Keywords

Early Developments

The acquisition of an additional language in multilingual communities has received a great deal of attention in the last two decades (Aronin and Hufeisen 2009). The impact of the volume English in Europe (Cenoz et al. 2000) illustrates the increasing interest in the acquisition of the English language in communities where two other languages were already spoken as it is the case in some European regions. Although research on TLA was still at its infancy at the time of its publication, interesting conclusions were presented that have been later on confirmed by empirical data analyses. According to Cenoz (2009), third language acquisition should be distinguished from second language acquisition in a number of ways. We now have studies showing the inherent complexity of third language acquisition processes (Safont-Jordà and Portolés 2015). Nevertheless, the differences between second and third language acquisition have been traditionally neglected in SLA research. In fact, SLA studies ignore the knowledge of languages other than one mother tongue although they are frequently conducted in multilingual communities and deal with multilingual subjects.

Existing research on TLA in multilingual communities has provided us with information about those peculiarities that third language learners have. Main areas of interest have been grammar, vocabulary, and pragmatics. A number of studies have also been conducted with a focus on the advantages that bilingualism presents to third language learners (see Cenoz 2013 for an overview). Regarding grammar, authors like Klein (1995) deal with the acquisition of specific syntactic structures and forms. Flynn et al. (2004) present the cumulative enhancement model in an attempt to describe grammar development in three languages. According to these authors, this model explains how previously acquired grammar knowledge in L1 or L2 may facilitate L3 grammar acquisition without redundant structures, that is, without traditional syntactic transfer taking place. Hence, grammar like other language systems is more complex in third than in second language learning. Another example is vocabulary which has been widely examined from a cross-linguistic perspective in the volume The Multilingual Lexicon. In addition to that, more recent studies (De Angelis and Dewaele 2011) confirm the constant interaction and interdependence among the third language learners’ lexical systems which may not be restricted to simple semantic or lexical transfer processes. Finally, research on pragmatic competence of multilingual learners shows not only their advantage over monolingual ones but also a different path of development. Safont-Jordà (2005) presents evidence on the advantage of Spanish-Catalan bilinguals over Spanish monolinguals in the use of request acts in English as a third language. In her study, third language learners of English overcame their monolingual counterparts in the appropriate use of request forms and in the awareness of such appropriate use.

Despite the above-quoted results, the adoption of English as a third language in the educational system of many multilingual communities in Europe has followed traditional SLA and EFL tenets. In the last two decades learning foreign languages, and particularly English, has been a priority in education. On the one hand, this fact has led to multilingualism as the norm, in bilingual communities, and it has also been regarded as a threat to other languages present in the community as acknowledged by certain scholars (Mühlhäusler 1996). On the other hand, applied linguists like Alcón (2007) and House (2009), among others, support the use of English as a world language, an international language or lingua franca. That is a language that is to be added to the rich linguistic repertoire of most European communities. In this line, the European Commission has presented different measures that encourage European citizens to have practical skills in three languages: their mother tongue plus two more. The result has been that in continental Europe multilingualism is the norm and English is frequently the second or third language in the curriculum, either as a subject or as medium of instruction. Due to this fact, research on third language acquisition in multilingual settings has mainly focused on the acquisition of English as a third language as shown by the major studies presented below.

Major Contributions

Main contributions to research on the acquisition of a third language in multilingual contexts refer to the introduction of (i) new paradigms from psycholinguistic and educational viewpoints as well as to the presentation of (ii) pedagogical proposals deriving from these paradigms and (iii) research studies that also take into account these theoretical tenets.

New Theoretical Paradigms

From a psycholinguistic perspective, Herdina and Jessner (2002) presented the dynamic model of multilingualism which is an adaptation of the dynamic systems theory to the phenomenon of multilingualism. The dynamic model of multilingualism (henceforth DMM) enables researchers to adopt new perspectives in the analysis of multilingual data away from traditional SLA paradigms (see Language Awareness in Multilinguals: Theoretical Trends, this volume). Components of the DMM include all the language systems that a multilingual person knows, cross-linguistic interaction among those languages, cross-linguistic awareness, and the multilingualism factor which arises as a result of the constant interaction between the speakers’ languages. This factor might be responsible for the advantages and enhanced skills that multilinguals show, namely those of metalinguistic awareness, pragmatic production, pragmatic awareness, and creativity among many others. Nevertheless, further research needs to be conducted to confirm such claims. Resorting to the DMM in the analysis of multilingual speakers implies the adoption of a holistic approach in which the researcher considers all of the participants’ languages.

Such a holistic perspective has also been considered in educational paradigms. Here, three contributions should be mentioned, (i) models for analyzing schools in multilingual communities (Hornberger 2003; Cenoz 2009), (ii) multilingual approaches to teaching (Cenoz and Gorter 2013; García and Flores 2012; Hufeisen and Neuner 2004), and (iii) multiliteracy development (Canagarajah 2013; García 2009). The Continua for Multilingual Education is a revised and enhanced version of Hornberger’s Continua of Biliteracy (2003). While Hornberger focuses on the development of bilingual literacy , Cenoz further extends the model to account for the global educational context in which multilingual education may take place. The Continua for Multilingual Education is thus conceived as an instrument to evaluate the degree of multilingualism in schools or in other institutions aiming at it. According to Cenoz (2009, p. 32) “multilingual education implies teaching more than two languages provided the schools aim at multilingualism and multiliteracy.” On the one hand, this definition of multilingual education allows us to consider the time and resources devoted to the introduction of a third language in multilingual contexts. On the other hand, the author claims that at least four variables need to be considered in the continua of multilingual education: subject, language of instruction, teacher, and school context. Using these variables to analyze the introduction of a third language in education from a multilingual perspective, we can claim that this third language is nowadays a compulsory school subject. In some European regions, English is the third language chosen although differences may be found in the integration of English with the national, regional, and other foreign languages. The approach that has developed most in Europe is that of CLIL or content and language integrated learning . Despite the fact that some authors link multilingual teaching practices with CLIL bilingual education programs (García 2009) and highlight their dynamic nature, we see that pedagogical results from CLIL practices do not always differ much from those involved in EFL programs (Ruiz de Zarobe and Jimenez Catalan 2009). In these last cases, a completely monolingual approach is followed that exclusively focuses on the third language. Hence, we may argue that while CLIL could provide learners with the appropriate conditions for dynamic multilingual teaching and learning, the pedagogical approach followed so far seems to ignore the learners’ first and second languages. In fact, as argued by Cenoz (2013), CLIL isolates the teaching of English from the teaching of other languages.

Pedagogical Proposals

Nevertheless, as argued by García and Kleifgen (2010), new types of educational programs have recently emerged, namely those of dynamic plurilingual programs. An example of these approaches could be Hufeisen and Neuner’s (2004) proposal. These authors advocate for Tertiary Didactics as an approach to teach third language learners which is different to that of second language learners. As argued by the authors, the main idea being that learners’ multilingualism would be the basis for teaching programs. Hence, there would never be a zero level in any language but an extension of the learners’ language knowledge as provided by any new language. Similarly, García and Flores (2012) also argue for dynamic multilingual pedagogies. According to these authors, dynamic multilingual pedagogies should involve more than one language as means of instruction and allow for fluid language practices. Furthermore, emergent multilingual children may be allowed to use their languages in a “noncontrolled” way so that they are responsible for their linguistic interactions in line with their third language development. In a multilingual setting, this would imply that bilingual students could make use of their first and second language (which in most cases coincides with the community minority and majority languages) while being instructed in the third one (English in most situations). The three languages would then serve different functions depending on the instructional needs of teachers and communicational needs of students. This instructional strategy is known as preview-view- review (García and Flores 2012, p. 241), and it is only one example of the pedagogical implications involved in adopting flexible and dynamic multilingual approaches.

Cenoz and Gorter (2013) also advocate for a Focus on Multilingualism approach to language teaching in multilingual communities. Their proposal is in line with García’s (2009) arguments for translanguaging in the classroom. The view that the language classroom is not monolingual and that this is not a negative but a positive aspect has been claimed by authors like Levine (2011) who argues against the monolingual approach that has been traditionally adopted in third language classrooms and he also explains the myth or fallacy underlying the monolingual norm in foreign language teaching. Cenoz and Gorter (2013) argue for softening the boundaries among those languages known to third language learners instead of separating them or banning the presence of languages other than English in the ESOL classroom. In line with Cenoz’s (2013) views stated above, these scholars suggest a pedagogical perspective that goes beyond the monolingual-biased Common European Framework of Reference (henceforth CEFR). This framework is now adopted by most European academic institutions with an interest in promoting third language acquisition, and thus multilingualism, in communities where at least two other languages are already present. The CEFR is also used as a tool to assess learners’ knowledge of the target language involving adults, teenagers, and children.

Third language learners in multilingual settings also aim at literacy in all their languages, and the approach suggested by scholars is in line with the above holistic views on multilingual education. This approach has received different names: pluriliteracy practices , multilingual literacies (Blackledge and Creese 2010), or translingual practices (Canagarajah 2013). Common to all of them is the idea that fluid code meshing and translanguaging are optimal tools towards literacy in multiple languages. Language is regarded as a dynamic process of structuration. Reading and writing include learners’ agency in their control and management of their language systems. Writing in translingual practices , as argued by Min-Zhan and Horner (2013), should not be viewed as a deviation to the standard norm but as a version of basic writing, Lingua Franca writing, or world Englishes. In understanding written discourse, the frame to be adopted should be spatial-temporal, where emergent third language writers use English (i.e., the third language) as a link between the cultures and the people represented by their other languages also present in multilingual settings. Yet, according to Blackledge and Creese (2010), the teaching of literacies is intertwined with the teaching of culture, thus there should be a place for folk narratives in children’s heritage languages. These authors focus their proposal on non-officially multilingual communities, that is, a major focus is given to communities with high levels of immigrants whose children already possess knowledge of two or more languages when faced with a third one in school. This third language coincides with the majority language of the speech community they are living in. That is the case of most English-speaking countries. However, we should not forget that English is also the third language in those officially bilingual settings of Europe like the Basque Country, Catalonia, or the Valencian Community among many others. While similar principles apply, reality, degree of exposure to languages, agency, and identity vary. On that account, not only pedagogical proposals but also research studies are needed that enable us to account for early multilingual acquisition and teaching across the globe.

Studies on Pragmatic Competence

In her analysis of the pragmatic competence of English language learners, Alcón (2012) has found a role for these students’ multilingual background. Results from her study show that the degree of communicative sensitivity of Catalan-Spanish productive bilinguals was higher than that found in the case of Spanish speakers. These findings are in line with previous studies on third language learners’ communicative sensitivity and pragmatic awareness. They also present evidence for Cenoz’s claims (2009, 2013) stated before on the peculiarities of third language acquisition.

In line with the above theoretical underpinings advocating for a thorough multilingual approach in examining multilinguals, some studies have recently been conducted with a focus on third language pragmatics in multilingual settings. Taking the dynamic model of multilingualism as theoretical basis to explain pragmatic development, Safont-Jordà (2013) presents evidence of the cross-linguistic interaction and the M-factor effects in the analysis of a consecutive early multilingual. This longitudinal study deals with requestive behavior in three languages (i.e., Catalan, Spanish, and English) and focuses on the period involved from 2.6 to 5.6 years. The introduction of a third language (i.e., English) in the subject’s linguistic repertoire promoted the use of conventionally indirect forms in the three languages. Therefore, both a quantitative and a qualitative change took place in the child’s requestive behavior which makes it different from that of other monolingual and bilingual children. The interaction among the three languages in ages 2.6–3.6 facilitated Pau’s pragmatic development later on (i.e., ages 3.6–5.6). The inherent complexity of multilingualism is exemplified here by the way in which the three languages develop and the use of specific request forms that both coincide but also differ from those of other preliterate children. These three languages developed in line with their politeness orientation, that is, positive in Catalan and Spanish and negative in English. In addition to that, the emergent trilingual child already made regular use of mitigation items and elaborated pragmalinguistic routines before the expected age according to the milestones for monolingual pragmatic development. As argued by the author, these findings illustrate the so-called qualitative difference between monolinguals and multilinguals.

In the same line and focusing on the same region, Portolés (2015) examines pragmatic comprehension of preschool (aged 4–5) and primary education (aged 8–9) children by focusing on their three languages, namely those of Catalan, Spanish, and English. Results show that participants displayed a high degree of pragmatic awareness, even though their pragmatic systems were not fully developed, especially in English coinciding with previous studies on early multilinguals (Safont-Jordà 2013). Furthermore, the participants’ level of pragmatic awareness was not determined by their proficiency level but by their multilingual proficiency unlike predicted by former research grounded on monolingual tenets (Tomasello 2008). According to Portolés (2015), the multilingual background of the participants and their language learning experience in Spanish and Catalan may have provided learners with a high level of awareness towards their L3.

Work in Progress

As mentioned above, some studies are now being conducted that apply holistic models to the analysis of third language acquisition. From a cognitive perspective, recent research (García-Mayo and González 2015) provides further evidence on the complexity underlying multilingual phenomena like those of attrition, cross-linguistic influence, lexical development, or age of onset among others. From a psycholinguistic and discourse-pragmatic orientation, findings obtained so far also confirm the inherent complexity and underlying dynamism of multilingual language acquisition. Those studies have examined pragmatic competence and development in young adults, preschool, and primary education children. Nevertheless, more research is needed to consider other pragmatic aspects, other linguistic areas, and other age groups as well as other sociolinguistic contexts. Furthermore, while the adoption of a third language in the school curriculum of multilingual communities is done at early stages, little research focuses on young third language learners in these settings. The exceptional cases have done so from a monolingual perspective (Mihaljevic-Djigunovic and Lopriore 2011). Hence, findings obtained present an interesting but still partial account of third language acquisition phenomena in multilingual settings.

From a multilingual viewpoint, very recent attempts are now being made to analyze emergent multilinguals’ attitudes towards languages in an attempt to find a connection between the attitudes and the degree of pragmatic competence as argued by Portolés (2015) and shown by preliminary findings. Another related aspect that is now the focus of attention is that of parents’ attitudes and school’s choice in multilingual settings. As expected, results obtained so far point to the effect of the linguistic model adopted by the school on parents’ attitudes towards multilingualism. Interestingly, Portolés (2015) has also found a connection between the linguistic policy of schools and the attitudes displayed by their young students. Hence, a further analysis of linguistic practices in schools seems to be most suitable and convenient.

Current findings also show that translanguaging does take place in the TLA classroom and that more information on children’s and teacher’s pragmatic production is obtained if a holistic focus is adopted in the analysis of classroom discourse (Safont-Jordà and Portolés 2015). However, these analyses are being conducted in settings that seem to promote monolingualism in the classroom. As argued by Cenoz (2013), while the school may aim at providing students with multilingual competence, languages in multilingual settings are treated separately in different lessons, mainly by different teachers and with no cross-reference on contents or learning goals. Therefore, while third language acquisition takes place mainly in multilingual settings, the teaching approach followed is still monolingual. However, the analysis of language use in these classrooms reveals real multilingual practices. There is translanguaging and code meshing, that is to say, learners use all their languages in different ways and for different purposes in the classroom. Similarly, the teacher very often also makes use of the students’ languages other than the target one, which in most cases is English, as already mentioned before.

We now need more studies that analyze classroom discourse and teaching practices incorporating a focus on multilingualism as suggested by different scholars in the field (Cenoz and Gorter 2013; Canagarajah 2013).

Problems and Difficulties

In order to achieve the research goals mentioned in the previous subsection, we are faced with certain problems as reported here. More specifically, there is a need for (a) other research methods, for (b) making results generalizable, for (c) linking various subdisciplines, and for appropriately facing (d) the political debate implied in the adoption of particular policies for the teaching of third languages in multilingual contexts.

Research methodologies should also incorporate further longitudinal and qualitative studies that complete the already existing quantitative and cross-sectional ones. Nevertheless, obtaining longitudinal data is not only time consuming but also very difficult and complex. Commitment on the part of all participants is needed as well as the possibility that researchers may wait for 3–4 years before they may thoroughly analyze their data. This issue becomes more complex if we are dealing with early emergent multilinguals as variables related to growth, or learning pace may not be as stable as in the case of adults and, thus, posit further problems for longitudinal research. Furthermore, qualitative descriptions require extensive knowledge and detailed accounts of the subjects and setting where studies are conducted. This information is not always available. Yet, we do need this perspective and incorporate also more case studies in order to provide the general public and the scientific community with a complete picture of third language development in multilingual settings. Case studies have been widely criticized for their individual account of learning and acquisition processes, and they are often linked to restrictions for generalizing results. However, there are specific details in longitudinal perspectives that may only be properly addressed if done at an individual level. Multilingualism is so complex that we may need to isolate variables and get to know the subject to discard what is or not affecting particular results. For this reason, a wider amount of case studies are also required that may include this longitudinal, qualitative, and quantitative perspective and then enable us to generalize results. The ideal would be to compare case studies with studies involving a wider amount of subjects. In so doing, we may really confirm whether a given theoretical tenet accounts for multilingual acquisition or development or whether a given teaching practice is really achieving its objectives.

Given the interdisciplinary nature of multilingualism, more interaction is needed among researchers from various subdisciplines like those of psycholinguistics, educational linguistics, sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, and pragmatics among others. In fact, as argued by scholars in this area, contributions to the study of multilingualism in the last two decades derive from different fields and disciplines, yet there does not seem to be a direct link or collaboration among them. Deciphering multilingual processing may best be achieved by also including social factors often ignored in psycholinguistics research. This is a huge difficulty as such a comprehensive account implies collaboration across departments and faculties which is not always possible. Research considering third language acquisition from different angles may provide comprehensive accounts of these processes. Issues like the study of identity should go beyond studies dealing with multilingualism and migration to include bilingual locals acquiring a highly prestigious third language as another example.

Last but not least, the way in which this third language has been incorporated in the curricula of multilingual communities across Europe, as mentioned above, also presents some problems. The incorporation of CLIL methodologies for the teaching of third languages should now turn into multilingual views and interaction among languages, and, as argued by García, would be an optimal scenario for that.

Future Directions

Three main issues need to be addressed in TLA research as argued by several researchers in the field. First, a thorough multilingual perspective should be definitely adopted in all studies accounting for third language acquisition processes (Cenoz and Gorter 2013; Cenoz 2013). Second, proposals for accounting for all learners’ languages in the third language classroom should be widely put into practice and later on examined to see their effects. Thirdly, collaboration across disciplines would help us understand and further examine third language acquisition processes.

The focus on multilingualism perspective proposed by Cenoz and Gorter (2013) seems to be in line with García’s translanguaging views as the authors argue for softening boundaries between languages (see previous subsections). This focus should not only be done through teaching but also in research where all participants’ languages and all their speech communities are taken into account. In implementing this focus on multilingualism approach, one key question, as suggested by Hélot (2012), is that of teacher training. We need practitioners that are familiar with multilingual education and with multilingual approaches to education. These are the main agents who may make it possible. Hence, education for teachers needs to be modified to include ways in which they can soften the boundaries between languages while promoting and fostering third language learners’ multilingual development.

One interesting area for teachers implementing a focus on multilingualism approach is that of literacy in three or more languages or translingual literacy (Canagarajah 2013). Most proposals for multilingual literacy consider bilingual or multilingual children living in officially monolingual areas (i.e., English speaking). There is a specific need to focus on literacy as far as third language acquisition in multilingual settings is concerned. I hereby refer to bilingual children or emergent multilinguals (in García’s terms, 2009) in officially bilingual areas, hence, sharing the community languages and learning an additional one. Given the fact that the third language is now introduced at very early stages, this proposal seems most suitable. Furthermore, tackling multiliteracy development may also be the focus of research studies on early third language learners.

The degree of exposure to the three languages and their presence in their speech community may be further analyzed from psycho and sociolinguistic views. In this way, collaboration across subfields would be possible and most welcome. TLA studies may benefit from language socialization studies instead of adapting and adopting SLA frameworks to include three or more languages in the equation. Language socialization studies will help us tackle issues like that of language identity, receptive multilingualism, or linguistic ideology in a more comprehensive way. This may complete results obtained from a more psycholinguistic perspective in which third language learners are analyzed by pointing to the interaction between their emotions and other individual variables. In this line, Aronin and Singleton (2009) refer to the study of the dominant language constellation (henceforth DLC) as a convenient approach to multilinguals’ linguistic competence. The DLC enables us to study the languages present in society as they relate to the individuals’ preferred or required use of them. As argued by the authors, it is not only a descriptive term like that of the verbal or linguistic repertoire, but it is more dynamic in the sense that it represents real knowledge at one point in time, which may of course vary in line with specific social or individual circumstances. The analysis of third language learners’ DLC in multilingual settings may provide us with information about the extent to which minority languages are revitalized and part of children’s identity. It would also enable us to have a global picture of the prestige and use of majority and foreign languages of other community members (i.e., parents, teachers, among others) and thus acknowledge potential effects on children’s multilingual development. In addition, we would meet the need to gain further insights into third language acquisition in multilingual contexts.

Cross-References

Related Articles in the Encyclopedia of Language and Education