Print 3

| 331 International Journal ofHorst Bilingualism Volume 14 Number 32010, 331349| et al.
: First and second language knowledge
First and second language knowledge in the language classroom

Marlise Horst, Joanna White & Philippa Bell
Concordia University, Montreal
Abstract
This feasibility study investigated how language instruction can be designed to help learners build on first language (L1) knowledge in acquiring a new language. It seems likely that learners will benefit from activities that draw their attention to features of their L1, but attempts to bridge the first and second language (L2) curricula often break down because the teachers typically work in isolation and are uncertain how to proceed. We attempted to address these problems by designing a series of cross-linguistic awareness (CLA) activities to be implemented on a trial basis with 48 young francophone learners of English (age 910 years) at a school in Montreal, Quebec. We observed language instruction in their French (L1) classes and identified features and themes that lent themselves to reinvestment in their English (L2) classes. Then 11 CLA teaching packages were developed and piloted with in an intensive year-long English as a second language (ESL) program. Classroom observations, interviews with both L1 and L2 teachers, and learner journal responses indicated that the activities were well received and that CLA instruction can usefully address a wide variety of linguistic features. Problems highlighted by the study are discussed; we also outline new research that will explore whether this promising experimental pedagogy leads to distinct language learning benefits.
Key words
bilingualism cognate cross-linguistic awareness ESL pedagogy focus on form metalinguistic awareness second language acquisition
A longstanding orthodoxy for language teachers trained in the communicative tradition has been to avoid all use of the learners first language in class, or at least to use it as little as possible. But recently, Cook (2001), Macaro (2001, 2005), Nation (2001), Turnbull (2001) and others have questioned this position, arguing that teachers can refer to the learners first language (L1) in ways that have distinct benefits in the process of learning a second (L2). Scholars interested in language awareness have noted that this can also be a two-way street: talk that makes comparisons across languages has the potential to develop learners metalinguistic awareness in ways that may also benefit knowledge of the L1 (Cook, 2003, 2005; Kecsks & Papp, 2000). This suggests that L2 and L1 teachers (and teachers of other subjects) would do well to take opportunities to engage schoolage learners in talk about aspects of the languages they are studying. But the studies
Address for correspondence
Marlise Horst, S-LB 5294, Department of Education, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada. [email: marlise@education.concordia.ca]
The International Journal of Bilingualism
Copyright 2010 the Author/s 2010, Vol 14 (3): 331349; ID no 367848; DOI; 10.1177/1367006910367848 http://Ijb.sagepub.com
Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on September 23, 2010
332
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)
of cross-linguistic pedagogical interventions that we are aware of are limited to what goes on in L2 classrooms. These studies have also tended to focus rather narrowly on teaching a few cross-linguistically difficult structures. In the research we report, we observed both an L2 and an L1 teacher and the opportunities each took to make comparisons to the other language in their teaching. The observations led us to believe that a cross-linguistic approach could be applied to teaching a wide variety of L2 features, ranging from single phonemes to overall discourse characteristics. In this article, samples of the experimental activities we designed and piloted with francophone learners of English at a primary school in Quebec are described in detail; the study also examines the impact of the cross-linguistic approach by exploring learner journal responses and teacher interviews. There are a number of reasons L2 teachers might resist using the L1 in their classroom teaching. First, Krashens (1985) emphasis on exposing learners to comprehensible L2 input has had a profound influence on teacher education. In the last decades of the 20th century, earlier instructional approaches that relied on using the language to teach the language (e.g. the Direct Method) gained new credibility with the widespread endorsement of Krashens ideas; as a result, a whole generation of ESL/EFL teachers has been schooled to scrupulously avoid L1 use in class (Gillis, 2007). Today, many teachers and teacher educators continue to worry (with reason) that using a little L1 might lead to using it a lot. But even if an L2 teacher favors making some judicious references to the learners L1, some practical obstacles remain: the teacher may simply not know the learners L1 well enough to do this effectively, and if the students speak various L1s, he or she is unlikely to be able to refer to them all. The L1 teacher has a similar problem; he or she may not know the L2 that her students are learningor know it too poorly to be able to make useful cross-linguistic comparisons. Furthermore, even if teachers do have some knowledge of the languages their learners are studying, they probably have little time or opportunity to coordinate L1 and L2 curricula. Almost certainly, neither the L1 nor L2 teacher will have given much thought to specific cross-linguistic connections that might be made. Thus, for example, a French teacher in Quebec working on spelling demons like ses, cest and ces in Week 2 of the L1 French curriculum is unlikely to realize that this is an opportune moment also to note English homophones such as there, their and theyre. Similarly, the ESL colleague is unlikely to know that he or she could reinforce the students knowledge of English there, their and theyre by reminding them of the problem homophones they have just studied in French class.
Support for a CLA-focused pedagogy

The idea that such cross-linguistic connections are useful and worth making is intuitively appealing. There is also reason to think that the benefits are real. Cross-linguistic awareness (henceforth CLA) can be understood as a type of metalinguistic awareness; like metalinguistic awareness, it is likely to play a role in successful reading and writing at school. There is evidence that metalinguistic awareness develops more readily in children who learn a second language (Ben-Zeev, 1977; Bialystok, 1986; Galambos & Goldin-Meadow, 1990) and that it can be activated through classroom activities that invite learners to make L1/L2 comparisons (Kupferberg & Olshtain, 1996). Convincing evidence that CLA-raising activities contribute to second language acquisition comes
Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge
333
from a series of studies conducted by the second author and her colleagues. This research shows that learners of English whose L1 is French (or Catalan) benefited from instruction that drew their attention to differences in English and L1 systems for third-person possessive determiner use (White, 1998, 2008; White & Ranta, 2002; White, Collins, & Muoz, 2007).1 More specifically, instruction that engaged learners in contrasting the English rule (his corresponds to a male possessor, her to a female one) to the L1 rule (French son and sa correspond to the grammatical gender of possessed entity) led to higher levels of accurate use than instruction that exposed the learners to the forms through communicatively based or enhanced classroom input. These findings, along with the many other studies that identify benefits for focus on form in communicative classrooms, gave us reason to think that a cross-linguistic pedagogy might be usefully applied to other linguistic features. Yet another compelling reason to develop and test L2 activities that make L1 connections is the wide recognition of the role L1 plays in L2 processing (Bialystok, 2001). Studies of the bilingual lexicon indicate that in the early stages of L2 acquisition, learners process L2 input via links to L1 forms; that is, L2 words are subconsciously translated (Talamas, Kroll, & Dufour, 1999). Eventually, language learners become more able to make direct L2 form-meaning connections, but L2 input consistently continues to activate L1 associations even in very proficient bilinguals (Spivey & Marian, 1999). Put simply: regardless of the extent to which the language teacher avoids using the L1 in class, it is still always there in the minds of the learners (see also Cohen, 1998; Cook, 2001; Kern, 1994). Second language acquisition research also recognizes the distinct effects of learners L1 knowledge on interlanguage development; the idea that L2 learners morpho-syntax exhibits errors that can be ascribed to L1 influence is now well established (e.g. Spada & Lightbown, 1999; J. White, 2008; L. White, 1991; see also discussion in Gass & Selinker, 2008). Studies of vocabulary development also show that beginning learners typically form nave lexical hypotheses, assuming that every L2 word has an exact L1 equivalent (Bland, Noblitt, Armington, & Gay, 1990), and that guesses about new L2 word meanings are often influenced by resemblances to L1 forms (Haastrup, 1991). Investigations of learners strategy preferences indicate that the use of bilingual dictionaries is popular (Schmitt, 1997) and translating into L1 is seen as a helpful exercise (Lawson & Hogben, 1996; Laufer & Girsai, 2008). Taken together, these findings beg the question: Since learners may draw on L1 resources anyway, why not do this overtly in class? A final impetus for implementing a pedagogy that makes links between first and second languages comes from the Quebec context of the research itself: in 2001 the Quebec Ministry of Education mandated instruction across the curriculum (Gouvernement du Qubec, 2001). This meant that rather suddenly, teachers and planners were expected to find ways of integrating attention to language (both L1 and L2) with the study of other subjects such as science, art and math. Thus when we approached an elementary school in Montreal and asked to observe both ESL and core curriculum classes taught in French with a view to identifying opportunities for making links across the languages, we found that our project was well received.
1
See Spada, Lightbown and White (2005) for a study that attempted to tease apart the effects of explicit instruction with and without a contrastive component for questions and possessive determiners.
334
Research questions for the pilot study

We observed two teachers, Marianne and Faye, who shared two classes of students in a special program that alternated weeks of French (L1) curriculum with weeks of intensive ESL. That is, while Marianne (a native speaker of French) worked on core curriculum in French with one group, Faye (a native speaker of English) was teaching ESL to the other. The observations allowed us to determine the extent to which each teacher referred to the other language; we were also interested in identifying instances where additional cross-linguistic references might be made. This observation phase led to the development of a series of pedagogical activities that were piloted in Fayes ESL classes. The research reported here is part of a larger three-year project intended to model CLA instruction and assess its effectiveness on both L2 and L1 development. But first, we needed to understand what teachers were already doing, how our ideas might fit in the existing school context, and how teachers and students would respond to the experimental activities. The feasibility questions that we address in this pilot study are as follows: 1 To what extent were the two teachers already making connections to the other language in their teaching? 2 How did analysis of the teaching context (observational data, curriculum materials, teacher attitudes) inform the development of the experimental CLA teaching materials? 3 Was it feasible to implement CLA activities for a variety of language features? How did the learners and the teacher respond to the activities?
Method
Participants and context
There were two intact groups of learners in the study, a class of 26 students in their fourth year of schooling, and a class of 22 students in their fifth year. The age of the students was 9 to 10 years. All 48 participants were fluent speakers of French; six were bilingual speakers of French and another language (Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Romanian and Russian). They attended a French-medium primary school in Montreal that offered a 10-month program that alternated weeks of English (intensive ESL) and French (core academic) curriculum. As mentioned, in a week that Marianne taught math, science, social studies and language arts in French to the Grade 4 students, the Grade 5 students were working on ESL activities with Faye, and in the following week the two teachers switched groups. The intensive ESL program was enthusiastically supported by the administration and was popular with the young learners and their parents. Although the groups differed in age, measures of English and French proficiency and language aptitude administered at the outset of the experiment indicated that differences between the fourth and fifth year classes were non-significant (White, Horst, & Bell, October 2007); thus in the research reported here, we do not distinguish between the two groups. Both the French teacher (Marianne) and the English teacher (Faye) are experienced primary teachers and native speakers of the languages they use in their teaching. Mariannes knowledge of English is rather hesitant while Faye speaks French fluently and is clearly comfortable in the French-speaking environment of her school. The French and
335
English curricula do not overlap; discussions with the two teachers and examination of their lesson plans indicated that they had not (yet) taken any formal steps to implement cross-curricular learning activities. But the two teachers did update each other regularly on the progress of their shared classes, and, at the request of the school administration, Faye reviewed the math content that Marianne had introduced the previous week in French class. Both teachers were informed of the researchers interest in the extent to which they made references to the other language in their teaching at the outset of the experiment.
Data collection
L1 and L2 instruction in each of the two classes was videotaped at regular 4-week intervals. This resulted in 69 hours of taped materialhalf of it French L1 teaching and the other half ESL. The video material and the field notes made by the third author were then closely examined for evidence of each teachers on the fly references to the other language. We were also interested in identifying themes, language teaching points and activities that could be readily expanded to include a focus on CLA. In addition to the video data and field notes, instructional materials used in both the French (L1) and English (L2) curricula were examined to identify potential opportunities for CLA instruction. A set of 11 CLA instructional activities were then developed and piloted in the ESL classes during the final 6 months of the school year. The CLA instruction also involved the learners in writing journals to probe their ability to make cross-linguistic comparisons and to gauge the impact of the experimental instruction. The CLA instructional activities and the learners journal responses are discussed in detail later. At the end of the 10-month period, both Marianne and Faye participated in 30-minute interviews in which they answered questions about their teaching practice and their perceptions of the usefulness of CLA.
Findings
Cross-linguistic connections
Our examination of 37 hours of videotaped material revealed that Marianne, the French L1 teacher, had made only one explicit connection to English. This occurred in a language arts lesson that dealt with verbs derived from nouns, when she suggested that the students ask Faye whether this type of lexical extension is also possible in English: Il fte et une fte. partir dun nom en anglais, est-ce quon peut crer un verbe? Demandez ton prof danglais. He parties and a party. Can we create a verb from a noun in English? Ask your English teacher. By contrast, Faye made 20 on the fly connections to French in the 32 hours of videotaped ESL teaching we examined.2 As the following field note entries illustrate, many of the episodes involved highlighting cognate relationships between French and English.
2
Instances where Faye simply provided French translations of problem words such as snowshoeing in, Snowshoeing, you know, when you put the raquettes on, rather than inviting the learners to think strategically about the two languages were not included as instances of CLA raising.
336
Faye asked, Doubtis this not like a word in French? Faye corrected their use of gentle as French gentil (nice) and asked them to look in their bilingual dictionaries. Faye was doing some math, and she asked how the decimal point was written in English (full stop) and French (comma). Faye wrote suffer on the board and told them it was like a word in French. Faye asked how center was spelled in French (centre) and then said in (North American) English, it is with -er. The difference between the two video records is striking. Even though both teachers were aware of the researchers interest in their efforts to refer to the other language in their teaching, Marianne appeared far more reluctant than Faye to actually make cross-linguistic connections.
Context factors
Examination of Mariannes lesson plans, textbooks and the video record of her teaching, showed that in fact, there was no shortage of opportunities to add CLA focus to the French (L1) instruction. Topics addressed in language arts classes included verb endings, question formation, punctuation conventions, adverb formation, word building processes, and the formal aspects of poetryall features that can be compared and contrasted to English in ways that may make them memorable and benefit learners knowledge of both languages. Similarly, Fayes ESL teaching offered many opportunities to refer to French. Although she made more cross-linguistic comparisons than Marianne, there were also Table 1
Sample field notes, ESL program
Observation Faye notes that some plurals in English are irregular. Faye began a dictation by writing Dear Jenny, on the board Faye: Theres a mistake season winter what should it be? In student presentations, at least three errors were made of the type lesson of chess. Students frequently overused obligate as in: Are we obligate to do this? No correction. Student said more easy. No correction.
Possible CLA supplementation Could have asked if any French plurals are irregular (as Marianne covers this topic in her class). Could have asked if all letters begin with Dear plus name, followed by a comma. Also could have asked if it is the same in French. Elicited the correct answer but could have asked why they thought this mistake was made. (English order is the reverse of French: saison hivernale.) Could have asked for correction and asked why they were making this mistake (cf.: French une leon dchecs). Could have highlighted limitations of transfer from French, emphasized appropriateness of the more informal need to, have to here. Could have compared to French, which consistently uses plus (more) to form comparative adjectives, while English uses more in some cases, -er in others.

337
instances where opportunities to make connections were missed. The observations from the field notes shown in Table 1 illustrate this point. The more frequent use of cross-linguistic references by one teacher than the other may be explained at least in part by the differences in the L1 and L2 curricula. When we first met Marianne to discuss our project at the beginning of the school year, she showed us detailed plans she had made for each week of the French curriculum. She clearly felt the pressure of having to cover the many learning objectives set by the institution in half the usual amount of time (with alternate weeks spent on ESL). Moreover, although she spoke English, she was somewhat self-conscious and worried about making mistakes. Faye, on the other hand, had a fairly flexible ESL syllabus. Her mandate was to increase her learners English proficiency by implementing a communicative program of her own design. She was interested in trying new ideas and was clearly willing to give CLA focus a try. She immediately recognized the potential of comparing across languages, and her knowledge of French gave her the confidence to do so. So although our original intention was to involve both teachers in piloting pedagogical activities designed to raise CLA, it seemed more feasible to proceed with Faye.
CLA-focused instruction and learner responses

In selecting the linguistic features to be targeted in the experimental CLA instruction, we looked to the French language arts program for material that we could link to and build on in the ESL class. Topics covered by Marianne that lend themselves to this kind of expansion were verb morphology, homonyms and poems. We also targeted several features that have been identified as problematic for French-speaking learners of English, such as pronunciation of word-initial h (Mah, Steinhauer, & Goad, 2006) and use of the possessive determiners his and her (e.g. White, 1998, 2008). As can be seen in the following list of topics, we also ensured that the activities focused on a wide variety of linguistic features, ranging from single phonemes to entire text genres: Pronunciation of word-initial h Homophones (e.g. English theyre, their, there and French ses, cest, ces) FrenchEnglish cognates Verb morpology (-ed and -s vs. French inflections) English possessive structures (s vs. of) Possessive determiners his/her vs. French son/sa Formation of comparative adjectives Nounadjective order Adverb word order Poems Jokes In designing the activities, we drew on Whites previous experience of creating tasks that highlight differences between French and English rules for using possessive determiners. These served as models for creating new activities that focused on other aspects of language. In addition to the 11 teaching interventions, the CLA instruction involved the learners in writing journal responses to questions that corresponded to the topics of the CLA activities. Some of the writing prompts had been used in previous
338
research with a similar population (White, 2006); these were refined and expanded to address the various aspects of language targeted in this study. For instance, once the learners had read and discussed English poems (after having studied poetry in French with Marianne some weeks earlier), they were invited to reflect on poetry in the two languages by responding to the following: 1 How are French and English poems for children similar? How are they different? 2 What can you learn about the English language by reading English poems? 3 If you translated a poem from English into French, would it be the same poem? The learners were told that they were free to respond in either English or French; however, almost all wrote in English. The purpose of the journaling was to reinforce ideas raised in the instruction and to encourage the learners to make cross-linguistic comparisons on their own. The remainder of this section takes a closer look at three of the pedagogical interventions. One focuses on phonology (pronunciation of word-initial h), the second on lexis (FrenchEnglish cognates), and the third on grammatical morphology (possessive determiners his/her vs. French son/sa). Selected journal entries illustrate the extent to which the learners were able to make cross-linguistic comparisons relevant to the feature in question. Teacher comments selected from the debriefing interview with Faye provide insights into the feasibility and perceived usefulness of the various activities.
H-lesson
Initial aspirated h is an attested problem for French speaking learners of English; in French, initial h is not pronounced, much as in the English words hour and honest. Thus francophone speakers of English often omit word-initial h entirely, resulting in pronunciation errors such as air (for hair) and owl (for howl ). The CLA instruction that addressed this problem began with a discussion about different types of laughterscary laughs, chuckles, sly laughter, and Santa Clauss ho ho ho. After much genuine hilarity and repetition of these laughs with aspirated initial h, Faye led a discussion of differences and similarities between the pronunciation of h in English and French. Students then completed a sound discrimination exercise with minimal pairs such as and/hand and it/ hit. The students also watched a video of the popular Dr Seuss story Green Eggs and Ham (1960) and listened for h words. Finally, they read excerpts from the story in pairs; while one student read aloud, the partner listened for correct pronunciations of words like ham, here and house. The journal writing prompts for the h-lesson were as follows: 1. Is it always difficult to say the letter h in English? If not, when is it easy? When is it difficult? 2. Are there other sounds that are difficult for you in English? Give an example. 3. What sounds do you think are difficult for anglophones to say in French? Can you give some examples? 4. Why do you think we say honest and hour in English without h? In answer to the first question, two-thirds of the respondents felt that after the practice activities, pronouncing h was no longer a great problem. Responses to the second
339
question about other difficult sounds were more varied; over a third were able to provide examples of other problem sounds, with six noting the th in words like thought and tenth. While answering the first two questions required general metalinguistic awareness, the third question about French sounds that English speakers might find difficult focuses more narrowly on the learners CLA. All but 3 of the 41 participants who responded were able to see their first language from the outsiders perspective and suggested possible problem areas. Several of the responses noted the problem of French grammatical gender rather than problematic sounds. Among the entries that addressed sound difficulties, many showed sensitivity to the phonology of the two languages as the following examples illustrate: The r the anglophone people say a different way, and in French its like a lion when he roars. I think the u is difficult because theyll maybe pronounce it too. I dont know. It depends, but friend in Vancouver was saying tout doucement like tu ducement. The last question about the h-less pronunciation of honest and hour (both borrowings from French) also gauges CLA. The question was expected to prompt explanations based on the French pronunciations of translation equivalents honnte and heure. However, the question seems to have puzzled most of the learners; only four respondents made the expected cross-linguistic connection: Because is like in French is will (= as well?) I think its because its based on a french word. I think because you say it like the same in Frensh. I think you dont say the h because there are exeptions. Or because in french, we dont say the h too.
Cognate lesson
This set of activities was designed to raise the participants awareness of the many formal similarities between English and French words. Research by Moss (1992) shows that while learners may recognize L2 forms that are identical or near matches to L1 forms (e.g. English class and French classe), they often fail to see helpful resemblances that are less obvious (e.g. English school and French cole). The activities also drew attention to the well-known problem of deceptive cognates or false friends. To raise awareness of helpful cognates, the students first watched a video of Maurice Sendaks classic, Chicken Soup with Rice (1962) and followed along on a handout of the text. The students worked in pairs to find words that were similar in French (e.g. rice/riz, soup/soupe, pot/pot). Then Faye led a discussion in which they brainstormed other examples and divided them into two groups: helpful cognates (English crocodile = French crocodile) and false friends (English anniversary French anniversaire).3 The students also completed a crossword
3
Anniversaire is used in French to refer to someones birthday and the date on which an event took place.
340
puzzle that included English words of Romance origin (balcony, giraffe) as well as French words borrowed from English ( jeans, clown). The journal writing prompts for the cognate lesson were as follows: 1. Does knowing the word pile in French help you understand pile in English? Why/why not? How about chaise/chair? 2. What is the difference between gentle in English and gentile in French? Is a gentle girl the same as une fille gentille? 3. Is Nice in France a nice place? Why do you think it has the same name? 4. How many French words can you find in this sentence? I cant hear the radio because that machine is making a terrible noise. Do you often see French words in English? Do you see English words in French sentences more often? Can you name some words that are used in French? The first three questions probed the learners awareness of the usefulness and dangers of relying on formal similarities between English and French words. All but a few learners were able to reflect on the helpfulness of this type of cross-linguistic comparison, even though their hypotheses about the meanings of particular words were not always accurate. Table 2 lists the English words that were explored in Questions 1, 2 and 3, along with the formally similar French items and their meanings. As the first row shows, the case of pile (Question 1) is complex because it is partially deceptive; in Quebec French, pile can mean either battery or stack. Remarkably, nine studentsabout a quarter of the respondents were able to describe this mixed situation clearly, as in the following example: French pile: for your ipod or of paper. English pile: of paper. So it can help you a little bit! The resemblance between chair and chaise (Question 1) was recognized as being helpful by over half of the respondents though there were also many who felt that the resemblance was not quite close enough, as noted in this entry: No, it doesnt help me because chaise and chair, its not sound like the same. Three-quarters of the respondents recognized that French gentil (kind, nice) and English gentle are not equivalent (Question 2). This example of a false friend had been given considerable attention in class. In response to Question 3, some students ventured that Nice in France might well be a nice place. Interestingly, three guessed the truththe resemblance is simply a linguistic coincidence. Others were clearly mystified by this strange question. The range of responses can be seen in the following: I thing is Nice was very nice so then her name was Nice. Yes Nice is a nice place but I think that not why is named Nice. I think is just like they dont think about English word. I dont understand the question!!! In responding to the fourth question that required the learners to find the cognate words in a sentence, three-quarters of the group were able to correctly identify radio, machine and terrible as words that are identical in both French and English. About
341
Table 2
English words in journal prompts and formally similar French words
English word pile Question 1 chair Question 1 gentle Question 2 nice Question 3
Formally similar French word pile chaise gentil Nice
Meaning of formally similar French word 1. battery 2. stack, pile chair nice, kind (proper name)
Same meaning in English and French? No (meaning 1) Yes (meaning 2) Yes No No
half indicated that they were aware that French borrows English words. Examples they perceived to be borrowings from English into Quebec French included orange, melon, wow, general, math, pizza, lasagne, banana, kiwi, chips, sushi, steak, hamburger, sandwich, jogging, football, fun, difference, cute, cool and rock.
His and her lesson
In English, the use of the possessive determiner his in the statement He went shopping with his mother reflects the gender of the possessor, in this case a male. By contrast, the possessive determiner sa in the French equivalent of the statement (sa mre), reflects the gender of the possessed entity, in this case the feminine noun mre (mother). Thus for French speaking learners, acquiring the use of his and her in English involves learning a new L2 system that focuses on the gender of the possessor rather than on the gender of the possessed entity as in the L1. The difficulties francophones experience in acquiring the English system are well attested, and explicit instruction involving cross-linguistic comparisons has been effective with children in the same age range as these students (for an overview, see White, 2008). The activities we designed involved the learners in making explicit contrasts between the two systems. First, students looked at cartoon pictures and read accompanying descriptions in English; the possessive determiners were typographically enhanced (e.g. Bill and his mother are looking in his pocket). Then Faye and her students discussed agreement of his and her in each sentence using the rule of thumb: Whose ____ is it? If the possessor is a boy or a man, use his. If the possessor is a girl or a woman, use her. The students were instructed to draw arrows from the possessive determiner to the possessor in each of the sentences. Faye also highlighted the contrast to the French agreement rule and led the students in examining French sentences and drawing arrows from the determiner
342
to the entity possessed. Finally, students completed English cloze passages that required them to supply his or her appropriately and to draw arrows to possessors. The following journal prompts probed learners awareness of the contrasting systems. 1 Here are two sentences: She likes to play games with her brother and He likes to play games with his brother. Both are correct. Why do we use her in one sentence and his in the other? Do you know a rule or trick that helps you with his and her? If you do, please write the rule. 2 Anglophones have problems with son and sa in French. Do you know the rule in French? How can you help them with this sentence? Elle aime jouer aux cartes avec ___ frre. (She likes to play cards with ___brother.) 3 True or false, son = his and sa = her? Explain. Students responded to the first question with a remarkable confidence in their ability to explain an English rule in English. The instructional activities appear to have had an effect: all participants attempted answers; over 80 per cent indicated accurate knowledge of the rule for using his and her. Often they restated the rule of thumb mentioned earlier or used arrows as they had been shown in class. While this is an encouraging result, the question does not probe awareness of the contrast to French. For this reason we were particularly interested in responses to the second and third questions, which required respondents to reflect on both language systems at the same time. Over half of the responses to the second question showed an ability to see French from an English speakers perspective and offered helpful advice for using sa and son. One learner suggested the following: The rule is that you need to found if the nouns is feminin or masculin. When you know, if its feminin you put sa, if its masculin you put son. We can help them by saing: Is frre is masculin or feminin? When they found you say to them the rule. The third question asks the learners to consider whether translating son as his and sa as her is correct. The response is not straightforward. While son frre may mean his brother, it can also mean her brother. The choice of son is determined by the grammatical gender of frre (masculine) rather than the gender of the possessor. To decide which of the two possible meanings is intended, the listener/reader must rely on additional contextual information. Similarly, sa mre (feminine) may mean either his mother or her mother. Over half of the respondents ignored the complexity of the question and simply answered True, or Yes, because son is for boys and sa is for girls. Answers such as these following ones indicated awareness of more complexity; there are also hints that complete explanations are too much to attempt. Not always Its true but its not the same rule Sa = her is not good. Son = his is not good. I explain you in Question 2
343
Eight students were able to explain the situation more fully. Sometimes this involved giving counter-examples to support the false verdict as in this instance where son translates as her: It depense because: The mother love her child. And in frenche: La maman adore son enfant. (Student drew arrows between her and mother and son and maman) Others gave rules using metalinguistic terminology such as the following: Its false because his and her, its conjugate by the subject, and son and sa are conjugate by the noun after son and sa. The journal responses for all of the experimental instructional interventions were rated for evidence of CLA using a three-point scale. Null and off-topic responses were rated 0, responses that showed evidence of metalinguistic awareness but little CLA were rated 1, and responses where CLA was clearly evident were rated 2.4 In comparing means for each question, we noticed three topics that elicited responses well above the overall mean. These were homonyms, possessive determiners his and her, and poems. Thus it appears that awareness-raising activities can usefully address a wide variety of linguistic features, including lexis, grammar and discourse aspects. The topic with the highest mean CLA rating was possessive determiners. This suggests that the possessive determiner activities, which had been developed, tested and refined in other studies by the second author, were especially effective in promoting CLA. It is interesting that the learners proved to be so able to tackle this famously difficult cross-linguistic problem in their journal writing, though we recognize that heightened awareness may not go hand in hand with accurate language use. The question of the extent to which the experimental CLA instruction may benefit both L1 and L2 language development is the focus of studies currently underway.
Teacher perspectives
At the end of the school year, we interviewed Faye and Marianne separately to follow up on some of our classroom observations and preliminary analyses of the students journals. From Fayes comments, we determined that she was generally positive about the CLA activities she had used in her ESL teaching. We also gained an understanding of issues we will need to consider in the next phase of our research.
Positive 1
In the debriefing interview, Faye pointed to the value of the CLA activities in general and felt that her students had enjoyed them. Adding a CLA focus to her ESL teaching appears to have been a highly feasible venture for this teacher. When asked to specify which of the 11 instructional focus areas she thought the learners benefited from most, she was particularly enthusiastic about the h-lesson, cognates, possessive determiners and jokes. It is interesting that these preferences span a range of linguistic features (phonology, lexis,
4
Two research assistants (both graduate students in Applied Linguistics and native speakers of English with a high level of proficiency in French) rated the responses. Inter-rater reliability was high with 95.4% agreement.
344
grammar and discourse). She was particularly struck by her students growing insights as they explained the French rules for possessive determiners in contrast to English: Faye: Yes. Possessive determiners, I like that activity. I think the idea of letting them give examples in French and letting them explain French grammar and comparing was more valuable than Id ever imagined. That was the really big number one thing, I would say. Faye Later: Its really good because even the top students in the class will say its so easy, but then theyll start giving me wrong answers ... Its kind of a big realization for them that theyre making that mistake.
Positive 2
Faye noted that being able to explain things about French to their English teacher gave the students confidence and a sense of empowerment: Interviewer: What did they do with the poem exactly? Faye: They had to go through and they had to find words that were similar to words in French. They like the fact that they are able to say, Thats a word in French, and sometimes I would say, I didnt know that, and they love the fact they can tell me.
Positive 3
Judicious use of the L1 (French) proved to be possible in a CLT class; fears that this might lead to overuse of the L1 appear to be unjustified. As Fayes comments indicate, her learners clearly knew when and how to use French appropriately: And did you have problems with the students because they Interviewer: thought, Oh we can speak French? Faye: No, I think that they know the difference. They knew when I was doing an activity and I would say, Okay, now Im going to give you permission to say this in French. They understand that completely. It wasnt a problem at all. Interviewer: So you didnt feel uncomfortable? Faye: No. It was a very positive thing. Interviewer: Thats nice to hear. Faye: Yeah, but I dont know if a lot of teachers will be comfortable doing that. These encouraging responses confirm the feasibility of CLA-focused instruction, and point to potential benefits for language learning that we are exploring further. However, our experience with Faye and Marianne also revealed limitations of the approach:
Issue 1
We had surmised that exposure to CLA-raising techniques in the pedagogical materials might lead the teacher to adopt the approach and apply it to new features. Did Faye expand
345
CLA-focus to the rest of her teaching? The interview suggested that she was certainly capable of this. In the following instance, she points to the kinds of words that are likely to be cognate with French and encourages the students to think across the curriculum. Faye: Yes, I always ask them, Is this a word you learnt in science? Science words are usually the same (in the two languages), and they tell me sometimes yes and sometimes no. While this comment is encouraging, we did not actually observe her pointing out French cognates in the recorded material. Nor was there evidence in the interview or recordings that she implemented a CLA approach to any other linguistic features.
Issue 2
It is also clear that providing a teacher with a fully developed set of learning activities does not guarantee that they will be used. In our study, the teacher made her own decisions about implementing our materials and freely admitted that some of the activities we had provided were not used. Faye: Nope, I never did that one and I regret I didnt. I have all the photocopies to prove it.
Issue 3
The teacher sees CLA as limited to languages she knows. Faye: Spanish, I felt comfortable with. But if they tell me something in Arabic, Id be like ...
Issue 4
Involving the L1 teacher in raising students cross-linguistic awareness is a challenge. The following excerpt from the debriefing interview illustrates Mariannes perspective; she is frank about not spending any precious time on what she perceives to be digressions. (Note that Marianne responds in a mixture of French and English): Interviewer: You knew that we were doing this research and you had some idea of what we were interested in. Did this affect your planning or thinking about your work? Did you try (to make crosslinguistic comparisons)? Marianne: Non, javais tout prepar avant (No, I had everything prepared in advance), because we know we have a big inspector in February so I planifie 16 weeks, every point Im doing. I do that in June ... Interviewer: I guess maybe in the day-to-day, jour par jour, les imprvus qui arrivent en classe. Est-ce que vous tiez consciente de ce quon faisait pour faire le rapport entre langlais et franais? (In incidents that came up in class, were you ever aware of what you could do to make connections between English and French?) Marianne: Non, je faisais pas attention a. (I did not focus on that.)
346
Discussion
In this pilot study, we saw that is was possible to successfully develop and implement CLA-informed learning activities that addressed a variety of linguistic features. The ESL teachers willingness to innovate and her positive response to the materials are encouraging and we look forward to improving the experimental CLA materials and sharing them with other teachers. In reading the journal responses that probed the learners developing cross-linguistic awareness, we were often surprised by the astuteness of their insights. Many of these young learners were clearly able to compare the two languages and note useful points of similarity and difference. This finding raises interesting questions about the sources of these insights; the role of individual difference factors in learners developing CLA is an area that we are currently investigating. The study also showed that the L1 teacher did not make connections to the L2 during her teaching (one reference in 37 hours of filming). The ESL teacher made more frequent references to the L1, but these were usually limited to a single type of feature (cognates). Although she recognized the value of the CLA activities we provided and was happy to implement them in her ESL teaching, she did not invest in the approach in a way that allowed her to create new activities or implement new kinds of CLA-raising on the fly. The French L1 teacher was also positive at the outset of the study and was open to being observed and filmed, but it is not clear that she ever fully understood the aim of a CLA approach. This illustrates the point that for a pedagogical innovation to be accepted, teachers may need to take ownership of it and implement it in a way that is compatible with their beliefs and practices. One way to address this would be to familiarize them with the goals of CLA in workshops included in the schedule of schoolwide in-service training, along with perennial topics like classroom management and evaluation. Awareness-raising of the L1 teachers across the school would support the pedagogical interventions of the L2 teacher, who has an arguably more flexible syllabus and whose proficiency in both the L1 and L2 may be assumed.5 To understand the difficulty of involving the L1 teacher in a pedagogy that values collaboration across the students first and second languages, we may also need to consider the teachers proficiency in the students second language. With respect to the teachers in our study, it is likely that Marianne, the L1 teacher, did not feel linguistically capable of making comparisons across French and English, whereas Faye was comfortable doing so. Implementing a CLA-focused pedagogy may require support so that less proficient speakers of either the L1 or the L2 can still help students to benefit from the approach, for example by raising teachers awareness of specific differences and similarities between the L1 and L2. We also need to consider the time factor. In intensive programs such as the one where the study was conducted, the French academic teacher had to condense a 10-month curriculum into 5 months. She also had preparation, marking, and supervision duties, and the usual meetings with students, parents, and the school administration. No doubt, the idea of adding regular discussions with her L2 counterpart to build a CLA component into the curriculum seemed unfeasible, especially
5
The second language teacher is typically proficient in the students L1 as it is the language of instruction of the school.
347
if the potential benefits were not clear. Again, in-service teacher education can serve to highlight the advantages of CLA and show how it can be implemented most efficiently.
Conclusion
A limitation of this pilot study is that we did not attempt to measure the effectiveness of a CLA approach on learning outcomes. This is the focus of our current research. To explore the effects of the experimental instruction on learners CLA development and their proficiency in both English and French, we have collected data in three comparable Grade 6 intensive classrooms. All three classes were instructed using a communicative language teaching approach. One class was taught the regular ESL program (the comparison group). Another class received form-focused instruction (FFI) on six linguistic features, but with no reference to French (the FFI group), while the third class received FFI instruction on the six linguistic features that included reference to French (the CLA group). Tests of the targeted linguistic features, overall English proficiency, French proficiency, and CLA confirm that there are distinct learning benefits for this promising pedagogy (White, Horst, & Bell, 2009). The idea that cross-linguistic connections are useful and worth making is intuitively appealing. Indeed, the ability to help learners link new information to knowledge they already have is the hallmark of effective teaching in many instructional contexts. But sadly, in the case of language teaching this view has been so strongly discouraged that generations of teachers have become convinced that referring to the first language in the second language classroom is somehow detrimental. It is not obvious that these views will be easily changed. In our work in Quebec, we observe that for many teachers, the habit of not using French in the ESL classroom has become so deeply engrained that our ideas seem surprising or even subversive. We affirm their efforts to provide a rich second-language environment but we are convinced that making links to other language(s) their students know can make these learning contexts even richer. In this article we have argued that raising cross-linguistic awareness is a viable pedagogy with demonstrable advantages for learners. It is a step, we hope, in the direction of giving an important cognitive resource the validation it deserves.
References
BEN-ZEEV, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48(3), 10091018. BIALYSTOK, E. (1986). Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child Development, 57(2), 498510. BIALYSTOK, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BLAND, S. K., NOBLITT, J. S., ARMINGTON, S., & GAY, G. (1990). The naive lexical hypothesis: Evidence from computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 74(4), 440450. COHEN, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman. COOK, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402423.
348
COOK, V. (Ed.), (2003). The effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. COOK, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 4761). New York: Springer. GALAMBOS, S., & GOLDIN-MEADOW, S. (1990). The effects of learning two languages on levels of metalinguistic awareness. Cognition, 34(1), 156. GASS, S. M., & SELINKER, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge. GILLIS, L. (2007). Using the learners first language in the second language classroom: Beliefs and practices of Quebec secondary-level ESL teachers. Unpublished MA thesis, Concordia University, Montreal. GOUVERNEMENT DU QUBEC (2001). Qubec Education Program: Preschool Education, Elementary Education. Qubec: Ministre de lducation, 1000611, HAASTRUP, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures or talking about words. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. KECSKS, I., & PAPP, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. KERN, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 441461. KRASHEN, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman. KUPFERBERG, I., & OLSHTAIN, E. (1996). Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition of difficult L2 forms. Language Awareness, 5(3 & 4), 149165. LAUFER, B., & GIRSAI, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694716. LAWSON, M. J., & HOGBEN, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101135. MACARO, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531548. MACARO, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 6384). New York: Springer. MAH, J., STEINHAUER, K., & GOAD, H. (2006). The Trouble with /h/: Evidence from ERPs. Paper presented at the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006), Sommerville MA. MOSS, G. (1992). Cognate recognition: Its importance in the teaching of ESP reading courses to Spanish speakers. English for Specific Purposes, 11(2), 141158. NATION, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SCHMITT, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SENDAK, M. (1962). Chicken soup with rice: A book of months. New York: Harper Collins. SEUSS, Dr (1960). Green eggs and ham. New York: Random House. SPADA, N., & LIGHTBOWN, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 122. SPADA, N., LIGHTBOWN, P. , & WHITE, J. (2005). The importance of meaning in explicit form-focussed instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Current issues in instructed second language learning. Brussels: Mouton De Gruyter. SPIVEY, M. J., & MARIAN, V. (1999). Cross talk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science, 10(3), 281284.
349
TALAMAS, A, KROLL, J. F., & DUFOUR, R. (1999). From form to meaning: Stages in the acquisition of second-language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(1), 4558. TURNBULL, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but ... Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531540. WHITE, J. (1998). Getting the learners attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WHITE, J. (2006). Contrastive language awareness: Can it help bridge the space between childrens first and additional languages in school? Conference of the Association for Language Awareness, Le Mans, France. WHITE, J. (2008). Speeding up acquisition of his/her: Explicit L1/L2 contrasts help. In J. Philp, R. Oliver & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Childs play? (pp. 193228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. WHITE, J., COLLINS, L., & MUOZ, C. (2007). The his/her challenge: Making progress in a regular second language program. Language Awareness, 16(4), 278299. WHITE, J., HORST, M., & BELL, P. (2007). How do individual differences contribute to metalinguistic awareness in young instructed learners? Paper given at the Second Language Research Forum Conference, 13 October, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. WHITE, J., HORST, M., & BELL, P. (2009). Making the most of learners linguistic knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Denver, CO. WHITE, J., & RANTA, L. (2002). Examining the interface between metalinguistic task performance and oral production in second language classrooms. Language Awareness, 11(4), 259290. WHITE, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133161.

| 373 International Journal of Bilingualism Volume 14 Number 32010, 373374| Perales et al.: Acquisition of L3 English negation
About the Authors

Philippa Bell is a PhD student in the Department of Education at Concordia University in Montreal. Her research focuses on language awareness, individual differences and the teaching of grammar in the second-language classroom. She has taught English in mainland China, Taiwan, England and Canada. Beno Csap is a Professor of Education at the University of Szeged, the head of the Graduate School of Educational Sciences and the Research Group on the Development of Competencies at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He was a Humboldt research fellow at the University of Bremen (1989) and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California (19941995). He was a member of the Expert Group that devised the framework for the assessment of Complex Problem Solving within the 2003 OECD PISA survey. He is the leader of the Technological Issues Working Group in the Assessment and Teaching of 21st-century Skills initiative. He has published widely both in Hungarian and English. See more at http://www. staff.u-szeged.hu/~csapo/ Kees de Bot graduated at the University of Nijmegen in General Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. His research concerns a number of topics including foreign-language attrition, language and dementia in multilingual settings, maintenance and shift of minority languages and the psycholinguistics of bilingual language processing, early and late forms of bilingual education and immersion and the application of Dynamic Systems Theory in SLA and multilingualism. Professor de Bot is Vice-Dean of Research of the Faculty of Arts and Director of the Graduate School of the Humanities of the University of Groningen. Sieneke Goorhuis-Brouwer is a professor, child psychologist and speech pathologist at the University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen. She researches the epidemiology of speech and language disorders in children and diagnostic procedures needed to come to adequate therapy strategies. Moreover, the effect of language disorders on the childs social-emotional development is a subject of research. With her team, about 30 children per week are investigated following a multidisciplinary diagnostic procedure. As bilingual education in young children is often thought to be a risk factor for the development of language disorders, bilingual education in a non-clinical situation, namely, kindergarten, is studied and leads to her hypothesis that good, structured, early bilingual education has a positive effect on the total development of a child. Marlise Horst, PhD, is an associate professor at Concordia University in Montreal, where she teaches courses in second-language vocabulary acquisition, corpus linguistics and the history of English. Her research focuses on vocabulary learning through extensive reading, computer activities and classroom instruction. She has taught English in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Hong Kong and North America. In addition to teaching and research, she enjoys quilting, travel and cooking.
374
Ofra Inbar-Lourie, PhD, lectures at Tel-Aviv University and Beit Berl College on language education and English teaching and coordinates the MA TESOL program for overseas students at the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University. Her research interests include language policy specifically with regard to native and non-native language teachers and young language learners, language assessment culture, assessment of literacy and curriculum design. Jelena Mihaljevic Djigunovic is a professor and SLA & TEFL Chair at Zagreb Universitys English Department. Her main research interests center round teaching young learners, the age factor, affective learner variables and FL teacher education. She has participated in several international projects on language learning and teaching. Currently she is involved in the Early Language Learning in Europe (ELLiE), a longitudinal multinational project carried out in seven European countries. She has published extensively in national and international journals. Her publications include two research books, several volumes that she co-edited, and over 80 research papers. Marianne Nikolov is a professor of English Applied Linguistics at the University of Pcs, Hungary. Her research interests include early learning and teaching of modern languages, assessment of processes and outcomes in language education, individual differences and language policy. She has published several books, edited volumes and research papers on various aspects of SLA, large-scale surveys and classroom research. For more see: http://englishdepartments.btk.pte.hu/index.php?p=contents&cid=12 Joanna White, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Education at Concordia University in Montreal. She teaches courses in second-language acquisition, pedagogy, curriculum design and language awareness. Her research focuses on instructed secondlanguage learning, mainly in primary schools, with a special interest in cross-linguistic awareness. She enjoys spending time with her family and working in her garden.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Print 3

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Print 3

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

| 331 International Journal ofHorst Bilingualism Volume 14 Number 32010, 331349| et al.

: First and second language knowledge

First and second language knowledge in the language classroom

Address for correspondence

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on September 23, 2010

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

Support for a CLA-focused pedagogy

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

Research questions for the pilot study

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

The International Journal of Bilingualism

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

CLA-focused instruction and learner responses

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

Formally similar French word pile chaise gentil Nice

Same meaning in English and French? No (meaning 1) Yes (meaning 2) Yes No No

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

Horst et al.: First and second language knowledge

The International Journal of Bilingualism

About the Authors

Downloaded from ijb.sagepub.com by Pro Quest on September 23, 2010

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUALISM 14 (3)

The International Journal of Bilingualism

Вам также может понравиться