Language Awareness

ISSN: 0965-8416 (Print) 1747-7565 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Metalinguistic awareness and evidence of cross-

linguistic influence among bilingual learners in
Irish primary schools

Anna M. Dillon

To cite this article: Anna M. Dillon (2009) Metalinguistic awareness and evidence of cross-
linguistic influence among bilingual learners in Irish primary schools, Language Awareness, 18:2,
182-197, DOI: 10.1080/09658410902928479

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410902928479

Published online: 29 Jul 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1011

View related articles

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmla20
Language Awareness
Vol. 18, No. 2, May 2009, 182–197

Metalinguistic awareness and evidence of cross-linguistic influence

among bilingual learners in Irish primary schools
Anna M. Dillon∗

Mary Immaculate College of Education, University of Limerick, Reflective Pedagogy and Early
Childhood Studies, South Circular Road, Limerick City, Limerick, Ireland
(Received 15 January 2008; final version received 3 March 2009)

During an investigation into the L2 proficiency and L3 acquisition skills of 10- to

12-year-olds in Irish primary schools, questions of metalinguistic awareness and cross-
linguistic influence were raised. Do children who are more balanced bilinguals develop
a higher sense of metalinguistic awareness than less balanced bilinguals? What evidence
of cross-linguistic influence do those children display? Which language, or language
teacher type, is most suitable in an Irish context for the development of these language
learning skills? Following on from a primarily quantitative survey of all schools partic-
ipating in the Modern Languages in Primary Schools Initiative in Ireland, and language
testing of a smaller group of children, the evidence shows that more balanced bilinguals
display a higher level of general proficiency and are more likely to independently dis-
play higher levels of metalinguistic awareness and evidence of cross-linguistic transfer.
An examination of the features and characteristics of language and a summary of the
main features of metalinguistic awareness and cross-linguistic influence provide a back-
ground for the results presented. The schools involved in the study include both early
total immersion schools (Gaelscoileanna), where Irish is the language of instruction,
and English-medium schools, where Irish is taught as L2.
Keywords: bilingual education; metalinguistic awareness; foreign language pedagogy;
TLA; attitudes

Introduction
In a study of the relationship between L2 proficiency and L3 acquisition among Irish
primary school children, two research questions related to metalinguistic awareness and
cross-linguistic influence are raised. These research questions are as follows:

(1) What are the differences or similarities between children being educated in an
immersion programme (through the medium of L2) and those being educated
primarily through the medium of their L1, in terms of the associations those chil-
dren make between L1, L2 and L3 (i.e. metalinguistic awareness/cross-linguistic
transfer)?
(2) Does the type of language teacher (factors like language taught, language com-
petency level, qualifications, nationality, age and time allocation) have an effect
on aspects of child language acquisition within the Modern Languages in Primary
Schools Initiative (MLPSI), especially in terms of facilitating the development of
the metalinguistic awareness of children under their tutelage?

∗
Email: anna.dillon@mic.ul.ie
ISSN 0965-8416 print / ISSN 1747-7565 online
C 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09658410902928479
http://www.informaworld.com
 Language Awareness 183

Following on from a review of some literature relating to relevant aspects of language

acquisition, the results of teachers’ observations and pupils’ statements will be examined
with a view to discuss the findings relating to the above research questions.

The research project

The main focus of the research was on comparing the L3 acquisition skills of more balanced
with less balanced bilinguals. For the purposes of this study, more balanced bilinguals were
assumed to be those pupils attending a Gaelscoil. Further discussion of the term ‘balanced
bilingual’ will be given in the next section. In Ireland, a Gaelscoil is a school where the
primary language of instruction is Irish and takes the form of early total immersion. Ap-
proximately 5% of schools in Ireland are Gaelscoileanna. Most pupils attending a Gaelscoil
have English as L1 and Irish as L2. The majority of schools in Ireland are English-medium
schools, where pupils have English as L1 and learn Irish as L2 for three and a half hours per
week. L3 is provided for 10- to 12-year-olds for one and a half hours per week in the form
of MLPSI. At the time of the study, 384 schools (approximately 10% of all schools) were
participating in the MLPSI. While questionnaires were sent to all schools participating in
the MLPSI, the figures below are based on the return of questionnaires. Of the total, 88.7%
(n = 133) of schools were English-medium, 8.7% (n = 13) were Gaelscoileanna and 2.7%
(n = 4) were Scoileanna sa Ghaeltacht (schools located in areas of Ireland where Irish is
spoken as the first language and the language of instruction in schools is Irish). Due to the
very low number of Scoileanna sa Ghaeltacht participating in the MLPSI, it was decided
to include the data gathered from those schools with data gathered from Gaelscoileanna,
bringing the total amount of Gaelscoileanna to 17, or 11.4% of the total returned. The target
languages (hereafter referred to as TL) being provided for are French, German, Spanish and
Italian. The majority of schools (60.7%) are teaching French, while a minority of 7.3% are
teaching Italian. It should be noted from the outset that this particular study did not consider
linguistically diverse children, who may have another language as L1 and therefore English
and Irish as additional languages.

Aspects of language acquisition

With a view to examining the research questions pertinent to this paper, the following
aspects of language will be examined: features and characteristics of language, cross-
linguistic influence and metalinguistic awareness, as they relate to the issues of L1, L2
and L3 acquisition. Prior to embarking on this examination, a brief discussion of the
term ‘balanced bilingual’ will follow. The term usually describes a person who has age-
appropriate competence in two (or more) languages, and furthermore that the person would
be as competent as a native speaker of the same age in both languages. It does take into
consideration the fact that one language may be dominant over the other, and that the
languages are often used in different domains. The term should not be interpreted as a rigid
classification for the purposes of this paper as the measurement of a ‘balanced bilingual’
was not an objective of the study. For that reason, children attending Gaelscoileanna, where
all subjects are taught through the medium of Irish, are assumed to be more balanced
bilinguals than those children attending English-medium schools as they are required to
follow the same curricular guidelines as those attending Scoileanna sa Ghaeltacht, and
therefore must develop age-appropriate abilities to function at a similar competence level
to native speakers of the Irish language.
184 A.M. Dillon

Language – features and characteristics

Lado (1961, pp. 2–3) identifies some of the most distinctive features of language. The
following list outlines these features:

r Language is primarily an instrument of communication among human beings in a

community.
r A community that speaks the same language is known as a speech community.
r Language in its most common manifestation consists of oral-aural symbols of com-
munication.
r Both cultural meanings and individual (or literal) meanings may be expressed through
language.
r Language is a fact in its own right.

Finally, he indicates that we can speak of language as ‘. . . a conventionalised, highly

complex system of habits which functions as a human instrument of communication’ (Lado,
1961, p. 4). Bloom (1978, p. 1) has pointed out that languages exist because of the functions
they serve. A major aspect of development, according to the same author, is how individuals
learn to use language for different purposes, such as to get and give information, or to initiate
and monitor interactions with others. Learning a language, according to Driscoll and Frost
(1999, p. 2), is a valuable and worthwhile enterprise at any age for a variety of reasons. The
following is a summary of their findings:

r It provides the possibility of practical communication.

r It is a source of intellectual stimulation and enjoyment.
r It cultivates broader perspectives into other cultures.
r It enables people to gain insights into their own culture and language.

Harris and Conway (2002, p. 2) refer to the belief held that learning a modern language
at primary level would promote international communication and harmony as another
reason for learning a language. Lado (1961, p. 1) informs us that all of the advances in
transportation and communication made by man have brought home to us the value of world
languages for international communication. The Scottish Executive Education Department
(SEED, 2000) states that language is at the heart of pupils’ learning. It is identified in that
report that it is through language that children acquire much of their knowledge, build an
understanding of themselves and their world and develop many of their skills. In short,
‘Learning to use language effectively enables pupils to order, explore and refine their
thoughts’ (p. 31).

Cross-linguistic influence
Cross-linguistic influence is a term proposed in the 1980s to include ‘such phenomena as
“transfer”, “interference”, “avoidance”, “borrowing” and L2-related aspects of language
loss’ (Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1986, p. 1). Cenoz, Hufeison, and Jessner (2001,
p. 7) have discussed the importance of linguistic distance as a factor in L3 acquisition as
follows: ‘because the acquisition of languages that are closer to the L1 or L2 can potentially
facilitate the process of acquisition but can also favour code-mixing’.
Different combinations of languages can be closer or more distant than others, as ex-
plored previously. As the authors above stated, although English is typologically a Germanic
 Language Awareness 185

language, historical events have resulted in a large number of loanwords from Latin and
Romance languages. Ytsma (2001, p. 15) explains that ‘the linguistic difference between
languages belonging to the same family will be smaller than the distance between languages
belonging to different branches’.
Linguistic distance has important educational implications for choosing an appropriate
language to learn, as the similarity between any combination of L1, L2 and L3 can affect
the optimum amount of exposure to the different languages in order to achieve the highest
level of proficiency. Linguistic distance also has an effect on the methods of code-switching
and cross-linguistic influence used by the learners of L3. Hoffman and Widdicombe (1999,
p. 2) use the term ‘code-switching’ to ‘refer to a variety of instances in the individual’s
speech which reflect the use, or activation, of more than one linguistic system during a
single discourse event’. Learners tend to use the L1 or L2 that is typologically closer to
their L3 when borrowing terms from either one, and it is of utmost importance to ensure
that all learners are made linguistically aware of the role their L1 or L2 may play in this
development.
Closely related to the area of linguistic distance/typology of language is the issue of
cross-linguistic transfer. The linguistic distance between the languages involved can affect
the magnitude of the transfer between languages (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998, p. 21). A number
of researchers have argued that the strength of transfer between languages depends on the
linguistic distance between the varieties concerned, and that transfer occurs more easily
between closely related languages. Sigokukira (1993, p. 10) points out that there is general
agreement among SLA researchers that transfer, both positive and negative, is more likely
to take place from a language which is related to the new foreign language being learned.
Lado (1961, p. 23) describes transfer as the language learner transferring the habit
system of his native language to the foreign tongue. When transfer occurs, according
to Lado (1961, p. 23–24), the learner produces the sounds and sentence pattern and, in
general, entire structure of his native language in the foreign tongue, except those few
units and elements he has under his control. Some of these units and patterns will function
satisfactorily, and some will not. With regard to vocabulary, Lado has found that the
student will tend to transfer his vocabulary habits to the foreign language. ‘He will transfer
meanings, forms, and distribution of the lexical units of his native language’ (Lado, 1961,
p. 186). Sometimes, these units operate successfully in the foreign language because they
are alike in some manner, and this transfer facilitates language learning. However, it often
happens that these units will not operate successfully in the foreign language, even though
it seems that they might. This is when interference from the native language occurs.
Ytsma (2001, p. 15) refers to Bild and Swain’s study of 1989, where Italian-speaking
participants in a French immersion programme in Ontario, Canada, time and again out-
performed participants speaking a language more faintly related to French, when tested
for language proficiency. Jessner (1999, pp. 204, 205) refers to Cumming’s unpublished
doctoral dissertation on writing in L2 (1988), where trilingual adults, i.e. German/Italian
bilinguals learning English at university, were asked to think aloud during some academic
writing processes. The examples given in that research show how the respondents search for
and assess improved phrasing and compare cross-linguistic equivalents. All three languages
are typologically closely related and were used interchangeably by the respondents.
Research by Swain et al. (1990) cited in Sanz (2000, p. 24), continued to show that
language genealogy is a key variable in L3 research. Swain et al. (1990), in a study of
the impact of L1 literacy on L3 (French) proficiency, hypothesised and confirmed that
bilinguals whose L1 belonged to the Romance family, like French, would benefit the most
from their bilingual experience and gain the most positive influence in the acquisition
186 A.M. Dillon

of their L3. These authors have also shown, according to Cenoz and Genesee (1998,
p. 23), that bilingual students who were literate in their first and second languages showed
advantages in third language acquisition over bilingual students who were only literate in
their L2. Odlin (2003, p. 441) reiterates the point by stating that ‘. . . learners whose native
language is English will find virtually all non-indo-European languages to be much harder
than Germanic and Romance languages such as Swedish or French’. Odlin maintains that
cognate vocabulary offers advantages to learners by increasing positive transfer between
languages and therefore increasing ease of comprehension in the target language (ibid.,
p. 441).
Sigokukira (1993, p. 112) makes a further point that needs to be taken into consideration.
He says that although L2–L3 similarity is widely argued for in the literature as the cause for
L2–L3 influence, it is of course not the only cause. The influence seems to be an interplay of
a number of factors, including those such as recency, as argued for in Bentahila (1975) and
Rivers (1979), referred to by the same author. Recency simply refers to establishing which
language was learned last or more recently. Furthermore, it may not be simply the native
language, which assists the learner in learning a second or a third language. It may be that
L2 influences L3, or L3 influences further learning of L2. Singh and Carroll (1979), referred
to by Sikogukira (1993, p. 112), ‘. . . postulate a socio-cultural reason by suggesting that L3
learners may identify more strongly with an L2 than with their L1, which could result in L2
influencing their learning of an additional foreign language’. Indeed, Corder (1979, p. 33)
in Sikogukira (1993, p. 111) makes reference to the general observation that ‘the more
languages one knows, the easier the acquisition of yet another appears to be’. Language
typology, genealogy and distance play a part in how languages are learned. Cross-linguistic
transfer may be of assistance to children when learning a new language, and it seems to be
that more balanced bilingual children will have an advantage over less balanced bilinguals
in this regard. The area of cross-linguistic influence is of relevance to this study in terms
of the question around the associations children make between L1, L2 and L3, depending
on which language is being learned. It may be, for example, that children who are being
educated in an immersion programme, and have therefore been exposed to a higher level
of Irish than those not being educated in an immersion programme, have developed the
ability to make more associations between Spanish and Irish, for example, than Spanish
and English. The findings in this regard will be presented at a later stage.

Metalinguistic awareness
Thomas (1988, p. 531) defines metalinguistic awareness as ‘. . . an individual’s ability
to focus attention on language as an object in and of itself, to reflect upon language,
and to evaluate it’. The concept may be simply explained as having an insight into how
language, in general, is used and organised. Yopp (1988) informs us of four types of
metalinguistic ability: phonological awareness, word awareness, syntactic awareness and
pragmatic awareness. Lasagabaster (2000, p. 194) has suggested that the presence of three
languages in the curriculum should not be seen as a stumbling-block for students, but
rather as fostering a highly developed level of metalinguistic awareness, which should
result in greater competence in all languages taught. In 1997, the same author found that
bilinguals presented a higher level of metalinguistic awareness than monolinguals. Baker
(2006, p. 160) refers to Bialystok et al. (2004) when he reiterates that the authors found
that ‘. . . performance on the Simon Task was superior in bilinguals than monolinguals and
that this result was evident in older and younger learners’.
 Language Awareness 187

Jessner (1999, p. 201) says that the development of competence in two or more languages
can result in higher metalinguistic awareness. This statement is the conclusion of research
undertaken by Ringbom (1987) and Cenoz and Valencia (1994), which has reported that
‘. . . the development of proficiency in two or even more languages can result in higher
levels of metalinguistic awareness facilitating the acquisition of language’ (Jessner, 1999,
p. 201).
Ó Laoire, Burke and Haslam (2000, p. 53), point out that there is evidence that indicates
that learners ‘consciously or subconsciously draw on various sources of previous language
learning in all subsequent language learning’. Metalinguistic knowledge is largely transfer-
able to any new language. For example, the awareness that there are parts of speech (nouns,
verbs, prepositions) in one’s L1 can assist in learning L2, in that it helps the student know
what to look for. The same logic applies with regard to L2 and L3. The knowledge that one
can employ humour and sarcasm, or represent speech in print, is a form of metalinguistic
knowledge that one can easily apply to any other language, regardless of one’s ability to
perform the tasks. Vygotsky (1962, p. 110) has argued that children who have the ability
to express the same thought in different languages will be able to ‘see his language as one
particular system among many, to view its phenomena under more general categories, and
this leads to awareness of his linguistic operations’.
Cummins’ view of the bilingual system is described as a dual iceberg, whereby the
bilingual has a ‘common underlying proficiency’ in language, as opposed to two separate
proficiencies, one for each language known. He describes the proficiency as a kind of
‘linguistic reservoir’ through contact with both languages, whereby the bilingual develops
a ‘think tank’ comprising enhanced metalinguistic awareness (Jessner, 1999, p. 202). More
balanced, or stable bilinguals, as described earlier, will reflect on their language usage more
and develop different language learning strategies from their less balanced counterparts.
Their more highly developed metalinguistic awareness plays a crucial role in the exploration
of this difference.
There have been many studies undertaken on the effects of bilingualism on meta-
linguistic awareness. Researchers include Ben-Zeev (1977) and Bialystok (1991, 2001).
This research has, according to Cenoz (2003, p. 73), ‘associated bilingualism with a higher
ability to reflect on language and to manipulate it’. Ringbom presented one of the first
renowned discussions of the acquisition of a third language in 1987. This work describes
Sundqvist’s study of school children, where Swedish-speaking Finns outperformed Finnish-
speaking Finns in the learning of English as a foreign language. Thomas’s (1988) study
showed that English-Spanish bilinguals were found to have metalinguistic advantages over
monolingual English students when learning French in a formal classroom environment.
Bialystock makes reference to some tests which she carried out in order to assess meta-
linguistic capabilities in children. For example, she refers to grammaticality judgement
tests carried out over a number of years on bilingual and monolingual children, whereby
sentences were grammatically correct but contained a semantic error. According to the
same author, ‘Bilingual children have repeatedly been shown to solve these high control
judgements more successfully than comparable monolingual children’ (Bialystock, 1992,
p. 506). Indeed, according to a number of studies mentioned by Bialystock in the same
article, bilingual advantages have been shown for those tasks which involved high levels of
control of processing.
With regard to literacy, researchers such as Bild and Swain (1989), Klein (1995), Thomas
(1988) and Sagasta Errasti (2003, p. 28) have shown that ‘children who are exposed to two
written codes have a better chance of developing a greater sensitivity towards language use
and therefore, they may be faster at cracking the code of a third language’.
188 A.M. Dillon

One of the central debates regarding the acquisition of more than two languages has
been, clearly, the level of bilingualism required for the emergence of metalinguistic ad-
vantage. Eviatar and Ibrahim (2000, p. 452) have reported that some researchers, such as
Yelland (1993) have reported positive effects of bilingualism with only minimal exposure
to the second language, while others, such as Cummins and Ricciardelli have suggested that
these advantages may only be seen in children who have achieved a high level in both lan-
guages. Cummins’ dual iceberg view of bilingualism has implications for the development
of metalinguistic awareness. The evidence would suggest that the metalinguistic awareness
of more balanced bilinguals would be better developed than that of less balanced bilinguals.
It has also been made explicit that the presence of three languages in the curriculum may
improve children’s levels of metalinguistic awareness. The evidence would seem to suggest
that children in immersion programmes would attain a higher level of metalinguistic aware-
ness than those children being educated in non-immersion programmes, thus providing a
response to one of the main research questions.

Results of data gathered from teacher questionnaire

The results in the following section were derived from a mainly quantitative questionnaire
issued to all language teachers participating in the MLPSI. The relevant questions from
the questionnaire are numbered (25, 26, 27 and 28) and analysed in turn. Questions 25
and 26 were presented in a Likert-type, closed format. An opportunity for obtaining some
qualitative data was provided, as can be seen from teachers’ observations presented in
Tables 1 and 2 (based on Questions 27 and 28). The aspects under consideration are as
follows: teachers’ presentation to students of similarities between TL, English and Irish;
and teachers’ observations of associations made by pupils between TL, English and Irish.

Teachers pointing out similarities between TL and English (Question 25)

The question was as follows: ‘Do you point out similarities between the target language and
English?’ Responses available were: always, often, sometimes, seldom and never. These
responses will be italicised throughout the discussion, as with the next section. With regard
to the teacher pointing out similarities between the TL and English, most schools replied
that this happens often (40.7%, n = 61), while the next most frequent response was always
(34%, n = 51).
With regard to the modern language being taught, those teachers teaching German and
Spanish seemed most likely to always point out similarities between the TL and English,
with 50% (n = 16) of German reporting this and 50% (n = 8) of Spanish teachers. Thirty
percent (n = 3) of Italian teachers expressed that they always point out similarities between
the TL and English, while 26.7% of French teachers did so. When taking the always and
often responses and analysing them in tandem, it does appear that there are no marked
differences between the various languages being taught across this variable. Also, 81.3%
(n = 26) of German teachers, 80% (n = 8) of Italian teachers, 75% (n = 12) of Spanish
teachers and 73.4% (n = 66) of French teachers have reported that they either always or
often point out similarities between the TL and English.
The responses appear to be quite similar when looking at the same variable in relation
to school type. When analysing both always and often responses to this question, 76.3%
(n = 100) of teachers in English-medium schools chose these options, while 70.6% (n =
12) of teachers in Gaelscoileanna also did the same.
 Language Awareness 189

Teachers pointing out similarities between target language and Irish

(Question 26)
The question was as follows: ‘Do you point out similarities between the target language
and Irish?’ Responses available were: always, often, sometimes, seldom and never.
In comparison with the rather positive reports outlined above, when asked if similarities
were pointed out between the TL and Irish, most respondents replied that they did so
sometimes (29.3%, n = 44) and a vast number replied that they never do this (22.7%, n =
34). These responses were often accompanied by an unprompted written response as an
aside, explaining that the respondent did not have a knowledge of the Irish language, and
therefore could not point out similarities where they may occur.
Across the variable of modern language taught, the most frequent response was once
again sometimes, with Spanish teachers most likely to sometimes point out similarities
between the TL and Irish, at 37.5% (n = 6) of these schools. Further, 32.2% (n = 29) of
French teachers, 25.8% (n = 8) of German teachers and 10% (n = 1) of Italian teachers
also chose this response. German teachers were slightly more likely to always point out
similarities between the TL and Irish, with 19.4% (n = 6) of them doing so, compared with
13.3% (n = 12) of French teachers, 10% (n = 1) of Italian teachers and 6.3% (n = 1) of
Spanish teachers also doing so. The response for never pointing out similarities between
the TL and Irish was relatively high, with 30% (n = 3) of Italian teachers choosing this
option, 29% (n = 9) of German teachers, 22.2% (n = 20) of French teachers and 12.5%
(n = 2) of Spanish teachers also reporting this.
When looking at this variable in relation to school type, teachers in Gaelscoileanna were
much more likely to always point out similarities between the TL and Irish, with 43.8% (n =
7) of teachers choosing this response. Only 9.9% (n = 13) of teachers in English-medium
schools reported an always response. The pattern continues when looking at those teachers
who never point out similarities between the TL and Irish, with 25.2% (n = 33) of teachers
in English-medium schools and 8.3% (n = 1) of teachers in Gaelscoileanna reporting this.

Summary of findings
(1) Most language teachers use a mixture of the TL and English when explaining
new vocabulary. Harris and Murtagh (1999, p. 3), while referring to the Teaching
Through Irish Project, state that teaching through the TL represents the most truly
communicative use thereof. They go on to tell us that teaching through the TL
has been seen as highly desirable in communicative foreign-language teaching
but has been difficult to initiate and promote. The findings in the present study
show that some effort is being made to teach the TL through that language, while
improvements can still be made in this regard.
(2) A small amount of French and German language teachers use a mixture of the
TL and Irish, when explaining new vocabulary. This may be due to the higher
proportion of Irish nationals teaching these languages.
(3) All of those teachers, who reported using a mixture of the TL and Irish when
explaining new vocabulary, were employed in Gaelscoileanna.
(4) Harris and Murtagh (1999) have referred to a number of authors such as White
(1991), VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), Harley (1989), Day and Shapson (1991),
and Lyster (1994) as having outlined the need for teachers attempting to increase
language awareness in a second or third language, thereby facilitating the meta-
linguistic awareness of pupils under their tutelage. Summaries 5–11 show the
findings from the present study.
190 A.M. Dillon

(5) Across the board, a high proportion of teachers reported pointing out similarities
between the TL and English.
(6) Teachers of German and Spanish were more likely to point out similarities between
the TL and English, than French or Italian teachers.
(7) Similar positive responses for teachers pointing out similarities between the TL
and English have been noted for both school types. Teachers in English-medium
schools are slightly more likely to point out similarities between the TL and
English, than those in Gaelscoileanna.
(8) Some teachers reported not having the Irish-language ability to point out simi-
larities between the TL and Irish, due to the fact that there are many teachers of
other nationalities participating in the MLPSI.
(9) Quite a high number of teachers across the board reported never pointing out
similarities between the TL and Irish.
(10) German language teachers were found to be the most likely to always point out
similarities between the TL and Irish, while Spanish language teachers were found
to be the most likely to sometimes do so.
(11) Language teachers in Gaelscoileanna were more likely than their colleagues in
English-medium schools to always point out similarities between the TL and Irish.

Associations made by pupils between the target language and English

(Question 27)
When asked whether the children themselves make associations between the target language
and English, the most frequent responses were 42% (n = 63) for sometimes and 38.7%
(n = 58) for often across the board.
Looking at the data from the perspective of modern language taught, when taking both
the always and often responses into account, those children being taught Spanish were more
likely than any others to make associations between the TL and English, at 81.3% (n = 13)
of these schools.
Children learning German were also more likely than others to make associations be-
tween the TL and English, with 50.1% (n = 16) of these schools reporting this. Furthermore,
44.9% (n = 40) of schools where French is being taught made these associations, while
40% (n = 4) of schools providing Italian as a modern language reported children making
these associations.
Across school type, it seems that those children attending Gaelscoileanna are more likely
than children attending English-medium schools to always make associations between the
TL and English, with 17.6% (n = 3) of these schools reporting this response, compared
with English-medium schools, at 9.2% (n = 12). Also, 35.3% (n = 6) of children attending
Gaelscoileanna often make associations between the TL and English, while 40% (n = 52)
of English-medium schools report this.
Table 1 outlines what types of associations the children themselves make between the
TL and English, categorised by modern language taught. These observations have been
made by language teachers.

Associations made by pupils between the target language and Irish (Question 28)
By contrast with this, the results for teacher perception across the board of children making
associations between the target language and Irish were rather more negative, at 40% (n =
60) for sometimes and 20.7% (n = 31) for seldom.
 Language Awareness 191

Table 1. Reported pupil observations in relation to English

Language Pupil observations in relation to English

French 1. Similarly pronounced words.
2. Similar words such as ‘le telephone’, ‘la television’, ‘la geographie’, ‘le
supermarche’, ‘la calculette’, ‘la pharmacie’ have same Latin root as English words.
3. Brand names such as ‘Cuisine de France’ or ‘Renault’.
4. French words used in English, e.g. restaurant, bistro, boutique, croissant, meringue,
bon bons.
5. French phrases used in English, e.g. ‘C’est la vie’, cul de sac.
6. Some days of week similar, e.g. Samedi = Saturday.
7. Some numbers similar, e.g. un (1), deux (2), trois (3), quatre (4), six, sept (7), neuf
(9).
8. Similar words for placenames, e.g. Londres = London.
9. Words often end in ‘tion’, like in English.
10. Words often have the same spelling but quite a different pronunciation.
11. The letter ‘s’ is often added on to create a plural word.
German 1. Similar words such as blau (blue), Krokodil, das Brot (bread), Mai (May), Kamel
(camel), der Fisch, Apfel.
2. Family members are easy to guess as they’re very similar.
3. All months in German sound very similar to those in English, and are spelt very
similarly.
4. Some verbs are similar, e.g. lernen (to learn), tanzen (to dance).
5. Greetings such as Guten Morgen, Gute Nacht, etc. very similar to English.
6. There are some ‘false friends’, those words that sound like they mean something in
English but mean something different.
7. Words for sports are quite similar (Fussball, Tennis, Golf etc.)
8. Words often have the same spelling but a different pronunciation.
Spanish 1. Lots of similar words such as agua (water), gato (cat), elefante, chocolate, escuela
(school).
2. Months of the year are very similar to those in English.
3. Every syllable pronounced, unlike lots of English words.
4. Can translate words without thinking about it much.
5. The children often compare sounds and spellings without prompting from teacher.
6. Children can sometimes see Latin root, e.g. cane = dog, similar to ‘canine’ in
English.
Italian 1. Similar sounding and spelt words, e.g. scuola (school), nase (nose).
2. Words often go back to the Latin root, e.g. bevanda= a drink in Italian, which is
like a beverage. Also, ‘Ho fame’ = I am hungry in Italian = Famine in English.

In relation to modern language taught, the most frequent response given by all four types
of language teachers was sometimes. Fifty percent (n = 8) of Spanish teachers, 44.4% (n =
4) of Italian teachers, 44.3% (n = 39) of French teachers and 28.1% (n = 9) of German
teachers chose this response. Spanish teachers were more likely to choose either always or
often in response to this question, at 37.6% (n = 6) of this population, while 18.8% (n =
6) of German teachers, 17% (n = 15) of French teachers and 0% of Italian teachers found
that pupils either always or often make associations between the TL and Irish.
When looking at the percentage within school type, it becomes clear that 7.7% (n =
1) of children attending Gaelscoileanna always make associations between the TL and
Irish, compared with 2.3% (n = 3) of children attending English-medium schools. The
pattern continues. Children attending Gaelscoileanna often make associations between the
two languages more frequently than those attending English-medium schools, at 23.1%
192 A.M. Dillon

Table 2. Reported pupil observations in relation to Irish

Language Pupil observations in relation to Irish

French 1. Some similar words, e.g. cuisine = cistin = kitchen; in this case, the French word is
more similar to the Irish word.
2. l’église = eaglais = church, la chambre= seomra = room, la cravate = carbhat =
necktie, l’oeuf = ubh = egg.
3. Many adjectives in French come after the noun, as in Irish, e.g. la voiture rouge =
an carr dearg = the red car.
4. Some adjectives are similar, e.g. sale = salach = dirty.
5. Days of week, e.g. Lundi = Dé Luain = Monday, Mardi = Dé Máirt = Tuesday.
6. There is an accent over some vowels, similar to the sı́neadh fada because it changes
the sound of the word.
7. Dieu = Dia = God.
8. Words such as ‘le lit’ = an leaba sounds like ‘ina luı́’ = lying down.
German 1. Many numbers, such as acht = ocht = eight.
2. Verbs such as schreiben = scrı́obh = to write.
3. Nouns such as Esel = Asal = donkey, Schnee = sneachta = snow.
4. Many words sound similar because of the way Irish sometimes comes from the
back of your throat, and so does German!
5. The order of the words is often similar.
6. Some words have a similar basic meaning, even if they don’t look or sound similar.
For example, Erdbeere = Sú talún = strawberries. The words means berries/juice
of the earth in both languages.
Spanish 1. Lunes = Dé Luain = Monday.
2. Verbs such as escribir = scrı́obh = to write.
Italian 1. Monday in Italian is Lunedi like Dé Luain.
2. Verbs such as scrivere = scrı́obh = to write.
3. Adjectives come after the noun, e.g. leabhar gorm = libro azzurro.
4. Phrases such as ‘Come stai?’ sound similar to ‘Conas atá tú?’ = How are you?
5. Deo = Dia = God.

(n = 3) versus 13.3% (n = 17). The same case applies for sometimes, with 53.8% (n =
7) of children attending Gaelscoileanna making associations this frequently, compared
with 40.6% (n = 52) of children attending English-medium schools doing so. Continuing
on from this, more children (22.7% n = 29) attending English-medium schools seldom
make associations between the TL and Irish than those attending Gaelscoileanna (15.4%
n = 2), and the same applies to those children who never make associations between the
two.
As with pupils making associations between the TL and Irish in relation to modern
language taught, the most frequent response for the same question in relation to school type
was sometimes, with 47.1% (n = 8) of teachers in Gaelscoileanna and 40.6% (n = 52) of
teachers in English-medium schools giving this response. When analysing the responses
always and often in tandem, it becomes clear that teachers in Gaelscoileanna have made
these observations more often than their colleagues in English-medium schools, with 41.1%
(n = 7) of teachers in Gaelscoileanna and 15.6% (n = 20) of teachers in English-medium
schools reporting these observations.
Table 2 outlines what types of associations the children themselves make between the
TL and Irish, categorised by modern language taught. These observations have been made
by language teachers.
 Language Awareness 193

Summary of key findings

(1) According to Baker (2006, p. 157), there is fairly strong evidence of advantages
for bilinguals in terms of metalinguistic awareness. The evidence presented in this
study seems to concur with that of researchers such as Bild and Swain (1989),
Klein (1995), Thomas (1988) and Sagasta Errasti (2003), who have shown that
more balanced bilingual children have a greater sensitivity to language and may
be faster at cracking the code of a new language (i.e. new vocabulary) than less
balanced bilinguals or monolinguals. The findings from this section suggest a
positive relationship between immersion education and metalinguistic awareness
in an Irish primary school context.
(2) Pupils learning Spanish and German were more likely than pupils of French or
Italian to make associations between the TL and English.
(3) However, a relatively high proportion of children learning all languages make
associations between the TL and English.
(4) Children attending Gaelscoileanna have been noted to always make associations
between the TL and English, more so than children attending English-medium
schools.
(5) More children attending English-medium schools than Gaelscoileanna often make
associations between the TL and English.
(6) Across all modern languages taught and all school types, it was found that pupils
are, on the whole, less likely to make associations between the TL and Irish than
the TL and English.
(7) Pupils learning Spanish were more likely than other children to make associations
between the TL and Irish.
(8) Children attending Gaelscoileanna seemed to be much more likely to make associ-
ations between the TL and Irish, than children attending English-medium schools.

Results from data gathered from pupil self-assessment statements

In order to ascertain pupils’ self-perceptions of their competence in the TL in question,
a test in Irish and German was administered from a CD recording by class or language
teachers in eight classrooms. It was decided to focus on only one language for testing
purposes, as opposed to all four languages offered as part of the MLPSI. A total of 160 tests
were returned. Four Gaelscoileanna and four English-medium schools agreed to participate
in this phase of the research. Tests of L2 proficiency and L3 proficiency were included,
along with eight self-assessment statements. Two of the self-assessment statements related
to metalinguistic awareness and are outlined below.

‘Knowing Irish helps me when I learn German’

Across both school types, the most frequent response was no, with 67.5% (n = 108) of the
whole population choosing this response. The next most frequent response was sometimes,
with 22.5% (n = 36) responding in this manner. Only 10% (n = 16) of the total population
stated that knowing Irish helps them when they are learning German.
All of those pupils (100%, n = 68) attending English-medium schools responded
negatively to this statement, choosing no.
Those children attending Gaelscoileanna responded more positively to this statement
than those attending English-medium schools. However, the positive response is not vast.
194 A.M. Dillon

Only 17.4% (n = 16) chose yes, while 43.5% (n = 40) chose no and 39.1% (n = 36) chose
sometimes.
This information does tally with previous data collected during the questionnaire, where
teachers felt that those children attending Gaelscoileanna were more likely to make associ-
ations between the TL and Irish than those children attending English-medium schools.

‘Knowing German helps me when I learn Irish’

Across the board, most pupils chose ‘No’ as a response to this statement, making up 93.8%
(n = 150) of the total population of both types of schools. Only eight pupils (5%) said that
knowing German sometimes helps them when learning Irish, while only two pupils (1.3%)
responded ‘Yes’ to this statement.
When comparing responses within school type, it becomes clear that those pupils
attending Gaelscoileanna are more likely than those attending English-medium schools to
think that knowing German helps them when learning Irish, with 2.2% (n = 2) of this
population responding ‘Yes’ and 6.5% (n = 6) responding sometimes. However, a great
majority of pupils within this school type are of the opinion that knowing German does not
help them when learning Irish, making up 91.3% (n = 84) of this population.
With regard to English-medium schools, the pattern is similar, with 97.1% (n = 66)
of pupils stating that knowing German does not help them when learning Irish, and 2.9%
(n = 2) of pupils stating that it sometimes helps them.

Summary of key findings

r Children attending Gaelscoileanna were more likely to report that Irish helped them
when learning German, thereby indicating a higher level of cross-linguistic influence
and metalinguistic awareness.
r While most children, regardless of school type, reported that German does not help
them when learning Irish, children attending Gaelscoileanna were slightly more likely
to do so.

Conclusion: research questions

Two out of five of the research questions posed in the study related to metalinguistic
awareness and cross-linguistic transfer. These questions are outlined below, along with the
general findings and recommendations pertaining to them.

(1) What are the differences or similarities between children being educated in an
immersion programme (through the medium of L2) and those being educated
primarily through the medium of their L1, in terms of the associations those chil-
dren make between L1, L2 and L3 (i.e. metalinguistic awareness/cross-linguistic
transfer)?

Those children being educated in an immersion programme were reported to be more

likely than those being educated primarily through L1, to make associations between the
L1, L2 and L3. These findings were presented both in teacher observations of pupils and
in self-ratings given by pupils. Pupils in immersion programmes were found to be slightly
more likely to make associations between L1 and L3 than L2 and L3, but were nonetheless
likely to do both, according to teacher observations. Some pupils being educated though the
 Language Awareness 195

medium of L1 made associations between L1 and L3, but none of them made associations
between L2 and L3. Brohy (2001) found a similar result when examining the language-
mixing abilities of German/Rumansch bilinguals. In this case, pupils tended to use their L2
when learning the L3, French, as it is typologically closer to that language. With regard to
pupils’ self-ratings of the level of help L2 affords them in learning L3, children in immersion
programmes seemed to be more likely than children in non-immersion programmes to admit
that L2 did help them when learning L3, thus indicating the early development of a higher
level of metalinguistic awareness in those children.

(2) Does the type of language teacher (factors like language taught, language com-
petency level, qualifications, nationality, age and time allocation) have an effect
on aspects of child language acquisition within the MLPSI, especially in terms of
facilitating the development of the metalinguistic awareness of children under their
tutelage?

The most engaging findings have been found in relation to language taught, as a part
of this research question. It has been found that those children learning Spanish have been
offered more opportunities for engaging in communicative competence activities, and that
Spanish teachers have been shown to be more likely than other teacher types to point out
similarities between the TL, English and Irish. Furthermore, children learning Spanish have
been found to be more likely than children learning any of the other languages to use the
TL outside of class time. Teachers of German were also found to be likely to point out
similarities between the TL and English.
While a relatively small proportion of language teachers are class teachers and therefore,
most probably qualified primary school teachers, it has been shown that many of these class
teachers use the TL when teaching parts of other subjects in the curriculum. As stated
previously, the use of TL outside of the discrete language lesson has been shown to have
a positive effect on learning that language. This has implications for policy-makers, in
terms of language teacher provision in the future. In fact, as of 2008, there are over 460
schools participating in the MLPSI, and all schools recently admitted to the initiative
have the capacity within their staff to teach their ML of choice (INTO, 2008, p. 41). The
MLPSI has also recommended the use of the Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) approach, an approach which requires immediate investigation in the context of the
Republic of Ireland in order to promote its usage among class teachers.

Note on contributor
Anna M. Dillon’s teaching interests are in the areas of microteaching, educational methodology
and modern language pedagogy. Her research interests include multilingualism in early childhood,
bilingual/immersion education, CLIL, language awareness and English as an Additional Language
(EAL). Prior to her appointment in MIC, she worked as a primary school teacher and principal.

References
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development.
Child Development, 48(3), 1009–1018.
196 A.M. Dillon

Bialystok, E. (1991). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency. In E. Bialystok

(Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 113–140). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Bialystock, E. (1992). Selective attention in cognitive processing. In R.J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive
processing in bilinguals. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive
control: Evidence from the Simon task, Psychology & Aging, 19, 290–303.
Bild, E. & Swain, M. (1989). Minority language students in a French programme: Their French
proficiency. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 10(3), 255–274.
Bloom, L. (1978). Commentary. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human
Cognition, 2(1), 1–4.
Boase-Beier, J., & Lodge, K. (2003). The German language – A linguistic introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing .
Brohy, C. (2001). Generic and/or specific advantages of bilingualism in a dynamic plurilingual
situation: The case of French as official L3 in the school of Samedan (Switzerland). International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 38–49.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. The
International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 71–88.
Cenoz, J., & Gennessee, F. (1998). Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multilin-
gual education. In J. Cenoz & F. Gennessee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and
multilingual education (pp. 16–32). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J.F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque country. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 15, 195–207.
Cenoz, J., Hufeison, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001). Third language acquisition in the school context
[Special Issue]. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 4(1), 61–75.
Cummins, J. (1974). Bilingual cognition: A reply to Neufeld. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 4,
99–l06.
Cummins, J. (1978). Metalinguistic development of children in bilingual education programs: Data
from Irish and Canadian (Ukrainian-English) programs. In M. Paradis (Ed.) Aspects of bilingual-
ism (pp. 127–138). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Language functions and cognitive processing. In J.P. Das, J. Kirby, & R.F. Jarman
(Eds.), Simultaneous and successive processing (pp. l75–l85). New York: Academic Press.
Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in
French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning, 41, 25–58.
Driscoll, P., & Frost, D. (Eds.). (1999). The teaching of modern foreign languages in the primary
school. London: Routledge.
Eviatar, Z., & Ibrahim, R. (2000). Bilingual is as bilingual does: Metalinguistic abilities of Arabic-
speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 451–471.
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied
Linguistics, 10, 331–359.
Harris, J., & Conway, M. (2002). Modern languages in Irish primary schools – an evaluation of the
national pilot project (Research Report 27). Dublin: Institiúid Teangeolaı́ochta Éireann.
Harris, J., & Murtagh, L. (1999). Teaching and learning Irish in primary school – a review of research
and development. Dublin: Institiúid Teangeolaı́ochta Éireann.
Hoffman, C., & Widdicombe, S. (1999). Code-switching and language dominance in the trilingual
child. AILE Proceedings of the 8th EUROSLA Conference, Paris. Vol. 1, Special Issue, 51–
62.
INTO (Irish National Teachers Organisation). (2008). Modern languages is primary schools initiative.
InTouch (Issue 94, May 2008). Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.into.ie/ROI/
publications/InTouch/CurrentIssue/File,8503,en.pdf.
Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language
learning. Language Awareness, 8, 201–209.
Klein, E.C. (1995). Second versus third language acquisition: Is there a difference? Language Learn-
ing, 45, 419–465.
Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. London:
Longman.
 Language Awareness 197

Lasagabaster, D. (2000). Three languages and three linguistic models in the Basque educational
system. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language
(pp. 179–197). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’
sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 263–287.
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In K. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Rivers, W.M. (1979). Learning a sixth language: An adult learner. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 36(1), 67–82.
Sagasta Errasti, M.P. (2003). Acquiring writing skills in a third language: The positive effects of
bilingualism. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 27–42.
Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 23–44.
SEED (Scottish Executive Education Department). (2000). The structure and balance of the curricu-
lum: 5–14 national guidelines. Scotland, UK: SEED, University of Stirling.
Sharwood Smith, M., & Kellerman, E. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisi-
tion: An introduction. In E. Kellerman & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence
in second language acquisition (pp. 1–9). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Sigokukira, M. (1993). Influence of languages other than the L1 on a foreign language: A case of
transfer from L2 to L3. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Languages, 4, 110–132.
Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second- and third-language learn-
ing. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 235–246.
Vanpatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for
instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 45–57.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and
negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133–161.
Yelland, G.W. (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 14(4), 423–444.
Yopp, H.K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23(2), 159–177.
Ytsma, J. (2001). The phenomenon of trilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Edu-
cation and Bilingualism, 4(1), 11–21.