than one
10
language and especially to literacy in two languages, gives them the capacity to focus
11
12 on form and to pay attention to the relevant features in the language input, thereby
13 increasing the amount of intake (processed input) that feeds into their interlanguage
14 system (internal grammar).
15
16
17 In cognitive psychology, a pattern of evidence has emerged in studies that
18 compare experienced and inexperienced learners: Experienced learners tend to
19 restructure the elements of a task into schemata that are seemingly unavailable to
20 inexperienced learners. During restructuring, isolated subelements of a task are
Fo

21
22 consolidated into related units and this consolidation allows for further abstract
23 processing at lower cost than processing of disconnected and isolated sub-elements.
24 This general cognitive explanation is exemplified by Klein (1995), whose multilinguals
rP

25 showed heightened ability to identify and retain key verbs necessary to trigger the
26 parameter resetting for preposition stranding, the key form to be acquired. Similarly,
27
28
Sanz (2000) concluded that language experience may influence input processing in
29 bilinguals, who may spontaneously display what classroom pedagogical techniques try
ee

30 to induce: focused attention to key features in the input (Doughty & Williams, 1998).
31
32 In a series of studies on bilingualism and cognition, (McLeod y McLaughlin,
rR

33
1986, Nation y McLaughlin, 1986, McLaughlin y Nayak, 1989, Nayak, Krueger,
34
35 Hansen y McLaughlin, 1990), McLaughlin’s research team attempted to demonstrate
36 that both bilingual and multilingual individuals have an advantage over monolinguals in
37 automation and restructuring processes. Nation and McLaughlin (1986) compared the
ev

38 performance of “novice” (monolingual English) and “expert” (bilingual and

39 multilingual) learners as they were exposed to a miniature linguistic system under
40
41
implicit (read and memorize) and explicit (read and search for grammar rules) learning
iew

42 conditions. They found that the experts outperformed novices in the implicit but not the
43 explicit condition. The results of this study give evidence to the relationship between
44 previous linguistic experience, memory and language learning: multilingual subjects are
45 better equipped to process a constant stream of information, keeping in working
46
memory only that which is relevant to further processing. In the explicit condition,
47
48 where these processes are unnecessary, the multilingual group did not show any
49 advantage.
50
51 In the light of these results, it will be important to determine if bilinguals at
52 different stages of L2 development make different use of explicit information (grammar
53
54
explanation, feedback) during the acquisition of a third language. Within the Latin
55 Project (Sanz, Stafford & Bowden), Lado’s dissertation compares performance by 151
56 basic, intermediate, advanced and native-like speakers of L2 Spanish during the initial
57 stages of development of an L3 under two computerized treatments which differ in the
58 type of feedback (+/- explicit). Accuracy and latency in four different tests show that
59
level of bilingualism is closely related to L3 proficiency level (e.g., Muñoz, 2000) and
60
that even partial bilingualism enhances subsequent language learning (e.g., Thomas,
1988), although these benefits appeared under less challenging conditions i.e., when the

John Wiley & Sons

 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics Page 8 of 11

1
2
3 rules were provided, or when the tasks were less demanding. Importantly, as
4
5
hypothesized, the study identofies the presence of one or two thresholds for the positive
6 effects on cognition of adult bilingualism, with positions changing depending on
7 external conditions. Under more demanding conditions, (i.e., -EF and more cognitively
8 demanding tasks), only one threshold emerges and is delimited by near-native
9 proficiency. The appearance of these thresholds is explained with aptitude (as measured
10
by the MLAT) and WM capacity (as measured by a sentence span test), which suggests
11
12 that for adults learning an L2 in formal contexts, achieving a high level of proficiency
13 results in a cognitive edge.
14
15 To sum up, experience with more than one language –multilingualism- promotes
16 the automation of the basic necessary abilities in the processing of information and
17
18
language. As they become automatic, these basic necessary abilities depend less on
19 working memory, and allow room for other processes. Also, the development of input
20 restructuring strategies is a result of metalinguisitic analysis. Language learners
Fo

21 restructure input in categories that allow for quicker access and more transparent
22 relationships with other units of information, making the processing of new input
23
definitively easier. In this way, multilingualism, metalinguistic awareness, and
24
attentional control are interconnected and explain multilinguals’ advantage in the
rP

25
26 acquisition of new languages.
27
28 <B> Multilinguals and Metalinguistic awareness as a facilitator of literacy
29
ee

The research on literacy agrees there are three prerequisite skills for the
30
31
acquisition of literacy: establishment of metalinguistic awareness, competence with the
32 oral language, and understanding of symbolic concepts of print (Bialystok 2007).
rR

33 Research on bilingualism and literacy explores the extent to which these skills differ for
34 monolingual and bilingual children. Its findings suggest that bilingualism is clearly a
35 factor in children's development of literacy, but the effect of that factor is neither simple
36
nor unitary. Sometimes bilinguals are at an advantage (concepts of print), sometimes at
37
ev

38 a disadvantage (oral language competence). Likewise, Francis (1999) conlcudes that

39 metalinguistic awareness is related to difficult aspects of literacy development in
40 different ways, the key variables being the degree of decontextualization & expressive
41
iew

vs receptive language tasks.

42
43
44
45 References
46
47 Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). Mechanisms by which childhood bilingualism affects
48 understanding of language and cognitive structures. In P. A. Hornby (Ed.),
49
Bilingualism: Psychological, social, and educational implications (pp. 29-55).
50
51 New York, NY: Academic.
52 Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge, UK:
53 Cambridge University Press.
54 Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition.
55 New York: Cambridge University Press.
56
57 Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque
58 Country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195-207.
59 Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of
60 research findings and explanatory hypothesis. Working Papers on Bilingualism,
9, 1-43.

John Wiley & Sons

Page 9 of 11 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

1
2
3 Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting
4
5
educational success for language minority students. En Schooling and language
6 minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: California State
7 Department of Education. Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center,
8 California State University.
9 Demont, Elisabeth. "The Contribution of Early Second Language Learning to the
10
Development of Linguistic Awareness and Learning to Read." International
11
12 Journal of Psychology 36.4 (2001): 274-85.
13 Diaz, R. M. (1985). Bilingual cognitive development: Addressing three gaps in current
14 research. Child Development,56, 1356-1378.
15 Dillon, Anna M. "Metalinguistic Awareness and Evidence of Cross-Linguistic Influence
16 among Bilingual Learners in Irish Primary Schools." Language Awareness 18.2
17
18
(2009): 182-97.
19 Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom SLA. Cambridge, UK:
20 Cambridge University Press.
Fo

21 Francis, N. "Billingualism, Writing, and Metalinguistic Awareness: Oral-Literate

22 Interactions between First and Second Languages." Applied Psycholinguistics
23
20.4 (1999): 533-61.
24
Galambos, S. J., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1990). The effects of learning two languages
rP

25
26 on levels of metalinguistic awareness. Cognition, 34 (1), 1-56.
27 Galambos, S. J., & Hakuta, K. (1988). Subject-specific and task-specific characteristics
28 of metalinguistic awareness in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9,
29
ee

141-162.
30
31
Geva, S.J. y Ryan, S. (1993). Linguistic and cognitive correlates of academic skills in
32 frist and second languages. Language Learning, 43, págs. 5 - 42.
rR

33 Gibson, Martha, and Britta Hufeisen. "Metalinguistic Processing Control Mechanisms

34 in Multilingual Learners of English." International Journal of Multilingualism
35 3.2 (2006): 139-53.
36
Ianco-Worall, A. (1972). Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development,
37
ev

38 43, 1390-1400.
39 Kecskes, Istvan, and Tunde Papp. "Foreign Language and Mother Tongue."
40 (2000).Foreign language and mother tongue.xxv, 148 pp.Mahwah, NJ, US:
41
iew

Lawrence Erlbaum
42 Kefi, M. Z., Allain, P., Pinon, K., Havet-Thomassin, V., Aubin, G., Roy, A., et al.
43
44
(2004). Bilingualism and adult differences in inhibitory mechanisms: Evidence
45 from a bilingual stroop task. Brain and Cognition, 54(3), 254-256.
46 Kenner, Charmian, et al. "Bilingual Learning for Second and Third Generation
47 Children." Language, Culture and Curriculum 21.2 (2008): 120-37.
48 Kessler, C., & Quinn, M. E. (1980). Positive effects of bilingualism on science
49
problem-solving abilities. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual
50
51 education: Proceedings of the Georgetown roundtable on languages and
52 linguistics (pp. 295-308). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
53 Kessler, C., & Quinn, M. E. (1987). Language minority children's linguistic and
54 cognitive creativity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
55 8(173-186).
56
57 Klein, E. C. (1995). Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a difference?
58 Language Learning, 45 (3), 419-465.
59 Maneva, Blagovesta. ""Maman, Je Suis Polyglotte!": A Case Study of Multilingual
60 Language Acquisition from 0 to 5 Years." International Journal of
Multilingualism 1.2 (2004): 109-22.

John Wiley & Sons

 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics Page 10 of 11

1
2
3 McLaughlin, B., & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new language: Does knowing other
4
5
languages make a diference? In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.),
6 Interlingual processes (pp. 5-16). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
7 McLaughlin, B., & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new language: does knowing other
8
9 languages make a diference? En Hans W. Dechert y Manfred Raupach (Eds.),
10 Interlingual processes (págs. 5-16). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
11 McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. and McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: an
12 information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33: 135-158.
13 Mishina-Mori, Satomi. "Development of Bilingual Awareness in Children Acquiring
14
15
Two First Languages." Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism
16 10.1 (2004): 1-17.
17 Moreno-Zazo, Montse. "Metalinguistic Awareness in Family Bilinguals." Estudios de
18 Psicologia 60 (1998): 35-48.
19 Nation, R., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Novices and experts: An information processing
20 approach to the good language learner problem. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7,
Fo

21
22 41-56.
23 Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N., & McLaughlin, B. (1990). Language-learning
24 strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning, 40 (2),
rP

25 221-244.
26 Ransdell, Sarah, Marie-Laure Barbier, and Toomas Niit. "Metacognitions about
27
28
Language Skill and Working Memory among Monolingual and Bilingual
29 College Students: When does Multilingualism Matter?" International Journal of
ee

30 Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9.6 (2006): 728-41.

31 Reynolds, A. G. (Ed). 1991. Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language
32 learning: The McGill conference in honor of Wallace E. Lambert. Lawrence
rR

33
Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, US.
34
35 Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992a). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to
36 threshold theory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21 (4), 301-316.
37 Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992b). Creativity and bilingualism. Journal of Creative Behavior,
ev

38 26 (4), 242-254.
39 Rosenblum, T., & Pinker, S. A. (1983). Word magic revisited: monolingual and
40
41
bilingual children's understanding of the word-object relationship. Child
iew

42 Development, 54, 773-780.

43 Sanders, Ruth H. "Focus on Form: Foreign Language Study and Cognitive
44 Development." ADFL Bulletin 38.1-2 (2006): 40-4.
45 Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence
46
from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21: 23-44
47
48 Sanz, C. (2007). The role of bilingual literacy in the acquisition of a third language. In
49 Perez-Vidal, Bel, and Garau (Eds.) A Portrait of the Young in the New
50 Multilingual Spain, Clevedon (UK): Multilingual Matters.
51 Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N., & Hart, D. (1990). The role of mother tongue
52 literacy in third language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 3 (1), 65-
53
54
81.
55 Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third
56 language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9
57 (3), 235-246.
58 Thomas, J. (1992). Metalinguistic awareness in second- and third-language learning.
59
En Harris, Richard J. (1992). Cognitive processing in bilinguals. Amsterdam,
60
Netherlands: North-Holland.

John Wiley & Sons

Page 11 of 11 Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

1
2
3 Yelland, G, Pollard, J., & Mercury, A. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited
4
5
contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14 (4), 423-444.
6
7
8 Cross-references
9 SEE ALSO: Bilingual Education and Immigration; Curriculum Development in
10
Multilingual Schools; Early Bilingual Education; Minority Languages in Education;
11
12 Multilingual Education and Language Awareness; Bilingual Literacy; Bilingualism and
13 Cognition; Language Awareness; Inhibition and Control in Second Language
14 Acquisition; Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition.
15
16
17
18
19 Suggested Readings
20 Cenoz, J. (2009) Towards Multilingual Education Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Fo

21 Hufeisen, B. & Fouser, J. [Eds] (2005). Introductory Readings in L3. Tubingen:

22 Stauffenburg Verlag
23
Jessner, U. (2006) Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language.
24
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
rP

25
26 Lasagabaster, D. & Huguet, A. [Eds] (2007), Multilingualism in European Bilingual
27 Contexts Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
28 Ringbom, H. (2007) Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning
29
ee

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

30
31
Sanz, C. (2005) Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Washington,
32 DC: Georgetown University Press.
rR

33
34
35
36
37
ev

38
39
40
41
iew

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

John Wiley & Sons