Post on 27-Mar-2017
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 20 November 2014, At: 03:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of MultilingualismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmjm20
An experimental study of early L3development: age, bilingualism andclassroom exposureCatherine A. Stafford a , Cristina Sanz b & Harriet Wood Bowden ca Department of Spanish and Portuguese , University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison, WI, USAb Department of Spanish & Portuguese , Georgetown University ,412 ICC, 37 & O Streets NW, Washington, DC, 20057, USAc Department of Modern Languages , University of Tennessee-Knoxville , Knoxville, TN, USAPublished online: 15 Jan 2010.
To cite this article: Catherine A. Stafford , Cristina Sanz & Harriet Wood Bowden (2010)An experimental study of early L3 development: age, bilingualism and classroom exposure,International Journal of Multilingualism, 7:2, 162-183, DOI: 10.1080/14790710903528122
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790710903528122
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
An experimental study of early L3 development: age, bilingualism andclassroom exposure
Catherine A. Stafforda, Cristina Sanzb* and Harriet Wood Bowdenc
aDepartment of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA;bDepartment of Spanish & Portuguese, Georgetown University, 412 ICC, 37 & O Streets NW,Washington, DC 20057, USA; cDepartment of Modern Languages, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, USA
(Received 9 June 2009; final version received 27 November 2009)
This research investigated Spanish�English bilingual adults’ initial learning of athird language (L3), Latin, comparing the learning processes and outcomes ofearly- and late-onset bilinguals. Thirty-three participants were classified as Earlyor Late Bilinguals according to their age of arrival to the USA, and they wereintroduced to Latin by means of an interactive computer programme thatprovided grammar explanation, input-based practice and explicit feedback.Results indicated that (1) overall, the two groups garnered similar benefits fromthe instructional treatment; (2) the Late Bilinguals maintained improvements inaccurately marking noun case morphology in L3 production somewhat betterthan Early Bilinguals; and (3) there is a role for current age in explaining thevariance observed in initial L3 learning, particularly when a target structure ismorphologically complex and memory cannot be supported by existing L1/L2knowledge.
Keywords: age; input processing; bilingualism; third language acquisition;attention; multilingualism
Introduction
Bilinguals1 are often regarded as particularly talented language learners, able to use
their linguistic experience to their advantage as they undertake learning a new
language. Empirical evidence has demonstrated facilitative effects of bilingualism on
subsequent language learning (e.g. Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Hernandez, Sierra, &
Bates, 2000; Klein, 1995; Lasagabaster, 2000; Munoz, 2000; Sanz, 2000a, 2007), and
Bialystok (2001, 2007) has forwarded a particularly compelling explanation that may
account for the bilingual advantages observed in these studies. She has argued that
bilinguals, through their unique experience with constantly managing two languages
in daily use, develop exceptional capacity for attentional control which enables them
to focus attention on information that is relevant to a particular task while inhibiting
attention to irrelevant information.
It remains to be seen, however, whether such cognitive advantages of bilingualism
are (1) similar in both early and late bilinguals and (2) available to facilitate not only
fluency in known languages, but also learning of a new language in adulthood.
*Corresponding author. Email: sanzc@georgetown.edu
International Journal of Multilingualism
Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2010, 162�183
ISSN 1479-0718 print/ISSN 1747-7530 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14790710903528122
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bialystok (2007, p. 220) has called for language learning research involving bilinguals
to include examination of such questions given that ‘[t]he ‘‘bilingualism’’ of an
individual coexists with a constellation of other descriptions, including the age,
cognitive level, specific language competence, and a variety of social and motivational
factors that jointly determine the mental capacity and cognitive change that will
follow’.
This study sought to contribute to the growing field of third language (L3)
acquisition research, for which interest has been increasing steadily in recent years
(Sanz & Lado, 2008), and move towards a deeper understanding of bilingualism and
language learning in adulthood by investigating the role of age of onset of L2
learning, L2 proficiency, current age and experience with foreign language learning
(FLL) in the early L3 development of Spanish�English bilinguals learning Latin
through a computer-delivered lesson.
Literature review
The theoretical framework of the Competition Model (CM) developed by Bates and
MacWhinney (1982, 1989; see also MacWhinney, 2005) has been fruitfully adopted
in research that takes a functionalist approach to the investigation of language
learning. According to the CM, the strength of cues in linguistic input governs the
mapping between linguistic forms and their functions. A cue’s strength is determined
by its validity, which refers to availability, or the frequency with which the cue marks
a particular function, and reliability, or the consistency with which an available cue
uniquely marks a function. The relative strength of cues in a given language creates a
cue hierarchy and differences among hierarchies are posited to account for variation
across languages.
The appeal of the CM’s characterisation of linguistic representation as a set of
changeable, weighted mappings between form and function is particularly strong for
research involving bilinguals. To date, research under the CM framework has focused
on comparisons of monolingual and bilingual processing; however, valuable
extensions of this work include investigations of additional language learning by
adult bilinguals with a range of linguistic experience. After all, a framework such asthe CM is advantageous in its ability to capture the inherent dynamism of both
bilingual and multilingual systems. It is for this reason that the CM was selected as
the theoretical framework for this study.
Studies conducted by Bates, MacWhinney and their colleagues have compared
monolingual and bilingual participants’ performance on an agency assignment task
(i.e. deciding who did what to whom). Target sentences consist of two nouns and a
transitive verb and participants decide what is the agent, or subject, of each sentence.
Sentences are manipulated so that the cues they contain variously ‘converge on’ or
‘compete for’ agency assignment. In addition, these converging and competing cues
may be valid in one, the other or both of the bilinguals’ languages. In this way, at
times participants must make their agency choices based on contradictory evidence
from cues that also differ in their strength in the two languages they speak. A cue
hierarchy is thus revealed in the trade-offs that bilinguals make in their choices of
agency, and patterns in task performance are taken as evidence for differentiation
(using one language’s cue hierarchy under some processing conditions and the other
hierarchy under other conditions), transfer (adopting the cue hierarchy of one
International Journal of Multilingualism 163
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
language to guide interpretation of the other) or amalgamation of cues in one
hierarchy.
Results of CM studies (e.g. Hernandez et al., 2000; Kempe & MacWhinney, 1998;
Su, 2001) have revealed a general pattern of amalgamation among early bilinguals,
but not without exception. In Hernandez et al.’s (2000) study, for example, early
Spanish�English bilinguals’ patterns of agency choice were comparable to those of
Spanish monolinguals, suggesting differentiation rather than amalgamation. The
researchers attributed this result to the fact that two out of the three cues included in
their task are valid only in the bilinguals’ L1. They argued that this situation
compelled bilinguals to adopt a monolingual processing mode different from
strategies they might have been expected to invoke in the presence of other
combinations of cues.
The present study extends the body of CM research by investigating bilinguals’
patterns of cue use as they interact with a new language. As a study that focuses on
initial L3 learning, its approach differs from that of previous CM studies in the
inclusion not only of cues that carry different weights in the participants’ L1 and L2,but also of a new morphosyntactic cue. Examining initial L3 learning in this way may
help shed light not only on how adult language learners with different experiential
profiles apply their existing knowledge in order to process and encode new language,
but also on how varied L2 experience facilitates or hinders the incorporation of a
new cue into existing hierarchies.
Results of several studies comparing L2 and L3 learners have indicated that early
bilinguals enjoy more successful outcomes than monolinguals (e.g. Cenoz &
Valencia, 1994; Klein, 1995; Sanz, 2000a; but see Gibson, Hufeisen, & Libben,
2001, for results showing no such difference). Furthermore, studies that have focused
on L3 learning among bilingual children and adolescents (e.g. Lasagabaster, 2000;
Munoz, 2000; Sanz, 2007) have found that balanced bilingualism is associated with
more successful L3 outcomes.
The studies comparing L2 and L3 learning have focused on either overall L2/L3
achievement or acquisition of a particular aspect of the L2/L3 and, as noted by
Cenoz (2003), the findings have varied accordingly, with more consistent patterns of
bilingual advantages emerging in the results of studies focusing on overallproficiency. Cenoz and Valencia (1994), for example, investigated L2/L3 achievement
among 320 classroom English learners who were either Spanish monolinguals or
early Spanish�Basque bilinguals. L2/L3 achievement was operationalised as perfor-
mance on a battery of English tests that evaluated a variety of language skills. When
the combined influence of motivation, intelligence, years of formal English
instruction and age was held constant, bilingualism’s contribution to predicting
English language achievement was found to be statistically significant.
The findings of Sanz (2000a) replicated those of Cenoz and Valencia. In her
study, 77 monolingual Spanish and 124 early Catalan�Spanish bilingual secondary
school students were compared in their performance on a variety of English
proficiency measures. Results indicated that bilingualism was a significant predictor
of performance in English when the influence of motivation and language exposure
was controlled.
Klein’s (1995) study focused more narrowly on how 32 monolingual or multi-
lingual adolescents learning English as an L2 or L3/L4 reset the prepositionstranding parameter assumed by Universal Grammar. Monolingual participants had
164 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
started acquiring L2 English in early adolescence and the multilinguals had learned
their first L2 as children. Results revealed that, while both monolinguals and
multilinguals appeared to follow the same route to resetting the parameter, the
multilinguals reset it more rapidly than their monolingual counterparts.
Gibson et al. (2001) likewise selected a narrow linguistic focus for their study of
controlled production of prepositional verbs in L2/L3/L4 German. Unlike Klein,
however, they found no advantage for bilingual/multilingual learners over mono-
linguals. Participants in the study were 64 adult learners from a variety of L1/L2
backgrounds, and all were studying German formally and living in Germany at the
time of the study. Results revealed no statistically significant performance difference
on a gap-fill task between learners of L2 German and L3/L4 German.
The incongruous results of Klein’s and Gibson et al.’s studies may be accounted
for by differences in exposure to the target languages as well as methodological
differences; however, they also may be interpreted as suggesting that the bilingual
advantage does not hold equally for lexical and morphosyntactic development.
Clearly, more research is needed, and in particular studies that examine specificfeatures of L3 proficiency, so that the advantages of bilingualism might be more
thoroughly characterised and explained.
In research comparing monolinguals and bilinguals in non-linguistic areas of
cognition, Bialystok and her colleagues (e.g. Bialystok, 1988; Bialystok & Martin,
2004; Martin-Rhee & Bialystok, 2008) have found that bilingual children develop a
capacity to focus attention in the face of distraction earlier than their monolingual
peers. They have also found that this capacity is maintained through adulthood and
may delay declines in cognitive functioning that occur with ageing (Bialystok, Craik,
Klein, & Viswanathan, 2004; Bialystok, Craik, & Ruocco, 2006). The combined
results of these studies suggest that the beneficial effects of bilingualism may be
cumulative, a notion which has received some measure of empirical support in recent
L3 research (e.g. Lasagabaster, 2000; Munoz, 2000; Sanz, 2007).
Munoz (2000) compared proficiency in three languages among 394 Catalan�Spanish/Spanish�Catalan bilingual children and adolescents learning English as a
foreign language in Catalonia, Spain. Participants varied in language dominance and
home use of Catalan and Spanish; however, all participants attended schools inwhich the minority language, Catalan, was the language of instruction. Proficiency
was assessed in all three languages with cloze and dictation tests and results of score
analysis revealed strong, positive correlations, thus supporting the researcher’s
hypothesis that participants’ L3 competence was associated with their L1 and L2
proficiency.
Lasagabaster (2000) likewise examined achievement in instructed L3 English in
relation to L1 and L2 competence among 252 Spanish�Basque bilingual children and
early adolescents. Spanish was the L1 for most of the students2 and Spanish is also
the majority language of the communities involved in the study. Students’ degree of
balance in L1/L2 proficiency varied, as did the proportion of the school day during
which L2 Basque was used as the language of instruction in the school systems.
Results of Basque reading, writing and listening tests indicated that proficiency in
Basque varied as a function of the amount of instruction delivered in Basque, with a
similar relationship obtaining between amount of Basque instruction and perfor-
mance on L3 English tests. Put another way, students’ degree of bilingualism was
positively associated with L3 learning outcomes.
International Journal of Multilingualism 165
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sanz obtained similar results in her (2007) study of 120 Catalan�Spanish
bilingual adolescents learning L3 English in Catalonia. Specifically, when the effects
of motivation and L3 exposure were controlled, more balanced bilingualism
(including biliteracy) was significantly predictive of performance on various
measures of L3 grammatical (but not lexical) proficiency.
To summarise, research in bilingualism and cognition has shown that the
favourable effects of bilingualism are cumulative. Furthermore, research in L2 and
L3 learning has found that early bilinguals by and large are more successful than
their monolingual counterparts at acquisition of new language in late childhood and
adolescence, so if the benefits of bilingualism are indeed cumulative, it would follow
that early bilinguals will also be more successful than later bilinguals at learning new
language. This is the central hypothesis that the present study set out to test.Findings also suggest that other factors that covary with early and late
bilingualism � such as exposure to formal instruction in non-primary languages �may facilitate successful L3 learning in childhood and adolescence. Interactions
among cognitive and social variables are bound to be more complex among adults,
however, so empirical L3 research that focuses on post-adolescent bilinguals is
needed. An important additional consideration for research involving post-adoles-
cents is the potential influence of chronological age on language learning in
adulthood. Given the processing-oriented nature of our instructional treatment
and the fact that processing speed is identified among cognitive functions affected by
normal ageing (Park, 2000), current age must certainly be taken into account.
This study investigated whether the age of onset of L2 acquisition had any
bearing on L3 learning later in life, and also examined the degree to which other
factors that covary with age of onset (current age, L2 proficiency and formal
language learning) moderate successful L3 outcomes. The following research
questions guided the study: (1) Do early and late Spanish�English bilingual adults
exhibit similar patterns of cue reliance at the initial stages of L3 learning in a
computer-based instructional context? (2) Do bilinguals’ age, L2 proficiency and
experience with classroom FLL moderate successful adjustment of cue hierarchies in
the L3? To answer these questions we compared early and late Spanish�English
bilingual adults’ initial L3 learning under computer-delivered, explicit instructional
conditions, focusing on morphosyntactic cues related to the assignment of thematic
agent/patient roles to nouns in Latin.
Method
Participants
Participants were biliterate, bilingual Latino adults living in the USA. They were
recruited through advertisements in Spanish-language media, listservs, posted flyers
and by word of mouth, and they were paid for their participation. The 33
participants who comprised the final sample varied in age of onset (AoA) of L2
learning, which was operationalised for this study as the age participants reported
they arrived to the USA. Those who reported an AoA of 12 years or younger were
classified as Early Bilinguals (n�15), and those who reported an AoA of 16 years or
older were classified as Late Bilinguals (n�18). These groupings are in line with
previous research investigating age effects on SLA (e.g. Birdsong & Molis, 2001;
166 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
DeKeyser, 2000; Johnson & Newport, 1989), in which ‘early’ bilingualism is broadly
taken to have a pre-pubertal onset of development and includes both simultaneous
and sequential bilinguals, and ‘late’ bilingualism is understood to have a post-
pubertal onset. AoA ranged from birth to age 12 among Early Bilinguals and from
age 16 to 39 among Late Bilinguals.
All participants reported that Spanish was the language they spoke first at home
and that they had no knowledge of Latin and no functional knowledge of other case
inflection languages.3 Thus, all participants were on equal footing in terms of being
naıve learners of noun case morphology. Participants rated their listening, reading,
writing and speaking skills in English and Spanish on seven-point Likert-type scales.4
Participants who rated themselves 5 (‘good’) or below in current L2 proficiency in
any of the four language modalities were additionally required to complete the
reading section of the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) to
ensure that their proficiency was of a level that would enable them to benefit from
treatment instructions, explanations and feedback, all of which were provided in
English. This 100-question subtest of the TOEIC includes discrete-point grammar
items, error identification and reading comprehension tasks. Three participants were
removed from the study due to low test performance.
In addition, all participants completed a test of written Spanish in order to
control for L1 attrition. The test, which was developed by one of the researchers,
consisted of four gap-fill tasks adapted from textbook exercises designed for heritage
Spanish speakers (Foerster, Lambright, & Alfonso-Pinto, 1999). Two participants
were removed from the study on the basis of test performance which suggested
substantial language attrition over the course of their residence in the USA.
Using participants’ self-reports, the total number of instructional hours was
calculated for each participant’s study of English and of additional languages. Group
data for these variables as well as for age, language proficiency and formal education
variables are summarised in Table 1.
Target form
The linguistic target of the study was Latin morphosyntax related to the assignment
of thematic agent/patient roles to nouns. Latin was the language of choice because its
structure allows for the examination of three morphosyntactic cues associated with
Table 1. Descriptive statistics by group.
Group AoA AoTL1 prof.
(Max�7)L2 prof.
(Max�7)Education(Max�5)a
Instr.ESL
Instr.FLL
Early(n�15)
8.3(2.3)
25.1(8.1)
6.4(0.6)
6.8(0.4)
3.1(0.6)
288(760)
439(433)
Late(n�18)
25.1(6.8)
32.5(7.9)
7.0(0.1)
5.4(0.8)
3.3(1.1)
662(677)
169(242)
aEducational level was classified as follows: 1�high school diploma or GED; 2�technical school,associate’s degree or equivalent; 3�undergraduate degree or equivalent; 4�Master’s or law degree; and5�doctoral candidate.Note: Means are presented with SD in parentheses; AoA�age of arrival to USA; AoT�age at time ofexperiment; L1 prof.�self-assessed L1 Spanish proficiency; L2 prof.�self-assessed L2 English proficiency;Instr. ESL�hours of formal English instruction; Instr. FLL�hours of formal foreign language instruction.
International Journal of Multilingualism 167
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
thematic role assignment: subject�verb agreement, subject�verb�object (SVO) word
order and noun case morphology. While the first two of these cues are analogous to
strong cues available in Spanish and English, the third represents not only a new cue
to be incorporated into participants’ existing hierarchies, but also is the only one of
the three that consistently maps onto thematic roles in Latin, making it an essential
cue for extracting and encoding meaning related to the semantic function of Latin
nouns.
Practice and critical test items, examples of which are presented in (1) below, eachconsisted of two human nouns5 and a transitive verb. Verb agreement and word order
were manipulated to enable comparison of participants’ cue use in the presence of
familiar (i.e. verb agreement and SVO word order) and unfamiliar (i.e. noun case
morphology) means of assigning thematic roles. In sentences in which one noun was
singular and the other plural, as in example (1b) below, verb agreement was
informative, whereas in sentences in which both nouns were singular or plural, as in
example (1c) below, it was not. Similarly, word order of items was varied so that it,
too, would be an inconsistently reliable cue for assigning thematic roles.
(1) a. Potentissimus auscultat reginam.
king-nom. sing. listen-3rd sing. queen-acc. sing.
The king listens to the queen.
b. Potentissimi reginam auscultant.
kings-nom. pl. queen-acc. sing. listen-3rd pl
The kings listen to the queen.
c. Reginas auscultant potentissimi.queens-acc. pl. listen-3rd pl. kings-nom. pl.
The kings listen to the queens.
Target sentences were generated from a list of 35 nouns and 11 verbs, all of which aremorphophonologically regular. In addition, each grammatical function (e.g. feminine
singular agent) is marked by unique inflection (e.g. -a), making noun case
morphology a highly reliable cue for assigning thematic roles correctly.6
Treatment
The study’s treatment was highly explicit in its instructional approach. It was selected
in order to draw participants’ attention as much as possible to the most efficient
means of assigning agent/patient roles in Latin, that is, relying on noun case
morphology cues. Participants worked through an interactive computer-delivered
treatment that began with a vocabulary lesson in Latin, followed by an explanation
of Latin sentence structure, and finally task-essential practice (Loschky &
Bley-Vroman, 1993) that incorporated explicit positive and negative feedback. Thesefeatures of the treatment, which are detailed below, were designed to increase the
salience of noun morphology by presenting it in a structured way and then
encouraging it to be processed as part of meaningful input practice.7 Given our
research questions, it was desirable to eliminate as much linguistic ‘noise’ as possible
in order to focus in on the morphosyntactic cues of interest and this is what
motivated our choice of computer-delivered instruction that provided all participants
with the same amount and type of L3 input. While such a learning environment is
168 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
undeniably quite different from the way language learning happens in classroom and
naturalistic settings, what was lost in ecological validity was gained in the high degree
of experimental control our instructional treatment afforded us.
Vocabulary lesson and quiz
The vocabulary lesson introduced participants to the 46 lexical items used
throughout the grammar lesson and practice. Vocabulary learning was assessed by
means of a multiple choice quiz for which immediate onscreen feedback was
provided. Participants were required to pass the vocabulary quiz to a criterion of
100% and the computer application cycled back through the lesson until the criterion
score was met. This score was stipulated to ensure that errors made during practice
and testing were the result of difficulties with the target structures rather than with
lexical knowledge. Participants also completed brief multiple-choice format vocabu-
lary reviews before each of the language post-tests. Answers were provided for
incorrect responses and each vocabulary review was repeated until a criterion score of
100% was met.
Grammar explanation
The computerised grammar lesson was self-paced and provided explicit metalinguis-
tic information in English about how thematic agent and patient roles are assigned to
Latin nouns. First, the functional difference between nominative (referred to in the
explanation as ‘subject’) and accusative (referred to as ‘object’) case was explained
and participants interacted with several examples to reinforce the concepts presented.
Next, the Latin morphemes used to mark nominative and accusative case of
masculine and feminine, singular and plural nouns were presented individually,
followed by a series of interactive examples. In addition, Latin’s flexible word order
was highlighted and the difference between singular and plural verb forms was
pointed out. Total time spent on this portion of the treatment was approximately 20
minutes.
Practice and feedback
The input-based, task-essential practice session that followed the grammar explana-
tion consisted of three written and three aural interpretation tasks. Tasks were
presented in both modalities in order to appeal to different learning styles; all
participants completed the same six practice tasks to control the amount and type of
input exposure. Practice was ‘task-essential’ in the sense that successful task
completion required correct interpretation of the target structures. For two practice
tasks participants read or listened to a Latin sentence and interpreted it by selecting
one of two onscreen photographs as shown in Figure 1. For two other tasks,
participants read or listened to a Latin sentence and interpreted it by choosing its
English translation. For the third written interpretation task, participants read two
Latin sentences and decided which one accurately described an onscreen photograph.
For the final aural interpretation task, participants listened to a Latin sentence and
decided whether or not it accurately described an onscreen photograph.
International Journal of Multilingualism 169
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Sentences in all practice tasks consisted of two human nouns and a transitive
verb. Word order varied throughout the practice session and participants were
exposed to a total of 93 target sentences, 39 of which were presented in written form
and 54 of which were presented aurally.8
The explicit feedback provided by the computer programme was designed to be as
similar as possible to that which a conversation partner or instructor might offer in
that it attempted to focus participants’ attention on what they needed for successful
interpretation of the L3 input9; however, computer-delivered feedback is unique in
that it can control the amount and type of input that learners receive. Feedback
included item-specific metalinguistic information designed to reinforce rules of Latin
morphosyntax (see Figure 1) and was provided for both correct and incorrect
responses, again to ensure that all participants were exposed to the same amount and
type of input. The feedback remained onscreen for 5 seconds, after which the next
practice item was presented.10 Total time spent on the practice session was
approximately 1 hour.
Latin test battery
In order to provide as comprehensive an operationalisation of L3 learning as
possible, three different Latin language tests were included in a test battery, written
interpretation, aural interpretation and sentence production. The interpretation tests
were designed to be similar in format to the practice tasks that participants
completed during treatment (see Figure 1) so that we could observe how successfully
participants could apply in a parallel format what they had learned during treatment.
The interpretation tests differed from practice tasks, however, in the inclusion of a
third ‘I don’t know’ option to avoid the 50% chance of a dichotomous choice design.
Figure 1. Practice item with feedback.
170 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
A production test was also included in the battery in order to assess to what
degree knowledge of Latin morphosyntax acquired through input-based practice
could be transferred to sentence production. As Wong (2004) suggested, if after
treatment that did not include any output practice participants could successfully
apply L3 knowledge for productive use, we would have evidence of non-negligible
interlanguage change. On the production test, participants constructed Latin
sentences to describe onscreen photographs by dragging and dropping noun and
verb stems and endings into an onscreen field (see Figure 2). Participants were free tobuild sentences as they wished; however, the programme did not allow noun
morphemes to be affixed to verb stems or vice versa.
Critical items on the language tests consisted of two animate nouns and a
transitive verb. Distractor items containing just one noun and a verb were included
on the production test, and three-word distractors which focused on lexis rather than
morphosyntax were included on the interpretation tests. Three versions of the three-
test battery were created and participants completed a different version as the pre-
test, post-test and delayed test. Order of completion of the written and auralinterpretation tests was randomised, but all participants completed the production
test last at all testing sessions. Of the 55 items included on the three tests of a given
battery, 34 were critical items and 21 were distractors. Total time for completion of a
testing session was approximately 30 minutes.
Procedure
A Web-based application combining Flash and ColdFusion programming delivered
treatment and tests and participants’ test answers were recorded to a database.
Participants completed the study in three sessions, meeting individually or in pairs
with one of the researchers. During the first session of the study, participantscompleted informed consent paperwork, a language background questionnaire, the
Figure 2. Written production test item.
International Journal of Multilingualism 171
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Spanish language test, Latin vocabulary lesson, vocabulary quiz and pre-tests.
Participants who scored above 70% on any of the three tests included in the pre-test
battery were eliminated from the sample. During the second session, approximately 1
week after the first, participants completed the lesson, practice and immediate post-
tests. During the final session, 3 weeks after the second session, participants
completed delayed post-tests and, if applicable, the reading section of the TOEIC.
Scoring
The written and aural interpretation tests each consisted of 20 items, 12 of which
were critical items. Participants received one point for each correct response to a
critical item for a maximum score of 12 on these two tests. The sentence production
test consisted of 15 items, 10 of which were critical items. For each critical productionitem, participants earned one point each for correctly marking the case of both
nouns, the number of both nouns, and verb agreement.11 Thus, each critical
production item had a total possible score of 3, making 30 the maximum score on
the production test.
Analysis and results
This study investigated initial L3 learning among Spanish�English bilinguals tocompare the influence of early- and late-acquired bilingualism on subsequent
language learning in adulthood. L3 learning was operationalised broadly as follows:
(1) overall accuracy on post- and delayed tests of Latin written interpretation, aural
interpretation and sentence production; (2) accuracy in interpretation of Latin
sentences containing different combinations of morphosyntactic cues; and (3)
patterns of use of the three cues to mark thematic roles in Latin sentence production.
These operationalisations represent the dependent variables considered in the
analyses and will be considered in turn in the following presentation of results.Except where noted, alpha was set at pB0.05, and values of partial Eta squared are
included to report effect sizes.
Overall L3 interpretation and production accuracy
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, participants’ test scores indicated a general trend of post-
treatment improvement in the ability to both interpret and produce Latin sentences,
with some regression to the mean at the delayed testing session. One-way ANOVAs
were performed on pre-test scores and results indicated no between-groups
differences prior to treatment on any measure of L3 performance with the exception
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for accuracy on L3 interpretation by group.
Group WI pre WI post WI del. AI pre AI post AI del.
Early (n�15) 6.1 (1.5) 9.9 (1.6) 8.5 (2.5) 5.6 (1.8) 9.7 (2.3) 7.9 (2.5)Late (n�18) 6.2 (1.6) 9.4 (2.3) 7.9 (1.8) 5.9 (1.8) 8.9 (1.9) 6.1 (2.2)
Note: Means are presented with SD in parentheses; WI�written interpretation; AI�aural interpretation;Max�12 on all tests. Scores on aural interpretation are based on n�10 Early Bilinguals and n�16 LateBilinguals due to technical problems with that test.
172 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for groups’ overall accuracy and cue use in written production.
Group Overall pre Overall post Overall del. SVO pre SVO post SVO del. AGR pre AGR post AGR del. CASE pre CASE post CASE del.
Early(n�11)
12.6(5.7)
23.6(4.4)
21.0(5.0)
6.9(3.5)
6.6(2.9)
7.3(3.0)
6.9(1.6)
9.4(1.3)
9.5(0.69)
1.3(1.4)
7.6(2.1)
5.1(3.6)
Late(n�13)
12.3(3.9)
21.3(7.2)
19.6(4.0)
6.5(3.6)
5.3(2.4)
6.3(2.8)
5.0(2.0)
8.9(1.9)
9.0(1.5)
1.5(1.3)
5.8(3.8)
4.1(1.8)
Note: Means are presented with SD in parentheses; Max�30 for overall scores; SVO�use of SVO word order in production (Max�10); AGR�accurate marking of verbagreement in production (Max�10); CASE�accurate morphological marking of agent and patient roles in production (Max�10); production scores from four EarlyBilinguals and five Late Bilinguals are not included due to missing data resulting from technical problems with the computer application.
Intern
atio
na
lJo
urn
al
of
Mu
ltiling
ua
lism1
73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
of Early Bilinguals’ significantly more accurate use of verb agreement in sentence
production, F(1, 26)�10.05. Pre-test scores on this measure were thus entered as a
covariate in the corresponding analyses reported below.
Next, scores were submitted to a series of 3 (Time)�2 (Group) repeated-
measures ANOVAs. Results revealed significant main effects for Time with large
effect sizes on accuracy on all three measures, written interpretation, F(2, 58)�27.54,
partial h2�0.49, aural interpretation, F(2, 52)�30.66, partial h2�0.54, and
sentence production, F(2, 44)�29.90, partial h2�0.58. There was no statisticallysignificant main effect for Group and no significant Time�Group interaction.
Pairwise comparisons indicated significant pre-test to post-test improvement on all
three L3 measures, and pre-test to delayed test improvement in written interpretation
and sentence production but not in aural interpretation, suggesting that effects of the
instructional treatment were more lasting for written tests than for the aural test.
L3 interpretation accuracy by sentence type
The explicit instructional treatment was designed to move participants towards
restructuring their cue hierarchies for assigning semantic function to nouns such that
they would rely less on word order, a particularly strong L1/L2 cue, and rely more on
noun case morphology, the new and more reliable L3 cue. In order to see to what
degree participants altered their sentence processing strategies as a result ofinstructional treatment, we examined interpretation accuracy on sentences in which
different combinations of morphosyntactic cues were available to guide assignment
of thematic roles. Test items of the following types were considered (all of which
always included informative and reliable noun case morphology cues): (1) SVO items,
which were presented in subject�verb�object word order and included an informative
verb agreement cue (through contrastive noun number) about 50% of the time; (2)
AGR items, which were not presented in SVO order, but always included an
informative verb agreement cue; and (3) CASE items, which were not presented inSVO order and did not include informative verb agreement. In order maximise the
number of tokens of each sentence type, written and aural test items were combined
for the purposes of these analyses. Group accuracy data are summarised in Table 4.
ANOVA results revealed statistically significant main effects for Time with large
effect sizes on accurate interpretation of AGR items, F(2, 48)�47.42, partial h2�0.66, and CASE items, F(2, 48)�14.40, partial h2�0.38. There was no significant
main effect for Time on accurate interpretation of SVO items, no main effect for
Group and no significant Time�Group interaction. Pairwise comparisons indicatedsignificant pre-test to post-test improvement in interpreting both AGR and CASE
items, and pre-test to delayed test improvement in interpreting AGR, but not CASE,
items.
Cue preferences in sentence production
These analyses were conducted to examine how participants chose to mark
thematic roles on the production test. Production test answers were coded
according to which of the three possible cues for marking thematic roles they
used, and the number of times (Max�10) they used each cue at each test session
was tallied. Use of SVO word order across groups did not change substantially as a
174 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for accuracy of L3 interpretation by sentence type and group.
Group SVO pre SVO post SVO del. AGR pre AGR post AGR del. CASE pre CASE post CASE del.
Early (n�10) 0.82 (0.29) 0.92 (0.14) 0.90 (0.16) 0.23 (0.18) 0.81 (0.22) 0.73 (0.30) 0.53 (0.16) 0.83 (0.20) 0.52 (0.24)Late (n�16) 0.82 (0.22) 0.90 (0.15) 0.87 (0.12) 0.27 (0.17) 0.73 (0.22) 0.55 (0.23) 0.53 (0.19) 0.71 (0.19) 0.51 (0.18)
Note: Means are expressed as proportions with SD presented in parentheses; SVO�items presented in subject�verb�object word order; AGR�items not presented in SVOword order, but with verb agreement and noun case morphology cues available; CASE�items with noun case morphology as only cue available to guide thematic roleassignment. Scores are based on N�26 due to technical problems with the aural interpretation test.
Intern
atio
na
lJo
urn
al
of
Mu
ltiling
ua
lism1
75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
result of treatment F(2, 44)�0.68, p�0.05, partial h2�0.03, but participants’
accurate use of both verb agreement and case morphology cues increased after
treatment (see Table 3).
Results revealed significant main effects for Time with large effect sizes on
accurate marking of verb agreement, F(2, 42)�35.61, partial h2�0.63, and case
morphology, F(2, 44)�25.96, partial h2�0.54. Pairwise comparisons indicated that
improvements were significant from pre-test to both post-test and delayed test for
accurate marking of both cues, indicating that the effects of the instructionaltreatment were lasting. Finally, results of independent-sample t-tests indicated that
the Early Bilinguals’ initial advantage in accuracy at marking verb agreement, shown
by a significant t-test result for pre-test scores, t(26)�3.17, disappeared after
instructional treatment, as indicated by a non-significant t-test result, t(26)�0.66,
p�0.05.
To summarise the results thus far, consistent findings of significant main effects
for Time suggest across-the-board improvements on all measures of initial L3
learning except interpretation of SVO sentences and use of SVO word order insentence production due to ceiling effects. Importantly, knowledge gained was
retained 3 weeks after treatment in all cases but overall aural interpretation accuracy
and interpretation of sentences in which the only cue available to assign thematic
roles was the new case morphology cue. Finally, the Early Bilinguals’ pre-treatment
advantage in accuracy of marking verb agreement in L3 production disappeared after
treatment.
The lack of significant differences between groups may have been the result of
factors that covary with the AoA variable we used to distinguish Early from LateBilinguals so we conducted further analyses to control several covariates. One-way
ANOVAs performed to examine between-group differences revealed no significant
difference in level of education, F(1, 31)�0.21, p�0.65, or amount of formal
instruction in English, F(1, 31)�2.23, p�0.15. Significant between-groups differ-
ences were revealed, however, for age at time (AoT), F(1, 31)�7.01, L1 proficiency,
F(1, 31)�13.25, L2 proficiency, F(1, 31)�37.70, and hours of classroom FLL, F(1,
31)�5.11. Early Bilinguals were on average younger, rated themselves as less
proficient in the L1 and more proficient in the L2, and had more experience withclassroom FLL than the Late Bilingual group. In light of these results, analyses of
covariance (ANCOVA) were performed in which AoT, L2 proficiency12 and
classroom FLL were controlled statistically. Results are presented for each of the
three dependent variables as outlined above.
Overall L3 interpretation and production accuracy
With the effects of AoT, L2 proficiency and classroom FLL controlled statistically,
results revealed a significant main effect for Time with a medium effect size onaccuracy in written interpretation, F(2, 52)�4.89, partial h2�0.16. Pairwise
comparisons showed that improvement in written interpretation accuracy was
significant from pre-test to both post-test and delayed test, suggesting that
participants retained what they learned as a result of interacting with the Latin
lesson and practice. There was no other significant main effect for either Time or
Group and no significant Time�Group interaction for overall accuracy on the three
L3 tests.
176 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
L3 interpretation accuracy by sentence type
The ANCOVA results revealed significant main effects for Time with small effect
sizes on interpretation accuracy for SVO items, F(1.3, 27)�4.37, partial h2�0.17
and AGR items, F(2, 42)�3.26, partial h2�0.14. Pairwise comparisons indicated no
statistically significant difference before and after treatment in accuracy of
interpretation of SVO items; however, significant improvement was revealed in
accuracy of interpretation of AGR items from pre-test to both post-test and delayed
test. Although the main effect for Time on interpretation accuracy for CASE items
was not statistically significant, pairwise comparisons were examined and they
indicated significant improvement from pre-test to post-test in interpreting this
sentence type, with significant loss in accuracy from post-test to delayed test. No
significant main effect for Group or Time�Group interaction was found for
interpretation accuracy of any sentence type.
Cue preferences in sentence production
Results revealed a significant main effect for Time with a large effect size on accurate
marking of verb agreement, F(2, 38)�8.90, partial h2�0.32. Pairwise comparisons
showed that across-the-sample improvement in accurate marking of verb agreement
was significant from pre-test to both post-test and delayed test, indicating that the
effects of instructional treatment were lasting for this facet of L3 development.
A significant Time�Group interaction with a medium effect size was found for
accurate marking of noun case morphology, F(2, 38)�3.48, partial h2�0.16. To
examine this interaction more closely, post hoc paired-samples t-tests were performed
(Bonferroni-corrected significance levels were set at p�0.017 to adjust for multiple
comparisons). Results showed that while Late Bilinguals improved their accuracy in
marking noun case morphology significantly from pre-test to both post-test, t(12)��3.70, and delayed test, t(12)��4.18, Early Bilinguals improved significantly from
pre-test to post-test, t(10)��6.71, but only marginally so from pre-test to delayed
test, t(10)��2.79, p�0.019. This was due to a significant loss in accuracy from
post-test to delayed test, t(10)�2.87. These results suggest that the Late Bilinguals
were somewhat more successful than the Early Bilinguals at retaining what they
learned through interaction with the instructional treatment.
The ANCOVA results additionally revealed a significant Time�AoT interaction
with a medium effect size for accurate marking of noun case morphology, F(2, 38)�4.62, partial h2�0.20, suggesting that current age accounted for a non-trivial
proportion of variance in performance on this L3 measure. Correlations were run in
order to investigate this interaction further, and results revealed that while there was
no relationship between AoT and accuracy in marking noun case morphology at pre-
test or post-test, r(24)�0.11 and r(24)�0.10, respectively, there was a significant,
negative correlation at delayed test, r(24)��0.41.
To summarise, ANCOVA results were similar to those for ANOVAs in suggesting
that Early and Late Bilinguals garnered broadly comparable benefits from the
explicit instructional treatment. All participants continued to invoke SVO word
order � arguably the strongest cue to assigning semantic function among Spanish�English bilinguals � while simultaneously employing verb agreement and case
morphology cues more accurately after treatment in sentence interpretation and
International Journal of Multilingualism 177
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
production. With ANCOVAs allowing for statistical control of factors (i.e. AoT,
English proficiency and classroom FLL) that covaried with AoA in our sample, Late
Bilinguals showed somewhat better retention over time of accuracy in marking the
new noun case morphology cue in sentence production. However, a significant
Time�AoT interaction revealed that current age had a role to play in retention over
time, with younger participants outperforming older participants at delayed test in
accurate marking of noun case morphology in production.
Discussion, conclusions and future research
Previous research has identified advantages for bilinguals over monolinguals as well
as for more balanced bilingualism in learning additional non-primary languages. Do
the cumulative effects of bilingualism influence early L3 development such that early-
onset bilinguals will show an advantage over later-onset bilinguals? And are there
other contributing factors that covary with age of onset of L2 learning? To answerthese questions, we examined the extent to which initial L3 learning among early and
late Spanish�English bilinguals was influenced by age of onset of L2 acquisition,
current age, L2 proficiency and exposure to formal language instruction.
Results revealed similar tendencies across the sample, suggesting no apparent
advantage at the initial stages of L3 learning for language experience accumulated
through bilingualism. Specifically, before participants interacted with the instruc-
tional treatment, when their L3 knowledge was limited to vocabulary, both Early and
Late Bilinguals relied per force on SVO word order � likely, the foremost cue in our
participants’ hierarchies given their L1/L2 background � to assign thematic roles in
L3 interpretation and production. The explicit instructional treatment helped both
groups move beyond word order-based strategies to use L3 verb agreement and noun
case morphology cues more successfully to assign thematic roles to Latin nouns.
Furthermore, despite the input-based nature of the practice, participants improved
significantly at not only interpreting but also producing L3 sentences. In other words,
participants were able to apply what they learned as a result of instructional
treatment to a context that was quite different from the input-based context in which
they had completed the lesson and practice.The pattern of results for interpretation by sentence type indicated that
participants continued to rely on SVO word order when it was available; however,
interpretation of sentence types in which SVO word order was not available improved
significantly as a result of treatment, and improvement was retained for a period of at
least 3 weeks in the case of successful use of the verb agreement cue. Results for the
production test patterned with those for interpretation in that after instructional
treatment participants continued to encode thematic roles with SVO word order
while at the same time including verb agreement and noun case morphology more
accurately and more frequently in production. Improved accuracy in use of both of
these cues in production was retained for a period of at least 3 weeks. We interpret
these results to mean that while participants continued to perceive word order as a
useful cue in the L3 context, they were nonetheless successful in creating form-
meaning conjunctions between the verb agreement and noun case morphology cues
and assignment of thematic roles in Latin.
At the early stage in learning that was the focus of the present study, there was
little difference in the L3 outcomes observed between early- and late-onset bilinguals.
178 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
However, a significant difference did emerge in Early and Late Bilinguals’ ability to
retain what they learned about the new and complex noun case morphology cue. This
difference is notable because it suggests a slight advantage for Late Bilinguals over
Early Bilinguals, a result that stands in contrast with previous research that has
found advantages in non-primary language learning for more experienced language
learners and that led us to hypothesise that Early Bilinguals would have an advantage
over Late Bilinguals. Our results, however, disconfirm this hypothesis.
Why did Late Bilinguals outperform Early Bilinguals in this area of L3
development? Our answer is tentative given the small data set and rather isolated
finding upon which it is based, but it may be that the highly structured and explicit
instructional treatment was more in tune with Late Bilinguals’ learning strategies.
Apart from L1 acquisition, the Late Bilinguals in this study have always undertaken
language learning as cognitively mature adults. A number of researchers (e.g.
Cochran, McDonald, & Parault, 1999; Ellis, 2005; Kersten & Earles, 2001;
MacWhinney, 2001; Skehan, 1989) have argued that adult language learners in
particular benefit from the environmental support that characterises our treatment,
i.e. highly structured input, multi-modal presentation, task-essential practice andfocused feedback, so it may be that our Late Bilinguals responded better than Early
Bilinguals to the highly explicit instructional conditions.
Finally, the finding that AoT had a specific role to play in longer-term retention
of the new noun case morphology cue can be accounted for straightforwardly by
appealing to age effects on memory function. Given that participants had to
distinguish and encode eight discrete morphemes associated with noun case at
treatment and then retrieve them at the delayed test without the benefit of having had
any opportunity for L3 exposure or practice in the three intervening weeks, it is
unsurprising that older participants would be more subject to memory decay than
younger participants.
In a related vein, our results provide some evidence for the claim that the learning
of syntax on the one hand and the morphology with which that syntax is realised on
the other vary with regard to their relative complexity and do not necessarily proceed
at the same rate (e.g. DeKeyser, 2005; Sanz, 2000b). In the case of a new, complex cue
like noun case morphology, it is clear that more opportunity to engage in its
meaningful processing is essential for triggering learning mechanisms such aschunking and automatisation, which, as Ellis (2005) has suggested, are integral to
the strengthening of associations between form and meaning. Debriefing ques-
tionnaire data support this interpretation; several participants indicated that at the
delayed tests they remembered the form�meaning connection between case mor-
phology and thematic roles in Latin, but could no longer recall the specific function
marked by each of the eight morphemes.
In conclusion, we set out in this study to investigate the role of Spanish�English
bilinguals’ age of onset of L2 acquisition in initial L3 development in an explicit,
computer-assisted instructional context. The controlled laboratory setting enabled us
to focus on three morphosyntactic cues and compare whether and how early and late
bilinguals initiated the restructuring of cue hierarchies that defines acquisition within
the framework of the CM. Results point to more similarities than differences in
learning outcomes, which we attribute to the likelihood that the highly explicit nature
of the instructional condition served to level the playing field among our
participants. Sanz, Lin, Lado, Bowden, and Stafford (2009) similarly found that
International Journal of Multilingualism 179
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
thinking aloud during interaction with an explicit lesson comparable to ours had no
effect on adult English�Spanish bilinguals’ L3 learning outcomes while, in contrast,
thinking aloud under a less explicit instructional condition enhanced learning
outcomes.
Notwithstanding the broad similarities observed in our participants’ learning
outcomes, the Late Bilinguals showed a slight advantage over Early Bilinguals at
retaining what they learned about case morphology, with current age also playing a
role in retention of this new and complex L3 cue. We suggest that explicit instructionmay resonate especially well among later bilinguals, whose learning strategies may
make its high degree of explicitness particularly beneficial, and that even in highly
explicit and supportive instructional contexts, age effects on memory function
inevitably play a role in how well learners retain what they learn over time.
Future studies should continue to tackle the challenge of bilinguals’ inherent
heterogeneity by considering experiential, social and cognitive factors such as
individuals’ motivations for becoming bilingual, identity within the L1/L2 commu-
nity, and aptitude for language learning, and should start with sizable samples. In ourcase, homogeneity and control through careful screening for L1 attrition, L2
proficiency and level of formal education came at a cost to statistical power. It will
also be important for future research to examine the interaction between pedagogical
conditions and the numerous internal variables that covary with bilingualism as well
as how such interactions affect the development of different aspects of non-primary
language in adulthood.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the friends, family and colleagues who made the Latin Project, of which thisstudy is a part, come to fruition. They are considerably indebted to Bill Garr, Ru San Chen andGorky Cruz for their programming and statisticial expertise. The Latin Project was developedby the aurhors with support from Georgetown University Graduate School grants to CristinaSanz. The authors thank Diana Frantzen, Sally Magnan and three anonymous InternationalJournal of Multilingualism reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of thispaper. Any remaining errors are our own.
Notes
1. The term ‘bilingual’ is used inclusively in this study to refer to individuals who use bothSpanish and English in some capacity on a daily basis while allowing for a range ofproficiencies in both languages.
2. The author reported that, though Spanish was the L1 for most of the students in hissample, Basque was the L1 for some. He did not provide further details regardingdistribution of the L1 Basque speakers among groups.
3. The languages reported (with the numbers in parentheses representing the number ofparticipants who reported some level of exposure to or knowledge of the precedinglanguage) were French (16), Portuguese (8), Italian (7), Japanese (2), Danish (1), Kekchi-Kakchikel (1), Nahuatl (1), Swedish (1) and Yucatec-Maya (1). Exposure to Romancelanguages had occurred in all cases in the context of formal instruction, and participantsreported at best limited productive knowledge of these languages. Exposure to non-Romance languages (all of those listed here include case inflection in their grammarsexcept for Swedish) occurred in informal contexts (as with domestic help in the home orthrough vacations or military service abroad), and participants reported having neitherreceptive nor productive knowledge of any of these languages, so their exposure wasconsidered unproblematic for the study. Of those who reported such exposure to case
180 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
inflection languages, two were Early Bilinguals and four were Late Bilinguals (one of theLate Bilinguals had been exposed to both Nahuatl and Japanese).
4. Proficiency ratings included on the scale were as follows: 1�none or almost none; 2�poor; 3�fair; 4�functional; 5�good; 6�very good; 7�like a native speaker.
5. All nouns included in the stimuli are human in order to avoid animacy as a potentiallyinformative clue to assigning thematic roles.
6. A masculine singular agent is marked by the morpheme �us in Latin. Given that a word-final �s marks plural rather than singular nouns in Spanish and English, this potentiallyconfusing difference was addressed explicitly during the grammar explanation.
7. The design of the treatment is similar to VanPatten’s (2005) processing instruction, apsycholinguistically motivated instructional technique intended to draw learners’attention to less salient, more complex features of the L2 input so that they are noticedand processed more elaborately.
8. Each sentence in the aural practice exercises was repeated once; thus, the total of 54sentences presented aurally represents 27 different sentences repeated once each.
9. For example, if a participant gave an incorrect answer for the Latin object�verb�subjectsentence ‘Stultum salutat potentissimus’ (The king greets the fool), s/he received thefollowing feedback: Uh-oh! �us is a subject ending. �um is an object ending. Also, rememberthat in Latin, the subject does not have to be the first noun. In this way, the most reliableway of assigning agent and patient roles was reinforced while at the same time pointingout that using SVO word order in Latin can be a misleading processing strategy. Weacknowledge that participants may have made an incorrect answer choice for a reasonthat the computerised feedback did not address, but feedback was designed to addresshighly likely reasons for incorrect responses.
10. Two participants reported that 5 seconds had not been enough time to read and absorbthe feedback before the programme advanced to the next item. Thus, reading speed andskill is likely to have influenced the degree to which participants were able to take fulladvantage of the feedback provided.
11. For example, the sentence ‘Potentissimi reginam auscultant’ (the kings listen to the queen)would score 3 points for correctly marking the number of both nouns, the case of bothnouns and subject�verb agreement; the sentence ‘Potentissimos reginam auscultant’would score 2 points for correctly marking both nouns’ number and subject�verbagreement (the point is not scored for noun case in this example because both nouns aremarked for accusative case); the sentence ‘Potentissimos reginam auscultat’ would score 1point for correctly marking both nouns’ number (points are not scored for noun case orsubject�verb agreement in this case). We decided to award 1 point for correct case andnumber marking of both nouns rather 1 point for each correct morpheme becausemarking both nouns correctly was the most unambiguous demonstration that partici-pants were using noun morphemes appropriately to contrast thematic roles.
12. L2 proficiency was selected over L1 proficiency as a control variable because there was abroader range in the L2 proficiency self-ratings, suggesting superior discriminationamong participants than with the L1 proficiency ratings, in which there was less variationacross the sample.
References
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner &L.R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173�218). New York:Cambridge University Press.
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. InB. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp.3�73). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. DevelopmentalPsychology, 24, 560�567.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York:Cambridge University Press.
International Journal of Multilingualism 181
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads tocognitive change. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10,210�223.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, andcognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290�303.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., & Ruocco, A.C. (2006). Dual-modality monitoring in aclassification task: The effects of bilingualism and ageing. The Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 59, 1968�1983.
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M.M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidencefrom the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7, 325�339.
Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235�249.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review.The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 71�87.
Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J.F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque country.Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195�207.
Cochran, B.P., McDonald, J.L., & Parault, S.J. (1999). Too smart for their own good: Thedisadvantage of a superior processing capacity for adult language learners. Journal ofMemory and Language, 41, 30�58.
DeKeyser, R.M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second languageacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499�533.
DeKeyser, R.M. (2005). What makes learning L2 grammar difficult? A review of issues.Language Learning, 55, 1�25.
Ellis, N.C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit languageknowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305�352.
Foerster, S.W., Lambright, A., & Alfonso-Pinto, F. (1999). Punto y Aparte: Spanish in review,moving toward fluency. New York: McGraw-Hill College.
Gibson, M., Hufeisen, B., & Libben, G. (2001). Learners of German as an L3 and theirproduction of German prepositional verbs. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.),Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.138�169). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Hernandez, A.E., Sierra, I., & Bates, E.A. (2000). Sentence interpretation in bilingual andmonolingual Spanish speakers: Grammatical processing in a monolingual mode. SpanishApplied Linguistics, 4(2), 179�213.
Johnson, J.S., & Newport, E.L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: Theinfluence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language.Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60�99.
Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B. (1998). The acquisition of case marking by adult learners ofRussian and German. Studies in second language acquisition, 20, 543�587.
Kersten, A.W., & Earles, J.L. (2001). Less really is more for adults learning a miniatureartificial language. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 250�273.
Klein, E.C. (1995). Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a difference? LanguageLearning, 45, 419�465.
Lasagabaster, D. (2000). Three languages and three linguistic models in the Basque educationalsystem. In U. Jessner & J. Cenoz (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a thirdlanguage (pp. 179�197). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based learning. In G. Crookes &S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123�167).Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69�90). New York:Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). New directions in the competition model. In M. Tomasello & D.I.Slobin (Eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 81�110).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
182 C.A. Stafford et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Martin-Rhee, M.M., & Bialystok, E. (2008). The development of two types of inhibitorycontrol in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11,81�93.
Munoz, C. (2000). Bilingualism and trilingualism in school students in Catalonia. InU. Jessner & J. Cenoz (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language(pp. 157�178). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Park, D.C. (2000). The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitivefunction. In D.C. Park & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Cognitive aging: A primer (pp. 3�21).Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Sanz, C. (2000a). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence fromCatalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 23�44.
Sanz, C. (2000b). What form to focus on? Linguistics, language awareness, and the educationof L2 teachers. In J.F. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Meaning and form: Multiple perspectives.Boston: Thomson Learning.
Sanz, C. (2007). Predicting enhanced L3 learning in bilingual contexts: The role of biliteracy.In C. Perez-Vidal, M. Juan-Garau, & A. Bel (Eds.), A portrait of the young in the newmultilingual Spain (pp. 220�240). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Sanz, C., & Lado, B. (2008). Third language acquisition research methods. In K. King & N.H.Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 10, pp. 1�23). Boston:Kluwer.
Sanz, C., Lin, H., Lado, B., Bowden, H.W., & Stafford, C. (2009). Concurrent verbalizations,pedagogical conditions and reactivity: Two CALL studies. Language Learning, 59, 33�71.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. New York: EdwardArnold.
Su, I.R. (2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners ofChinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 83�112.
VanPatten, B. (2005). Processing instruction. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adultsecond language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 267�281). Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.
Wong, W. (2004). The nature of processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processinginstruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 33�63). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
International Journal of Multilingualism 183
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
03:
56 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014