Learning an L2 and L3 at the same time: help or hinder?

Figures & data

Table 1. Groups and amount of language instruction time.

	First year		Second year
Groups	L2	L2 + L3	L2 +	L2 + L3
Group size	23	22	11	16
Instruction (h/week)	E: 16	E:16	E:12	E:12
		R:8	FL:4	R:10

Note. E: L2 English; R: L3 Russian, FL: L3 Japanese, Russian, German or French.

Table 2. The dataset.

Numbers of participants and texts	First year		Second year
Language groups	L2	L2 + L3	L2+	L2 + L3
Number of data points (during 9 months)	12		10
Number of participants	23	22	11	16
Number of writing texts	276	264	110	160

Table 3. Correlation between the first and second rating of the 50 texts

Test	Complexity	Accuracy	Idiomaticity	Coherence	Holistic
Pearson’s R	r = .713***	r = .772***	r = .587***	r = .610***	r = .749***

Note: ***, correlations are significant at 0.001 level.

Table 4. The differences on total proficiency gain scores among two groups.

Total gain score				Independent sample t test
		N	M (SE)	t(43)	r²
First year	L2	23	2.61(0.32)	0.19	/
	L2 + L3	22	2.70(0.34)
Second year	L2+	11	2.03(0.32)	1.02	/
	L2 + L3	16	1.60(0.27)

Table 5. The differences in gain scores in complexity between two groups among second year students.

Gain score in complexity				Independent sample t test
		N	M (SE)	t(24.22)	r²
Second year	L2+	11	0.74(0.07)	2.88**	0.26
	L2 + L3	16	0.38(0.10)

Note: **, difference is significant at 0.01 level.

Table 6. Difference between first year L2 + L3 vs. L2 learners in terms of fluency variability.

Variability				Independent sample t test
Fluency		N	M (SE)	t(43)	r²
First half	L2	23	0.06(0.006)	4.65***	0.33
	L2 + L3	22	0.13(0.013)
Second half	L2	23	0.10(0.006)	2.57***	0.13
	L2 + L3	22	0.13(0.009)
Whole year	L2	23	0.10(0.006)	3.76***	0.25
	L2 + L3	22	0.14(0.010)

Note: ***, difference is significant at 0.001 level.

Figure 1. Low vs. High Variability in Fluency.

Table

Criteria	Description
Complexity 1–5	about sentence structure: scores range from (1), the sentence structure is very simple, to (5) the sentences are very complex and well structured.
Accuracy 1–5	about the errors: scores range from (1), whole text is full of errors, to (5), only few errors, or no error was found. Error types are in the dimension of grammar, spelling, mechanical, lexical and punctuation.
Fluency 1–5	about text length: scores range from (1), the shortest text, which also does not meet the requirement of each task, to (3), text with moderate length, which is about the length requirement of each task, to (5), the longest text in the corpus of each task.
Idiomaticity 1–5	about the target-like word combination (phrasal verbs, compounds, collocations): scores range from (1), no chunks in the text is used. The expressions are awkward with very obvious L1 structures, to (5), all kinds of collocations, longer chunks and many CWOSTs are well used in a natural and native-like way.
Coherence 1–5	about the focus on topic and sentence flow: scores range from (1), text is not focused on topic, and sentences do not flow naturally, which causes difficulty in reading for the readers, to (5), text sticks to the topic and sentences flow naturally from one to another.

Table

Degree of complexity	Excerpts
Low complexity	When it comes to farmers, we always think they are laborious, hard-working, kind, simple and patient. Without exception, the farmer and his wife of the passage have these fine qualities too. Besides, the farmer and his wife are patient. They never complain about their life condition. Instead, they are being positive to their life. As farmers, they love the land and children as well as their family deeply. Their life is filled with planting and reaping from morning till dusk. Sometimes, the life is bored and tired. However, they enjoy their simple life and the physical labour. They are at peace with the land and the conditions of their life. The wife said’ if I die first, I shall become a cloud to protect you from the sun’. This is the symbol of their love. This emotion is honesty and pure. The farmer and his wife love each other. They cherish their land and want to pass on the messages of the land to their children. They want to remain the trueness of the nature.
Medium complexity	The couple have been married for 30 years. From other people’s views, the husband is a very considerate man. He helped his wife do the housework and I can see that they love each other very much. But when they talked about the mixed marriage, they have different opinion. They can’t agree each other on many issues. In some way, the man tended to be a racist. Although his wife asked him many times. He knew his wife was angry when she pinched her brows together and bit her lower lip. And he should have stopped talking. But he never did. He is masculine. He wanted to confirmed that he was right and wanted his wife to convince of him. He adhered stubbornly to his own ideas, thus hurt his wife. Meanwhile, his wife is a sensitive woman. She thirsted for her husband’s love. Gradually, there was a big gap between them. The man calmed done. He wanted to make up his wife, he pretended to change his opinion and say yes to her. But his wife was hurt and refused to be fooled.
High complexity	As a matter of fact, the most basic cause of the disagreement is that their values on marriage are of difference in a certain degree. As is indicated from the wife’s words, no matter how different the two’s living background or any others are, the interracial marriage is available as long as there exists true love. There is no doubt that the wife is romantic and sensitive. What she is always looking after is to believe the power the true love could make, which is reasonably the same as most women, and it’s not wrong, of course. But on the contrary, she didn’t stop forcing her husband to answer her questions once and once again until the gap had obviously appeared and the hurt had been done, from which we could see she was somewhat strong-minded. On the husband’s part, the reason why he disagreed the interracial marriage is that the different living background has decided their difference from almost everything, the different value, personality and fate, for example. I truly agree with it that he is rational in some way. But although he helped his wife with the housework, he is not considerate enough at all, and it couldn’t be denied that he was a slight kind of racist.