.___ _____ N_i""'"c_h_t_-_th_e_m_a_ti_s_c_h_e_r_T_e_i_I _____ ___.I EBERHARD KLEIN* Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Learning: Facts and Fictions Abstract. As 'multilingualism' and 'multilingual' 1 didactics have become pervasive in a variety of disciplines including general pedagogy, foreign language teaching/ learning, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics and also in the domain of politics, and as this situation has led to considerable terminological diversification, a reappraisal ofthese concepts seems imperative. In this article some valuable suggestions found in the relevant literature will be discussed and facts will be separated from rnisconceptions and dubious tenets. In particular, some terrninological problems will be tackled and the four most contentious issues will be dealt with: the seemingly ambivalent role of English as a lingua franca, some competing models of multilingual didactics, a few consequences for curriculum design and the main implications both for multilingually-based modules ofuniversity courses and for teacher training schemes. 1. Preliminary remarks Arguably, foreign language didactics features most prominently in the 'league table' of academic disciplines with respect to the number of buzzwords produced in recent years. Mehrsprachigkeitl'multilingualism' is one of the latest to have gained enormous currency among L2 researchers, general educationalists and (foreign) language teachers alike. This term has, however, given rise to misconceptions, false assumptions, contradictory inter 0 pretations or sheer myths. This state of affairs comes as no surprise since the concept of multilingualism by its very nature is bound to touch upon areas of study other than foreign language teaching such as general pedagogy, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. The situation is compounded further by politicians, bureaucrats and (other) self-styled 'experts' who have laid their hands on this topic, thus blurring the very issues which are badly in need of clarification. Korrespondenzadresse: Prof. Dr. Eberhard KLEIN, Universität Erfurt, Philosophische Fakultät, Fachgebiet Anglistik/ Amerikanistik, Lehrstuhl für Anglistische Fachdidaktik und Sprachlehrforschung, Nordhäuser Str. 63, 99089 ERFURT. E-mail: eberhard.klein@uni-erfurt.de Arbeitsbereiche: Plurilinguale Didaktik, kontrastive Lexikologie. 1 Until the terminological issue is addressed, I will use the term in a somewhat loose sense, as a cover term for the entire phenomenon, as it were. JFL11L 36 (2007) 218 Eberhard Klein In the following article, the notion of multilingualism will be dealt with from a purely didactic perspective from which digression will only be made when it serves the purpose of the argument. The following issues are open to dispute and thus lend themselves to discussion: 1. The terminological diversity concerning multilingualism 2. The role of English as a lingua franca and a global language in the context of multilingual teaching 3. Different models of multilingual teaching 4. Some requirements of multilingually-based curricula 5. Some implications of multilingual didactics for teacher training 2. Clarification of some terminological problems lt is hardly surprising that the great complexity of the issue should be mirrored by a wide array of terms some of which can simply be taken as synonyms, others as reflecting different facets of the phenomenon of 'multilingualism' and yet others marking out a particular brand of 'multilingualism' as being essentially different from other brands. In order to cope with the diversity of terms inherent in the topic of 'multilingualism' 2 one could first of all differentiate between multilingualism and plurilinguism as is common practice amongst authors working in this field. Tue former would be adopted to describe a situation in which multilingualism exists either in a wider social context (e.g. in multilingual countries such as Belgium, Canada etc.) or in the form of a variety of languages on offer in educational institutions, whereas the latter would refer to the stock of languages acquired/ learnt/ mastered by an individual. Thus, we are dealing here with sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic/ didactic manifestations of the phenomenon respectively. lt is in this latter sense that individuals are expected to attain a mastery of several languages according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, with plurilingualism understood as the result of the acquisition of a non-language-specific, but general and holistic communicative competence (GNUTZMANN 2005: 15). However, plurilingualism seen in this way unduly narrows down the range of its interpretations because it is doubtful whether some vague, language-independent communicative competence can be seen as the best basis for fostering genuine competence in several foreign languages. The issue is blurred further if one looks at the corresponding terrninology in German. Thus, NEUNER (2004: 173) quite rightly argues that Mehrsprachigkeit, if used in a 'context-free' manner, is inherently fuzzy and therefore needs specifying along the lines described above, i.e. distinguishing between Multilingualität and Plurilingualität. 2 Interestingly enough, the term polyglot hardly ever occurs in the literature. lt is a moot point whether this is simply so because there is no corresponding noun describing the state of knowing many languages. lFL11llL 36 (2007) Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Learning: Facts and Fictions 219 Apart from the fact that these two terms are used rather inconsistently, there are some subcategories of these terms which are anything but conducive to defining unambiguously what it is that makes a plurilingual speaker. For example, the distinction between innere Mehrsprachigkeit, which refers to individuals who oscillate within their LI between dialect, standard language, colloquial language and special registers in the sense of W ANDRUSZKA (1979) and äußere Mehrsprachigkeit, which implies the possession of languages in addition to LI (cf. NEUNER 2004: 174), rests on a rather unorthodox concept of 'language'. lt should be all too obvious that any discussion guided by didactic principles has to centre on languages clearly distinct from an individual' s native language, i.e. second and/ or foreign languages, no matter whether they are acquired or learnt. 3 Based on the argumentation so far, the following questions still need tobe answered: 1. Can different degrees of plurilingualism be identified on the basis of variance in the mastery of more than one foreign language? 2. Can differentforms ofplurilingualism be established by functional criteria? To answer these questions, I will draw on some valuable information provided by BAUSCH (2003). Concerning the first question, it seems reasonable to posit a plurilingual continuum, on which different degrees of 'plurilingual competence' can be located. Bausch distinguishes between the following: a) minimal forms of bi-/ plurilingualism (referring to learners with only a rudimentary knowledge of foreign languages), b) maximal forms of bi-/ plurilingualism (for individuals with a 'native-like' knowledge of foreign languages), c) balanced/ symmetrical forms of bi-/ plurilingualism (persons who have acquired an equally high level of competence in several languages which they can exploit in different communicative contexts), d) dominant/ asymmetrical forms ofbi-/ plurilingualism (this holds for individuals who master several languages, each ofwhich only being applicable to certain contexts of communication) and, finally, e) forms of semilingualism (i.e. persons who, compared with monolingual speakers, have deficits in all their languages over long periods oftime, which subsequently tend to gradually fossilise). A model of this type has the advantage of allowing us to regard plurilingualism as a process rather than as a terminal state of the learning process (see KÖNIGS 2004: 96). As regards the second question, BAUSCH (2003: 441 f) distinguishes three essentially different forms of plurilingualism: a) functional forms of bi-/ plurilingualism (productive vs receptive language use, skill-drivenlanguage use, i.e. depending on which of the four skills is/ are given priority), b) different forms of the mental representation (compound vs coordinate) of the languages concemed in the brain of the plurilingual individual (in the former case different linguistic encoding systems are stored 'as a whole', whereas in the latter case the languages involved are stored separately as 'coordinate systems'). lt is said that a true bilingual or, by implication, a true plurilingual individual falls under the The acquisition/ learning dichotomy may be of interest from a theoretical point of view (see KÖNIGS 2003). Plurilingual development is often the result of the interaction of the two processes (cf. also BAUSCH 2003). lFLl.lL 36 (2007) 220 Eberhard Klein coordinate category4, c) forms ofbi-/ plurilingualism contingent on the factor age (ranging from early childhood bilingualism to the classroom-based successive learning of foreign languages). To recap, the following conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing discussion: Firstly, plurilingualism is the appropriate term to describe an individual's mastery of several foreign languages; secondly, regardless of the fact that bilinguals and plurilinguals are subject to similar mental processing, a plurilingual person by definition must have communicative competence in at least two foreign languages; thirdly, plurilingualism is subject to gradation with the learner' s aim being to approximate to a level of competence as high as possible; fourthly, plurilingual competence does not necessarily manifest itself as a homogeneous concept, but may diversify into partial competences determined by communicative-contextual and functional criteria. 3. Shedding light on the role of English in plurilingual teaching Making sensible decisions about the choice of languages and their relative grading by importance within the plurilingual spectrum has led to bitter controversies and, not surprisingly, the status of English has tumed out to be a highly contentious issue. In essence, the following problems need tobe tackled: firstly, the apparent ambivalence of English as a linguafranca, on the one band, and its function as a basis for the acquisition of further foreign languages, on the other band; secondly, the fuzziness of its function as a global language, wavering between a lingua franca (ELF) and a foreign language (EFL); thirdly, the double-barrelled nature of English as a lingua franca, understood either as culture-bound or culture-free; fourthly, the ranking ofEnglish in relation to other foreign languages. There seems to be a general consensus that English has to be granted special status in that it ought to be learnt obligatorily as the first foreign language. Prioritising English in this way is the tenor of most official declarations issued by the Council of Europe, German educational authorities and foreign language teachers' associations, among others. 5 Any arguments in favour of an "English only" policy can be dismissed out of band because it would be tantamount to relinquishing the very idea of a linguistically and culturally diversified Europe. Notwithstanding the acceptance of the dominant role of English one has to reject the claim that knowledge of English alone would be sufficient in a multilingual context. An "English only" policy, therefore, is not at issue (cf. SCHOCKER- 4 These concepts were first introduced into the discussion about bilingualism by WEINREICH (1953) and have been elaborated until more recently by HARMERSIBLANC (1993) among others. 5 For example, in the „Koblenzer Erklärung" of the FMF (1989), a resolution was passed by the standing committee of German ministers of education and the arts (1994) entitled „Überlegungen zu einem Grundkonzept für den Fremdsprachenunterricht", in which plurilingualism is postu! ated as the "leaming objective of the future" (quoted from 1. CHRIST 1997: 147), and the motto was adopted by the FMF board for the 1992 federal congress: "Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen: Perspektiven für ein Europa nach 1992" (quoted from SEISER 1990: 143). lFLlliL 36 (2007) Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Leaming: Facts and Fictions 221 VON DITFURTH 2004: 216). However, in CHRIST's pessimistic view (1997: 67), we are faced with the stark choice between a multilingual Europe and one where we may have no option but to resign ourselves to being left with English as the only possible lingua franca, given the currently prevailing educational policies: Wir müssen ernsthaft darüber nachdenken, ob wir ein vielsprachiges Europa etablieren wollen oder ob wir bei Beibehaltung des schulischen Status quo auf ein Europa mit der wohl einzig möglichen Verkehrsprache Englisch zusteuern (CHRIST 1997: 67). What role should then be assigned to English within multilingual and plurilingual contexts? Widely differing views on this issue can be found in the literature, the main bone of contention being the concept of "English as a Lingua Franca" (ELF). The most extreme stance on this issue, according to which English as a lingua franca should be seen as a "viable variety" (SEIDLHOFER 2001: 144) or even as a "variety in its own right" (MEIER- KORD/ KNAPP 2002: 17) has to be rejected for reasons convincingly argued in GNUTZ- MANN (2005: 16). To qualify for an autonomous variety of English, a lingua franca would have to reveal all the features of a distinct linguistic sub-system on all linguistic levels. This is clearly not the case, as the multitude of factors bearing on the entire make-up of a lingua franca, such as the complexity of Ll influence and the influence of the different cultural backgrounds, results in extreme heterogeneity (ibid: 16). This holds true for linguafranca use both in a global and a European context. Incidentally, some authors have come up with weird and 'wonderful' terms such as "Euro-English" or "Mid-Atlantic English" offering the fatuous argument that in this way "the impact of Anglo-American cultural, linguistic and ontological imperialism [could be counteracted]" (MODIANO 2000: 34; in: GNUTZMANN 2005: 23)6, or ridiculous blends like "glocal" 7 English (PAKIR 2003: 75 quoted from AHRENS 2004: 11). From the present discussion the question necessarily arises as to whether ELF, from a didactic perspective, should be taken as a 'neutral' lingua franca stripped of its cultural components or whether it can only fulfil its function in close connection with the respective target culture(s). Here we are faced with yet another problem: if we merely use English as a language detached from its cultural background(s) we forego the opportunity of transmitting cultural information as an indispensable ingredient of foreign language instruction. I agree with VOLLMER (2001: 97) that it is vital for learners of English to seek contact with native speakers of English 8 • However, pretending ELF could be used efficiently for teaching non-anglophone cultures would mean overestimating its potential. 6 There are other forms of Anglo-American 'imperialism', first and foremost the unfettered spread of anglicisms in many (European) languages, particularly in German, to which far greater attention should be given. 7 If "glocal" is meant to denote a language that can be used both globally and locally, as this blend suggests, it is void of any meaning, if not a contradiction in terms, and, at any rate, ludicrous, unless, of course, the author is deliberately trying to be facetious. 8 Some authors, e.g. VOLLMER (2001: 92), see a dilemma over whether English is indispensable for international communication or whether it is a threat to plurilingualism. JFLl! L 36 (2007) 222 Eberhard Klein AHRENS' (1992: 20) claim that English is able [... ] to further cultural understanding in the anthropological sense is also open to challenge. And yet, advocating the need for a plurilingual approach to foreign language teaching and, at the same time, arguing the case for ELF is by no means contradictory. 9 Firstly, since English is invariably the first foreign language in our school curricula, it can serve as a 'stopgap', i.e. bridging the gap between the stage at which a learner has no knowledge of L3, L4 etc. and the stage at which he/ she has acquired incipient knowledge of these languages. Secondly, English may function as a 'springboard' (language) for the acquisition of further foreign languages. To take an obvious example: where English is taught as L2, learners can draw inferences with respect to their Romance target languages from its large stock of French vocabulary. However, not only does English offer „interlinguale Transferbasen" (MEißNER 1998: 46) on the lexical level but interlingual transfer is also possible in phonetics, as has been shown in KLEIN (2002) and syntax, illustrated in LEITZKE-UNGERER (2005). As regards the sequence in which foreign languages are taught, most European countries favour the "English first" policy, with other languages being taught subsequently to varying levels. This situation is reflected in the formula Ll German + English + L2, L3 ... Ln. But there are other sequences imaginable: as part of their „Tertiärsprachenprojekt" applied to Eastem European contexts, HUFEISEN and NEUNER adopt the "German after English" approach (NEUNER 2004: 175), which means the reversal of what used to be common practice in Eastem Europe, where German usually was the first foreign language. Suggestions have been made that French should precede English as L2 (WILTS 2002), which seems umealistic, considering the overwhelming demand for English, which, however, given a transfer-oriented approach to language learning, would be perfectly feasible. After all, interlingual inferencing works in both directions. Let us summarise the main insights into the role of English in the context of plurilingualism. While acknowledging the dominant status of English, which has developed into a global language with all the implications for foreign language teaching (cf. GNUTZ- MANN 1999), an "English only" policy should not be on the agenda as this would run counter to the very idea of a truly-understood plurilingual approach to foreign language teaching. English as a lingua franca can only serve its purpose as long as it is bound to some anglophone culture. Any kind of culture-neutral linguafranca English must be seen as detrimental to promoting cross-cultural understanding. The "English first" approach and the concept of plurilingualism do not exclude each other, but rather they complement each other because English, by offering bases for interlingual inferencing, can take on the role ofbridging the gap between English (already learnt) and further languages (yet tobe learnt). 9 See also EDMONDSON (2004: 41) who argues that English as a lingua franca, instead ofbeing an alternative to the plurilinguhl approach to language teaching, should be seen as its integral part. lFL1.IIL 36 (2007) Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Learning: Facts and Fictions 223 4. Assessing the appropriateness of selected didactic approaches to plurilingualism The discussion about the didactic and methodological implications of a plurilingual approach to foreign language teaching has revolved around the following issues: the competing concepts of plurilingual teaching and their consequences for classroom practice, the 'single language' vs the 'multiple language' -based formats of a plurilingual concept of didactics, the different ways of defining and establishing levels of foreign language mastery as realistic targets and suggestions about different manifestations of plurilingual competence such as the balance between productive and receptive language sk: ills. Studying the relevant literature on our topic, the reader finds himself faced with a bewildering conglomeration of ideas and suggestions ranging from those which are reasonable and realistic to those which are questionable or even downright absurd. One key issue concems the didactic orientation of a genuinely plurilingual approach to foreign language teaching. Most authors argue the case for an essentially novel type of didactics, which focuses on the interrelationship of languages instead of treating them in isolation. This approach is said also to encourage leamers to develop an awareness of the usefulness of strategies using interlingual inferencing and of leaming "across languages" (CHRIST 2004: 34). This is a plausible claim in view ofthe fact that the mental processes involved in a plurilingual context are distinct from those typical of a merely bilingual situation, which require different classroom methods as a corollary. However, mak: ing a plea for an entirely new concept of language teaching in which there would be no room for any kind oflanguage-specific concept, where instead leamers would be subjected to some 'unified' language classes and where they no longer have a choice of languages are at best unrealistic and at worst simply vacuous (MUNDSCHAU 1995). Suggestions of this kind have to be dismissed as doing a disservice to the cause of plurilingual teaching 10 (see also GNUTZ- MANN 2004: 51). The argument that 'sensitizing' leamers to the nature of language in general, to interlingual phenomena, to language leaming strategies etc., is perfectly convincing, providing that the processes involved in 'sensitizing' leamers are made explicit. What is needed is a balanced approach which takes account of the above-mentioned requirements but, which, at the same time, leaves the autonomy of the individual languages intact. A whole panoply of didactic concepts of plurilingual teaching has been suggested (for abrief overview, see HUFEISEN 2005: 10), two of which are worth being looked at more closely because of their intrinsic didactic value.11 MEißNER's didactic model of plurilingualism (MEißNER 1995, 2003, 2004; MEißNERIREINFRIED 1998) is based on the 10 Similar suggestions are made by EDMONDSON (2004: 42), who also sees the need for a new school subject which would cover items such as procedural knowledge, comparisons of languages, language learning strategies, language awareness and so forth. 11 The remaining ones have a sociolinguistic, a psycho! inguistic, and a second language acquisition s! ant respectively. lFlLllllL 36 (2007) 224 Eberhard Klein following principles: the exploitation of the notion of transfer (with its positive connotations, as opposed to the negative connotations associated with the behaviourist concept), the utilization ofbases for interlingual transfer (Transferbasen), i.e. 'building blocks' that the different languages share, the development of a transient, unstable grammar (Spontangrammatik) by the learner, which is eventually verified/ falsified through the processing of further data: Die Elemente der interlingualen Spontangrammatik bestehen aus Regularitäten, welche aus den aktiven Transferbasen der jeweils disponiblen Sprachen hergeleitet werden. Das, was hier als Spontangrammatik bezeichnet wird, ist aus der Lehrwerks- und Methodengeschichte des Fremdsprachenunterrichts unter dem Stichwort Linearübersetzung bekannt. Es handelt sich um eine an die Strukturen und an die Oberflächenmerkmale der Zielsprache angepasste Version einer Ausgangssprache (MEißNER 1998: 47 f.). Meißner' s model should be seen as an important contribution to the teaching of foreign languages in the plurilingual paradigm all the more so because it holds considerable potential for vocabulary learning and the plurilingual mental lexicon (e.g. MEißNER 1998: 50 ff). Furthermore, it has given rise to research programmes aimed at developing "intercomprehension" within the different European language farnilies. 12 Although there is nothing that should prevent this model from incorporating other languages, first and foremost English, work directed at this aim is as yet at an incipient stage (cf. LEITZKE- UNGERER 2005). Another shortcoming which should not be underestimated is the neglect of the productive domain of language teaching. Thus, a reorientation is badly needed to make this model applicable to classroom teaching. A second, equally promising, approach to plurilingual teaching, is Hufeisen's L3didactics (Tertiärsprachendidaktik), which, as the term implies, deals with any language(s) acquired/ learnt after L2. Her model is based on the premise that L3 learning is not merely a variant of L2 learning but that it is guided by essentially different, L3specific, processes, the reason being that the factors bearing on the learning process are of a more complex nature. They include the Ll, the L2, language universals, the learning environment, generallearning strategies as well as language learning strategies as a result ofprevious language learning experience (HUFEISEN 1998: 170ff). Obviously, in such a situation it is harder to pinpoint the main factors which determine an L3 learner's interlanguage together with the concomitant errors. Error analysis, brought into disrepute following the heyday of contrastive analysis, is undergoing a revival in Hufeisen' s theory. Here, it is used as the basis for a factorial analysis, which makes it possible to determine both the type and grade of norm violations on the different levels of language and to define in a systematic manner different patterns of L2-L3 interaction (in the case described here: L2= English, L3= German). The project on "tertiary" languages conducted in the University of Bochum (described in BAHR [et al.] 1996), which was aimed at investigating the mental processes characteristic of L3 (ltalian, Spanish) learners with knowledge of English as L2, can be seen as a forerunner of the L3 research proposed by 12 For detailed information, the reader is referred to chapters 3, 4 and 5 in KrscHEL (2002). lFLllllL 36 (2007) Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Learning: Facts and Fictions 225 HUFEISEN (1998). Both models allow us to gain insights into the various ways in which learners tap into their knowledge resulting from previously-learnt languages. These languages are regarded as 'auxiliary' languages and can also be used as meta-languages within the L3 paradigm because, due to the fact that learners are constantly encouraged to make comparisons between languages, they help develop "meta-linguistic awareness" (THOMAS 1988: 239; in: HUFEISEN 1998: 173) to an extent that would hardly be attainable for 'normal' L2 learners. At any rate, along with Meißner' s model of plurilingual didactics, the L3 concept systematically exploits L3 learners' superior disposition towards foreign language learning. The results produced by empirical studies provided evidence that bilinguals had learnt their L3 more quickly and more effectively than monolinguals had learnt the same L3 as their L2, thanks to their greater "metalinguistic awareness". Both theories outlined above have far-reaching irnplications for foreign language curriculum design, which will be discussed in the next section. 5. Taking on the curricular challenge of plurilingual didactics For obvious reasons all the different aspects of such a complex field as plurilingualism are interrelated and in their entirety are thus directly linked to the curricular 13 issue. The proponents of the most radical changes in curriculum design argue that the very concept of plurilingualism, if taken to its logical conclusion, requires a curricular tumabout: Parallel zur Entwicklung von Modellen zur Mehrsprachigkeit und zu multiplem Sprachenlernen [...] zeichnet sich eine curriculare Trendwende ab, die wir mit Begriffen wie Gesamtsprachencurriculum oder integrierter Sprachdidaktik beschreiben können. Damit ist gemeint, dass wir die verschiedenen Sprachen in einem Lernumfeld, in Individuen, in Curricula nicht mehr getrennt betrachten, sondern den Forschungsergebnissen der Spracherwerbsforschung folgend sie als Teile eines Ganzen, einer Einheit wahrnehmen (HUFEISEN 2005: 9). Granted that any foreign language curriculum committed to plurilingual education should make the necessary provisions, one should not lose sight of the fact that such a 'new' curriculum still has to cater for individual languages for the simple reason that the path to 'holistic' plurilingual competence is only via the mastery of individual languages. Tue idea that some fuzzy 'overall awareness' of language would lead to the competence of particular languages in a kind of 'deus ex machina' process does not square with the reality of foreign language learning. Dichotomies such as the additive concept vs the curricular concept of plurilingualism (KRUMM 2004), or the additive vs the integrative concept of plurilingualism (HU 2004: 70) are misleading. Rather than expressing contrasts they complement each other, and this is a process which should be reflected in foreign language curricula. 13 In the following, the term "curriculum" in the sense of EDM0NDSON/ HOUSE's (2006: 292 ff) "internes" Curriculum will be used as it is more extensive in coverage than "syllabus" and therefore better suited for the purpose of the present paper. lFlLlJIL 36 (2007) 226 Eberhard Klein A foreign language curriculum has to specify the levels of competence which learners are expected to acquire. There seems to be a general consensus that in a plurilingual context they have to be defined relative to a number of different factors, for example the length of the period over which a learner is exposed to a particular language, the skills most relevant to the learner (e.g. productive vs receptive) and the different functional domains in which the target languages are used. In other words: equal levels of competence in the different target languages are unrealistic 14, not to mention a native-like or at least a near-native command of the target language, which, as some authors are keen to point out, are said to be no longer the aim in foreign language teaching (GNUTZMANN/ BEINHOFF 2005: 104; KRUMM 2004: 109) (as if near-nativeness had ever been stipulated as a realistic objective in foreign language teaching! ). Yet, one should not underestimate the risks involved by taking the downgrading of target levels of competence too far. In the literature indisputable evidence can be found to show that there is a danger of 'watering down' the attainment levels that ought to be taken as realistic standards of competence. Some colleagues still seem tobe obsessed with the so-called Begegnungskonzept, which is seen as a counterbalance to the supposedly monolingual orientation of present-day foreign language teaching (FLT) practice (NIEWELER 2001: 213). However, this concept, at one time fiercely propagated as one way of solving the problems besetting primary school foreign language teaching, has come under severe criticism and in the meantime has been replaced by other more systematic and target-oriented approaches. Such a fuzzy and noncommittal concept boils down to merely offering pupils a 'taste' of languages, which is glaringly counterproductive to promoting genuine linguistic/ communicative competence (cf. FELLBAUER 1994, SCHMOLL 1995 in: SAUER 2000: 4 t). One would do learners a great disservice if one were to lower the demands on language learners who are undergoing plurilingual training. What is needed instead are precise definitions of the grades of the mastery of the different languages which learners are to acquire within a plurilingual framework in terms of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) together with the European Language Portfolio (ELP). How this can be put into practice has been shown convincingly by SIMPSON (2003), who defines three versions of the ELP for different categories of learners. These versions are then matched with the different parameters of the CEFR, thus rendering the process for self-assessment transparent and individualising the learning process: Using the 'can do' statements, each learner can monitor and record his/ her progress through the different thematic areas, and that progress can be recorded at three progressive stages [ ... ]. This approach allows for the smallest steps in progress tobe noted and reflected upon (SIMPSON 2003: 142). Although Simpson' s model is set in the Irish context of teaching English to immigrants, it could easily be adapted to a plurilingual set-up because it focuses on important general 14 lt should be mentioned at this point that even learners with only one foreign language hardly ever reach equal levels of competence in all the different domains. lFJLlllL 36 (2007) Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Learning: Facts and Fictions 227 concepts in foreign language teaching, such as (self-) assessment, awareness and reflection, goal-setting, socially-constructed learning etc. (SIMPSON 2003: 143 ff). Another excellent study of the relevance of the CEFR for plurilingual teaching including intercultural issues is the one by LITTLE (2003), who, quite rightly, concedes that so far there is "no consensus among experts in intercultural communication as to whether intercultural competence is scalable in the same way as communicative competence" (LITTLE 2003: 135 f). But he stipulates quite reasonably that the expected grades of competence with respect to the five domains of the CEFR (listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, writing) should be codified in foreign language curricula providing for plurilingual learning. Now consideration will be given to the question as to which conditions may turn out as the most favourable as regards plurilingual teaching. These conditions are subject to the prevailing educational system in our country and include the succession of languages laid down in school curricula, the length of language courses, the roles and status of the various languages in the different types of school and so forth. A first step forward in promoting plurilingual awareness would be some basic training in 'intercomprehension', if only to give pupils the 'feel' that even at an initial stage of their foreign language learning 'career' they already 'know' something about a second/ third foreign language. Such a basic 'awareness programme' is already feasible with primary school children, as MARSCHOLLEK (2002: 239-248) has convincingly shown by confronting children with language data that are apt to encourage them to draw comparisons both between their Ll and L2 and between L2, L3 etc .. One has to ensure, however, that the transition to the productive stage should not be delayed for too long, because otherwise learners might feel frustrated at being hindered in their efforts to express themselves in the foreign language. Far from belittling the merits of those who advocate the need for "intercomprehension" in plurilingual teaching and learning (DOYE 2004, 2005; MEißNER 2005), one has to emphasise that competence in comprehension alone can never be an end in itselfbut sooner or later has tobe complemented by productive skills. A number of proposals have been put forward to accomplish this task. First of all, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 15 and immersion programmes have yielded extremely positive results, and, according to MÜLLER-HARTMANN (2004: 165), could be offered as fully-fledged courses of study as well as in the form of individual modules. While many studies of bilingual (CLIL) concepts and immersion programmes are conducted in multilingual (social) contexts (e.g. SIEBERT-ÜTT 2001 ), promising attempts have been made to implement bilingual concepts in institutional contexts: one example is the state-run Europaschule (Berlin), where the concept of bilingual teaching in the form of different combinations of languages has successfully been put into practice (cf. ZYDATiß 15 Or, sometimes referred to as "bilingual teachlng"lbilingualer Sachfachunterricht, whlch are rnisnomers because of the wrang implication that particular subjects are taught through two languages, while it is true that thls takes place only in the foreign language. Hence, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) seems the more appropriate terrn. lFLwL 36 (2007) 228 Eberhard Klein 2000). Of course, concepts like these are not plurilingual in the strict sense as defined earlier (see above [p. 223 ff]). However, they can be modified so as to meet the requirements of a plurilingual approach to foreign language teaching. One possibility of widening the scope of the bilingual concept could be to have Ll/ L2 modules altemating with L2/ L3 modules as integral components of a CLIL course. Another option would be to make the use of the classroom language contingent on the subject taught during a particularperiod oftime. CHRIST (2004: 34) favours the simultaneous [my emphasis, E.K.] use of different ,Arbeitssprachen' in plurilingual modules. For example, current English politics can best be taught in English, French history in French etc.. For obvious reasons, such a scenario cannot be introduced 'out of the blue' but requires thorough preparation: introducing vocabulary for special purposes, classroom phraseology, techniques for specialist texts and so forth. These suggestions inevitably beg the question of how to incorporate additional languages into school curricula tightly packed as they already are. In one way or another economising is the order of the day in that the starting-point of foreign languages should be brought forward, that foreign language curricula should stipulate in precise terms which skills are to be mastered at which level of competence (the CEFR being a possible yardstick) at what stage, that intensive courses dealing with say, English and Spanish, could altemate with other courses of, say, French and ltalian. 16 All these courses ought to contain units with the focus on the reflection on language, language (leaming) awareness, leaming strategies and such like as obligatory components. Needless to say, restructuring foreign language curricula along these lines calls for a redefinition of educational levels with respect to foreign language policy in general. 6. Outlining the implications of the plurilingual approach for teacher training In the following, abrief outline will be given of the implications of the concept of plurilingual teaching for teacher training with respect to both general education and to inservice further education. We are basically concemed with the following four areas: the content and orientation of courses in foreign language teaching, the implementation of remedial courses and practical language courses in the modular BA/ MA system, all aimed at qualifying (future) teachers for the 'plurilingual enterprise'. New concepts in foreign language leaming and teaching by definition require various readjustments, which are, first and foremost, to be implemented in the orientation of seminars and lectures in linguistics and (foreign) language pedagogy. A shift from 'traditional' single language leaming to plurilingual learning necessitates a reform of the relevant foreign language syllabuses, ranging from a greater number of languages to be 16 Any decisions conceming these issues directly bear on the question ofhow many languages, at which levels of competence and for which communicative purposes a person has to master in order to qualify as plurilingually competent (cf. GNUTZMANN 2004: 46). lFlLIIL 36 (2007) Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Learning: Facts and Fictions 229 covered to more complex models of language learning and a more diversified inventory of teaching methods. In a plurilingual context, knowledge of psycholinguistic models which try to explain the processes for both the acquisition and storage of several languages, of the structure of the plurilingual mental lexicon and of the techniques for making multiple contrastive analyses and for determining the nature of the interlanguage of plurilingual speakers/ learners are of utmost importance. They should therefore feature prominently in modules of applied linguistics and research on language teaching and learning. These modules would have to complement rather than replace existing modules because foreign language training schemes still have to cater for 'simple' L2 learners (see [p. 225] my argument about Hufeisens „Gesamtsprachencurriculum"). Königs also subscribes to this view: Bereits in der Ausbildung sollte dabei angehenden Frepidsprachenlehrern deutlich vor Augen geführt werden, dass das Lernziel ,Aufbau von Mehrsprachigkeit' nicht dazu führen sollte, dass ohne weiteres Abstriche am Lernziel ,Kompetenz in der Sprache x' gemacht werden könnten. Es wird auf die gesunde Balance ankommen: Den Aufbau der spezifischen Kompetenz gezielt weiterverfolgen, ohne die Erziehung zur Mehrsprachigkeit aus dem Auge zu verlieren (KÖNIGS 2004: 100). Furthermore, he offers three suggestions for prospective foreign language teachers: they should obligatorily learn an additional foreign language in the course of their studies, they should be given professional guidance in all matters conceming language learning and they ought to apply their newly-acquired knowledge in the classroom during their practical training at school (KÖNIGS 2004: 100). In principle, the above-mentioned requirements also apply to teachers undergoing inservice training although the implementation of the necessary measures is complicated by the fact that practising teachers, due to their past training and/ or their long professional career, may often be stuck in a 'pedagogic groove' and be caught in a "monolingual frame of mind" (GOGOLIN 1994). Yet, despite the lamentable financial situation in which universities, schools and institutions of further education find themselves these days, there are promising initiatives to develop teacher training schemes which contain modules tailor-made for plurilingual education. Thus, MÜLLER-HARTMANN (2004: 167 ff) quotes examples of such plurilingually-orientated syllabuses for both the primary and secondary school which have already been implemented in Baden-Württemberg. The corresponding modules are based on the broad distinction between topics and competences. Whereas theories of language learning, general, language-independent literature and media and cultural studies in a European context figure under the former heading, students are expected to be able to describe similarities and differences between languages, to assess learner performance, to analyse translations of children' s literature and to initiate intercultural leaming processes under the latter heading (MÜLLER-HARTMANN 2004: 169). Unfortunately to finish this section on a more sombre note one has to acknowledge that the 'plurilingual enterprise' is still severely hampered by the shortage of plurilingual teachers capable of teaching more than two languages. One is tempted to add that a good many of our university colleagues, particularly Anglicists, may suffer from a similar lFL1llL 36 (2007) 230 Eberhard Klein handicap as for them actual communicative competence in languages other than English has never been a tradition for them. 7. Conclusion lt was argued that the inherently fuzzy concept of Mehrsprachigkeit can be disambiguated if a distinction is made between the (sociolinguistic) concept of multilingualism and the (psycholinguistic and pedagogic) concept of plurilingualism. lt was then shown that, for didactic purposes, it is advisable to posit that plurilingualism manifests itself both in different degrees and in different forms. Tue role of English, which is seen as highly ambivalent in a multilingual and plurilingual context by many authors, is of crucial importance. Despite its dominance in its function as a global language and as the mostwidely taught L2, English as a (culture-bound! ) lingua franca, instead of being an obstacle to plurilingual teaching, should rather be exploited as a 'springboard' for the acquisition of L3, L4 etc.. With respect to the different didactic approaches to plurilingual teaching, Meißner' s model, which is based on "intercomprehension" and interlingual inferencing, and Hufeisen' s L3 didactics (corroborated by findings from empirical studies, e.g. conducted within the Bochum research on "tertiary" languages), were found tobe most conducive to effective plurilingual teaching. However, the two models can be challenged because oftheir slant towards the receptive aspects oflanguage, while giving short shrift to productive language use. As regards the curricular implementation of plurilingual teaching and learning, a totally new plurilingually-oriented curriculum (the so-called „Gesamtsprachencurriculum") that blurs the boundaries between individual languages should be rejected because it can hardly take account of the learner' s needs with respect to learning a particular language. The so-called „Begegnungskonzept" was found to be inadequate because of its vagueness and its failure to enable learners to acquire some clearly definable levels of competence in the target language(s). The Common European Frame of Reference and the Portfolio can be regarded as useful tools both for determining and assessing language competence. Finally, in the field of (further) teacher training, there is still plenty of work to be done, which, first and foremost, involves reforming syllabuses by adding modules specifically designed to meet the requirements of the plurilingual approach to foreign language teaching. And last, but by no means least, great efforts are needed on the part of teacher trainers, university lecturers and school teachers alike to acquire competence for themselves in several languages so as to lead by example. JFLIIIL 36 (2007) Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Learning: Facts and Fictions 231 Bibliography AHRENS, Rüdiger (1992): "Sprachkompetenz als Bestandteil der Bildung". In: BöHM, Winfried/ LINDAU- ER, Martin (Hrsg.): Nicht Vielwissen sättigt die Seele. Wissen, Erkennen, Bildung, Ausbildung heute. Stuttgart: Klett, 147-182. AHRENS, Rüdiger (2004): "Mehrsprachigkeit als Bildungsziel". In: BAUSCH/ KöNJGS! KRUMM (Hrsg.), 9-15. BAHR, Andreas/ BAUSCH, Karl-Richard/ HELBIG, Beate/ KLEPPIN, Karin/ KöNJGS, Frank G. / TöNS- H0FF, Wolfgang (1996): Forschungsstand Tertiärsprachenunterricht. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven eines empirischen Projekts. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. Brockmeyer. BAUSCH, Karl-Richard (2003): "Zwei- und Mehrsprachigkeit: Überblick". In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 439-445. BAUSCH, Karl-Richard/ CHRIST, Herbert/ KRUMM, Hans-Jürgen (Hrsg.) (2003): Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht. 4. völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Tübingen: Francke. BAUSCH, Karl-Richard/ KöNJGS, Frank G. / KRUMM, Hans-Jürgen (Hrsg.) (2004): Mehrsprachigkeit im Fokus. Arbeitspapiere der 24. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. Tübingen: Narr. CHRIST, Herbert (2004): "Didaktik der Mehrsprachigkeit im Rahmen der Fremdsprachendidaktik". In: BAUSCH/ KöNJGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 30-38. CHRIST, Ingeborg (1997): "Schulische Wege zur Mehrsprachigkeit". In: Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 8, 147-159. CHRIST, Walter (1997): "Eine Währung für Europa aber wie viele Sprachen? " In: Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 50, 66-67. DoYE, Peter (2004): "lntercomprehension - Rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit als Alternative". In: PRAXIS Fremdsprachenunterricht 1, 4-7. DoYE, Peter (2005): "Learning and teaching intercomprehension". In: PRAXIS Fremdsprachenunterricht 2, 3-7. EDM0NDS0N, Willis (2004): "Je pense (in three languages), donc je suis (mehrsprachig)". In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 39-44. EDM0NDS0N, Willis/ H0USE, Juliane (2006): Einführung in die Sprachlehrforschung. 3. überarbeitete Auflage. Tübingen: Francke. FELLBAUER, Maria (1994): "Frühes Fremdsprachenlernen in der Grundschule eine Grundsatzentscheidung. Gedanken zur innerdeutschen Diskussion". In: Fremdsprachenunterricht 38/ 47, 117-121. GNUTZMANN, Claus (2004): "Mehrsprachigkeit als übergeordnetes Lernziel des Sprach(en)unterrichts: die ,neue' kommunikative Kompetenz? " In: BAuscH/ KöNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 45-54. GNUTZMANN, Claus (2005): "Globalisation, plurilingualism and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): Has English as a Foreign Language (EFL) become obsolete? " In: Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 34, 15-26. GNUTZMANN, Claus (ed.) (1999): Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language. Native and Non-native Perspectives. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. GNUTZMANN, Claus / BEINH0FF, Bettina (2005): "English and other languages. On the feasibility of plurilingualism in Europe". In: SMEDS, John/ SARMAVU0RI, Katrin/ LAAKK0NEN, Eero / DE CILLA, Rudolf (eds.): Multicultural Communities, Multi-Cultural Practice, Monikulttuuriset yhteisöt, monikielinen käytäntö. Festschrift für Annikki Koskensalo zum 60. Geburtstag. Turku: TURUN YLIOPISTO, 102-111. G0G0LIN, Ingrid (1994): Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule. Münster [usw.]: Waxmann. HARMERS, Josiane F. / BLANC, Michel (1993): Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge JFIL11lL 36 (2007) 232 Eberhard Klein University Press. Hu, Adelheid (2004): "Mehrsprachigkeit als Voraussetzung und Ziel von Fremdsprachenunterricht: Einige didaktische Implikationen". In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 69-76. HUFEISEN, Britta (1998): "L3-Stand der Forschung - Was bleibt zu tun? " In: HUFEISEN, Britta/ LINDE- MANN, Beate (Hrsg.): Tertiärsprachen. Theorien, Modelle, Methoden. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 169-183. HUFEISEN, Britta (2005): "Gesamtsprachencurriculum: Einflussfaktoren und Bedingungsgefüge". In: HUFEISEN, Britta/ LUTJEHARMS, Madeline (Hrsg.): Gesamtsprachencurriculum, Integrierte Sprachdidaktik, Common Curriculum. Tübingen: Narr, 9-18. K! SCHEL, Gerhard (Hrsg.) (2002): EuroCom. Mehrsprachiges Europa durch Intercomprehension in Sprachfamilien. Tagungsband des Internationalen Fachkongresses im Europäischen Jahr der Sprachen 2001, Hagen, 9.-10. November 2001. Hagen: Fernuniversität. KLEIN, Eberhard (2002): "Inferenzen und Interferenzen bei der Perzeption von Phonetik und Lexik durch deutsche Lerner des Englischen (L2), Französischen (L3) und Spanischen (L4)". In: Französisch heute 33, 57-65. KÖNIGS, Frank G. (2003): "Die Dichotomie Lernen/ Erwerben". In: BAUSCH/ CHRIST/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 435-439. KÖNIGS, Frank G. (2004): "Mehrsprachigkeit: Von den Schwierigkeiten, einer guten Idee zum tatsächlichen Durchbruch zu verhelfen". In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 96-104. KRUMM, Hans-Jürgen (2004): "Von der additiven zur curricularen Mehrsprachigkeit". In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 105-112. LEITZKE-UNGERER, Eva (2005): "Mehrsprachigkeit und Grammatikunterricht in den modernen Fremdsprachen: Transferprofile, empirische Überprüfung, Unterrichtsvorschläge". In: Zeitschriftfar Angewandte Linguistik 43, 33-59. LITTLE, David (2003): "The Common European Framework: principles, challenges, issues". In: Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 56, 130--140. MARSCHOLLEK, Andreas (2002): Kognitive und affektive Flexibilität durch fremde Sprachen. Eine empirische Untersuchung in der Primarstufe. Münster/ Hamburg/ London: LIT Verlag. MEIERKORD, Christiane/ KNAPP, Karlfried (2002): "Approaching lingua franca communication". In: KNAPP, Karlfried / MEIERKORD, Christiane (eds.): Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt/ M.: Lang, 9-28. MEißNER, Franz-Joseph (1995): "Umrisse der Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik". In: BREDELLA, Lothar (Hrsg.): Verstehen und Verständigung durch Sprachenlemen. Akten des 15. Kongresses für Fremdsprachendidaktik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Fremdsprachenforschung, Gießen 4.-6.10.1993. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. Brockmeyer, 173-187. MEißNER, Franz-Joseph (1998): "Transfer beim Erwerb einer weiteren romanischen Fremdsprache: Das mehrsprachige mentale Lexikon". In: MEißNER, Franz-Joseph/ REINFRIED, Marcus (Hrsg.): Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. Konzepte, Analysen, Lehrerfahrungen mit romanischen Fremdsprachen. Tübingen: Narr, 45-67. MErßNER, Franz-Joseph (2003): "Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik: Stand, Aufgaben, Entwicklungen im Überblick". In: NEUNER, Gerhard/ KOITHAN, Ute (Hrsg.): Internationales Qualitätsnetz Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Tagungsdokumentation 2002. Kassel: Universität, 23-42. MEißNER, Franz-Joseph (2004): "Sprachenlernen zusammendenken. Aufhören, Rücken an Rücken zu forschen, zu planen, zu lehren und zu lernen". In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 148-162. MErßNER, Franz-Joseph (2005): "Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik revisited: über Interkomprehensionsunterricht zum Gesamtcurriculum". In: Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 34, 125-145. MErßNER, Franz-Joseph / REINFRIED, Marcus (Hrsg.) (1998): Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. Konzepte, Analysen, Lehrerfahrungen mit romanischen Fremdsprachen. Tübingen: Narr. lFlllL 36 (2007) Struggling to Come to Grips with Multiple Language Learning: Facts and Fictions 233 MODIANO, Marko (2000): "Euro English: Educational standards in a cross-cultural context". In: The European English Messenger 9, 33-37. MÜLLER-HARTMANN, Andreas (2004): "Der Wunsch nach Mehrsprachigkeit- Konsequenzen für Schule und Hochschule". In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 163-172. MUNDSCHAU, Heinz (1995): "Europa 2000. Vom Fremdsprachenunterricht zum Sprachunterricht". In: PRAXIS des Neusprachlichen Unterrichts 42, 339-345. NEUNER, Gerhard (2004): "Zur Entwicklung einer Didaktik der curricularen Mehrsprachigkeit". In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg,), 173-180. NIEWELER, Andreas (2001): "Förderung schulischer Mehrsprachigkeit durch sprachenübergreifendes Unterrichten". In: ABENDROTH-TIMMER, Dagmar/ BACH, Gerhard (Hrsg.): Mehrsprachiges Europa. Festschrift für Michael Wendt zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Narr, 207-222. PAKIR, Anne (2003): "Which English? The nativization of English and the negotiations of language choice in Southeast Asia". In: AHRENS, Rüdiger/ PARKER, David/ STIERSDORFER, Klaus/ TAM, Kwok-Kan (eds.): Anglophone Cultures in Southeast Asia. Appropriations, Continuities, Contexts. Heidelberg: Winter, 256-266. SAUER, Helmut (2000): "Frühes Fremdsprachenlernen in Grundschulen ein Irrweg? " In: Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 53, 2-7. SCHMOLL, Heike (1995): "Spielerisch Englisch lernen. Fremdsprachenunterricht in der Grundschule". In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), 22.5.1995, 4. SCHOCKER-VON DITIFURTH, Marita (2004 ): "Die Rolle des Englischen in der Diskussion um eine ,Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik"'. In: BAUSCH/ KÖNIGS/ KRUMM (Hrsg.), 215-225. SEIDLHOFER, Barbara (2001): "Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description ofEnglish as a lingua franca". In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 133-158. SEISER, Ulrich (1990): "Fremdsprachenlehren und -lernen: Bürgerrecht und Bürgerpflicht des Europäers von morgen". Der Lübecker Kongress des FMF (9.-11.4.1990). In: Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 43, 143-149. SIEBERT-OTT, Gesa (2001): "Individuelle Mehrsprachigkeit, gesellschaftliche Mehrsprachigkeit und Schulerfolg". In: Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 12, 39--61. SIMPSON, Barbara Lazenby (2003): "Using the European Language Portfolio with adult migrant second language leamers". In: Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 56, 41-46. THOMAS, Jacqueline (1988): "The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning". In: Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9, 23-47. VOLLMER, Helmut J. (2001): "Englisch und Mehrsprachigkeit: Interkulturelles Lernen durch Englisch als linguafranca". In: ABENDROTH-TIMMER, Dagmar / BACH, Gerhard (Hrsg.): Mehrsprachiges Europa. Festschrift für Michael Wendt zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Narr, 2001, 91-109. WANDRUSZKA, Mario (1979): Die Mehrsprachigkeit des Menschen. München: Piper. WEINREICH, Uriel (1953): Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. WILTS, Johannes (2002): "Sprachenvielfalt an der Grundschule: Englisch! Ein Plädoyer für Französisch als frühe Fremdsprache". In: Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 55, 22-24. ZYDATiß, Wolfgang (2000): Bilingualer Unterricht in der Grundschule: Entwurf eines Spracherwerbskonzepts für Immersionsprogramme. Hueber: Ismaning. lFL1UIL 36 (2007)