On Reading in Trilingual Learners

(…) learning a third language differs essentially from learning a second – something third language learners themselves intuitively perceive; (…) a trilingual system differs essentially from a bilingual system, as different competences have resulted from the previous language-related cognitive processes; (…) multilingual language acquisition research based exclusively on research into bilingualism and SLA will be unable to deal with and explain the phenomena occurring in trilingualism.

(Herdina & Jessner, 2002: 96)

Humans have used language for thousands of years and are thus more likely to compare it to parts of the body than to its structures. Due to both the intricacies of language and the complex means by which it is acquired, scientists have long sought to clarify the nature of language. According to Chomsky (2002), language has evolved into a modular system that increases efficiency and decreases the effect of damage. Moreover, each language module is self-contained – for instance, phonology, morphology, and syntax have different internal structures involved in various interactions. Chomsky (2002) further claims that there is a single superordinate objective which unifies the modules, namely the function of enabling communication. Beside this main goal, other functions of language, such as the transmission of social attitudes, are superimposed onto the system, or conscious and unconscious knowledge.

Ever since Newport and Aslin (2004) questioned whether language is represented by a distinct faculty of the mind, or rather is fully derived and explicable through general principles of human cognition, numerous universal assumptions have arisen that characterize human languages and the varied dimensions along which they distinguish themselves. Moreover, Newport and Aslin (2004) claim that, with the exception of babies and youngsters, not all people are likely to learn languages at every moment of their lives. As separate areas of the brain assume responsibility for the operation of language much as other functions are controlled in the human organism, the question arises as to whether or not language stems exclusively from general cognitive assumptions – after all, no other system has the same structure or organisation within its cognitive principles.

In Chomsky’s so-called modularist (or semi-modularist) view (2002), certain unique restrictions adhere to the cognitive constraints on language. For instance, Chomsky argues (2002) that no other creature has an identical system of communication as humans, which proves that human language must possess such unique restrictions as special adaptations or proficient cognitive skills. He also questions whether those special constraints participate in language learning and processing, or rather are parts of systems beyond the cognitive. In his research, Chomsky (2000) claims that human language should be regarded as complex and thus derived from more fundamental computational principles. Interestingly, he adds that humans have two sources of language, namely the nature of thought and the pressures of externalization. Accordingly, language requires linear organisation in order to be externalized at the sensory-motor interface. This occurs mainly in agreement with other factors in the whole articulation process, as well as in the perceptual process applied by the interlocutor (Chomsky, 2000).

In the view of Frank C. Keil (1990), humans possess innate abilities for language processing and acquisition. He insists on several basic principles for organising the elements in each domain – computation of mutual information, conditional probability, and contingency or predictiveness – rather than on simple co-occurrences. Gomez and Gerken (1999), who favour the modularist point of view, assert that the above mentioned computations are recursive – that is, they first organise words into phrases and then into more complex expressions. However, most non-modularists (e.g., O’Grady, 1997) believe there are striking universal principles – a unique combination of cognitive functions not involved in any other task – which together constrain language structure. Chomsky (2002) strongly opposes this scientific perspective for calling upon a special combination of cognitive skills for its learning, production, and online processing.

Scientists have also attempted to verify the extent to which real-time processing and production may influence and inhibit linguistic structures. For instance, Bever (1970) claims that linear sequencing in language is organised by perceptual strategies. Jaeger (2010) believes that students select and utilize linguistic structures in the flow of their communication with the aim of achieving uniform information density over time. Furthermore, having researched the many ways that learning constraints shape language, Newport and Aslin (2004) concluded that limits on the distance between related elements, as well as on the complexity and regularity of linguistic constructions resulting from the cognitive limitations of youngsters, are extremely helpful in explaining the structure and acquisition of spoken languages, sign languages, and all the changes in language acquisition over maturation.

As this discussion indicates, the non-modularist and modularist views on language reveal significant differences. Yet Chomsky (2002) states that, as Universal Grammar has gradually become smaller and framed in more common principles, these views differ increasingly less. Undoubtedly, a significant remaining discrepancy is that Universal Grammar is always more blatantly and formally articulated. Certainly, the two views differ in the precision they bring to the problem, though there is no clear answer as to which is correct. Deepening our understanding of language still requires more intensive and collaborative work across the two perspectives.

Regarding the underlying multilingualism or bilingualism, it is unclear how the two linguistic systems are represented and managed. According to de Bot (1992) and Perani et al. (1998), certain linguistic representations and processes seem to be shared across languages, and the two languages are usually active in parallel. Indeed, similar brain structures are engaged when bilinguals use either of their two languages. As Green (2003) states, consistent with the ‘convergence hypothesis’ the degree of neural overlap between the two languages depends primarily on second language proficiency, though also, to a lesser extent, on when the second language was acquired (i.e., at what age?). However, Green (2003) adds that some areas of language control in the brain are differentially recruited in the first and second language, which is due more to the demanding processing of a second language than to any differences in the actual representation of the two languages. These diverse views on language acquisition elicit the question as to how reading skill is acquired during foreign language learning among trilingual learners.

Researchers have long considered reading as one of the most challenging skills in foreign language learning, but also as linguistic input for the development of other skills. Due to its complexity, reading texts efficiently and comprehensibly is vital to literacy development in a foreign language (Ajzen, 1988; Dickinson, 1995; Allen, 1996; Alanen, 2003; Dakowska, 2003; Dakowska, 2015; Barman, 2012). Initially, this notion was presented by Gough and Tunmer (1986) in the ‘simple view of reading’ model (SVR), which proposed that reading be perceived as the product of both decoding and linguistic comprehension. The former is understood as efficient word recognition, while the latter implies the ability to derive sentence and discourse meanings from lexical information. The model contributed to understanding how reading develops throughout childhood and adolescence, as well as in bilingual teaching (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).

In reality, reading comprehension is a multifaceted process that comprises such literacy skills as fluency, vocabulary acquisition, memory, and reading strategies (Johnston & Kirby, 2006), with the latter receiving the most scholarly attention. Since the 1970s, numerous empirical studies (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Alderson, 1984; Anderson, 1992; Anderson, 1994; Cohen, 1990; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Fan, 2010; Bѐrubѐ & Marinowa-Tood, 2012; Białystok & Sullivan, 2017), have paved the way for understanding the reading comprehension process.

Afflerbach, Pearson, and Paris (2008: 368) explain reading strategies as ‘deliberate, goal-oriented attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand words, and construct meanings of text’. Reading strategies have also been described as ‘actions, or series of actions, which are used to construct meaning from text’ (Garner, 1987: 51). Scientists often conceptualize and investigate reading strategies in terms of categories based on such factors as theoretical frameworks, measures for examining strategies and their functions, and the complexity and level of processing. In this light, current reading comprehension strategy research address these issues with the help of up-to-date methodologies and new testing instruments (Bloomfield & Barnhart, 1961; Gough, 1972; Grellet, 1981; Grabe, 1991; Block, 1992; Breen, 2001; Larsen-Freeman, 2004).

The present monograph, inspired by the need to re-address these well trodden issues in language acquisition and reading comprehension/strategies, attempts to reconcile old and new theories concerning how trilingual learners use reading comprehension strategies. Specifically, it seeks to bridge the current state of knowledge on foreign language learning and teaching of trilinguals in the area of reading comprehension, as well as the factors affecting this process. Above all, it elaborates the use of reading comprehension strategies by trilingual learners, establishes differences in reading strategy usage in various phases of the reading process of trilingual university students, and suggests pedagogical implications for teaching reading in trilingual classroom environments in light of future teaching challenges.

The book is divided into three parts. Chapters 2 and 3 provide background material on foreign language instruction and reading comprehension geared toward bilingual and trilingual learners. They give a holistic account of the multilingual education process and explain both the internal and external factors influencing multilingualism, including individual differences of multilingual students. Readers will additionally gain a clear picture of the complexity of teaching reading skills, the types and models of the reading process, and the methods of teaching reading to trilingual learners.

The book’s second part focuses on reading comprehension strategies. These strategies, with their technical and methodological aspects, are closely analysed in Chapter 4, which also summarises diverse views on the reading comprehension strategies used by bilinguals and trilinguals. The chapter introduces the findings of the most significant studies and outlines the main differences in reading comprehension use by multilingual university learners.

Finally, Chapter 5 covers the actual research undertaken for this study, diagnosing current practises of reading comprehension strategies for teaching trilingual adult learners. Specifically, it includes an account of the design study, analyses the current state of reading comprehension usage among multilingual adult learners, and explores the use of reading comprehension strategies of trilingual students in various phases of the reading comprehension process, with the goal of offering recommendations for foreign language teachers.