Focus on Multilingualism: A Study of

Trilingual Writing
JASONE CENOZ
University of the Basque Country
Faculty of Education
Department MIDE
70 Hiribidea Tolosa
20018 Donostia-San Sebastia n
Basque Country, Spain
Email: jasone.cenoz@ehu.es

DURK GORTER
University of the Basque Country
Faculty of Education
Department THE IKERBASQUE
70 Hiribidea Tolosa
20018 Donostia-San Sebastia n
Basque Country, Spain
Email: d.gorter@ikerbasque.org

In this article, we analyze the relationship between studies in second language acquisition and
studies in bilingualism as areas that have been traditionally ignored but which share some
common perspectives. Then we look at new trends in both areas that are compatible with a
holistic perspective in the study of multilingualism. Based on these trends, we propose Focus
on Multilingualism, an approach that looks at the whole linguistic repertoire of multilingual
speakers and language learners and at the relationships between the languages when conducting research, teaching, or assessing different languages. In the second part of the article, we
report on the results of an exploratory study on the development of writing skills in three languages: Basque, Spanish, and English. We explore different ways to look at the three languages
and their interaction by focusing on the multilingual speaker and his or her languages rather
than each of the specific languages in isolation. The results indicate that the languages are
related to each other in different ways and that multilingual speakers develop their creativity
in these language practices. We argue that by focusing on the different languages, we can gain
new insights about the way languages are learned and used.

IN THIS ARTICLE, WE COMBINE DIFFERENT

perspectives in the study of second language acquisition (SLA) and bilingualism/multilingualism studies as a basis to propose
Focus on Multilingualism, a perspective for
both research and teaching. First, we look at
some common characteristics of research and
teaching, some new trends that bring together
these two areas of applied linguistics, and the
different languages being learned and used in
school contexts.
Second, we follow with the section entitled The
Study in order to analyze whether the Focus
on Multilingualism perspective can provide new
information when compared to traditional approaches. We report on an exploratory research

The Modern Language Journal, 95, iii, (2011)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x
0026-7902/11/356369 $1.50/0

C 2011 The Modern Language Journal

study on writing skills in Basque, Spanish, and

English in Basque schools. We look at the correlations among the scores in the three languages,
multidirectionality in language transfer, common
general writing skills, and language mixing in
informal writing. Finally, we discuss pedagogical
implications and propose topics for further research.
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND
BILINGUALISM
Traditionally, studies on SLA and bilingualism
have been considered separately. Whereas SLA
has focused on the process of becoming bilingual,
bilingualism looks at what it means to be bilingual (see also Block, 2003; Ortega, 2010; Valdes,
2005). SLA has addressed issues such as the role
of different factors affecting the acquisition of
second languages (e.g., age, motivation) and the
development of phonetic, lexical, morphosyntactic, pragmatic, and discourse competence in a

357

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

second language. The field has also looked at the
effect of different types of instruction on SLA (see
Doughty & Long, 2005). Bilingualism has paid attention to the psycholinguistic functioning of the
mind when having two codes, the early acquisition of two languages, or the cognitive outcomes
of being bilingual. At the social and educational
levels, the main focus has been on the provision
and evaluation of bilingual education and on language policy in society (see Baker, 2006).
In educational contexts, research on SLA
and research on bilingualism take different approaches, but at the same time, they share some
characteristics:
1. They have rarely gone beyond two languages, although SLA and bilingualism are
sometimes used as umbrella terms for additional
languages.
2. Competence in a second language and bilingual competence have been measured from a
monolingual perspective against the yardstick of
the native speaker. In the case of SLA, the reference would be the native speaker of the target
language, and in the case of bilingualism, the reference would be the native speakers of the two
languages involved.
3. Codemixing and codeswitching have a
strong tradition in the study of bilingualism from a
sociolinguistic perspective (see Gardner-Chloros,
2009; Muysken, 2000). Multilinguals establish
soft boundaries between their languagesthat
is, boundaries that are permeable and allow for
interaction between the languages. In contrast,
hard boundaries have been built between languages in school contexts, both in the case of second/foreign language acquisition and bilingual
education. Some indicators of this separation are
the association of one teacher to one language,
or specific use of one classroom for a specific language. Even in the case of bilingual and multilingual schools, the syllabi for the different languages are often independent and not integrated.
This approach has been called parallel monolingualism (Heller, 1999, p. 271) or two solitudes
(Cummins, 2005, p. 588).
These common characteristics of SLA and bilingualism are widespread and generally accepted in
different parts of the world, but some points have
been contested since the late 1980s.
In the field of SLA, Cook (1995) proposed that
second language (L2) users are fundamentally different from first language (L1) users and should
be examined in their own right. Because of the
presence of more than one language in their
repertoire, Cook argued that L2 users develop

a complex type of competence, which is qualitatively different from the competence of monolingual speakers of a language (Cook, 1992). Cook
proposed the notion of multicompetence to designate a unique form of language competence
that is not necessarily comparable to that of monolinguals. Cook adopted a view of languages as discrete systems in his proposal of multicompetence
and has been criticized for not paying enough attention to the role of context (see Hall, Cheng, &
Carlson, 2006).
In the field of bilingualism, Grosjean (1985)
criticized the monolingual view of bilingualism
that he called the fractional view. This view evaluates a bilingual as two monolinguals in one person. He proposed a bilingual (or holistic) view of
bilingualism so that bilinguals are considered fully
competent speaker-hearers who have a unique linguistic profile (Grosjean, 1989, 2008).
In recent years, new trends in SLA and in bilingualism theory and research have proven compatible with this holistic approach proposed by Cook
and Grosjean. Taken together, these proposals go
beyond two languages, highlight the characteristics of bilinguals and multilinguals as being different from native speakers, and emphasize the
interaction between their languages.
New Trends in SLA
In SLA, the focus on the language per se has
shifted to an increasing interest in the learner,
the communicative interaction, and the context
in which the interaction takes place. According
to Dynamic Systems Theory, SLA can be understood as a complex, dynamic system in which all
variables are interrelated and can influence one
another (De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; LarsenFreeman, 1997). The context in which communication takes place is crucial because a language is
not a fixed code that is ready-made for users before they start using it; rather, it is created, or at
the very least assembled, from conventional units
each time it is used (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron,
2008). As Herdina and Jessner (2002) pointed out
when referring to bilingualism or multilingualism, the development of a multilingual repertoire
has characteristics such as nonlinearity, interdependence, and complexity.
Sociocultural and ecological approaches are
also important trends in SLA research, which
are compatible with Dynamic Systems Theory
(van Lier, 2004). These approaches have gained
ground since the publication of Firth and Wagners article in 1997, in which they argue for
the impossibility of analyzing SLA learners

358
performance in isolation from the context. As
Kramsch and Whiteside (2007) pointed out,
learners need to acquire the skills and competences to be accepted as competent members of
a community of practice; it is not enough to have
the correct mental representations. When applied
to multilingualism, ecological approaches look at
interactions in multilingual environments as complex dynamic systems in which speakers shape the
very context in which the language is learned and
used (Kramsch, 2010).
In recent years, we have seen a significant increase in research involving the acquisition of
third or additional languages (see Cenoz, in
press). The main issue discussed in this research
is the identification of the characteristics that distinguish SLA from the acquisition of additional
languages (third language [L3], fourth language
[L4], etc.). Even though the focus is often, as in
the case of SLA, on the process of acquiring a specific language, the identification of specific characteristics associated with additional languages
is necessarily linked to the outcomes of being
bilingual or multilingual. Therefore, bilingualism/multilingualism and third (or additional)
language acquisition are brought closer together
(see Aronin & Hufeisen, 2009). One of the outcomes of bilingualism/multilingualism often associated with the acquisition of an additional language is the development of metalinguistic awareness, understood as the ability to reflect on language and to manipulate it (see also Bialystok,
2001). Bilinguals have been reported to have advantages over monolinguals in some dimensions
of metalinguistic awareness that demand high levels of control of attention (Bialystok, 2001; see also
Jessner, 2006).
A related trend in applied linguistics is the
extended use of English as a lingua franca and
the role of the native speaker as a model in
SLA (Canagarajah, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2007). Research in this area analyzes communication practices among speakers of different languages; it
brings together the use of English and bilingualism/multilingualism, and at the same time considers multilingual competence as a different type of
competence. The widespread use of English along
with other languages calls into question the goal
of achieving a level of competence similar to that
of the monolingual native speaker of English. As
Canagarajah (2007) pointed out, the competence
of lingua franca speakers is distinct and derives
from their multilingual life (p. 925).
These new trends in SLA (or in the acquisition of additional languages) and applied linguistics are compatible with the findings reported in

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics about the
strong interaction between the languages used by
multilingual speakers. For example, a strong level
of activation of the different languages has been
reported when speakers of three languages complete tasks in one of the languages (Dijkstra &
Van Hell, 2003). In a similar vein, when reviewing
a number of studies on the multilingual lexicon,
Singleton (2003) concluded that there is a high
degree of connectivity and dynamic interplay between the L1 mental lexicon and additional mental lexicons (p. 169).
New Trends in Bilingualism
Codeswitching has been considered the most
distinctive behaviour of the bilingual speaker;
there is no better behavioural indicator to show
that a speaker is bilingual than when he or she is
using two languages simultaneously in social interaction (Li Wei & Wu, 2009, p. 193). Multilinguals
may mix or switch languages because they have a
lexical gap and need a word from the other language they know, but they also mix or switch languages in creative ways for different communicative functions. Multilinguals use the languages at
their disposal as a resource in communication,
and these practices contribute to the development of their multilingual and multicultural identities (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007). Codemixing
and codeswitching practices are common from a
very early age in the case of bilingual and trilingual children, and they are topic-related and affected by cultural and situational factors (Stavans
& Swisher, 2006). In fact, cross-linguistic processes
are related to linguistic, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic factors and range from the transfer of one single element to codeswitching (see
Gardner-Chloros, 2009; Muysken, 2000). Transfer
from the L1 into the L2 has traditionally been a
central issue in SLA research. Traditionally, it was
considered a deficient use of the target language
due to the influence of the L1 and was referred
to as interference. Currently, this term is discredited because of its behavioristic connotations,
and cross-linguistic influence has more currency
(Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). As the study of transfer
has focused on the L2, the influence of the L1
on the L2 has been the main type of transfer analyzed. Research studies have proven that crosslinguistic processes are more complex and that
they can be multidirectional (Cook, 2003; Jarvis
& Pavlenko, 2008). Studies in third language acquisition have also reported other patterns and
particularly that L3 learners are influenced both
by their L1s and L2s (Cenoz, 2009; Clyne, 1997;

359

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

De Angelis, 2007; Ringbom, 2007; Williams &
Hammarberg, 1998).
Can transfer (or cross-linguistic influence)
really be distinguished from codeswitching and
codemixing? By adopting a more holistic view
that brings together SLA and bilingualism
/multilingualism studies and takes into account
all of the languages in the linguistic repertoire
of the multilingual learner and user, transfer,
codemixing, and codeswitching processes can be
better represented as different positions along
a continuum than as separate processes. Such
studies show that the languages that are being
learned and used are interrelated. As Garca
(2008) explained, languages are not fixed codes
by themselves; they are fluid codes framed within
social practices (p. 32). Multilingual speakers
have more resources available in their linguistic
repertoire than monolingual speakers, and they
use them to achieve their communication goals.
As Block (2007) suggested, multilinguals do not
seem to be semilingual, but hyperlingual.
The idea of mixing elements from different languages is not considered acceptable by most researchers, teacher educators, and teachers. However, some steps have been made in a different
direction and the idea of using different languages as a resource in bilingual/multilingual educational contexts has been proposed recently.
Terms such as translanguaging (Williams, 2002;
see also Garca, 2008) or flexible bilingualism
(Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Creese & Blackledge,
2010) refer to multilingual practices that use languages as a resource without establishing clear-cut
boundaries between the languages. Translanguaging refers to the combination of two or more
languages in a systematic way within the same
learning activity. Baker (2006) highlighted that
the alternation of languages needs to be the result of strategic classroom language planning
(p. 297), not just allowing for codeswitching in
the classroom. According to Williams (2002),
translanguaging is a natural way of developing
and strengthening both languages whilst simultaneously gaining a deeper understanding (p. 29).
The idea of translanguaging is appealing because
it establishes a bridge between the way languages
are used by bilinguals and multilinguals in everyday communication and the teaching and learning of languages at school. However, it is still too
early to determine the effect of these pedagogical practices of combining different languages on
bilingual and multilingual proficiency.
Within multilingual education, another recent
trend is to develop an integrated curriculum including the different languages. As Elorza and

Mu
noa (2008) explained, an integrated curriculum brings together complementary facets of the
learning processes, while contrasting the specific
linguistic aspects of each language. At the same
time it transfers, applies, and generalizes what
has been learned in one language to the others
(p. 91). An integrated curriculum can offer the
best conditions to develop metalinguistic awareness and enhance the acquisition of different languages.
Another trend that combines two languages in
the same conversation is receptive multilingualism.
This takes place when interlocutors use their respective L1s while speaking to each other (Ten
Thije & Zeevaert, 2007). Receptive multilingualism is part of the tradition of multilingual communication and has been promoted as a way to
increase mobility and improve communication
among European citizens, but it is not common
in school contexts yet.
These practices go against the conventions in
most school contexts, but as it has already been
said, they are characteristic of interaction among
multilingual speakers. These practices can also be
found in the linguistic landscape, particularly in
the case of commercial signs that combine languages not always to convey meaning but often to
increase their communicative effect (see Cenoz
& Gorter, 2008). However, as Cenoz, Gorter, and
Aiestaran (2010) reported, the use of two or more
languages in signs inside school buildings is rather
exceptional. Even in the case of schools that aim at
developing multilingual competence, languages
tend to be separated.
Outside the school, the same students who are
taught to forget about the other languages in
their repertoire and to focus on one language at a
time often engage in multilingual practices. Their
out-of-school practices combine elements from
different languages, and also from other semiotic elements (icons, fonts, sounds, and visuals)
when interacting with their peers in social media
contexts.
Focus on Multilingualism
So far we have seen that new trends in research on SLA and bilingualism/multilingualism
are moving away from the idea of considering
one language at a time as if they were stored
in separate containers, toward focusing on the
whole individual and his or her social repertoire
and highlighting the connections between the
languages. Interesting theoretical advances propose a more holistic view of the languages used
and being learned so that all of the languages

360

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

FIGURE 1
Traditional Approach and Focus on Multilingualism

spoken by multilingual speakers and/or taught

at school are taken into account. Furthermore,
the relationship between these languages can be
considered both in language learning and language use. As we have already seen, there are
pointers in the same direction in neurolinguistics,
psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics. However,
a true focus on multilingualism when conducting research on SLA (or the acquisition of additional languages) and/or in the study of bilingualism/multilingualism is not yet common. For
example, even though studies that focus on third
language acquisition bring together the outcomes
of bilingualism and the acquisition of an additional language, they rarely adopt a genuine multilingual perspective and merely take bilingualism
as one of the independent variables when analyzing the process of L3 acquisition (see Cenoz, 2009,
for a review). This is the canonical monolingual
focus that follows the SLA tradition.
In contrast to these traditional approaches, Focus on Multilingualism looks at the whole linguistic repertoire and the relationships between
the languages when conducting research, teaching, or assessing different languages. The difference between the traditional approach (separated circles) and the Focus on Multilingualism
approach (intersecting circles) can be seen in
Figure 1.
Both approaches aim at increasing competencies in different languages, albeit through a different conceptualization. Instead of considering
each language as a separate entity, Focus on Multilingualism looks at the different languages as a
whole and explores their commonalities. It creates connections between the languages being
learned at school by using translanguaging as a
pedagogical strategy and highlights the relationships between languages by creating specific activities so as to enhance metalinguistic awareness.
We argue that Focus on Multilingualism can
provide a different perspective both in second lan-

guage acquisition research and in multilingual education. In the case of SLA, by looking at the different languages and their interactions and adopting a holistic perspective, we look at second language acquisition in its complexity, as suggested
in Complex Systems Theory or Dynamic Systems
Theory (de Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman &
Cameron, 2008). When a multilingual learner is
acquiring languages, a holistic approach such as
Focus on Multilingualism can show how the different subsystems are connected across the languages in their development and the way they
support each other. In this way, the interactions
between the systems and their dynamics can be
examined. For example, we can observe the effect
that learning a specific strategy in writing through
instruction in one of the languages has on the
other languages. Thus, we could identify connected
growers, understood as subsystems that support
each other not only within a specific language as
explained by De Bot et al. (2007) but also among
the different languages. As a result, the languages
involved could reinforce each other and teaching
could be more targeted and effective.
Furthermore, by taking into account the different languages, Focus on Multilingualism looks
at the acquisition and use of second and additional languages in a social context. Multilingual
speakers acquire and use their languages while
engaging in language practices that are shaped
by the environment. In fact, multilingual speakers use their resources and navigate between languages in real communication (see also Kramsch,
2006).
Although multilingual schools aim at multilingualism as an outcome, their approach to multilingualism often has limitations because it does
not reinforce the relationship between the languages. Focus on Multilingualism looks at the
interaction among languages and therefore it is
closer to the way languages are acquired and
used. It looks at multilingual learners and users as

361

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

different and not comparable to monolingual native speakers. Multilingual learners and users can
use their different languages as a resource and
can have other multilingual speakers as a reference. Focus on Multilingualism is potentially
a more efficient way to acquire languages than
the traditional approach for at least two reasons.
First, as we have seen, it can use connected growers across languages, enabling a more efficient
use of resources. This could be achieved by establishing integrated curricula for the languages
(Elorza & Mu
noa, 2008). Second, by establishing
soft boundaries between languages that allow for
codemixing and translanguaging, learners will be
involved in language practices that are natural
among multilingual speakers.
A first step when adopting Focus on Multilingualism in research on the acquisition of languages in multilingual education is to analyze its
potential contribution compared to a more traditional approach. In the next section we report on
an exploratory study that examines how such an
approach contributes to the acquisition of multilingualism in writing. The study aims at answering
the following question: Does a Focus on Multilingualism perspective based on written production
in three languages provide different information
about multilingual learners than a monolingual
perspective?
THE STUDY
In this exploratory study, first we will use a conventional approach by evaluating the languages
separately and then we will look at their relationships and go into more direct comparisons and
consider hybrid texts. In this study, we look at
written production in Basque, Spanish, and English. This study was carried out in Basque schools,
which can be regarded as a real laboratory of multilingualism, including three or four languages in
the curriculum used as school subjects and languages of instruction and bringing together situations of minority language education, immersion
education, and Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL).
Participants
Participants were 165 secondary school students (77 male; 88 female) who had Basque
and/or Spanish as their L1 and lived in the Basque
Country (Spain). According to the background
questionnaire, Basque was the L1 for 31% of the
students, Spanish was the L1 for 46% of the students, and the rest of the students, 23%, had

both Basque and Spanish as their L1s. The mean

age for the participants was 14.6 years. They all
had Basque as the language of instruction and
they also studied Spanish and English as school
subjects. Although Basque is becoming the preferred language of instruction in some areas of the
Basque Country, Spanish is the majority language
at the community level, and the use of Basque
as the language of instruction does not prevent
students from acquiring similar levels of proficiency in Spanish as students who learn through
the medium of Spanish (Cenoz, 2009). English is
introduced as a school subject from kindergarten,
but only for a limited number of sessions (24
hours per week), and students do not have much
exposure to English outside the school. Some children study French as an L4.
Instruments and Procedure
Participants completed a background questionnaire that included questions on the knowledge
and use of Basque in their social networks. They
wrote three compositions at schoolone in each
of the three languages analyzed: Basque, Spanish, and English. Students were given a picture
for each language and were instructed to write a
composition in each language on different days.
The instructions in all three cases were as follows:
Please describe in your own words what you see in
the picture, or tell a story about the people in the
picture. They were asked to write approximately
250 words in each of the languages. The compositions were on different topics for the three languages, but they had a similar format. The compositions were analyzed by using the CLAN program
(Computerized Language Analysis) following the
CHAT (Codes for the Human Analysis of Transcripts) and LIDES (Language Interaction Data
Exchange System) coding systems (LIPPS Group,
2000; MacWhinney, 2000). As part of the data
collection of this study, we also obtained a few
samples of informal communication on Tuenti,
the Spanish-based social network similar to Facebook. These texts are examples of natural interaction outside school without any instructions
about the languages to be used, which is different
from the context in which the compositions were
written.
Results
To answer our research question, we conducted
four different analyses. All of them had a Focus
on Multilingualism approach and looked at the
production in the three languages at the same

362

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

TABLE 1
Scores of Compositions in Basque, Spanish, and
English
Basque

Spanish

TABLE 2
Correlations Among Compositions in Basque,
Spanish, and English

English

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Content
26.76 (2.34) 26.08 (2.29) 22.24 (3.78)
(max = 30)
Organization 18.02 (1.67) 17.40 (1.58) 15.02 (3.04)
(max = 30)
Grammar
21.04 (2.14) 20.60 (1.96) 15.28 (3.72)
(max = 30)
Vocabulary 17.34 (1.60) 17.15 (1.59) 12.82 (2.88)
(max = 30)
Mechanics
4.44 (0.63) 4.23 (0.71) 3.47 (1.00)
(max = 30)
Total
87.60 (6.68) 85.49 (6.90) 68.83 (12.62)

time. The analyses took into account composition scores, multidirectionality in language transfer, general writing skills, and language mixing in
informal writing.
COMPOSITION SCORES
The first step was to investigate the possible relationship among the compositions in the three
languages by looking at the scores achieved in different dimensions of writing. The compositions
were graded according to the scales proposed by
Jacobs, Zingraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, and Hughey
(1981). This system uses scales adding up to 100
points and distributed as follows: content (30),
organization (20), vocabulary (20), language use
(25), and mechanics (5). Once the results of the
tests were codified, analyses were conducted by
using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The scores obtained in the compositions
in the three languages can be seen in Table 1,
and the correlations between the different dimensions measured and the total scores can be seen in
Table 2.
The results of the correlation analysis indicate that there are statistically significant correlations between each pair of languages for most
dimensions. In fact, with the exception of organization, all of the other correlations are significant. At the same time, there is no clear
pattern indicating that the correlations between
two specific languages are much stronger than
between other pairs of languages. This is very interesting, taking into account the combination
of languages. English is a Germanic language,
Spanish is a Romance language, and Basque is a
non-Indo-European language of unknown origin.

Content
Organization
Grammar
Vocabulary
Mechanics
Total

Basque
and
Spanish

Basque
and
English

Spanish
and
English

.25
.13
.24
.21
.46
.36

.31
.12
.41
.42
.20
.47

.53
.31
.28
.30
.42
.47

p < .05.
p < .01.

The grammar of Basque is completely different

from the grammars of English and Spanish, but
our results indicate that most of the correlations
are significant. After centuries of contact between
Basque and Spanish, the vocabulary of these two
languages has elements in common, but the highest correlations in vocabulary correspond to the
correlations between Basque and English.
These results indicate that the different dimensions evaluated in the three languages (content,
structure, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics)
are related to each other. The results indicate
that multilingual speakers share some skills across
their different languages. Students with a high
score in mechanics or vocabulary in one of the
languages would also obtain good results in the
other languages and vice versa. In the case of writing skills, the relationship between the languages
used by multilinguals has been pointed out in previous research (see Sagasta, 2003).
Multidirectionality in Language Transfer
As we have already seen, cross-linguistic influence can take part in different directions. When
analyzing the compositions, we observed that multilingual learners use their languages in multiple
directions and do not transfer only from the L1
to the L2.
The following examples are indicative of the
different directions. The numbers in parenthesis
refer to the participants IDs.
1. Transfer from the L1 (Spanish) to the L3
(English)
At the right, it is the bathroom, the lavadora for the
clothes, and the bath to the peoples of the house. (122)
In this case, a noun, lavadora washing machine,
is transferred from the L1 to the L3. This is a
common type of transfer identified in studies on
third language acquisition.

363

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

2. Transfer from the L2 (Basque) to the L3
(English)
On the chidrens room Im looked a four children, one
fish, a lot of toys for example a montatzeko pieces.
(130)
In this case, the learner uses her L2 to transfer a
verb, montatzeko to put together, from the L2 to
the L3. This is also a common type of transfer in
L3 acquisition.
3. Transfer from the L1 (Spanish) to the L2
(Basque)
Parkean umeak jolasten daude eta tabernan izozkiak
ezkatzen daude gero jendea eguzkia hartzen daude eta
jaten. (5)
Children are playing in the park and ordering
ice creams in the bar then people are sunbathing
and eating.
This is the most typical type of transfer studied
in SLA (i.e., from the L1 to the L2). In this case, it
is a direct translation from Spanish esta n pidiendo
are ordering into Basque, instead of using the
Basque eskatzen ari dira.
4. Transfer from Basque (L1) to Spanish (L2)
En el corral de alado ah ma s caballos con sus corceles,
junto a ellos se encuentran las vacas con sus txekorras.
(100)
On the farm next to it there are more horses with
their steeds, next to them there are cows with their
calves.
This is also transfer from the L1 to the L2. The
term used in Basque is txekorras instead of the
Spanish terneras calves. In this case, the learner
has replaced the Basque plural marker k with the
Spanish morpheme s, writing txekorras instead of
txekorrak.
5. Transfer from Basque (L2) to Spanish (L1)
. . . una cabra que se va a caer por una chirristra (154)
. . . a goat that is going to fall down the slide
In this case, a Spanish L1 speaker uses the
Basque term chirristra slide instead of the Spanish toboga n. The Basque word follows Spanish spelling conventions (chirristra); the Basque
spelling would be txirristra. This Basque word is
very commonly used in the Spanish of the Basque
Country.
6. Transfer from Spanish (L2) to Basque (L1)
. . . aldi berean, gurasoak deskantsatzen duten
bitartean (35)
. . . at the same time, while the parents are resting
This is also an example from L2 influence on
the L1, but in this case, from Spanish to Basque.
The word deskansatzen comes from the Spanish
descansar to rest, and it is used instead of the

Basque atsedenaldia hartzen. This type of crosslinguistic influence from the dominant language
(Spanish) to the lesser used language (Basque) is
very common in Basque.
7. Transfer from the L3 (English) to the L2
(Basque)
Behe eskuin aldean emakume batzuen artean ume
batzuk daude picnic bat egiten. (7)
On the right of the cows there are some children
having a picnic among some women.
The word picnic is an English loanword, quite
common in Spanish and Basque.
8. Transfer from L3 (English) to L1 (Basque)
Tennisean jolastu dugu. (35)
We played tennis.
In this example, there seems to be an influence of English spelling when writing in Basque
(tennisean instead of tenisean). Language transfer
from English into Basque and Spanish was very
limited in the data, perhaps because the learners
are less proficient in English than in the other
languages. Their limited exposure to English outside of school does not favor the use of English,
either.
These examples clearly indicate that crosslinguistic influence is a multidirectional phenomenon that is not limited to transferring from
the L1 to the L2. In the specific setting in which
these compositions were written, students tend
to use terms or structures from other languages
when they have difficulties; transfer from the L1
and L2 into the L3 is the most common type because of their limitations with English. The examples also show that in some cases, learners use a
term from another language not only because of
difficulties but because they find the term matches
their communicative intent better or because it is
commonly used by other speakers in a bilingual
context. One way or another, multilingual speakers use the resources in their repertoire for communicative purposes.
General Writing Strategies
A qualitative analysis of the same compositions
confirms the relationship among the three languages. This analysis shows that individual students tend to use the same general strategy to
approach the task. For example, some students
prefer to write a story, and they do so in the three
languages, whereas others prefer to write a description of each of the pictures. It is not common
for the same student to write a story in Spanish and
a description in Basque or English. In general, the

364
quality of the compositions is weaker in English,
their L3.
The similar approach multilingual students
have when they write in each of the languages
can be seen in the following examples.
Student 7 speaks Spanish at home. He has chosen to write a description, rather than a story, of
what he sees in the three pictures. When the three
descriptions are compared, we can see that he
shows a preference for colors that is not found so
clearly in other compositions.
EXAMPLE 9
English

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

Spanish
Recuerdo perfectamente aquel verano que
cumpl los siete anos.
I remember very well that summer when I
turned seven.
Basque
Egun berezia izan zen, berezia eta bakarra. Ez dut
sekula ahaztuko bederatzi urte nitueneko uda hura.
It was a special day, special and singular. I will
never forget the summer I turned nine.

At the third floor there are a pink room and

a yellow room. At the pink one there are pillows
and teddys also. Is a bed and a armary violet. At
the yellow there are a lot of box, there is a girl. In
the floor is a carpet and at one whole is a green
door.

A third example of similar ways to approach the

writing task in the three languages can be found
in the case of Student 10, who speaks Spanish at
home and who shows a preference for location
when describing the pictures in the three languages. In the case of Spanish and Basque, her
stronger languages, she also announces what she
is going to describe.

Spanish

EXAMPLE 11

. . . puedo ver a pequenas familias de caballos, son de

colores muy diferentes; gris, marron, amarillo . . . Una
nina, que esta enfrente de unas botas negras que hay
en la pared . . .
. . . I can see small families of horses, they are
of different colours, grey, brown, yellow . . . A girl
who is facing some black boots that are against
the wall . . .

English

Basque

En este texto voy a hacer una descripcion del dibujo

de arriba, que esta dividido en siete partes bien diferenciadas por vallas. La primera parte que esta abajo y
a la hizquierda . . . La segunda parcela, que esta separada por la anterior con una valla de rijilla . . . A la
derecha de esta parte . . . Mas arriba hay otra parcela
ocupada por las gallinas que comen del suelo.
In this text Ill give a description of the picture
above, which is divided into seven distinct parts
by fences. The first part is on the bottom on the
left . . . The second part, which is separated from
the previous one by a mesh fence . . . To the right
of this part . . . A bit higher there is another part
occupied by hens that eat from the ground.

. . . baloi gorri batekin, beste bat mangito laranja

batzuk jantzita dituela jolasean dago, Beherago mahai
bat dago, egurrezkoa, sombrila hori bat duela alboan
eta toaila gorria azpian.
. . . with a red ball, another one wearing orange
rings is playing. Below there is a wooden table, and
it has a yellow sunshade next to it and a red towel
under it.
Another example can be seen in the case of
Student 105, who speaks Basque at home. She
has chosen to write a story and starts her three
compositions by focusing on age, birthdays, or
celebrations.

This house have three floors. In the first floor at

the right side is the kitchen . . . In the left is the
living room . . . At the meadle of this two rooms is the
hall . . . In the second room at the left is a room
. . . In the meadle of this two rooms is a corridor . . .
Spanish

EXAMPLE 10

Basque

English

Testu honetan pantano honen deskribapena egingo dut. Irudiaren behekaldean ezkerrean familia
bat dago. Mahaiaren ezkerrean emakume bat dago
toailan etzanda lotan. Beherago manta batean bi ume
daude jaten zestan eta izozkailuan dagoen janaria.

Like every year, my parents are going to organise their aniversary celebration. It is a very special
time . . . (105)

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

Eskubirantz emakume beltzarantz bat dago eguzkia
hartzen, eta eskubirago bi ume . . . Irudiaren eskubiko
beheko erpinean bi ume . . .
In this text Ill give a description of this reservoir. On the left bottom side of the picture there is
a family. On the left of the table there is a woman
sleeping on a towel. Further down there are two
children eating the food that is in the basket and
in the fridge. To the right, there is a dark woman
sunbathing, and more to the right there are two
children. On the further right end on the bottom
two children . . .
These examples show that multilingual learners use similar strategies and focus on the same
themes in writing a composition in three languages. These examples and the correlations in
content shown in Table 2 point in the same direction, suggesting that there is an underlying common multilingual strategy that is then produced in
three languages. Obviously, it is the same person
writing in different languages, and each person
has developed writing competencies that can be
shared across languages. By looking at the three
languages, the idea of the learner as a multilingual
person using different languages is much more
evident than if we focus on only one of the languages.
Language Mixing in Informal Writing
The next point in our analysis was to explore
the way multilingual speakers can use their total
linguistic repertoire for communicative purposes
in a more informal context. To accomplish this,
we collected some extracts from interaction on
the social networking site Tuenti (similar to Facebook). This type of writing, a rather new genre, is
best characterized by combining the written conventions and other notational forms with the spoken languages, making allowances that no other
communicative platforms make. These extracts
are merely examples collected as homework, to
see how languages were used in informal contexts. They can only be regarded as indicators of
a phenomenon to be further explored. In the following example, we can see two 15-year-old boys
discussing how to write a composition. M is asking
for help. The main language in the interaction is
Spanish, but the composition must be written in
Basque, the main school language. The students
also use some English in the interaction, and in
some cases, it is not clear to which language some
items (i.e., jaj, hahaha) belong.
EXAMPLE 12
M: me ayudas con la carta? y en serio como pongo al
principio?

365
Can you help me with the letter? Seriously how
do I start?
H: sqe ya t e dicho
I already told you
M: klase maitia: 11 urte hauetan . . . y luego?
Dear class: in these 11 years . . . and then?
H: izan zarete ikaragarriak beti egon zarete hor larri
nebilenean eta beti apollatu zenidazuten bainan orain
etorri da denbora agur esatea nire bizitza orain Kenian
pasako dudalako
You have been great, you have always been there
when I needed you and you have always supported
me but now the time has come to say goodbye, I
will spend my life in Kenya now
M: pero asi no llego a 200 hitz ni de cona
but there is no way I get to 200 words like this
H: posible 50% si pero porqe no lo hiciste ayer? o la
semana pasada?
perhaps 50% but why didnt you do it yesterday?
Or last week?
M: pues xq no apetecia jaj
I didnt feel like it, jaj
H: ya
Okay
M: e nose de ke scribir lo de la despedida no me da para
200 hitzas ni d kona y lo de scribir a un famoso . . . n
mola jaj
I dont know what to write about, the goodbye
does not get to 200 words at all and to write about
a famous person, I dont like it
H: noo eso no escrib a uno d tu clase
not that, write to one in your class
M: me escribes una carta? Jajaja
Can you write the letter for me? Hahaha
H: muaaajabea
muaaajabea
M: ai nid jelp
I need help
H: i know pero ya te dicho todo
I know but I have told you everything
M: pero noseeeeeeee eske no se me okurre nada tio aver
helllp help jelp
but I dont know I cannot think of anything man,
lets see help help help
This interaction shows how multilinguals mix
languages and create a hybrid text combining
not only the three languages but also mixing languages in other ways, as well. Basque (underlined
in the text) is the language of the task and Spanish the main language of interaction. Basque and
Spanish are used alternately in different utterances but are also mixed in some utterances, as
in when M says no me da para 200 hitzas, using
the Basque word hitzak (with the Spanish plural marker s, hitzas) instead of the Spanish
palabras words. The Spanish-derived apollatu

366
(from apoyar to support) is used instead of lagundu in a Basque utterance. English and Spanish
are also mixed in the last two utterances. These
multilingual speakers are navigating among languages, and this switching between languages is
part of their multilingual identity (see also Canagarajah, Li Wei, and Shohamy, all in this issue).
Apart from mixing languages, this text uses
other resources for communication purposes:
(a) spelling an English utterance using Spanish
spelling conventions: ai nid jelp. I need help;
(b) using the abbreviated, nonstandard spellings
common in social media: xq sqe ya t e dicho instead of porque, es que ya te he dicho because I
have already told you (this type of spelling is not
used in Basque because Basque is the language
used in the task M has to give to his teacher. It is
interesting to see how the functions of the two languages are distinguished); and (c) using alternate
spellings: helllp help jelp help, or repeating vowels: noseeeeeeee (instead of no se). These are ways
for M to emphasize that he really needs help from
H.
These multilingual students are using not only
different languages but also different modes of
communication. The development of multimedia
technology, communication channels, and media has encouraged multimodal literacy, which
is based on the affordances provided by gesture,
sound, visuals, and other semiotic symbols, including, but not limited to, language. Messages
created in social media contexts are enhanced
by different colors, fonts, and symbols in addition to actual words. These other modalities
are not usually seen in school contexts. An exception we found in our data was the following
utterance:
family!! (17)
This is happy
This is an example of a symbol integrated in the
text, a common practice when secondary school
students communicate among themselves. This is
the only such case in the compositions but shows
that new literacy practices occasionally make their
way into the school.
DISCUSSION
The four steps taken in this exploratory study
clearly show that Focus on Multilingualism as
a research approach offers a different perspective from the traditional focus on one language
at a time. Traditionally, the multilingual persons
competence in one language has been compared
to the ideal native speaker of that language. Focus on Multilingualism is an approach that allows
us to look at the different languages of the mul-

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

tilingual at the same time instead of separately.
It provides a vision of the complexity of the relationships among the languages, their processing, and the existing links between them. By taking this approach, the focus is the multilingual
person communicating in three languages rather
than one of the languages in isolation. A multilingual person can have similar strengths and weaknesses in different dimensions of writing (content, structure, etc.) and therefore uses similar
general strategies when facing the task of writing a composition independently of the language
used for each of the compositions. The examples
analyzed here suggest that multilinguals establish
soft boundaries between languages, even in the
case of written language, and they take the elements they need from other languages. These
elements are sometimes needed when students
face difficulties because they do not know a specific word or structure in the target language. In
other cases, the use of a different language can
be related to other factors. Multilingual speakers
may find a term or expression more appropriate
to convey their communicative intent in one language than in others. Using other languages can
also be related to attitudes or perceptions of the
different languages. For example, many Spanish
speakers in the Basque Country would use the
Basque words aita father and ama mother because they are seen as more affective. When some
speakers use terms in English, it can be because
they want to sound more modern or cosmopolitan. The analyses of the compositions clearly show
that the other languages of the multilingual person can no longer be ignored. A multilingual
person has some specific characteristics that are
different from those of a monolingual (see also
Cook, 2003; Grosjean, 2008). These differences
can be seen more clearly by going beyond two
languages because more complex interaction patterns emerge when three or more languages are
considered than when only the relationship between two languages is analyzed.
The approach Focus on Multilingualism provides a better picture of the way languages are
acquired. de Bot et al. (2007) discuss Dynamic
System Theory as an approach to SLA and conclude that it is important to discover which subsystems are precursors of other sub-systems and
which sub-systems are connected growers (p. 19).
Connected growers need fewer resources because
they support each others growth. The exploratory
study discussed here shows that the approach Focus on Multilingualism can identify similar patterns in writing skills in three languages and,
therefore, can potentially help to identify these

367

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

connected growers. As de Bot et al. pointed out,
this identification can have clear implications for
language teaching.
The approach Focus on Multilingualism also
highlights the need to look at real literacy practices that include translanguaging, codemixing,
and codeswitching (see Garca, Sylvan, & Witt,
this issue; Li Wei, this issue). These are common practices among multilinguals and should
be considered in research on the acquisition of
L2 or additional languages. Furthermore, multilingual speakers can improve their achievement
when these practices are allowed. As Hornberger
(2005) pointed out, bi/multilingual learning is
maximized when they are allowed and enabled to
draw from across all their existing language skills
(p. 607).
There is a need to bridge the gap between outof-school multilingual and multimodal practices
and formal school practices. As Block (2007) indicated, there is a need for teachers to draw on
the considerable language resources that such students bring with them to class (p. 80). In the case
of multilingualism, one of these resources is the
ability to combine different languages in communication. However, languages are very often separated in school contexts and there is a need to
go into what Creese and Blackledge (2010) called
flexible bilingual pedagogy (p. 112), with permeable boundaries between languages. The traditional strategy of separating languages and using
only the target language in a class does not allow
multilinguals to use a powerful resource in communication (see also Macaro, 2006; Li Wei & Wu,
2009).
Focus on Multilingualism considers that if
multilinguals have some special characteristics
when learning and using languages, monolingual
native speakers of each of the languages they
speak cannot be the appropriate reference. This
implies that the goal in multilingual education
should be to behave as a competent multilingual
speaker. Another implication for school contexts
is the need to integrate the curricula of the different languages so as to trigger the benefits of
being multilingual. Taking into account that resources for processing languages are limited and
that time devoted to language learning at school
is also limited, it is desirable to benefit from connected growers so that what is learned in one
language can be easily transferred to other languages. By integrating the curricula of the different languages, these connections are more likely
to be activated.
In this article, we argue that the approach Focus on Multilingualism can provide new insights

in the study of multilingualism. When applied

to three languages, this approach can be represented as the intersecting circles in Figure 1. Focus on Multilingualism looks at cross-linguistic
influence phenomena (including transfer and
codeswitching) that can be represented by the
intersection of the three circles. However, the
shared writing strategies reported here indicate
that the influence among languages goes beyond
these intersections. Multilingual individuals are
not three or four different people with different strategies in each of their languages; rather,
they are speakers who use their resources when
communicating with monolingual and multilingual interlocutors. The boundaries between their
languages are permeable and the interaction can
potentially affect the whole circles, not only the
intersections. There can be multidirectional patterns of interaction among the languages and not
only in the case of transfer phenomena but also
at the cognitive level. The data reported in this article are exploratory, but they suggest that the approach Focus on Multilingualism can contribute
to our understanding of the complexity and the
dynamics of multilingualism, particularly when
looking at the way several languages are acquired
and used in multilingual educational contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was carried out with the assistance of
the research grant EDU200911601 from the Spanish
Ministry of Science and Technology and the Basque Government funding for the research group Donostia Research on Education and Multilingualism (DREAM).

REFERENCES
Aronin, L., & Hufeisen, B. (Eds.). (2009). The exploration
of multilingualism: Development of research on L3.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education
and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A
critical perspective. London: Continuum.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Block, D. (2007). Bilingualism: Four assumptions and
four responses. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching , 1, 6682.

368
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal , 91, 923939.
Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education. Bristol,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. (in press). Third language acquisition. The
encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2008). The linguistic landscape
as an additional source of input in second language acquisition. IRAL, 46 , 267287.
Cenoz, J., Gorter, D., & Aiestaran, J. (2010, May). The
linguistic landscape in multilingual schools. Paper
presented at the Third International Workshop
on Linguistic Landscape, Strasbourg, France.
Clyne, M. (1997). Some of the things trilinguals do. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1, 95116.
Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning , 42, 557591.
Cook, V. (1995). Multi-competence and the learning of
many languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8, 9398.
Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on
the first. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in
the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning
and teaching. Modern Language Journal , 94, 103
115.
Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies
for recognizing heritage language competence as
a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal , 89 , 585592.
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language learning . Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic
systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
10, 721.
Dijkstra, T., & Van Hell, J. G. (2003). Testing the language mode hypothesis using trilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6 , 216.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook
of second language acquisition. London: Blackwell.
Elorza, I., & Mu
noa, I. (2008). Promoting the minority language through integrated plurilingual language planning: The case of the ikastolas. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 21, 85101.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA
research. Modern Language Journal , 81, 285300.
Garca, O. (Ed.). (2008). Bilingual education in the 21st
century: A global perspective. Chichester, England:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but
specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 6 , 467477.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain
and Language, 36 , 315.

The Modern Language Journal 95 (2011)

Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hall, J. K., Cheng, A., & Carlson, M. T. (2006). Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory of language
knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 , 220240.
Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A
sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Longman.
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic model of
multilingualism. Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage
language education. Modern Language Journal , 89 ,
605609.
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V.
F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence
in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.
Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in multilinguals:
English as a third language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence
to symbolic competence. Modern Language Journal , 90, 249252.
Kramsch, C. (2010). The multilingual subject. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2007). Three fundamental concepts in SLA and their relevance in multilingual contexts. Modern Language Journal , 91,
905920.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science
and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141165.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research
methodology on language development from a
complex theory perspective. Modern Language
Journal , 92, 200213.
Li, Wei, & Wu, C. (2009). Polite Chinese revisited: Creativity and the use of codeswitching in
the Chinese complementary school classroom.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 12, 193211.
LIPPS Group. (2000). The LIDES coding manual. A
document for preparing and analysing language
interaction data. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 131271.
Macaro, E. (2006). 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.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for
analyzing talk: Vol 1. The format and programs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of
code-mixing . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ortega, L. (2010, March). The bilingual turn in
SLA. Plenary address at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, Atlanta,
GA.

369

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign
language learning . Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Sagasta, M. P. (2003). Acquiring writing skills in a third
language: The positive effects of bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7 , 2742.
Seidlhofer, B. (2007). Common property: English as a
lingua franca in Europe. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 137153). New York: Springer.
Singleton, D. (2003). Perspectives on the multilingual
lexicon: A critical synthesis. In J. Cenoz, U. Jessner,
& B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp.
167176). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stavans, A., & Swisher, V. (2006). Language switching
as a window on trilingual acquisition. International
Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 193220.

Ten Thije, J. D., & Zeevaert, L. (Eds.). (2007). Receptive

multilingualism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Valdes, G. (2005). Bilingualism, heritage language learners, and SLA research: Opportunities lost or
seized? Modern Language Journal , 89 , 410426.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. New York:
Springer.
Williams, C. (2002). Extending bilingualism in the
education system. Education and lifelong learning committee ELL-0602. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from http://www.assemblywales.org/
3c91c7af00023d820000595000000000.pdf
Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language
switches in L3 production: Implications for polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics, 19 , 295
333.

Wiley-Blackwell Chinese Scholars Network

Wiley-Blackwells Chinese Scholars Network is a resource for scholars, academics, and researchers in
China who would like to publish their work in English language journals. The Network was established
in 2010 by Wiley-Blackwell for the purpose of facilitating an international academic conversation and
increasing the global profile of Asian scholarship in the social sciences.
The Network includes a range of useful tools for publishing abroad. Among these resources are online
videos of seminars and author interviews, links to translation services, podcasts about the process of
academic journal publishing, and a question forum with expert answers from experienced professionals.
Additionally, the Network features helpful subject-specific information for authors specializing in the
areas of Business Management, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Psychology, and Urban
Studies. Here you will find tips, guides, and advice of great use to the large and growing body of Chinese
researchers in the Social Sciences and journal editors in the field.
Source: http://www.weilichubanxuezhe.com/about.htm