Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LÄRARPROGRAMMET
Thirdlanguagedevelopmentformultilingualpupilsattheindividualprogramme’sintroductioncoursefromaDynamicSystemsTheorypointofview
CeciliaÖhlanderExamensarbete 30 hp Vårterminen 2011
Handledare: Solbritt Schyberg Institutionen för pedagogik, psykologi och idrottsvetenskap
2
LinnéuniversitetetInstitutionenförpedagogik,psykologiochidrottsvetenskapArbetetsart:Examensarbete,30hp LärarprogrammetTitel:Thirdlanguagedevelopmentformultilingualpupilsattheindividualprogramme’sintroductioncoursefromaDynamicSystemsTheorypointofview/FlerspråkigaeleversspråkutvecklingpåindividuellaprogrammetsintroduktionskursfrånettsystemteoretisktperspektivFörfattare:CeciliaÖhlander Handledare:SolbrittSchybergABSTRACT
ThisthesisusesaDynamicSystemsTheory(DST)perspectivetoexplainlanguage
developmentandmetalinguisticawarenessinfivethirdlanguagelearners(L3)of
Englishattheindividualprogramme’sintroductioncourse(IVIK).FromaDSTapproach
itisevidentthateverycomplexdynamicsystem,likemultilinguallearnersystems,
developsaccordingtointernalself‐organizationalpropertiesandtotheinteraction
betweenthelearnerandtheenvironment.Everysystemconsistsofdifferentinteracting
subsystemsthatcanbecompetitiveorconnectedgrowers.Inthisthesis,ratesofword
length,textlengthandvocabularyratiohavebeenmeasuredandcompared.Theresults
revealthattherearecompetitiverelationshipsbetweenthesubsystems’wordlength
andtextlengthalongwithvocabularyratioforfourofthefivestudents.Student
motivation,lengthofschooling,amountoflanguagesandproficiencylevelsandlengthof
schoolinginEnglishisalsoanalysedinconsiderationoflanguagedevelopmentaswell
asmetalinguisticawareness.Theresultsshownostrongcorrelationsbetweenthese
factorsapartfromthestudentwhohasthehighestmotivationandalongerEnglish
schoolingalsohasthehighestmetalinguisticawareness.Furthermore,resultsalso
indicateapositivecorrelationbetweenmetalinguisticawarenessandL3proficiency.
Thisconfirmspreviousresearchaboutthepositiveeffectsofmultilingualismandhigher
cognitiveandmetalinguisticability.
3
TableofContents1. Introduction 41.2 Aimofthesis 51.3 Abbreviationsanddefinitions 62. TheoreticalFramework 62.1 Themultilingualstudent 62.2 Researchaboutmultilingualismandthirdlanguageacquisition 92.3 DynamicSystemsTheory(DST) 122.4 DSTinamultilingualcontextandmetalinguisticawareness 133. Method 173.1 Languagedevelopment 173.2 Metalinguisticawareness 183.3 Researchmaterial 193.4 Backgroundvariables 203.5 Participants 203.6 Data 213.7 Ethics 214. Results 214.1 Questionnaire 214.2 Languagedevelopment 224.3 Metalinguisticawareness 325. Discussion 335.1 Languagedevelopment 335.2 Metalinguisticawareness 355.3 Futureresearch 366. Swedishsummary;sammanfattning 377. Bibliography 418. Appendix1 439. Appendix2 44
4
1.Introduction
AsIamateacherattheindividualprogramme’sintroductioncourse(IVIK),inanupper
secondaryschoolinSödertälje,Idecidedtowriteathesisaboutmystudents’language
developmentandmetalinguisticawareness.InSödertäljemunicipalityalarge
populationofitsinhabitantshaveforeignbackground,around40percentofthepeople
areimmigrantsandthereareasmanyas80differentlanguagesspokeninSödertälje
(FactsonSödertälje,2010:3).Consequentlymultilingualismismorecommonthan
monolingualism.IncomparisonwithotherNordiccountriesSwedenhasalarge
populationofforeignerswith10percentofitsninemillionpeoplehavinganon‐Nordic
background.Arefugeeissomeonewhohasfledfromhisorherhomelandduetofearof
persecutionforreasonsofrace,politicalopinion,religionornationality.Thosepeople
thatreceivearesidentpermitareimmigrants.Inordertofacilitateforimmigrant
childreninSwedentherearedifferentpoliciesandprogramsavailable.Pupilsthat
arriveinSwedenafterorattheendofthenine‐yearcompulsoryschoolhavea
possibilitytoentertheindividualprogramme’sintroductioncourse(IVIK)atupper
secondaryschool.Thisprogrammepreparesthestudentforfuturestudiesatnational
levelorotherprogrammesatforinstance“folkhögskola”,folkhigh‐school.
ThemunicipalityofSödertäljedecidedin2010,inlinewiththeir
GreenhouseProcessofContinuousImprovementinthemunicipality,toincreasethe
amountoftutor‐ledcoursesforstudentsatIVIK.Alongwithanewwayofmeasuringthe
students’abilitiesaccordingtofourdifferentlevelsofeducationalattainment,insteadof
thepreviousoneleveltarget,thiswouldincreasestudents’performanceatIVIKatupper
secondaryschool.However,despitetheextraamountoftutor‐ledhoursforpupilsthe
Englishtopicwasrestrictedbytheshortageofoneteacher.Insteadofhavingfour
differentstudentgroupsdividedaccordingtolevelsofeducationalattainmentthere
wereonlythree.Nevertheless,despiteteachershortagehavingbeenateacherforayear
andhalfatthisschoolIcanseeproofofthemultilingualpupils’growthand
developmentinEnglish.
AccordingtoSkolverket,theNationalAgencyforEducationinSweden,the
performanceofpupilsingeneralatthisuppersecondaryschoolisbelowaverage(S
5
Jedenborg2011,pers.comm.25February)despitethefactthatthemajorityarehighly
motivatedstudentsstrivingtoenteruniversitytoreadmedicineorlaw.Theexplanation
forthelowerresultsismostprobablyduetostudents’lackofproficiencyinSwedishas
wellasEnglish.ManyofthestudentshavedeficienciesinSwedishandlackbasic
knowledgeinEnglishwhentheystartatNaturvetargymnasietinSödertälje.Yet,
statisticallymostofthepupilsstudyingEnglishreachthenationaltargetsduringtheir
schooling.TheaveragetimeforstudentsatIVIKistwotothreeyearsbeforetheycan
enteranationalcourseatthisuppersecondaryschool(SJedenborg2011,pers.comm.
25February).
Thereisastrongconnectionbetweentheagewhenchildrenimmigrateand
theirlaterperformance.Yet,ifSwedishsocietyanditsNationalEducationAgency
continuetomeasurequalityafterthenormativemajoritylanguageandculturepupils
withmultilingualbackgroundwillbeatadisadvantage.Insteadoflookingatthese
pupilsasassets,withmultilingualcompetenceandexperiencesthatarevaluablefor
nationalprogress,societyonlyassesslanguageproficiencyaccordinganative‐like
ability.Researchshowsthatmultilingualstudentsproveexamplesofhavingcognitive
abilitiesthataremissinginmonolingualspeakers(Jessner,2008:270).Accordingtoa
DynamicSystemsperspective,whichusesaholisticapproach,multilinguallanguage
developmentdoesnottakeplaceinalinearstaticmovementbutinacomplex,
changeableanddynamicprocesswithprogressandregression.Thesocialandcultural
environmentsaswellasresourcesoftimeandenergyhavegreatinfluenceon
multilingualdevelopment.Awarenessandknowledgeaboutthirdlanguage
developmentarevitalforassessingandenhancingpupils’languageacquisitionsuchas
successfullyteachingimmigrantstudentsatIVIK.
1.2Aimofthesis
Theaimofthisthesisistostudylanguagedevelopmentandmetalinguisticawareness
withaDynamicSystemsTheorymethod.Languagedevelopmentandmetalinguistic
awarenessareexplainedandanalysedwiththisperspective.Thisthesisalsotriesto
establishwhetherthereareanyconnectionsbetweendevelopmentofvocabulary,word‐
6
andtextlength.Furthermore,thethesisattemptstomeasurewhetherstudentsare
reflectingandanalysingtheirlanguageproduction.Evidenceofthiswouldprove
metalinguisticawareness.Howdofactorslikelengthofschooling,proficiencyandskills
inEnglishandinotherlanguages,totalamountoflanguages,lengthofstayinSweden
andmotivationaffectlanguagedevelopmentandmetalinguisticawareness?
1.3Abbreviationsanddefinitions
Somefrequentlyusedabbreviationshavethefollowingdefinitions:L1(firstornative
language),L2(secondlanguage),L3(thirdlanguage)andL4(fourthlanguage)etcetera
refertothechronologicalorderofacquiringalanguageirrespectiveofwhetheranyof
thefirstorlaterlearntlanguagesareatahigherorlowerproficiencylevel.IVIKisthe
individualprogramme’sintroductioncourseforforeigners.DSTstandsforDynamic
SystemsTheory.DMMistheDynamicModelofMultilingualismwiththedevelopmentof
differentindividuallanguagesystems.Throughouttheessaythetermmultilingualism
willbeusedinterchangeablywiththirdlanguageacquisitionoranyfourth,fifthetcetera
learntlanguages.LanguagedevelopmentisfromaDSTperspectiveexplainedasgrowth
resultingfromiterations.Yet,developmentisnotonlylineargrowthbutincludes
regression,stagnationandprogressdependingontherelationshipbetweenthesystem’s
self‐organisationandtheenvironment(DeBoot,2008:171).Metalinguisticawarenessis
theproficiencytoobjectifylanguageandtheabilitytochangefocusbetweenform,
functionandmeaning(Jessner,2008:277).
2.Theoreticalframework
2.1Themultilingualstudent
ComparedtootherEuropeancountriesSwedenhasreceivedahighamountofrefugees
whohaveenrichedourcountryinmanyways.However,togetherwiththesenew
culturalandlinguisticinfluencestherearealsonewdifficultiesinSwedishsocietyand
education.Immigrantchildrenfacelanguageproblemsthataffecttheirgeneral
educationalattainment.EspeciallyimmigrantchildrenwhoarriveinSwedenafter
preschoolagearehavingschoolproblems(Skolverket,2005:12).Whetherthechildhas
7
anativelanguage,whichistypologicallyclosetoSwedish,isalsoinfluentialinthis
context.AchildwhohasanIndo‐Europeanmothertonguewillfacelessdifficultythan
forexamplechildrenwithanArabicnativelanguage(Lindblad,1982:6).Howwella
pupilsucceedsinEnglishisstronglyconnectedtoitsknowledgeinSwedish(Lindblad,
1982:45).Quitelogically,ifthepupilisstrugglingwithmasteringSwedishtherewill
consequentlybelessmotivationorresourcesavailableforEnglish.
DifferentreportsfromSkolverket,theNationalAgencyforEducationin
Sweden,andotherauthoritieshavestatedthatpupilswithforeignbackgroundperform
lesswellanddon’treachthegoalsandthesamelevelofscholasticknowledgeasnative‐
bornchildren.However,thesereportsalsorevealthattheeducationalachievementis
dependentonothervariablessuchasthemigrant‐pupil’ssocio‐economicandcultural
parentalbackgroundaswellascountryoforiginandlengthofstayinSweden
(Skolverket,2005:5f).Thereisastrongconnectionbetweenparents’levelofeducation
andpupils’result.Thehighertheparentaleducationisthebetterthepupil’s
performanceis.Addedtothisisalsoparents’employmenthistory(Skolverket,2005:8).
Interestingly,whenthesesocio‐economicfactsareconsideredmanyofthedifferencesin
proficienciesorresultsvanishbetweenimmigrantandnativepupils.Consequently,the
differencesbetweennativeandforeignpupilsaremainlydependentonsocio‐
economicalfactsandnotontheforeignbackgroundassuch.Yet,forthosepupilsthat
havearrivedatalaterstageintheireducationalschoolingthedifferencesintargetlevels
remain(Skolverket,2005:10).
AccordingtotheSwedishEducationlawallchildrenhavethesamerightto
educationandareguaranteedextrasupportifneeded(LäroplanLpf94:6).Studentsin
compulsoryanduppersecondaryschoolwhosenativelanguageisnotSwedishare
entitledtofirstlanguageinstruction.Studentsmayalsobeprovidedwithhelpintheir
firstlanguageinothertopics.Participationisnotcompulsorybutmunicipalitiesmust
providefirstlanguagelessonsforstudentsthathaveatleastoneparentwithanother
mothertonguethanSwedishandwhodailyusethislanguage.However,ifthe
municipalityhaslessthanfivestudentsinonelanguagegrouporifthereisnosuitable
teacheravailabletheschoolisnotneededtoofferthissupport(Skolverket,2008:13).
8
Mostly,firstlanguageinstructionisofferedoutsidetheregularschoolhoursand
handledseparatelytootherschooltopicseveniftheactualeducationtakesplaceatthe
sameschool(Skolverket,2008:18).Amajorityofthepupilstakingpartinfirstlanguage
instructionarefromhomeswithahighereducationbackground(Skolverket,2008:19).
Atuppersecondaryschoolstudentsareabletostudytheirfirstlanguageasalanguage
orindividualoption.Furthermore,studentswithamigrantbackgroundcanalsostudy
SwedishasaSecondLanguage.ThetopicisequaltoSwedishinconsiderationfor
entranceforfurtherstudiesatuniversity.Thedifferencebetweenthetopicsisrelatedto
adaptionofthetopicasasecondlanguageacquisitioninsteadofasafirst(Skolverket,
N.d).
ReportsfromSkolverketshowthatpupilswhohavehadfirstlanguage
instructionatcompulsoryschoolreachhighergradesthanthosestudentswhohave
studiedSwedishasaSecondlanguageaswellaspupilswhohaveanativeSwedish
background.Apossibleexplanationforthisisnotonlyduetothepupils’socio‐
economicalbackgroundbutthattherearereasonssuchaspupilsandparentswithhigh
motivationandambition.Also,secondlanguageinstructionsseemstohavegreatest
affectforsecondgenerationpupils,whichclearlyindicatesthatfirstlanguage
knowledgeisveryimportantforsecondgenerationstudents’learninganddevelopment
(Skolverket,2008:19‐20).
Furthermore,Skolverketclaimsthatschools,whichhaveahighamountof
studentswhosefirstlanguageisnotSwedishhaveamoreorganizedandbetter
preparedschoolingprogrammeinSwedishasaSecondLanguagefortheirimmigrant
students.Usuallytheseschoolshaverecruitedteacherswithknowledgeandexperience
insecondlanguageteachingandthetopichasahigherstatusthaningeneralamong
pupils(Skolverket,2008:15‐16).Researchhasindicatedtheneedtoadjusteducation
forpupilswithanothermothertonguethanSwedish.Thisshouldnotresultinsimplified
tasksbutwithimprovedtuitionliketeacherswithmultilingualcompetence,knowledge
amongteachersingeneralaboutsecondandthirdlanguagelearning,Swedishasa
Secondlanguageasatopiconitsownandnotasremedialinstructionandtheactof
involvingfirstlanguageinstructorsinothertopics.Aboveall,tohavethemultilingual
9
pupils’needasthenormandtoviewmultilingualismasanasset(Skolverket,2008:24‐
25).
Cumminsreferstothepowerrelationshipbetweenthedominantgroupsof
pupilsandthesubordinateones.Educationandtestsareplannedandperformedafter
thedominantlanguage.Accordingtothiseducationalstructuretheminoritypupilsget
theblameforfailureandnotthesystem(1996:140f).Thereisstillanormthat
bilingualsandmultilingualsshouldhavesimilarnative‐likeknowledgeineachoftheir
languagesasmonolinguals.Butbilingualsandmultilingualsusetheirlanguagesin
differentcontextsandsituationswherethelanguagescomplementeachother.Some
researchersclaimthatwhatispossibletoexpressorcommunicateinonelanguagemay
notbepossibletodoinanotherlanguageatthesamelevel.Insteadoflookingateach
languageaccordingtoanative‐likestandardabetterwaywouldbetolookattheoverall
languageability(Lindberg,2002).
2.2Researchaboutmultilingualismandthirdlanguageacquisition
Today’sincreasingglobalization,wherepeopleneedandusemultiplelanguages,
acknowledgestheimportanceofunderstandingmultilingualism.Consequently,there
hasbeenagrowinginterestinresearchaboutmultilingualismoracquisitionofathird
oradditionallanguageinthelastfewyearsincontrasttopreviousdominantresearch
aboutsecondlanguageacquisition.Thedifferencebetweensecondandthirdlanguage
acquisitionisthatthirdlanguagelearners(L3)“havemorelanguageexperienceattheir
disposalassecondlanguagelearners,areinfluencedbythegeneraleffectsof
bilingualismoncognition,andhaveaccesstotwolinguisticsystemswhenacquiringa
thirdlanguage”(Cenoz,2003:71).Mostmultilingualresearchhasdealtwithcross‐
linguisticinfluenceandtransfer,influenceofbilingualismonthirdlanguagelearning,
trilingualismforchildrenanduniversityeducation(Jessner,2008:271).Traditionally
thetermcross‐linguisticinfluenceandtransferreferstosecondlanguagelearners’orL2
code‐switching,interference,andlanguageloss(Jessner,2006:18).Themultilingual
languageacquisitionprocessismorecomplexthansecondlanguageacquisition.The
latterprocesshasonlytwolanguagesinvolved,whichcaninfluenceeachotherwhereas
10
inathirdormultilingualacquisitionprocessatleastthreelanguagesareinvolved
(Cenoz,2001:2).Jessnerstatesfourpotentiallearningprocessesinthirdlanguage
acquisition:Allthreelanguagescanbelearnedconsecutively,alllanguagescanbelearnt
atthesametime,firstornativelanguage(L1)andsecondlanguage(L2)canbelearnt
simultaneouslyandthereafterthethirdlanguage(L3)islearntoraftertheacquisitionof
L1bothL2andL3arelearntsimultaneously(2008:271).
Incross‐linguistictransfersituationsinthirdlanguageacquisition,there
areseveralfactorsdeterminingwhatlanguagewillbeofinfluence.Onefactor,whichhas
provedtobeofstrongimportance,islinguistictypology.Thishasbeenprovedinmany
researchstudies.ForexampleRothmanclaimsthatsyntactictransferfromL1orL2into
L3isdependantonproximityinthelinguistictypologyortheperceivedproximity,
whichislabelledpsychotypology(2011:108ff).Inastudyaboutmultilingualismand
previouslinguisticinfluencewithonegroupofnativeItalianstudentslearningEnglish
asaL2andSpanishasaL3andanothergroupofnativeEnglishpupilslearningSpanish
asaL2andPortugueseasaL3,Rothmanfindsevidencefortransferfromthe
typologicallycloserRomancelanguageintoL3,nomatterwhetherthiswasaL1orL2
languageorduetofactorsliketimeororderofacquisition(2011:120).Alsoother
researchstudiessupportthistypological/psychotypologicalfactor,likethestudyby
Montrul,DiasandSantoswhofindevidenceofinfluencefromstructuralsimilarityin
transferfromL1andL2inL3acquisition(2011:54).Thisstandsincontrasttoother
researchers’claimthatL2hasastrongerinfluenceinL3learningthanL1nomatterits
typologicalcloseness(Montruletal,2011:23).Thisisexplainedasasocalledforeign
effect,wherethemultilinguallearnertransfersmorefromtheL2asthisseemsmore
“foreign”thanthenativelanguage(DeAngelis&Selinker,2011:56).
Generallycross‐linguistictransferinsecondlanguageacquisitionis
dependantonthelearner’sknowledgeinthetargetlanguage.Ifthelearnerhaslittle
knowledgeinthedevelopinglanguagethereisevidenceofmoretransferfromL1thanif
thelearnerwouldhaveahigherlevelofproficiency.Whenitisacaseofathirdlanguage
acquisition,Cenozstressestheimportanceofconsideringthemultilinguallearner’slevel
ofproficiencyinalllanguages.Moreover,thismakesthestudymorecomplexas
11
“multicompetenceisnotthesumofmonolingualcompetences”(2001:9).Anotherfactor
thatinfluencescross‐linguistictransferisrecencyofuse.Itismorecommontotransfer
fromalanguage,whichisfrequentlyusedthanfromalanguagethatisseldomused.
Participantsandchoiceoftopictakingpartinacommunicationactdoalsoaffectcross‐
linguistictransferchoice.Furthermore,thechoiceofanotherlanguagethanthetarget
languagecanberelatedtoage.Adultsandolderchildrenhavedevelopedhigher
cognitiveabilitiesandmetalinguisticawarenessthanyoungerchildrenandcan
thereforeadvancefasterinsecondandthirdlanguagelearning.Theyareabletomake
moreaccuratechoicesoflanguagetransfers(Cenoz,2001:9‐10).Theterm
metalinguisticawarenessis”theabilitytofocusonlinguisticformandtoswitchfocus
betweenformandmeaning”(Jessner,2008:277)andtobeawareofthelanguageform
andcontent.Thisisanabilitytoobjectifythelanguageandreflectoverit(Jessner,2008:
277).
SeveralstudieshaveprovedthepositiveinfluenceofL2transferinthird
languagedevelopmentifthelearnerhasachievedahighproficiencylevelintheL2
(Hammarberg,2001:23).InastudybyTremblayontheinfluenceofL2proficiencyand
exposureoncross‐linguisticinfluencefromL1English,L2FrenchonL3German,thereis
evidencethattheresultsaredependingonthelearners’levelofattainment(2006:116).
Previousresearchonbilingualismhasprovedthatafirstlevelofknowledgeisneededin
bothlanguagestoavoidthenegativeeffectsofbilingualismandasecondhigherlevelor
thresholdtomakethelearnertakeadvantageofthecognitiveandlinguisticbilingual
qualities(Jessner,2006:20).SimilarresultisfoundinTremblay’smultilingualstudy.
UnlessthelearnerhasreachedacertainL2levelofachievement,athresholdlevel,the
languagewillnotaffecttheL3languageinapositivewaylikeenablingcode‐switching
andlexicalinvention.ThisisalsoprobablylikelywhentheL1ismoresimilartoL3than
L2(2006:116f).
Moreover,researchhasshowedpositiveinfluenceofbilingualisminthird
languageacquisition.SanzgivesevidenceofthisinastudyaboutL3learnersofEnglish
withCatalan/Spanishbackgroundfromacognitiveperspective.Sanzusestheterm
bilingualisminthemeaningofbiliteracy,whereallparticipantsinthestudyareableto
12
writeandreadtwolanguages.Thestudy’saimistolookatwhetherbilingualism
contributestobetterL3learningindependentofotherfactorssuchasmotivation,socio‐
economicalfactorsandintelligence.Apartfrombilingualismthetwofactorsmotivation
andexposureresultedinhigherlanguageachievement.However,bilingualismshowed
higherresultsinL3learningindependentlyofmotivationandexposure,whichisinline
withpreviousresearch.Thereasonsbehindthiscanbeexplainedbymultilinguals’
enhancedcognitiveknowledgeandmetalinguisticawareness(2000:32ff).
2.3DynamicSystemsTheory(DST)
TraditionallyDynamicSystemsTheory(DST)hasbeenusedwithinbiology,neurology
andsociologybuthasrecentlyachievedattentionwithinthelinguisticfield(Plaza‐Pust,
2008:251).DSTtriestoexplaincomplexsystemsasawholeinsteadoflookingat
differentpartsinisolation.Accordingtothistheorydynamicsystemsinteractand
developwiththeirenvironmentalongwithinternalprocesses.Complexsystemslike
languagedevelopmentevolveovertimebutnotinalinearpatternbutshowpatternsof
progressandregression(DeBoot,2008:167).Whatischaracteristicofdynamic
systemsisthatthereisalmostalwayssometraceofchangebetweendifferent
subsystems.Yettherecanbedifferentlevelsofvariabilitydependingonthedegreeof
stabilityofthesystem.Whenthereisaperiodofhighvariabilitythisindicatesthata
systemistransforming(Verspooretal,2008:215).VanGeertpointsatspecific
phenomenawithindynamicsystemssuchas“attractorstate”,whichasystemistrying
todevelopin(likepassinganexam)and“repellorstate”thatisanyphaseorbehaviour
thatisnotwanted.Furthermore,eachsystemhasself‐organizationalpropertiesthatare
adaptableandflexibleandtheseinternalprocessescanresultintheemergenceofnew
states(2008,181).
InDSTtheorylanguagedevelopmentisregardedasarecursiveprocess
wherenewinformationisaddedinacumulativeway(Jessner,2008:275).Aperson’s
wishtodevelophislanguageabilityisdependentnotjustoninternalfactorsbutalso
withthephysicalandsocialcircumstances.Howthehumancognitivesystemdevelopsis
dependentonavailableresourcessuchasmotivation,memoryabilityandamountof
13
time.Evenifthesystemhasrestrictedamountofresourcesthereisasmentioned
interactionbetweenthesubsystems,whichcancompensateforalack.Forexamplea
shortageoftimecanbecompensatedbyahigheramountofmotivation(DeBoot,2008:
1169f).Furthermore,astheresourcesarelimitedthiscanresultinvarioussubsystems
developingpositivelywhileotherswilldecline.Eitherthereisasupportiveconnection
oracompetitiverelationshipbetweenthesubsystems.However,differentsubsystems
needvariousamountsofresources.Subsystemsthatareconnectedneedlesssupport
thanthosethatareunconnected.Asupportiverelationshipisalsoconditional.For
instanceagrowthinachild’svocabularyoftwo‐andthree‐wordphrasesisdependant
ontheminimumlevelofone‐wordvocabulary.Inacompetitiverelationshipthe
increaseinonesubsystemmightleadtoadecreaseinanothersubsystem(VanGeert,
2008:192f).Aperson’slanguagedevelopmentofsentencecomplexitycanforinstance
interferewithlexicalgrowth(Verspooretal,2008:222f).Yet,vanGeertstates,“the
competitiverelationshipis,inalllikelihood,atransitiverelationship”(VanGeert,2008:
194),astherearenosimilarcompetitiverelationshipsinnativelanguagespeakers’
longersentences(Verspooretal2008:225).
2.4DSTinamultilingualcontextandmetalinguisticawareness
BylookingatmultilingualdevelopmentasadynamicprocesstheDynamicSystems
Theory(DST)isanapplicablemethodologicaltool.HerdinaandJessneruseaDST
approachtomultilingualismintheirDynamicModelofMultilingualism(DMM),which
considersdevelopmentasawholeandlooksatchangesovertime(Jessner,2006:32).In
theDMM,theattentionisatthedevelopmentofdifferentindividuallanguagesystems,
likeLS1,LS2,LS3etc,aspartofapsycholinguisticsystem.Thiscontraststhetraditional
aimwhereL1,L2,L3etcrefertohowthelanguageswerechronologicallyacquiredand
exertinfluence,withtheL1beingmoredominantthantheL2etc.Inrealitythefirst
languagemaynotbeactivelyusedbythemultilingualandthusnotexertanydominance
overtheotherlanguages.InaDSTapproachamultilingualsystemhaspropertiesthat
areadaptableandchangeablewhereanylanguagesystemcandevelopordebilitate.
Furthermore,thedifferentpsycholinguisticsystemsaredependantonsocialand
psychologicalfactorssuchasthemultilinguallearner’ssocialandculturalsituationor
14
identity.Languageselectionoruseisrelatedtothemultilinguallearner’sapprehended
communicativeneed(Jessner,2008:273).Thiscanalsodependonotherfactorssuchas
socioeconomicstatus,languageskillandtheformalityofthesituation(Jessner,2008:
274).
Also,accordingtheDMMlanguagestabilityisconnectedtolanguage
maintenance.Asresourcesarerestrictedthelearner’samountoftimeandenergyspend
onacquiringandpreservingalanguageislimited.Ifalearnerdoesnotspendenough
timeorenergyononelanguagethiswillresultinlanguagelossorattrition.Moreover,
otherfactorsaffectthestabilitylike“thenumberoflanguagesinvolved,the
maturationalageatwhichalanguageislearnedandrelativestabilityestablished,the
levelofproficiencyatwhichthistakesplace,andthetimespanoverwhichthelanguage
systemismaintained”(Jessner,2008:274).TheDMMpointsatthereciprocalrelation
betweenlanguagesystemsinsteadasbeingindependentsystems.Theholisticapproach
inDMMenablesacomprehensionofmultilingualism’sdifferentsubsystemsdynamic
interplay.Amultilingualsystemisaffectedbyfactorslikemotivationortheperson’s
goals,thatcanbecontradictorylikethewishtopassatestbutalsoadesiretosocialize
withfriends,languageaptitude,self‐assuranceandanxiety(Jessner,2008:274f).
Inthemultilingualdevelopmentmodel,seefigure1(Herdina&Jessner,
2002:124),HerdinaandJessnershowthemultilingualsystems’development.The
modelshowshowthreelanguageproficienciesdevelopaccordingtoacertainperiodof
time.Thefirstlanguagesystemisdominantthroughoutthetimebutthesecondandthe
thirdlanguagesystemschange.Thethirdlanguagesystemisdependentonthe
acquisitionofthefirstlanguages(2002:123ff).Themodelshowsthepossiblelanguage
developmentsinregardoftimeneeded,whichisanidealgraph.Yet,inrealitythefirst
languageisnotconstantbutcanvary.Asmentionedamultilingualdevelopmentisnot
linearbutissubjecttochange,isreversible,canleadtolanguagelossandisaboveall
complex(Jessner,2008:272).
15
Figure1.ThemultilingualdevelopmentmodelbyHerdina&Jessner(2002:124),which
showshowthemultilingualsystemdevelops.
Aspreviouslyreferredtothedifferentlanguagesystemsinteract.IntheDMM
thedefinitionofmultilingualproficiencyisthecumulativerelationshipbetweenthe
differentpsycholinguisticlanguagesystems(Jessner,2006:32f).AccordingtoJessner
multilingualcross‐linguistictransferarecode‐switching,interfering,borrowingbutalso
thecognitiveresultsfrommultilingualproficiency.Withinthismultilingualproficiency
thereisalsoahigherabilityofmetalinguisticawarenessthatispartoftheMultilingual
factor.TheMultilingualfactor(M)hasdevelopingabilitiesthatcanacceleratethird
languagelearning.ThemostinfluentialpartoftheMeffectismetalinguisticability,
whichhasdevelopedduetopriorlanguageandcognitiveabilities.Accordingtothe
DMMthemultilinguallearnerisabletousemorethanonelanguagesystem,which
enablesanadvancedmonitorabilitythatcandetecterrors,separateandcross‐check
betweenthelanguages.Withinindividualmultilingualism,languagemaintenanceis
dependentonlanguageuseandlanguageawareness.Thelatterreferstoconscious
abilitytomanipulateandconsiderlanguageruleswhereastheformeristheactivating
partofkeepingalanguagealive.Altogether,thesemultilingualskillsresultinheightened
16
metalinguilisticawarenessthatmonolinguallearnerslack(2008:275f).Jessnerstates
thatthemultilinguallearner’smetalinguisticawarenessstimulates,asmentioned,
creativethinkingandcommunicativeskillsbutalsoresultsinnaturaltranslationskills
(2008:277).
Eversinceresearchersdetectedapositiverelationshipbetweenbilingualism
andintelligencewherebilingualchildrenperformedbetterthantheirmonolingual
counterpartsinforexamplecreativethinking,verbalskillsanddifferentmetalinguistic
performances,therehasbeenanassumptionofpositivetransferfromthebilingual
abilitythataffectbothcognitiveandlinguisticskills(Herdina&Jessner,2002:14‐15).
Therehasbeenageneralattitudewithinresearchthatthepositiveresults“of
bilingualismonmetalinguisticawarenesshas(…)/ledto/ahigherabilitytoreflecton
languageandtomanipulateit“(Cenoz,2003:73).ForinstanceRingbomexplainsthe
higherlevelofmetalinguisticawarenessfoundinSwedishspeakingFinnswhenlearning
L3Englishduetotheirbilingualcharacteristics,whichthemonolingualnon‐Swedish
speakingFinnslack(2007:95‐96).
However,latelysomeresearchershavealsoindicatedrestrictionsinthe
overallpositiveattitudetowardstheeffectsofbilingualproficiencyincognitiveand
metalinguisticawarenessassomestudieshaveshownnoadvantagesforbilingualsover
monolinguals(Bialystok,2001:169f,Cenoz,2003:71).AsBialystokmentions,thereis
nogeneralagreementonwhatdiffersmetalinguisticskillswithlinguisticcapabilityin
generalandhowtomeasurethis(2001:177).Bialystockherselfdefineschildren’s
metalinguisticskillsasbeingbasedontwocognitiveprocesses.Thefirstoneisprocess
ofanalysis,whichisthechildren’sabilitytomakerepresentationalstructuresof
linguisticknowledge,andthesecondoneiscontrolofattention,whichistheabilityto
surveythelinguisticprocessandmakeactivealterations(2001:177‐178).Accordingto
Bialystokbilingualchildrenperformbetterthanmonolingualchildrenonsome
metalinguistictasksconnectedwithwordawarenessandtasksthatrequireahighlevel
ofcontrol.Alsobilingualswithhighproficiencyinbothlanguagesoutperform
monolingualsintasksthatrequireaheightenedlevelofanalysis(2001:177f).Yet,in
othertaskstherearenodifferencebetweenmonolingualsandbilinguals’metalinguistic
awarenessoreventheoppositeisthecasewithmonolingualsbeingatadvantage.Ina
grammaticaljudgementtestwithbilingualSpanish‐Englishchildrenwhoweretestedto
determinesentencescontainingerrors,itwasprovedthatmonolingualSpanishchildren
17
werebetteratcorrectingthesentences(Bialystok,2001:175).However,when
comparingmonolingualswithbilingualsitisalsonecessarytolookatotherfactorsthat
canaffectcognitiveandmetalinguisticskillslikeage,proficiencylevelandmotivation
(Cenoz,2003:83).
Moreover,Kowalstressesthatmetalinguisticawarenessisanabilitythatis
capableofgrowthinherstudyofPolishL3learnersofSwedish(2009:160).According
toherlongitudinal2‐yearstudythestudents’metalinguisticawarenessisdeveloping
morethanthelinguisticability(Kowal,2009:170).Kowalclaimsthatthereisa
relationshipbetweentextproductionandmetalinguisticawarenessinawritingprocess
asthewriterreflectsoverthewrittentextatthesametimeasthetextisbeingproduced.
Thewriterdoesnotonlyexerthisorhercognitiveandlinguisticabilitybutalsohandles
thisconsciouslyinavaryingdegree.Kowallalsostressesthatmetalinguisticabilityto
reflectoverthelanguagedoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheoutcomeislinguistically
correctnorshouldmetalinguisticawarenessbemixedupwithlinguisticproficiency
eveniftheyareoftenrelated(2009:158).
3.Method
3.1Languagedevelopment
ThefirststudyaimsatdescribingandexplaininglanguagedevelopmentinfiveL3
learnersofEnglishatIVIKinanuppersecondaryschoolinSödertälje.FromaDST
aspectlanguagedevelopmentisnotrestrictedtolineargrowthbutincludesregression,
stagnationandprogress.Everylanguagesystemhasitsownspecificdevelopment
dependingontherelationshipbetweenthesystem’sinternalself‐organisationandouter
facts.Eachindividualhasforinstancedifferentlevelsofmotivation,language
proficiencyandamountoftime(DeBot,2008:171).Thereareseveralvariablesthatcan
beusedtostudylanguagedevelopmentsuchassentencelength,sentencecomplexity
andnumberoffiniteverbs.Itisonlyaquestionofchoosingadequatevariablesforthe
intendedsurvey,whichareinthiscaserelativelynewlearnersofL3English.Therefore
languagedevelopmentismeasuredbyvocabularyuse,word‐andtextlengthina
longitudinalstudy,asthesearevariablesthatarerelevanttomeasureinbeginners.In
thestudyoflanguagedevelopmentthetextlengthismeasuredbytheamountofwords
18
inthetextsandthevariationofwordsiscalculatedbythetype‐tokenratio(TTR),which
givestherateofvariationsofwords.Finally,alsotheaveragewordlengthisgaugedin
thetexts.Altogetherthisgivesanoverallpictureofhoweachstudent’slanguageability
isdeveloping.
Whenmeasuringthewordlengthspellingmistakeshavebeencorrected.
Thecorrectspellingofthewordisusedasthelengthoftheword.Therehasbeenno
othergrammaticalcorrectionthough.Swedishwords,propernamesandfigureshave
beenomittedastheseotherwisegiveanunjustamountofwordsorlengthofwords.
Wordlengthismeasuredaccordingtoamountoflettersortokens.Moreoverthesame
principlewiththecorrectspellingandomittingSwedishwords,propernamesand
figureshasbeenusedwhenlookingatthetypetokenratio.
3.2Metalinguisticawareness
Ifstudents’languageproficiencyisonlymeasuredaccordingtoanativelikeability,then
thiswillnotreflectmultilinguals’highercognitiveskillslikemetalinguisticawareness
(Jessner,2008:276).Inthesecondstudyevidenceofmetalinguisticawarenessis
measuredandanalysedinonecrosssectionalstudyinthesameL3learnersinacross
sectionalanalysis.Thestudentswereaskedtowritewithaninkpenandclearlyindicate
anytypeofcorrectionbydrawingalineoverthewordorexpressionandthenwriting
thenewword/wordsafterorsimplyomittinganyfurtherwords.InthiswayIcould
tracetheirawarenessofthelanguageprocessthatistheirmetalinguisticabilityinthe
samewayasasimilarstudymadebyKowal.Kowalusedthecomputerprogramme
ScriptLog,whichrecordsalldifferenttypingactivitiessuchasamendments,pausesand
cuts,inordertofindrecordsofwritingactivitiesforestablishingmetalinguistic
awareness.Yet,metalinguisticawarenessisaninternalprocessandisdifficultto
thoroughlymeasure.
AccordingtoKowaltheproportionbetweencorrectederrorsand
uncorrectedremainingerrorsinwrittenassignmentsgivesthemetalinguistic
awareness.InordertomeasurethelevelofmetalinguisticskillswiththeseL3learnersI
usedthesamemethodbycalculatingtheratebetweencorrectederrorsanduncorrected
19
errors.Thehighertherateisthehigherthemetalinguisticawarenessshouldbe
accordingKowal(209:161).IwilluseKowalsdefinitionsforthevarioustypesof
revisionsthatstudentsmadeduringtheirwritingassignments.Thestudents’revisions
aredividedintodifferentcategories.KowalherselfusedFaigleyandWittes’Analyzing
Revisionmodel(1981,403)asaprototypebutalsoadjustedthemodeltomultilingual
learners.Kowaldividestherevisionchangesintwosubcategories;formalchangesand
meaningchanges,wherethelatterreferstochangesthataffectthecontentandthe
formeronlyaffectsspelling,grammarorlexicon(2009:162f).Insum,thefollowing
taxonomywithinrevisionmadebyKowalisusedwithaslightadjustment:spelling,
grammar,lexiconandcontentasaheadcategoryinsteadofthesubcategoriesiterations,
quantitativechangesandreformulations.Asmentionedthefirstthreecategoriesare
formalchangesandthelastoneachangeofmeaning.Spellingadjustmentsinvolve
correctionsandgrammarrevisionsarechangestosyntaxsuchaswordorderand
morphology.LexiconorvocabularychangesinvolvechangesfromanincorrectSwedish
wordtoanEnglishwordortoawordthatthestudentratedashavingabettervalue.
Meaningrevisionsalterstheactualcontentofthetextlikeforexampleadding
informationordeletingparts,whichcanbedonetoenabletheuseofdifferentstrategies
inwritinglikeperhapsavoidingadifficultconstructionorbeevidenceofconceptual
awarenessregardingthetextproduction.Furthermore,adjustmentsregardingthe
contentcanalsobesimplyreiterationstostresssomethingorreformulations(Kowal,
2009:163ff).
3.3Researchmaterial
Theresearchmaterialforthefirststudyoflanguagedevelopmentconsistsoffifteen
differenttextsfromthreedifferentoccasions,thefirstoneinAugust2010,thesecondin
April2011andthelastoneinthemiddleofMay2011.Thestudentswereaskedtowrite
textsaboutthemesthatwerefamiliartothem,withthetwofirsttextsdealingwith
presentationsofthemselvesandtheirfamiliesandthelastonewithhobbiesandfuture
plans.Theparticipants’lasttextinthefirststudyinMay2011isalsousedforthe
metalinguisticawarenessstudyaswell.
20
3.4Backgroundvariables
Furthermorethethesiswilllookatthecorrelationsforthestudents’language
developmentandmetalinguisticabilitybyconsideringthefactorsage,motivation,
lengthofschoolingandeducationinEnglishandproficiencylevelintheirdifferent
languages.Asthereweredifferencesbetweenhowmanylanguagesthepupilsspeakand
variationsoflanguageproficiencyaswellasotherfactorsthataffectlanguage
developmentsuchasamountofschoolingyearsadetailedparticipantquestionnaire
wasneeded,seeappendix1.Additionally,someofthepupilsarefrequentattendees
whileafewofthemarelesspresent.Consequently,allstudentswereaskedtofillina
questionnairedetailingquestionsregardingnativelanguage,theiramountofschooling
yearsinSwedenandintheirnativecountrytogetherwitheducationlengthinEnglish,
proficiencylevelsintheirdifferentlanguagesaswellaschronologicalacquirementof
languages.Everystudentwasalsotogradehislanguageproficiencyinascalefromone
tofiveaccordingtothefollowingdefinitions1:Knowledgeofafewwords.2:Knowledge
inunderstandingandproducingsimplewordsandexpressions,bothoralandwritten3:
Knowledgeinunderstandingandproducinglongersentencesandexpressions,bothoral
andwritten.4:Knowledgeinunderstandingandproducingmorecomplexandlonger
sentences,bothoralandwritten.5:Fluent.TothisIhaveaddedthefactordegreeof
motivationforeachpupil,whichIhavegradedonthescalefromonetothree,withone
beingthelowestmotivationandthreethehighest.AsIamtheirregularteacherIcould
makeareasonablejudgementinratingthisaccordingtotheirattendancerecord,
achievementduringlessonsandtestsaswellasontheirperformanceinhomework.
Thesebackgroundfactorsareimportanttoconsiderinaholisticperspectiveinorderto
explainlanguagedevelopment.
3.5Participants
AsmentionedtheparticipantsinthestudiesconsistoffiveL3learnersofEnglishatIVIK.
Theparticipantsareallofsimilarage,around17yearsoldor16atthestartofthe
researchexceptforonewhowas18,student4andalsotheonlygirl.Furthermore,allof
themcomefromIraq.AtthetimeofthefirststudythepupilshadbeenstudyingEnglish
toavaryingdegreeforafewmonthsto2‐3yearstimeandoftenwithapausebetween
21
previousstudiesinIraqandsubsequentstudiesinSweden.Yetallthesestudentshad
beenplacedinthesamegroupaccordingintroductoryproficiencytestsinEnglishatthe
beginningoftheautumnterm2010,whichindicatesthatnoneofthemwerecomplete
beginnersnoratahigherlevelthantheproficiencylevelsimilartoSwedishstudentsat
grade5inEnglishatcompulsoryschool.AsmentionedstudentsatIVIKaremeasured
accordingtofourlevelsofeducationattainmentwherethefirstlevelisbeginner’s
course,thesecondisforstudentswithproficiencylevelssimilartograde3to5in
Englishatcompulsoryschool,thethirdthenbeingequaltolevel5to7andthefourth
followsthelevelof7to9inEnglishatcompulsoryschool.AlleducationinEnglishwas
directedandtookplaceinaclassroomatIVIKinSödertälje.
3.6Data
Intheprocessingofdata,thedevelopmentsareplottedandvisualizedbydiagrams,
graphsandtables.Furthermore,developmentpatternsaretracedbyrecording
correlationsbetweenthedifferentvariables.Withthehelpfrommytutor,Solbritt
Schyberg,correlationcoefficientsoverthestudiedvariableshavebeencalculatedand
obtainedstatistically.Seeappendix2foradetailedoverviewofthecorrelation
coefficients.Thedatafromthevariable“vocabularyratiooftypes”hasbeencollated
afterwardsandisnotincludedinthetables.
3.7Ethics
Theparticipantswereinformedaboutthenatureandcontentsofthedifferentstudies.
Alltheparticipants’nameshavebeencodedinordertohidetheiridentities.However,
thedataisnotofverysensitivenature.
4.Results
4.1Questionnaire
TheresultsfromthequestionnaireshowthatmostoftheparticipantshaveArabicas
nativelanguageexceptforstudent1whohasChaldeanashisfirstlanguage.Allstudents
ratetheirfirstlanguageproficiencyasfluentwiththeexceptionofstudent1whoonly
hasoralknowledge.Moreover,everyoneexceptstudent3isstudyingEnglishastheirL3,
L4orL5.Student3isstudyingEnglishashisL2.Ontheotherhand,student3hasonly
beenstudyingEnglishforacoupleofmonthsbeforearrivinginSweden,whichvirtually
22
makesthelanguagebeingtaughtsimultaneouslyasSwedish.
NomatterwhetherSwedishisthestudents’third,fourthorfifthlanguage
theyallranktheirproficiencylevelto4whichisthenexthighestlevel.Fourofthe
studentsknowfourtofivelanguagestodifferentdegreesbutonestudent,student3,
knowsonlythreelanguages.Student1claimstobefluentinbothhisfirstandsecond
language,whichnoneoftheotherstudentsareintheirL2.Student5rateshisL2
accordingtolevel4.TheremainingthreestudentsgradetheirL2tolevel1or2.The
students’L3areallratedtolevel1‐4.ThelanguagesinvolvedareArabic,Chaldean,
Kurdish,English,Mandaic,SwedishandEnglish.Amongthestudentsonlyoneofthem,
student1,showshighmotivationtostudyEnglishaccordingtotestresults,attendance
records,performancesduringlessonsandhomework.Student2and4showamedium
levelofmotivationandstudent3and4showlowmotivation.
4.2Languagedevelopment
ByanalyzingthelanguagedevelopmentfromaDSTpointofviewthereisevidenceof
greatdiversitywithinandbetweentheparticipantsandeachstudentshowsadifferent
developmentpattern.Thedevelopmentofthetextlength,whichismeasuredbythe
amountofwordsinthetexts,showsvaryingresultsamongthestudents,seefigure2.
Thetextlengthforstudent1increasesbetweenthedifferentassignmentsandespecially
atthelastassignment,intotalfrom29wordsinthefirsttextto107wordsinthethird
text.Thetextlengthalsosuccessivelyincreasesforstudent3and5,from43to69and
30to51wordspertextrespectively.Yet,forstudent2and4thereisevidenceof
oscillatingdevelopmentswherethetextlengthsfirstincreaseatthesecondassignment
andthendecreaseatthelastone.
23
Figure2.Developmentoftextlengthforstudent1‐5fromthefirsttothethird
assignment.
Alsothedevelopmentofthewordlengthshowsdifferenttrajectory
patternsforthestudents.Inthefirstassignmentstudent1hasanaverageof3.7letters
perword.Thewordlengthincreasesto4.2lettersinthesecondassignmentbut
decreasesto3.7lettersperwordinthelastassignment.Students2and5showmore
generalincreasebetweenthefirsttextandthelast,from3.2to3.6and3.6to3.9
respectively.Herethelearnersuselongerwordsastimeprogresses.Student3onthe
otherhandhasadecreasingdevelopingcurvefrominitially4.5lettersto3.4lettersper
wordinhistexts.Finally,student4hasfirstadecreasingdevelopmentandthenitis
increasingwith4.2lettersinthefirstassignment,3.3inthesecondand3.6inthethird,
seefigure3.
24
Figure3.Developmentofwordlengthforstudent1‐5fromthefirsttothethird
assignment.
Thevocabularyvariationinthestudents’differenttextsiscalculatedby
lookingatthetype‐tokenratio.Togettheamountoftokensinatextthenumberof
wordsarecounted.Thesametokenorwordmaybeusedseveraltimes(likeforexample
thetoken“we”mightoccurfivetimes)butwithinthetotalnumberoftokensthereis
alsoasocalledtype,whichiseveryuniquewordlikeforexample“but”,“and”,“there”
etc.Soinonetexttheremightbe50differenttypesbutthesetypesmightberepeatedso
thetotalamountoftokensmightbe70.Similarly,asinthepreviousword‐andtext
lengthdevelopmentthereisagreatdegreeofvariabilityamongthestudents.Student1
hasavocabularyratiointhefirstassignmentthatdecreasesbetweenthetreestages
from75.9%to55.10%.Students2and3showapatternofcontinuousgrowthfrom
48.8%to66.70%and58.10%to65.20%respectively,seefigure4.Yet,theseresults
maybedeceptiveasthereisnoconsiderationofthetextlength.Forexample,thetext
lengthforstudent1increasesasmentionedfrom29wordsinthefirsttextto107inthe
last.Accordingly,thereismostlikelyahighervocabularyrateinthefirstthaninthelast
25
textasalsoresultsprove.Inordertoestimatetheincreaseofvocabularyratethe
differenttypesarecountedinfigure5.
Figure4.Developmentofvocabularyratioforstudent1‐5fromthefirsttothethird
assignment.
Infigure5thenthereisanotherpatternfortheparticipants.Insteadofa
decreasingvocabularyratestudentonehasasteadyprogressfrom22to59different
typesbetweenthedifferenttexts.Insteadofacontinuousprogressstudent2first
developpositivelybeforethereisaslightdecreaseinthelastassignmentwitha
vocabularytyperateof42to40betweenthetwolasttexts.Student3showsthesame
positivedevelopingprogressasbeforewitharateincreaseof25to45vocabularytypes
betweenthefirstandlasttext.Student4and5whopreviouslydecreasedonthesecond
assignmentbutthenincreasedinthelastonenowshowdifferentdevelopmentcurves.
Student4nowprogressesto40frominitially23typesbeforerevertingtoasimilarlevel
at24.Student5nowprogressescontinuously,albeitlittle,from26to32differenttypes
26
inhistexts,seefigure5.
Figure5.Developmentofvocabularytypesforstudent1‐5fromthefirsttothethird
assignment.
Thedifferentoscillatingresultsanddevelopingpatternsaredifficultto
interpretunlesscomparedtoeachother.Whenlookingatthedevelopmentoftext‐and
wordlengthaswellasvocabularytyperatiowithstudent1thereisevidenceofa
competitiverelationshipbetweenthetext‐andwordlength.Atfirstthereisageneral
increaseforbothvariablesbutwhenthetextlengthinthethirdassignmentbecomes
considerablylongerthewordlengthdecreases.Forgraphreadabilitypurposethe
averagewordlengthscorehasbeenmultipliedwith10andhenceforthenablingtheuse
ofasimilary‐axisforword‐andtextlengthandvocabularyratiotype.However,both
thetextlengthandthevocabularyratiotypeincrease,seefigure6.
27
Figure6.Developmentoftext‐andwordlengthandvocabularytypeforstudent1from
thefirsttothethirdassignment.
Alsostudent2showsanoscillatingpatternwithfirstanupwardtrendfor
bothtextlengthandvocabularyratiotypeandthenadownwardtendencyinthelast
assignment.Yet,whenthesevariablesgodownthewordlengthgoesup,ifnot
drasticallyyetclearlydistinguishable,seefigure7.
28
Figure7.Developmentoftext‐andwordlengthandvocabularytypeforstudent2from
thefirsttothethirdassignment.
Alsostudent3hasacompetitiverelationshipbetweenwordlengthandtext
lengthalongwithvocabularyratiotypewiththetwolatteronesincreasingwhilethe
firstvariableisconsistentlydecreasing,seefigure8.
29
Figure8.Developmentoftext‐andwordlengthandvocabularytypeforstudent3fromthefirsttothethirdassignment. Furthermore,student4showsthesameoscillatingpattern.Whenthetext
lengthandvocabularyratioincreasethewordlengthdecreaseorviceversa.Yetas
student2,herethereisnolinearprogressfortextorvocabularyasinthethirdtext
thereisamajordropintextlengthandvocabulary,whichresultsinanincreaseinword
length,seefigure9.
30
Figure9.Developmentoftext‐andwordlengthandvocabularytypeforstudent4fromthefirsttothethirdassignment
However,student5showsadifferentdevelopmentpatternthantheother
students.Herethereisnosimilarcorrelationbetweenthetextlengthandtheword
length.Infacthereallthevariablesshowacontinuousprogresseventhoughthetext
lengthincreasesmore,seefigure10.
31
Figure10.Developmentoftext‐andwordlengthandvocabularytypeforstudent5fromthefirsttothethirdassignment.
Thepositiveprogressseeninthetextlengthandvocabularyratiotypesfor
student1mightbeexplainedwithhighmotivation.Thereisalsoapositivecorrelation
betweenlengthofschoolinginEnglishandmotivationalbeitnotsignificant.This
studenthasalsobeenstudyingEnglishforthreeyears.Apartfromstudent2allthe
otherstudentshavelessEnglishschooling.Thesuddendropintextlengthinthethird
textforstudent4mightbeexplainedwithlowmotivation.Thisisnotthecauseforthe
similardecreaseinthetextforstudent2whohasahighermotivation.Insteadthisis
moreprobablyduetocompetingsubsystems.Inthisstudythereappearstobeastrong
positivecorrelationbetweenlanguageproficiencyinL3andwordlengthintext1forall
students.Thereisalsoapositivecorrelationbetweenvocabularyratio(types/tokens)in
thesecondassignmentandthethirdtextlengthaswellasbetweenvocabularyratioin
thethirdtext(types/tokens)andthetextlength1and2,thatisthesehavehigher
vocabularyratesandlongertexts.However,theredon’tseemtobeanyclearpatterns
regardingtheotherstudentsduetototalamountoflanguagesandproficiencylevels,
32
lengthofschoolingorstayinSwedenandmotivationlevelinregardofattainment
levels.Asforinstancestudent3whohasonlystudiedEnglishfor1yearandhaslow
motivationhasalongertextandvocabularyratio(types/tokens)inthethirdtextthan
student5whohashighermotivation.Ontheotherhand,student5haslongerwords.
4.3Metalinguisticawareness
Themeasurementsofthemetalinguisticawareness,whichisonlystudiedinthelast
assignment,showsatopscoreforstudent1whoseratebetweencorrectedand
uncorrectederrorsis42.80%.Student4,whoasmentionedhaslowmotivation,hasalso
asimilarpercentagewith38.5%buthertextwasalsosignificantlyshorterwithonly33
wordscomparedto107.Intotal,thewriters’awarenessishighestatspelling.The
majorityofthechangesconcernspellingamendments,likeforinstancestudent2who
onlyhasspellingalterations.Apartfromthattherearenosimilaramendmentpatterns.
Interestingly,student4alsoshowsagreatdiversitybetweendifferenttypesofchanges
incontrasttostudent5whohasahighermotivationbutonlygivesevidenceof5.9%
metalinguisticawareness,seefigure11.
Fromthisandtheothertwotextassignmentstherehavebeeninstancesof
Swedishwordsinthetext,whichindicatetheuseofSwedishasasupporterlanguagefor
English.Inaccordingwithotherresearchthisindicatesaconnectionoftransferbetween
typological/psychotypologicalcloselanguages.
Ingeneral,thereisapositivecorrelationbetweenlanguageproficiencyin
L3andmetalinguisticawarenessalbeitnotstatisticallysignificant.Yet,strangelyenough
thereseemstobeanegativecorrelationbetweentotalamountoflanguagesand
metalinguisticawarenessfromthisstudy.Furthermore,thestudygivesevidenceofa
negativecorrelationbetweenspellingandmetalinguisticawareness.Asbeforethese
appearnottobesignificant.Also,thisstudyonlyincludesfiveparticipantsandthe
metalinguisticawarenessisonlycalculatedinonetext,whichmakeswiderconclusions
uncertain.Furthermore,eventhoughthestudentswereinagreementwiththetask,
metalinguisticawarenessisaninternalprocessthatishardtomeasurewiththis
method.
33
Figure11.Measurementsofmetalinguisticawarenessin5studentsdemonstratingthetotalpercentageperstudentandsubcategoriesforeachstudent.
5.Discussion
5.1Languagedevelopment
Inthestudyoflanguagedevelopmentthereisevidenceofasimilarpatternofvariability
andoscillatingdevelopmentashasbeenprovedinotherresearchwithinDST.Theintra‐
individualdifferencescanbeexplainedbytheearliermentionedself‐organizationofa
systemwithconnectedgrowersorcompetitivesubsystemsaswellashoweachstudent
interactswithhis/herenvironment.Therelationshipbetweenthedifferentsubsystems
mayresultinanincreaseinonesystemandadecreaseinanotherduetotherestricted
amountofresources(VanGeert,2008:193f).Ahighdegreeofdevelopmentvariabilityis
alsoanindicationofsystemreorganisation.Researchhasprovedthatlanguage
developmentcanbothdevelopinprogressandregressionespeciallyforbeginnerswho
maydevelopinaconstantbackandforthprocessbeforeenteringamorestableperiod
(Verspoorelal,2008:217).Researchhasalsoindicatedapositiveconnectionbetween
34
theamountofstrategiesusedandlaterperformance(Verspoorelal,2008:218f).
Inthefirststudytherewasevidenceofacompetitiverelationshipbetween
theparticipantswordlengthandtextlengthtogetherwiththevocabularytyperatio.If
thewordlengthincreasesthetextlengthandvocabularyratio(amountoftypes)
decreasesorviceversa.Asmentionedthisisaclearpatternofcompetitivesubsystems
duetorestrictedamountofresources.Thiscompetitiveconditionisonlytemporaryas
thereisnosuchdisturbanceevidentwithfluentornativespeakers(Verspoor,2008:
225).Ontheotherhandstudent5hasadifferentdevelopingtrajectorythantheother
studentswithnosimilarcorrelationbetweenthetextlengthandthewordlength.Infact
hereallthevariablesshowacontinuousprogresseventhoughthetextlengthincreases
more,whichmightindicatethatthisstudentisabletodistributehisresourcesequallyto
allsubsystemsorthattheyareconnectedgrowersinthissystem(Verspoorelal,2008:
226).Stagnationinlanguagedevelopmentcanalsoberelatedtothatthesystemis
immunetochangesuntilacertainlevelhasbeenreachedthatisuntilacriticalstagehas
beenbuiltup(DeBot,2008:173).InalltheseL3learnersthereisahighamountof
variation,whichshowsthedynamicinterplayoflanguagedevelopment.Inordertofind
outwhenthedifferentlearners’subsystemsstabilizeandfindtheir“attractor”states,
moreandlongerdatameasurementsareneeded.
AccordingtoDSTdevelopmentisnotonlydependentoninternalself‐
organizationalpatternsbutalsoontheinteractionbetweenthelearnerand
environmentitself.Languagedevelopmentisalsooccurringatdifferenttimesandall
variationsaffecttheacquisitionprocess(DeBot,2008:175).Thereisapositive
correlationbetweenlengthofschoolinginEnglishandmotivationinthestudyeven
thoughthisappearsnottobesignificant.Thepositiveprogressintextlengthand
vocabularyratiotypeforstudent1ispossibletoexplainwiththeevidenceofhigh
motivationandthatthestudenthasalongerschoolingEnglish.Also,themajordecrease
inthethirdtextlengthforstudent4canbeconceivabletointerpretwithlowmotivation.
Yet,oscillatingdevelopmentscanalsobeexplainedingeneralasmentionedwith
competitivesubsystemslikeforexamplethecutintextlengthforstudent2whoshows
highermotivation.Inthisstudythereappearstobeastrongpositivecorrelation
betweenlanguageproficiencyinL3andwordlengthintext1forallstudents.Thismight
indicateapositiveinfluenceofmultilingualismwhenlearninganewlanguageifthe
studenthashighproficiencyinpreviouslanguages.Aspreviouslymentionedinthe
35
thesisresearchhasfoundevidenceofpositiveeffectsfrombilingualproficiencyin
acquiringanewlanguageandthatthiscanbeexplainedbyahighermetalinguistic
awareness(Jessner,2008:270).
5.2Metalinguisticawareness
IntheDSTperspectiveofmultilingualdevelopmentthemostimportantfactoris
metalinguisticawareness.Theheightenedlinguisticabilitytocross‐checkandmonitor
languageproductionisthereasonforthecatalyticeffectfrommultilingualism(Jessner,
2008:275f).Whenthedifferentstrategiesinchangingandcorrectingthelanguageare
consciousthisisevidenceofmetalinguisticawareness(Jessner,2008:278).Inthestudy
ofmetalinguisticawareness,whichasmentionedismeasuredbycalculatingtherate
betweencorrectedanduncorrectederrors,theparticipants’changesaregenerally
concernedwithspellingcorrections.Furthermore,student1whoshowsthehighest
motivationalsohasthehighestmetalinguisticability.Asmetalinguisticawarenessisan
explicitawarenessthisshowsthelearners’attitudetowardthelanguage.Student1has
asreferredtoalsoalongerschoolinginEnglishthantheotherstudents,apartfrom
student2whohasasimilarlengthofEnglisheducation.Thisstudyshowsapositive
correlationbetweenmetalinguisticawarenessandL3proficiency,howeveritisnot
statisticallysignificant.Yet,thisconfirmspreviousresearchaboutthepositiveeffectsof
multilingualismandhighercognitiveandmetalinguisticability.
Contradictory,thereisalsoanegativecorrelationbetweenmetalinguistic
awarenessandtotalamountoflanguagesevenifthisisnotsignificant.Furthermore,the
studygivesevidenceofanegativecorrelationbetweenspellingandmetalinguistic
awareness.Maybethiscanbeinterpretedasduetothefactthatmanyofthese
participantsarestillatlowproficiencylevelinEnglish.Additionally,noneofthemhas
yetbecomefluentinSwedish.Astudentwhoisatalowlevelinmanyofhislanguages
hasmostlikelyaconflictinthelanguagedevelopment.Thepositivecorrelationwill
mostlikelyappearatahigherproficiencylevel,whichresearchalsoindicates(Kowal,
2009:157f).Ahighamountofeffortwillultimatelyleadtofatigue.Astudentwhonotyet
mastersalanguageatanautomaticlevelwillneedtousemoreeffortthananadvanced
student.Thebetterastudentbecomesinthestudiedlanguagethelesseramountof
resourcesitwillneedandconsequentlysufferlessfatigue(VanGeert,2008:191).
Furthermore,theparticipants’textshaveinstancesofSwedishwordsthat
36
indicatethedominanceofSwedishasasupporterlanguage.Thisconfirmstheroleof
transferfromtypological/psychologicalcloselanguages.Therearenoothertracesfrom
otherlanguagesinthetexts,whethersyntaxorwords.Theuseofasupporterlanguage
andthesearchforsimilaritiesinsupporterlanguagesduringmultilingualproductionis
asJessnerstatesalsoanindicationofmetalinguisticthinking.Yet,theawarenesscanbe
explicitorimplicitlikeinforexampletheuseofcognates(Jessner,2008:279).A
transferfromSwedishintotheEnglishtextasinthiscaseismostprobablydueto
languageshortage.Asmetalinguisticawarenessisaninternalprocessitisdifficultto
measurethisinawritingprocess.
However,apartfromthesepossibleconclusionstherearenofurther
generalcorrelationpatternswithinorbetweentheparticipantsinrelationtothetotal
amountoflanguagesandproficiencylevels,lengthofschoolingorstayinSwedenand
motivationlevelinregardofattainmentlevelsormetalinguisticawareness.Yet,thisisa
smallandshortstudyoflanguagedevelopmentandmetalinguisticawareness.
Nevertheless,themethodofaDSTapproachinthisthesishintsatdifferentandpossible
explanationsforvariousdevelopmentpatterns.
5.3Futureresearch
Inthesestudiesseveralpossibledevelopmentpatternsareevident.Astheapplied
methodinthemetalinguisticawarenessstudyresultedinuncertainstatisticsfurther
researchisneeded.Amorevalidcollectionofdatawouldhavebeentouseaspecific
computersoftwareprogramlikeScriptlogforthemeasurementofmetalinguistic
awarenesstogetherwithahighernumberofparticipantsandlongitudinalstudieswith
repeatedmeasurementsinboththelanguagedevelopmentandmetalinguistic
awarenessstudies.ThisthesisusedaDSTtheoryinfocusingonlanguagedevelopment
bystudyingvariationsandinteractionsofvariablesaswellasmeasuringmetalinguistic
awarenessbytheproportionbetweencorrectedanduncorrectederrors.Thisisbyall
meansnottheonlywaytotracelanguagedevelopmentormetalinguisticawarenessbut
oneapproachthatcancomplimentothermethods.
37
6.Swedishsummary;sammanfattning
IjämförelsemedandraeuropeiskaländerharSverigetagitemotmångaflyktingarde
senasteåren.Imångtochmyckethardettaberikatvårtlandbådekulturelltoch
språkligt,mendetharocksåbidragittillnyaprobleminomsamhälletochinomskolan.
Mångaavdeelevernasomharutländskhärkomstharsvårtattnåsammanivåersom
elevermedsvenskhärkomstinomspecielltsvenskaochengelska.Dockmissgynnas
eleversomkommerfrånandraländeromnormenutgörsavinhemskasvenskaelever.
EfteratthaarbetatinomIVIKpåengymnasieskolaiSödertäljeunder1,5årbeslötjag
migförattundersökaelevernasspråkutvecklingochmetalingvistiskamedvetenhet.
Uppsatsenssyfteärattstudera5eleversspråkutvecklingochderas
metalingvistiskamedvetenhetgenomettdynamisktsystemteoretisktperspektiv.I
mätningenavdenspråkligautvecklingenkommeräveneventuellasambandmellan
vokabulär,ord‐ochtextlängdattanalyseras.Huruvidaelevernaharförmågaatt
analysera,reflekteraochobjektifieraöversinspråkproduktionvisarpåomdeharen
metalingvistiskförmåga.Vidaregranskasävenomdetfinnssambandmedhur
bakgrundsfaktorersomskollängd,kunskapsnivåiengelskaochandraspråk,totaltantal
språk,tidsvistelseiSverigeochmotivationpåverkarspråkutvecklingoch
metalingvistiskförmåga.
Forskninginomflerspråkighetharframföralltsysslatmedhurdeolika
språkenpåverkarvarandra(transfer),inflytandefråntvåspråkighetpå
tredjespråksinlärning,trespråkighetförbarnochuniversitetsutbildning(Jessner,2008:
271).Föreleversomlärsigsitttredjeellerytterligarespråkfinnsdetmångafaktorer
somkanpåverkavilketellerhurmycketettannat/andratidigarespråkkanha
inflytandeidennaprocess.Dettakanblandannatberopåhuruvidaspråkenhar
liknandetypologi(verkligelleruppskattad),elevenskunskapsförmågaimålspråket,hur
nyligenettvisstspråkanväntsochelevensålder.Forskninghargenerelltpekatpåett
positivtinflytandefråntvåspråkighetiflerspråksinlärning.Skältilldettakanvarahögre
kognitivochmetalingvistiskmedvetenhet(Sanz,2000:32ff).EnligtJessnerfinnsdet
inomflerspråkigaindividerenhögreförmågaattinhämtaytterligarespråk,vilketberor
påhögremetalingvistiskförmåga.Flerspråkigaindividerharhögrekapacitetattgranska
ochkontrolleramellanspråken(2008:275f).
Dynamisksystemteoriförsökerförklarakomplexasystemsom
språkutvecklingsomenhelhetiställetförattsepåolikadelarenskilt.Förattbedömaen
38
individsspråkutvecklingmåstemansepåbådeinternaochexternaprocesser.Det
senareinnebärbådefysiskaochsocialaomständighetersomtillexempelhurindividen
agerargentemotsinomgivningskravochönskemål.Språkutvecklingförändraspositivt
övertiden.Dockintelinjärtutandetkanbådegåframåtochbakåt.Ivarjesystemfinns
detoftastnågontypavvariation(högreellerlägre)mellanolikaundersystem,vilketär
ettteckenpåförändringellerutveckling.Högvariationbetyderhögförändringochlåg
variationinnebärmotsatsen.Deolikaundersystemenkankonkurreraellerstödja
varandrasutveckling.Varjeindividsspråkutvecklingharenbegränsadtillgångpå
resurser.Hurenindividsspråkutvecklasberorpådelsinternaprocesseroch
tillgängligaresurseravmotivation,minneochtid(Verspooretal,2008:215ff).
Ienförstastudiemättesochanalyseradesdefemelevernasolikautveckling
inomord‐ochtextlängdliksomvokabulär.Materialetutgjordesav15olikatextersom
skrivitsibörjanavaugusti2010,april2011ochmaj2011.Ordlängdenmättesgenomatt
mätaantaletbokstäverivarjeordförattkommaframtillengenomsnittligordlängd.
Textlängdenmättesgenomatträknaantaletordivarjetextochvokabulärmättes
genomattsepåvariationenavord.Ienförstamätningavvokabulärentogssjälva”type‐
token”‐variationenframdetvillsägagenomattdelaantaletolikatyper(deolikaorden
oavsettförekomst)meddettotalaantalettecken(ellerord)fårmandentotala
variationenavhurvarjeindividsproportionavvokabulärserut.Docktardenna
mätningintehänsyntilltextenslängd,vilketgörattdenkanblimissvisande.Därförtogs
ävenhänsyntillhurvarjeindividstotalavariationavolikatyper(ellerord)utvecklades.
Idenandrastudienmätteshuruvidaelevervarmedvetnaomdenspråkliga
processengenomattseomdegranskade,kontrolleradeochändradeisinspråkprocess
videtttillfälle.Allaeleverficktydligainstruktioneromattskrivamedbläckochatt
markeraeventuellaändringarmedattdraettstreckövertidigareord/uttryck.Ilikhet
medKowalsomgjortenliknandemätningkundejaghärmedsevarjeelevs
metalingvistiskamedvetenhet(Kowal,2009:157).Denmetalingivistiska
medvetenhetentogsframgenomattsepåproportionenmellankorrigeradeoch
okorrigeradefel.Ibådastudiernaanalyseradejagresultatengenomattsepå
bakgrundsfaktorersommotivation,antaletskolår,kunskapsnivåiengelskaochandra
språkochdettotalaantaletspråk.
Fråndenspråkligastudienvisaderesultatetilikhetmedandrastudier
inomdynamisksystemteoriattutvecklingenhadestorapendlingarochvariationer.
39
Vidarevisadedetsigattförfyraavelevernafannsdetundersystemsomkonkurrerade
medvarandraiutvecklingen,vilketkanförklarasmedbegränsadtillgångavresurser.
Närdeltagarnasordlängdökadesåminskadetextlängdenochvariationavord(antalet
olikatyperminskade)ochnärtextlängdenökadeliksomvariationenavordsåminskade
ordlängden.Vidarefannsdetettpositivtsambandmellanskollängdochmotivationi
studienävenomdetintevarstatistisktsignifikant.Förstudent1kandenpositiva
utvecklingenihanstextländochvariationenavord(antaletolikaord)förklarasmedhög
motivationochattstudentenharlästengelskaenlängreperiodänvadmerpartenavde
andraelevernahargjort(endastenelevhadelästengelskalikalänge).Denstora
minskningavtextlängdsomelev4visaritext3kanpåliknandesättförklarasmedbrist
påmotivation.Istudienfinnsävenettstarktpositivtsambandmellanspråkförmågai
tredjespråkochordlängditext1förallaelever.
Imätningenavmetalingvistiskmedvetenhetvisadeelev1hahögst
medvetenhetöversinspråkligaproduktion,vilketkanförklarasmedhögstmotivation
ochlängreutbildningiengelska.Studienvisarävenpåettpositivtsambandmellan
metalingvistiskmedvetenhetochtredjespråksförmågaävenomdetinteärstatistiskt
signifikant.Dettastöderäventidigareforskningsompekatpåettpositivtsamband
mellanflerspråkighetochhögrekognitivsamtmetalingvistiskförmåga.Dockfinnsäven
negativtsambandmellanmetalingvistiskförmågaochtotaltantalspråkliksommellan
stavningochmetalingvistik.Ingenavdemärsignifikanta.Förklaringentilldettaär
möjligenattdessaeleverfortfarandeärpårelativtlågfärdighetsnivåiengelskaliksom
attdeännuinteharnåtthögstanivåisvenska.Förattspråkenskainverkapositivtkrävs
detattmanharnåttenhögrenivåannarskandetblikonfliktochpåverka
språkutvecklingennegativt.Frånbådastudiernafannsäveninslagavsvenskaordi
texterna,vilkettyderpåattsvenskaanväntssom”transfer”‐eller”supporter”‐språk.
Dettastödertidigareforskningsompekatpåatttypologisktlikaspråkistörregrad
påverkarvarandra.
Iövrigtfannsingastörresambandmellanellerinomdeltagarnaochderas
språkutvecklingsamtmetalingvistiskaförmågagentemotdetidigarenämnda
bakgrundsfaktorernatotaltantalspråk,färdighetsnivåinomdeolikaspråken,antalet
skolår,skolåriengelska,tidslängdiSverigeellermotivation.
Dennastudievarlitenochbegränsadibådeantaletdeltagare,
observationerochtidslängd.Dockgårdetattsegenomettdynamisktsystemteoretiskt
40
perspektivettantalmöjligautvecklingsförlopp.Förattfåsäkrarestatistikbörfortsatt
forskninghatillgångtillfleradeltagare,fleraobservationerunderlängretidslängd
liksomettdataprogramsomregistrerarelevernasskrivprocess.
41
7.Bibliography
Cenoz,Jasone,2001.TheEffectofLinguisticDistance,L2StatusandAgeonCross‐linguisticInfluenceinThirdLanguageAcquisition.CrosslinguisticInfluenceinThirdLanguageAcquisition:PsycholinguisticPerspectives,ed.byJasoneCenoz,BrittaHufeisenandUlrikeJessner,8‐20.Clevedon:MultilingualMatterCenoz,Jasone,2003.Theadditiveeffectofbilingualismonthirdlanguageacquisition:Areview.TheInternationalJournalofBilingualism.7(1):71‐83EducationalResourceInformationCenter.LinnéuniverstitetsUniversitetsbibliotek.(9March2011)<onlinelibrary.wiley.com>Cummins,Jim.1996.NegotiatingIdentities:EducationforEmpowermentinaDiverseSociety.Ontario.Canada:CaliforniaAssociationforbilingualEducation.DeAngelis,Gessica.,&Selinker,Larry.2001.InterlanguageTransferandCompetingLinguisticSystemsintheMultilingualMind.CrosslinguisticInfluenceinThirdLanguageAcquisition:PsycholinguisticPerspectives,ed.byJasoneCenoz,BrittaHufeisenandUlrikeJessner,42‐58.Clevedon:MultilingualMatterDeBoot,Kees.2008.Introduction:SecondLanguageDevelopmentasaDynamicProcess.SpecialIssueofModernLanguageJournal92(2):166‐178.EducationalResourceInformationCenter.LinnéuniverstitetsUniversitetsbibliotek.(10February2011)<onlinelibrary.wiley.com>FactsonSödertälje,Södertäljekommun.2010.<http://www.sodertalje.se/.../Om%20Södertälje/Faktabroschyr_sodertalje_eng.pdf>(18April2011).Herdina,Philip.,&Jessner,Ulrike.2002.ADynamicModelofMultilingualism.PerspectivesofChangeinPsycholinguistics.Clevedon:MultilingualMatterJedenborg,Susanne,tfrektor.2011,email25February.<[email protected]>Jessner,Ulrike.2006.LinguisticAwarenessinMultilinguals.EnglishasaThirdLanguage.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPressJessner,Ulrike.2008.ADSTModelofMultilingualismandtheRoleofMetalinguisticAwareness.Secondlanguagedevelopmentasadynamicprocess.SpecialIssueofModernLanguageJournal92(2):270‐283.EducationalResourceInformationCenter.LinnéuniverstitetsUniversitetsbibliotek.(10February2011)<onlinelibrary.wiley.com>Kowal,Iwona.2009.Bedömningavmetaspråkligmedvetenhet.Enlongitudinellstudie.SpråkochLärandeLanguageandLearning.RapportfrånASLA:shöstsymposium,Stockholm,7‐8november2008.Ed.PäiviJuvonen.Stockholm:ASLA(15February2011)<www.did.uu.se/carolineliberg/documents/asla08.pd>
42
Lindberg,Inger.2002.Myteromtvåspråkighet.I.Språkvård4/2002(10March2011).http://www.sprakradet.se/2227Lindblad,Torsten.&Lindblad,Anita.1982.LearningaThirdLanguage.Englishasaschoollanugageforbilingualandmultilingualpupils.Gothenburg:DepartmentofEducationalResearch,UniversityofGothenburg.Montrul,Silvina,Dias,Rejanes&Santos,Hélade.2010.CliticsandobjectexpressionintheL3acquisitionofBrazilianPortuguese:Structuralsimilaritymattersfortransfer.SecondLanguageResearch,27(1).21‐58.(1February2011)<http://slr.sagepub.com/content/27/1/21>Ringbom,Håkan.2007.CrosslinguisticSimilarityinForeignLanguageLearning.Clevedon:MultilingualMatterRothman,Jason.2010.L3syntactictransferselectivityandtypologicaldeterminacy:Thetypologicalprimacymodel.SecondLanguageResearch,27(1).107‐127.(1March2011)<http://slr.sagepub.com/content/27/1/107>Skolverket.2005.Elevermedutländskbakgrund.Ensammanfattandebild.Stockholm:Fritzes.Skolverket.2008.Medannatmodersmål–eleverigrundskolanochskolansverksamhet.Rapport321.Skolverket.EducationforstudentsofnonSwedishbackgroundandrecognizedminorities.www.skolverket.se/content/1/c4/12/56/en_utlandsk.pdf(20April2011).Tremblay,Marie‐Claude.2006.Cross‐LinguisticInfluenceinThirdLanguageAcquisition:TheRoleofL2ProficiencyandL2Exposure.CahiersLinguistiquesdÓttawa,34.109‐119.(1February2011)<http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~clo/Tremblay.pdf>Utbildningsdepartementet.2006.Läroplanfördefrivilligaskolformerna,Lpf94.www.skolverket.se.(19April2011).
43
8.Appendix1Name‐Dateofbirth‐Countryoforigin‐Nativelanguage‐YearofarrivalinSweden‐Lengthofschoolinginhomecountry–Previousstudies/amountofschoolingyearsinSweden–Whatlanguagesdoyouknow?Accordingtowhatproficiencylevel–AmountofschoolingyearsinEnglish‐Level1OnlyafewwordsLevel2UnderstandsimplewordsandexpressionsLevel3Understandsimplesentencesandexpressions,bothorallyandwrittenskillsLevel4Understandcomplexsentences,bothorallyandwrittenskillsLevel5Fluent Level1 2 3 4 5NativelanguageSecondlanguageThirdlanguageFourthlanguageFifthlanguage
