Third Languages Acquisition (TLA): Educational Multilingualism at Early Ages

Abstract

In an increasingly globalized world, learning foreign languages (FLs) is essential, particularly in education. Multilingualism is critical due to the multicultural and interconnected nature of societies, yet early third language acquisition (TLA) is not widely adopted in schools. This study investigates how the simultaneous learning of Spanish first language (L1), a second language (L2), and a third language (L3) impacts oral language (OL) development in L1 and whether prior L2 knowledge aids L3 acquisition. The study involved bilingual (L1 + L2) and trilingual (L1 + L2 + L3) learners. Data were collected using the Navarre Oral Language Test-Revised, which evaluates phonological, morphological–syntactic, lexical–semantic, and pragmatic competencies in oral communication. Findings revealed that trilingual learners showed better OL development in L1 compared to bilingual learners. Additionally, prior L2 knowledge facilitated L3 learning, highlighting the benefits of early trilingual education. The study demonstrates that early trilingual learning positively impacts OL development in L1. These results contribute significantly to research on TLA and the advancement of multilingual education.

1. Introduction

In today’s globalized society, the ability to communicate in multiple languages is not only an asset but also a critical necessity. This linguistic competence is especially relevant within educational systems, which are increasingly challenged to prepare learners for multicultural and multilingual realities. As educational contexts become more diverse and interconnected, the study of third language acquisition (TLA), particularly at early ages, has emerged as a key area of research. Understanding how different languages interact within the learner’s cognitive system—and how this interaction impacts language development is essential for designing effective pedagogical strategies and language policies. This study aims to contribute to this field by examining the influence of early multilingual exposure on the development of OL in the first language (L1), considering the role of prior knowledge in a second language (L2) and its potential facilitative effect on third language (L3) acquisition.

The knowledge of foreign languages (FLs) represents, today more than ever, an imperative challenge for individuals and society at large, especially within the realm of education. Hence, mastering FLs is not merely a necessity but a mandated obligation in a society characterized by an unprecedentedly globalized and interconnected landscape. Consequently, the multicultural and multilingual nature of contemporary societies requires proficiency in multiple FLs. The interaction between the L1 and additional languages, specifically a L2 and a L3, within formal educational contexts, is a widely acknowledged reality in most educational systems.

For instance, a study by Nsengiyumva et al. (2021), examines cross-linguistic transfer (CLT) and language proficiency within Burundi’s multilingual education system. The research highlights that CLT occurs across various linguistic levels—phonological, lexical, semantic, and syntactic—and underscores the significance of understanding these influences for curriculum design and language policy. The authors argue that analyzing CLT can aid in developing effective language curriculum materials and assist teachers in enhancing learners’ language proficiency. Additionally, Otwinowska (2023) reviews empirical evidence on L3 lexical acquisition and the role of cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in learning L3 words. The study emphasizes that CLI is not unidirectional; rather, it can be multidirectional, including CLI from L3 to L2, especially in fluid multilingual environments. This underscores the complexity of language acquisition in multilingual contexts and the necessity for educational systems to acknowledge and address these dynamics. Furthermore, a study by Antúnez-Aguilar (2022) investigates the CLI of an L3 on an L2 in productive language skills. The research finds that typological closeness between languages can lead to more pronounced CLI, affecting pronunciation and syntax in multilingual speakers. This finding is particularly relevant for educational contexts where students are learning multiple languages simultaneously.

Nevertheless, TLA at an early age remains an exception rather than the norm in educational paradigms. This is largely attributable to societal concerns regarding the potential detrimental effects of early trilingualism in formal educational settings, compounded by the paucity of empirical studies and research on early-age TLA. Despite this, European institutions continue to advocate for the acquisition of multiple FLs, recommending the initiation of such learning at the preschool level. Therefore, early-age educational multilingualism emerges as a critical research domain to examine the impacts of simultaneous acquisition of L1, L2, and L3.

In the context of a globalized world, Spanish as an L1 frequently interacts with FLs, engendering complex scenarios that influence a broad spectrum of linguistic phenomena. This study investigates the contact of Spanish as an L1 with two FLs, particularly within formal contexts and at an early age. The research objectives are twofold: firstly, to ascertain whether the concurrent acquisition of three languages impedes the typical development of children’s oral language (OL) in the L1, and secondly, to determine whether students with prior linguistic knowledge in L2 possess a pre-competence for acquiring L3.

The working hypothesis posited that trilingual learners would exhibit superior outcomes in the development of OL in L1 compared to bilingual learners. To test this hypothesis, a field study was conducted involving bilingual (L1 + L2) and trilingual (L1 + L2 + L3) learners, with data collected on three linguistic aspects: form, content, and use. The Navarre Oral Language Test-Revised (2004 edition-PLON-R),1 a nationally standardized test, was employed to assess communicative language competences, including phonological, morphological–syntactic, lexical–semantic, and pragmatic competences.

The revised Natural Growth Theory of Acquisition (NGTA), proposed by Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Wrembel (2024), offers an emergent and ecological framework for understanding L3 phonological acquisition, conceptualizing it as a dynamic process shaped by the constant interplay of linguistic and extralinguistic factors. This perspective proves particularly relevant to Third Language Acquisition (TLA) research, as it moves beyond linear transfer models and integrates a complex set of typological, contextual, and cognitive variables. In this light, the NGTA provides a robust conceptual foundation for analyzing how early multilingual exposure may influence oral language development in L1, particularly through the lens of phonological and syntactic maturation.

As noted by Pinto and Alexandre (2021), multilingualism and L3 acquisition are increasingly central to language education research, both from cognitive and pedagogical perspectives. Their study highlights recent trends in L3 teaching and learning, emphasizing the importance of understanding how multiple language systems interact in classroom contexts. These insights support the relevance of studies like the present one, which examine how structured exposure to L2 and L3 (french and english) at early stages may shape broader linguistic outcomes, including oral proficiency in the L1.

Babatsouli’s (2024) edited volume advocates for an ecosystemic perspective on multilingual acquisition, emphasizing language development as both ontogenetic and phylogenetic, embedded within fluid, context-dependent systems where individual, interactional, and social factors interconnect dynamically. This collection foregrounds multilingualism not merely as a cognitive phenomenon but as a complex, socially situated process—spanning speech, gesture, and multimodal communication—where internal and external system factors continuously co-evolve.

The findings of this study provide insightful contributions to the field of TLA research and significantly support early educational multilingualism.

2. Conceptual and Policy Foundations of Early Multilingualism

In the current global and educational landscape, multilingualism is no longer an exception but a defining feature of contemporary societies and school systems. The growing recognition of the cognitive, cultural, and communicative benefits of speaking multiple languages has prompted significant institutional efforts—particularly across Europe—to promote early multilingual education. These efforts are grounded not only in sociopolitical ideals of inclusion and diversity but also in empirical research demonstrating the benefits of acquiring two or more FLs from an early age. The following theoretical framework explores the historical, political, cognitive, and linguistic dimensions of multilingualism, with particular attention to L3 acquisition and its potential influence on L1 development in children.

2.1. European Language Policy Context

This principle has been consistently upheld in a range of declarations, manifestos, and legal instruments at both national and international levels, many of which are explicitly referenced in the declaration and its corresponding action plan. The interaction between L1 and additional languages (L2 and L3) in formal education is a widely documented trend in multilingual education systems (Nsengiyumva et al., 2021; Otwinowska, 2023).

Moreover, authors such as Lasagabaster Herrarte (1998) and Cenoz and Jessner (2000) argue that proficiency in a second FL is increasingly seen as a competitive advantage in the labor market. In countries such as France and Germany, FL education—typically including English as the primary L2—has been prioritized in school curricula from an early age. This policy emphasis has contributed to educational systems where the coexistence of at least two, and often three or more, FLs is increasingly common.

Together, these policy developments not only provide the historical and institutional background for the present study but also justify the educational relevance of investigating early L3 acquisition and its effects on L1 development within a European context committed to linguistic diversity.

This study focuses on the European policy landscape because the European Union has developed one of the most comprehensive and sustained institutional frameworks for early multilingual education worldwide. The EU’s systematic commitment to promoting the acquisition of at least two foreign languages from the earliest stages of schooling provides a unique context in which to analyze how policy initiatives shape multilingual learning trajectories. While multilingual policies exist globally, the European case offers a particularly well-documented and influential model that allows for an in-depth exploration of the relationship between early multilingual exposure, L3 acquisition, and L1 development.

Both the pressures of globalization and European guidelines justify early educational multilingualism as a vital research area. To implement these initiatives and meet global demands, it is essential to first examine the effects of simultaneous learning of L1, L2, and L3.

According to Selinker’s (1969) interlanguage theory, L2 learners develop an independent linguistic system that reflects features of both their native language and the target language, leading to periods of apparent regression as interlanguage restructures itself. McLaughlin and Nayak’s (1989) restructuring hypothesis suggest that language acquisition involves dynamic reorganizations of linguistic knowledge, during which temporary declines in performance may occur as learners integrate new rules into existing cognitive structures. Furthermore, authors such as Hoffmann (1998) argue that we are at a global juncture where two seemingly opposite phenomena—regionalization and internationalization—are occurring simultaneously and are, in fact, complementary. Lasagabaster Herrarte (1998) and Cenoz and Jessner (2000) assert that this situation leads to a resurgence in promoting minority languages alongside the widespread recognition of the necessity to learn at least one international FL. This trend has resulted in educational systems where it is increasingly common to find curricula incorporating at least two, and often three or more, languages.

As Alarcón (2002) notes, the previous century witnessed an inversion in the proportion of monolingual and bilingual individuals, and at the dawn of the new century, trilingualism is becoming a significant category in the description of globally interconnected populations. Fessi (2014) emphasizes that multilingualism is not a rare phenomenon but rather a prevalent one, even surpassing pure monolingualism in frequency. He attributes the interest in L3 acquisition from a sociolinguistic perspective to the global spread of English, increased population mobility, and the recognition of minority languages, resulting in social and educational contexts where multilingual education is no longer exceptional. Safont Jordà (2005) demonstrates that TLA involves complex interactions between previously acquired languages and the new language being learned. Herdina and Jessner (2000) propose that L3 learning is distinct from L2 learning, as L3 learners develop new linguistic competencies, including language learning skills, language abilities, and language proficiency.

The growing interest in TLA, independent of second language acquisition (SLA), is highlighted by Lasagabaster Herrarte (2000), who notes the increasing prevalence of trilingual education in school curricula, positioning it as a distinct research field within SLA studies. Similarly, Cenoz (2003a) and Hufeisen and Marx (2004) argue that TLA and SLA processes differ significantly and should be studied as separate subtypes of language acquisition. Cenoz (2003b) posits that L3 learners possess more extensive language experience, are influenced by the cognitive benefits of bilingualism, and have access to two linguistic systems when acquiring a L3.

The promotion of multilingualism, particularly at early ages, has become a cornerstone of educational policy across Europe. This emphasis stems from a growing body of research that links early multilingual exposure to enhanced cognitive and linguistic development, especially in the L1. The present study examines how the early acquisition of two FLs (L2 and L3) influences OL development in Spanish as L1. Accordingly, the theoretical framework has been revised to focus on child multilingualism and the potential effects of additional language acquisition on L1 development.

2.2. Early Multilingualism and L1 Development

Empirical studies show that multilingualism initiated in early childhood can support, rather than hinder, the development of the L1 (Hoffmann & Ytsma, 2004; De Houwer, 2009; Paradis, 2021). Recent longitudinal research affirms that young children acquiring multiple languages concurrently display comparable or superior linguistic development in their L1 compared to monolingual peers, if they receive sufficient and rich input in all languages (Thordardottir, 2011; Unsworth, 2016).

Thordardottir (2015) emphasizes that the quantity and quality of input in L1 play a more significant role in L1 development than the number of languages a child is exposed to. This view is echoed by De Houwer (2020), who highlights that societal and familial support for the use of the home language is crucial for maintaining L1 proficiency in multilingual environments. Cenoz (2000) and Cenoz et al. (2001) further support these findings in studies involving early trilingual education in the Basque context, reporting no significant detriment to L1 development following the introduction of a L3 (English), and even slight advantages in certain cases. Children exposed to balanced input across languages tend to show robust development in all of them.

A recent study by Llop Naya et al. (2024) explores the acquisition of polarity items in L3 Catalan among speakers of various linguistic backgrounds. The results show that CLI are highly variable depending on the learners’ full linguistic repertoire and suggest that exposure to multiple languages may condition sensitivity to fine-grained semantic and syntactic distinctions. These findings are important not only for L3 research but also for understanding how multilingual learners refine their morphosyntactic awareness, which may have indirect effects on L1 development as children navigate and stabilize their grammatical systems.

2.3. Metalinguistic Competence and Cognitive Benefits

A strong body of research supports the cognitive and metalinguistic benefits of early bilingual and multilingual education (Bialystok, 2011). Children growing up with more than one language demonstrate enhanced executive functioning, especially in cognitive flexibility, selective attention, and working memory (Poarch & Bialystok, 2015; Antoniou, 2019). Metalinguistic awareness—understood as the ability to think about and manipulate language form and structure—has been found to be higher in multilingual children, which in turn supports better performance in their L1 (Galambos & Hakuta, 1988; Jessner, 2006).

For example, Nicolay and Poncelet (2015) found that trilingual children outperformed bilingual peers in tasks involving morphological and syntactic awareness. These results are supported by Sagasta (2001, 2003), who demonstrated that the degree of bilingualism positively affected written production in a L3 and, by extension, supported overall linguistic metacognition. Malakoff (1992) and Lasagabaster Herrarte (1998) have also shown that trilingual learners develop advantages in phonological awareness, vocabulary depth, and linguistic creativity due to increased exposure to multiple language systems.

Recent research has further emphasized the cognitive and linguistic advantages of multilingualism through models such as the Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Jessner (2008) argues that the interaction of multiple languages within the mind of an individual promotes heightened metalinguistic awareness, enabling multilingual speakers to reflect more effectively on language structure and use. This enhanced awareness supports greater control over linguistic output and facilitates cognitive flexibility. As multilinguals actively manage and activate several linguistic systems, they also develop stronger executive functions, particularly in areas such as attentional control, inhibition, and working memory. Notably, these metacognitive skills extend beyond additional language use and contribute positively to the processing and refinement of the L1.

2.4. Indirectly Relevant Research on L3 Learning

Although our study focuses on L1 development, it is informed by broader L3 acquisition research, particularly findings regarding age, transfer mechanisms and typological distance. De Angelis (2007) identifies three core dimensions influencing multilingual acquisition: age of onset, interlinguistic CLI and typological/functional distance.

2.4.1. Age Factor

Recent contributions to L3 acquisition research have begun to address early trilingual development more directly. In a seminal chapter, Kupisch (2023) examines the phenomenon of simultaneous trilingual acquisition in children, defined as the exposure to three languages from birth or within the critical early years. Drawing on empirical data, she demonstrates that children acquiring three languages simultaneously can develop native-like competence in all three, provided that sufficient and sustained input is present. The chapter highlights key variables such as input quantity and quality, parental strategies, language dominance patterns and the sociolinguistic status of each language. Notably, Kupisch emphasizes that early trilinguals do not experience cognitive overload or developmental delays, but instead often show enhanced metalinguistic awareness and flexible language switching abilities. The findings underscore the importance of context-sensitive, longitudinal approaches to studying early multilingualism and support the view that early exposure to L3 can reinforce, rather than hinder, development in the L1.

2.4.2. Influence Factor

The influence of languages on each other within a multilingual system has been well documented. Cenoz and Genesee (1998) and Muñoz (2000) argue that bilingualism facilitates L3 acquisition due to metalinguistic transfer, cognitive flexibility, and increased linguistic awareness. Hammarberg (2001) highlights that in adult learners, the L2 often exerts a stronger influence than the L1 on the L3 due to activation recency and procedural similarity. While these studies concern L3 outcomes, their implications support the view that multilingual competence reshapes linguistic representations in a cumulative, dynamic way.

Flynn et al. (2004) introduced the Cumulative Enhancement Model (CEM), which posits that all previously acquired languages contribute positively to the acquisition of new ones and may reinforce linguistic processes across all languages in contact.

For instance, Westergaard et al. (2023) discuss the Full Transfer Potential in L3 acquisition, proposing that CLI operates on a property-by-property basis rather than as a wholesale transfer from one language. This perspective aligns with the Linguistic Proximity Model, which suggests that the degree of similarity between languages influences the extent and direction of transfer. Additionally, Wrembel (2023) investigates the acquisition of L3 phonology, highlighting how phonological features from L1 and L2 can influence L3 pronunciation patterns. The study emphasizes that factors such as age of acquisition, language dominance, and typological proximity play significant roles in the nature and extent of CLI.

Recent findings by Eibensteiner (2023) contribute important evidence to the discussion of CLI by showing that structural similarity between languages, combined with analytic L2 experience, can condition the transfer patterns observed in L3 acquisition. Her study, focusing on aspect acquisition, demonstrates that even when the L2 is structurally different from both L1 and L3, it can exert a dominant influence due to its analytic character and earlier consolidation. These findings reinforce the idea that both typological and developmental factors shape L3 performance and may also play a role in how children manage and organize their linguistic systems when learning multiple languages simultaneously.

The systematic review by Puig-Mayenco (2023) offers a comprehensive analysis of CLI in L3 acquisition, categorizing over 70 empirical studies according to the source and direction of transfer. Their findings indicate that transfer can occur from both L1 and L2, and that various factors—including recency of use, proficiency and structural proximity—interact to determine transfer outcomes. These conclusions support the relevance of studying early L3 learners not only in terms of L3 outcomes but also for understanding how these transfer dynamics might indirectly influence development in L1, especially during early cognitive and linguistic restructuring.

González Alonso and Rothman (2017) provide a critical reassessment of initial transfer models in L3 acquisition, arguing that early stages of L3 development offer a privileged window into the mechanisms of cross-linguistic activation. They advocate for the importance of examining both developmental trajectories and the role of cognitive control in managing competing inputs. Their work reinforces the idea that multilingual acquisition is a dynamic process involving constant reorganization, and that the cognitive demands of L3 learning could, in turn, influence processing and production in the L1—an issue directly relevant to the results observed in the present study.

2.4.3. Typological and Functional Factors

Studies on typological proximity confirm that learners are more likely to transfer features from typologically similar languages (Odlin, 1989; Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). For instance, Pinto (2013) found that Arabic–French-Spanish trilingual learners often relied on the L2 when acquiring Portuguese due to typological similarity. This has implications for L1 development, as language awareness and transfer strategies sharpen with increased exposure to diverse structures. Llama et al. (2010) and Wrembel (2010) further demonstrate that L2 and L3 influence can shape phonological and syntactic representations across the linguistic repertoire.

Stadt et al. (2020) argue that the influence of previously learned languages on L3 acquisition is not a unidirectional or fixed process. Their work emphasizes the mediating role of L3 itself, showing that the properties of the target language can trigger selective activation of prior linguistic knowledge. This insight is particularly relevant for understanding multilingual development in young learners, where exposure to a L3 may not only draw on existing systems (L1 and L2) but also reshape the way those systems function over time—a possibility to consider when interpreting retroactive effects on L1 performance in trilingual children.

The promotion of multilingualism, particularly at early ages, has become a cornerstone of educational policy across Europe. This emphasis stems from a growing body of research that links early multilingual exposure to enhanced cognitive and linguistic development, especially in the L1. The present study examines how the early acquisition of two FLs (L2 and L3) influences OL development in Spanish as L1. Accordingly, the theoretical framework has been revised to focus exclusively on child multilingualism and the potential effects of additional language acquisition on L1 development.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Objectives and Study Design

In this context, we conducted a study that examines the interaction of Spanish as an L1 with two FLs, specifically in formal contexts and at an early age. The study had three well-defined objectives: to determine whether simultaneous learning of the three languages affects the typical development of children’s OL in L1, to verify whether pre-competence in an L2 facilitates the learning of an L3 at early ages, and to assess whether students exposed to two FLs at early ages exhibit better communicative competence than those with exposure to only one FL. We proposed two initial hypotheses: that the early introduction of two FLs would not impede the typical development of L1 and that trilingual pupils’ OL development at an early age would be significantly higher than that of bilingual pupils.

3.2. Participants

To achieve these objectives, we selected a sample population of 110 students whose L1 was Spanish, attending public, state-subsidized, or private bilingual schools in the Community of Madrid. For most students, their L2 was English, and for a smaller number, it was French. We established two variables: the study variable and the control variable. The study variable included both the independent variable, which measured the effect of early introduction of two FLs, and the dependent variable, which assessed the impact of this early introduction on OL development in L1. The control variables included the age of the sample (grouped into four age groups: 3, 4, 5, and 6 years), the gender of the pupils (balanced between boys and girls), and the linguistic profile of the pupils (establishing a control group with one FL, i.e., L1 + L2, and an experimental group with two FLs, i.e., L1 up+ L2 + L3).

Table 1. Language Profiles, Exposure Timing and Learning Contexts of Bilingual and Trilingual Participants.

Group	Number of Children	Language Profile	Age of Exposure	Learning Context	Bilingual Type
Control (L1 + L2)	55	Spanish + English	L2 from age 2	Bilingual preschool programs	Sequential bilinguals
Experimental	55	Spanish + English + French	L2 from age 2 L3 from age 3	Trilingual preschool programs	Emergent multilinguals

presents an overview of the language profiles, exposure timing, and learning contexts of the bilingual and trilingual participants included in the study:

Children in the control group acquired English sequentially after establishing Spanish as their primary language. In contrast, children in the experimental group were introduced to both English and French in early preschool settings through structured immersion. Although acquisition was not strictly simultaneous, exposure occurred during the critical period of early childhood language development, corresponding to what De Houwer (2009) and Paradis (2021) describe as emergent multilingualism—a context where children acquire additional languages through sustained, immersive interaction before formal schooling.

3.3. Context of Language Learning

The participants in this study were enrolled in early education programs across public, state-subsidized, and private bilingual schools in the Community of Madrid. All children had Spanish as their L1 and were exposed to English (L2) from an early age. The sample was divided into two groups based on their exposure to additional languages:

–

control group: children learning Spanish (L1) and English (L2).

–

experimental group: children learning Spanish (L1), English (L2), and French (L3).

English was introduced formally through content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programs in which it served as the medium of instruction for non-linguistic subjects such as music and physical education. Additionally, all participants attended extracurricular English programs in private language centers affiliated with an international network established in 2003. These centers, which apply a naturalistic and spontaneous methodology modeled on L1 acquisition, provided consistent L2 input through small-group instruction and multimodal resources. Ten such centers were included in the study.

French was incorporated into the experimental group’s school curriculum through trilingual education models. These programs followed immersion-based methodologies like those used for English, employing a communicative approach with activities such as storytelling, visual stimuli, and interactive multimedia content. The French instruction began at the same early educational stage as English and was part of regular school hours, ensuring systematic exposure across multiple domains.

All children came from middle- to upper-middle-class neighborhoods, providing a relatively homogeneous sociocultural background. This context suggests that participants had access to comparable educational resources and language-rich environments, both in and outside the classroom.

3.4. Instrumentation

The assessment instrument used was the nationally standardized Navarre Oral Language Test-Revised (first edition 1989; revised edition 2004), developed by the Psychopedagogical Guidance Service of the Government of Navarre. This test assesses OL in classroom settings for infants and primary schoolchildren aged 3, 4, 5, and 6 years. The test’s characteristics make it particularly relevant for our study, as it serves as a valuable instrument for measuring and assessing the communicative and linguistic skills of pupils in their L1. The test evaluates three aspects of language: form, content and use, analyzing phonological, morphological–syntactic and lexical–semantic skills from the child’s developmental perspective in the early stages of L1 acquisition. To collect the necessary information and proceed with data collection, we used 27 different measuring instruments, including linguistic questionnaires, stimulus booklets, notebooks, index cards, objects, pictures, and puzzles. We conducted a comparative study between the two linguistic profiles to approach each language aspect from a contrastive viewpoint and observe any notable differences between the groups. The test measured language development quality at three levels: delayed, needs improvement, and normal.

3.5. Data Collection Procedure

Data were collected during the second academic trimester, ensuring that children had already been exposed to their respective L2/L3 environments for at least six months. Each child was evaluated individually in a quiet, familiar space within the school environment. Evaluations were conducted by trained linguists and speech-language specialists familiar with the PLON-R protocol.

Each test session lasted approximately 25–30 min, depending on the child’s age and attention span. The administration included:

–

Observation of spontaneous speech

–

Structured elicitation tasks using visuals and objects

–

Interactive activities designed to evaluate all communicative competences

The results were recorded and later coded into a quantitative dataset for comparative analysis between groups.

4. Results

Based on the data collected, this section presents the results obtained from the study.

4.1. General Results

These results clearly indicate that multilingualism could have a positive impact on the development of OL skills in one’s L1. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that early exposure to multiple languages can enhance metalinguistic awareness, cognitive flexibility, and narrative competence (Jessner, 2006; Bialystok et al., 2014). In our study, trilingual participants did not show any signs of linguistic delay in their L1; on the contrary, their OL scores were slightly higher on average than those of their bilingual peers. While this does not imply a direct causal relationship, the data support the view that the simultaneous acquisition of additional languages does not hinder—and may in fact enrich—oral development in the L1 when adequate exposure is ensured. Figure 1 vi-sually represents the scores and underscores the superior performance of the experimental group compared to the control group:

4.2. Scoring Quality

In terms of the quality of the scores obtained in each group, the experimental group outperformed the control group.

Table 2. Overall PLON-R results by scoring quality.

Scoring Quality
Groups	Ages	Scores			Number of Pupils
		N *	NI *	D *
Control Group	3 years old	3	0	0	13
	4 years old	3	1	0	10
	5 years old	2	1	2	16
	6 years old	1	0	0	16
	Total	9	2	2	13
	Total Profiles	34	16	5	55
Experimental Group	3 Years old	3	2	0	13
	4 Years old	3	2	2	10
	5 Years old	5	2	1	16
	6 Years old	6	1	1	16
	Total	17	7	4	28
	Total Profiles	38	12	5	55

N *: Normal. NI *: Needs Improvement. D *: Delay.

presents the distribution of scores among pupils in two groups: a control group and an experimental group, subdivided by age (3 to 6 years old). The scores are classified into three categories: N *, NI *, and D *. The number of pupils assessed in each subgroup is also provided. Overall, the experimental Group exhibited a greater number of N * scores (17 pupils) compared to the control Group (9 pupils), and slightly higher totals for NI* and D* scores as well. Both groups, including 55 pupils, were assessed in total.

Table 2 reveals distinct patterns in performance between the control group and the experimental group, particularly in relation to the highest quality scores (N *). The distribution of N * scores, which represent the highest quality of performance, reveals a consistent advantage for the experimental group across all age ranges. Out of the total sample, 17 pupils in the experimental group achieved N * scores, compared to only 9 in the control group. This disparity is particularly striking at ages 5 and 6, where the experimental group recorded 5 and 6 pupils, respectively, while the control group reached only 2 and 1. Even among the youngest participants—those aged 3 and 4—the experimental group either matched or slightly outperformed the control group, with both groups showing equal numbers at age 3 (3 pupils each) and age 4 (3 pupils each). These results suggest that the experimental condition may have had a positive impact on performance quality, an effect that appears to intensify with age.

When examining intermediate and low-quality scores, the experimental group also demonstrated a higher number of pupils scoring NI * (7 pupils) compared to the control group (2 pupils). Although this might reflect greater variability in outcomes, it could also point to differentiated responses to experimental treatment. In the lowest category, D *, both groups showed relatively low and comparable figures—4 pupils in the Experimental group and 2 in the control group, indicating that poor performance was not widespread in either group. Age-related trends further reinforce the impact of experimental conditions. In both groups, there is a general increase in N * scores with age, peaking at 6 years old. However, this upward trend is far more pronounced in the experimental group. Interestingly, the control group experiences a decline at age 6, with only one pupil achieving an N * score, suggesting that developmental progression alone may not be sufficient to enhance performance without targeted intervention. Finally, it is important to note that both groups assessed the same number of profiles (55), ensuring that the comparison remains valid and unaffected by sample size discrepancies.

The data suggest that the experimental group achieved better overall quality outcomes, particularly notable at older ages, with a greater proportion of pupils attaining the highest score (N *). While an increase in intermediate (NI *) and low (D *) quality scores is observable in the experimental group, this may reflect a broader range of individual differences elicited under experimental conditions rather than a decline, in general, performance. The marked improvement from ages 5 to 6 in the experimental group suggests a cumulative benefit of the intervention, emphasizing the potential value of the experimental approach for enhancing pupil performance quality over time.

4.3. Language Aspects

In terms of the three aspects analyzed: the form, content, and use of language, the students in the experimental group obtained higher scores compared to those in the control group. The greatest difference between the two groups was observed in the Content aspect, followed by the Use aspect, and lastly, the Form aspect showed the smallest difference.

Standardized typical scores (STS **) and raw scores (RS *) were analyzed for each aspect of language. For the Form aspect, the experimental group outperformed the control group by 4.5 points in direct scores and 84 points in STS **. Regarding the Content aspect, the experimental group scored 24 points higher in RS * and an impressive 497 points higher in STS ** compared to the control group. Lastly, for the Use aspect, the experimental group exceeded the control group by 10.5 points in RS * and 191 points in STS **.

In summary, the total differences across all aspects amounted to 39 points higher in RS * and 447 points higher in STS ** for the experimental group. Overall, students with proficiency in two FLs scored almost 40 points higher in RS * than the control group, as illustrated in Table 2.

In the overall test, students with two FLs are almost 40 points higher in RS * than the control group, as the data in Table 2. The data clearly demonstrates the superior performance of the experimental group in comparison to the control group and these results underscore the significant advantage of multilingualism in enhancing communicative competence in OL within one’s L1

Table 3. Overall PLON-R results by aspects.

Groups	Ages	Form		Content		Use		Total
		RS *	STS **	RS *	STS **	RS *	STS **	RS *	STS **
Control group	3 Years old	54	742	58	604	31	728	143	703
	4 Years old	42	558	48	480	24	470	114	515
	5 Years old	65	789	71	728	38	874	174	799
	6 Years old	31.25	722	67	917	71.5	690	169.75	792
	Total	192.25	2811	244	2729	164.5	2762	600.75	2809
Experimental Group	3 Years old	56	773	64	686	32	736	152	786
	4 Years old	39	504	40	400	26	510	105	448
	5 Years old	68	824	83	944	36	828	187	940
	6 Years old	33.75	794	81	1196	81	879	195.75	1082
	Total	196.75	2895	268	3226	175	2953	639.5	3256
	Difference	−4.5	−84	−24	−497	−10.5	−191	−39	−447

RS *: raw scores. STS **: standardized typical scores.

shows the data obtained in both groups:

If we consider that a 100% success rate in RS * in the total PLON-R for the 110 students who make up the population sample is 770 points in RS, and, in the same way, a 100% success rate in STS ** is 47472 points, we can establish the following percentages in

Table 4. Overall PLON-R results by scores.

Total PLON-R
Scores	RS *	%	STS **	%
Control group	600.75	78%	2809	59%
Experimental group	639.75	83%	3256	69%
Difference	−39	−0.05	−447	−0.1

RS *: raw scores. STS **: standardized typical scores.

:

These results indicate that both groups of students achieve excellent results on the PLON-R, surpassing the test with percentages exceeding 75%. In comparative terms, the control group achieves up to 78% of their performance data (RS *) for the entire test, while the experimental group surpasses the test with a total RS * of 83%. This implies that students with two FLs outperform those with one FL in their oral communicative competences in their L1.

4.4. Language Competences

To observe the progression of the four competencies analyzed—phonological, morphological–syntactic, lexical–semantic, and pragmatic—and to study their evolution from ages 3 to 6, we conducted a comparison between the two groups of pupils in the sample. For this purpose, we graphically represent the general results obtained with respect to the four competences throughout the four ages of the PLON-R.

The reading of Figure 2 shows how the students in the experimental group present greater skills in phonological competence during the first two years, and the pattern of performance over age groups decreases as they advance in age, with the control group reaching greater skills in the last two ages. Therefore, we can affirm that the evolution in this competence for the experimental group with respect to the control group goes from positive to negative, as shown in Figure 2. Let us now examine the results for morphological–syntactic competence across the four age groups:

In this competence, the evolution of the experimental group starts at the same level as the control group and then drops 4 points in 4 years, but progresses steadily over the last two years, surpassing the pupils with a FL in years 5 and 6, as shown in Figure 3.

The lexical–semantic competence evolution is presented below (Figure 4):

In this competence, the progression of the experimental group starts positively at age 3, falls below the control group at age 4, and progresses upwards, surpassing the FLs learners in the last two years of the test, as shown in Figure 4.

In this competence, less distance is observed between the two groups, which present very close results during the first three years, separating by almost 10 points of difference at 6 years, with the experimental group outperforming the control group, as shown in Figure 5.

4.5. Ages

Finally, we show the general results of the PLON-R in the four competencies throughout the four ages of the test, and we observe the evolution in the total of the test:

An analysis of Figure 6 shows the evolution of the four competences as a whole in both groups of students throughout the test, and it can be confirmed that there are no notable differences during the first three years of the test, with the progression of the experimental group being greater at age 3, lower at age 4, higher at age 5 and, from age 6 onwards, a greater difference is perceived between the two groups, with the experimental group considerably outperforming the control group. The overall results of the PLON-R for the four competences across the four ages of the test show the evolution of the test.

During the first three years of the test, no significant differences are observed. However, from age 6 onwards, the experimental group clearly outperforms the control group. Except at the age of 4, the experimental group achieved higher scores than the control group, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 7 shows the total results where we can clearly see the performance at a higher level of the experimental group over the control group in all the questions analyzed:

As can be seen in Figure 7, the experimental group obtains better results in all the items analyzed. On the one hand, in terms of scores, it outperforms the control group by 5 percentage points; in terms of language aspects, by 7 percentage points; in terms of language competences, it outperforms it by 4 percentage points and, finally, with respect to the different ages, there is a difference of almost 4% over the control group.

5. Discussion

5.1. Developmental Analysis of Linguistic Competences by Age

Regarding the level of development in phonological, morphological–syntactic, lexical–semantic, and pragmatic competences, as well as their progression across the four age levels assessed in the test, the results reveal distinct patterns between the experimental and control groups.

In terms of phonological competence, the data indicate that the experimental group performs at a higher level during the first two years of the test (ages 3 and 4), whereas the control group surpasses the experimental group at ages 5 and 6. This suggests that while the experimental group demonstrates stronger phonological development in L1 at earlier stages, the control group shows greater advancement in this area at later ages.

With respect to morphological–syntactic competence, the experimental group achieves higher scores at ages 5 and 6, while the control group performs better at age 4. These findings point to a more pronounced development of morphological–syntactic skills in L1 among pupils in the experimental group, particularly in the later stages of the test.

The results for lexical–semantic competence show that the experimental group obtains higher scores at ages 3, 5, and 6, whereas the control group performs better at age 4. This pattern indicates that the experimental group exhibits a more robust development of lexical–semantic competence in L1 compared to the control group.

In the domain of pragmatic competence, the experimental group demonstrates higher scores at ages 3, 4, and 6, while the control group performs better at age 5. Notably, in terms of functional language use, pupils with two FLs employ narration more extensively in their oral productions than those with only one FL. This suggests that the experimental group shows a higher level of pragmatic development in L1.

When analyzing the progression of competences, it becomes evident that in three out of the four areas assessed—morphological–syntactic, lexical–semantic and pragmatic—the experimental group displays a more consistent performance trend across age groups, particularly in the last two age levels of the test. However, during the first two age levels, progression varies depending on both age and competence. Specifically, in phonological competence, the control group outperforms the experimental group in the later stages. These findings imply that students with two FLs demonstrate greater progress in morphological–syntactic, lexical–semantic and pragmatic competences in L1, while older students in the control group show more advanced development in phonological competence.

Turning to the analysis of linguistic aspects—Form, Content, and Use—the results further differentiate the two groups. In the aspect of Form, both groups show similar outcomes at ages 3, 5 and 6, with the same number of pupils passing the test and presenting difficulties. At age 4, the control group has one additional pupil passing. Overall, no notable differences are observed between students with one or two FLs in terms of Language Form in L1 at early ages.

In contrast, the aspect of Content reveals more marked differences. The experimental group outperforms the control group at ages 3, 5 and 6, with more pupils passing the test and fewer presenting difficulties. At age 4, both groups perform similarly. These results suggest that students with two FLs exhibit stronger development in Language Content in L1.

Regarding Use, the experimental group again shows superior performance at ages 4, 5 and 6, with more pupils passing and fewer presenting difficulties. At age 4, however, the trend reverses, and at age 5, both groups are balanced. Overall, the experimental group demonstrates a higher level of development in the Use of Language in L1.

Finally, when considering the total results of the PLON-R test, the experimental group has a greater number of students passing and fewer cases with difficulties. This indicates that, at early ages, pupils with two FLs show notable advantages in the development of oral language (OL) in L1 compared to those with only one FL.

At age 4, the experimental group’s results are lower and do not follow the progression observed in other ages. We interpret this temporary decline in performance as a possible reflection of the cognitive and linguistic demands involved in processing multiple linguistic systems at an early age. Studies on child multilingualism suggest that simultaneous exposure to L2 and L3 may momentarily affect dominant language output due to competition for attentional resources or reorganization processes during developmental stages (see De Houwer, 2009; Paradis, 2021; Kupisch, 2023). Given that children in the sample start learning L2 and L3 at an early age, the intermediate phase of language acquisition occurs between ages 3 and 4, corresponding to a critical period in the accommodation of communicative competences. Our results at ages 5 and 6 show that the critical period is decisive for greater subsequent development in L1 for pupils with two FLs.

Finally, the population sample did not exceed 20 pupils per group, so results should be interpreted cautiously. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to establish a balanced comparison across age groups.

5.2. Interpreting the Impact of Early Trilingualism on L1 Development

The findings of this study contribute to the growing body of research on early multilingualism and its effects on OL development in L1. Specifically, we analyzed how exposure to two FLs (L2 English and L3 French) affects Spanish oral development in children between the ages of 3 and 6, using the PLON-R as an evaluation instrument. The results suggest that simultaneous early acquisition of additional languages does not negatively affect L1 development; rather, it may correlate with certain advantages, particularly in phonological and pragmatic competencies.

This aligns with previous research on early multilingual acquisition, which posits that children exposed to multiple languages from a young age develop heightened metalinguistic awareness and greater flexibility in language use (Jessner, 2006; De Houwer, 2009; Bialystok et al., 2014). The slightly higher scores observed in the trilingual group in phonological and pragmatic domains support the hypothesis that cognitive mechanisms involved in managing multiple linguistic systems can positively influence L1 oral proficiency.

One notable pattern is the decrease in performance observed at age 4 in the experimental group, particularly in morphosyntactic competence. This temporary decline may be explained by developmental models such as Selinker’s (1969) interlanguage theory and McLaughlin and Nayak’s (1989) restructuring hypothesis, both of which argue that language acquisition, especially in multilingual contexts, can involve non-linear progression due to system competition and reorganization. While these theories were originally proposed in L2 contexts, they offer a useful framework for interpreting temporary instability in L1 output when learners are simultaneously acquiring multiple additional languages. Research on child multilingualism (Paradis, 2021; Kupisch, 2023) confirms that similar transitional phases are common in early trilingual development.

Furthermore, our findings resonate with the Dynamic Model of Multilingualism (Jessner, 2008), which views the multilingual lexicon as an interconnected and constantly evolving system. The superior performance of trilingual participants at ages 5 and 6 suggests that once the early cognitive and linguistic adjustments stabilize, children may not only catch up in L1 but also benefit from enhanced linguistic sensitivity and self-monitoring.

It is also important to contextualize our results within the learning environments of the participants. All children were enrolled in structured bilingual or trilingual programs with consistent exposure to the target languages. In these settings, English and French were used as means of instruction in content subjects, following immersive and communicative methodologies. This structured and meaningful input is likely a contributing factor to the observed stability in L1 development, echoing findings from studies on content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and early immersion programs (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; Kupisch & van de Weijer, 2015).

While our findings suggest a positive or neutral influence of L3 on L1, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations. The study is based on a relatively small sample size, and although care was taken to ensure balance between the groups, future studies should aim to include larger, more diverse populations and apply inferential statistical analysis to strengthen generalizability.

In conclusion, our study supports the view that early trilingualism, when guided by consistent exposure and pedagogical coherence, does not impair and may even support OL development in the L1. These results have implications for curriculum planning and policymaking in multilingual educational contexts, encouraging the early and integrated inclusion of additional languages.

6. Conclusions

Generally, we can provide an overview of the results obtained from the study, highlighting key findings and their implications. The data indicate that students with two FLs demonstrate superior overall performance on the PLON-R assessment compared to those with one FL. This performance at a higher level is observed in both RS-STS **s and N-NI-D profiles across all tested competencies, despite a notable decrease in performance at age four. Consequently, although all participants—regardless of whether they speak one or two FLs in addition to their L1—achieve high success rates on the test, those with a linguistic profile of L1 + L2 + L3 show higher average scores in oral language (OL) skills in L1. This suggests a more advanced development of their communicative competences at an early age. These findings can be seen in Table 2 and Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6, where the experimental group consistently obtains higher average scores across most competences and age levels, particularly in lexical–semantic and pragmatic areas.

Likewise, we can draw attention to the results by aspects, profiles, and competencies. Firstly, at early ages, students with L1 + L2 + L3 linguistic profiles show better skills and abilities in communicative competences of the language in L1, particularly in linguistic and pragmatic areas, and in the three aspects of language: Form, Content, and Use. On the other hand, as students age, the developmental difference in acquiring linguistic and pragmatic competences, as well as in the three aspects of language (Form, Content, and Use), becomes more pronounced between those with L1 + L2 + L3 profiles and those with L1 + L2 profiles. Finally, at early ages, students with two FLs exhibit higher quality in their OL in L1 compared to those with only one FL. As students progress in age, the difference in the quality of OL development in L1 between pupils with two FLs and those with one FL increases.

For all these reasons, we can conclude that the early introduction of two FLs does not impede the typical development of OL in L1 and does not negatively influence L1 developmental trajectory. These findings provide valuable insights for TLA research and significantly contribute to the field of FLs teaching and educational multilingualism. The study confirms that learning three languages at an early age does not jeopardize L1 development. Given that English already functions as L2 in most Spanish schools, except in bilingual communities where it serves as L3, the results advocate for promoting the learning of minority and regional languages. This approach leverages the brain’s most receptive learning stages, as suggested by Lenneberg (1967) in his critical period theory, thereby enhancing language proficiency with an early start.

A plausible explanation for the decline in the experimental group’s performance at age four is the limited sample size, reducing the significance of the results. Additionally, this age may experience code interference due to L3 incorporation, potentially causing a temporary restructuring of the language system and decelerating or reversing language development during a critical period of communicative skill accommodation. As indicated by the age-related progression, the gap between the two groups widens, likely due to earlier access to the operational stage of language development compared to the pre-operational stage typical of their age.

As further observations, we can add that at early ages, students with L1 + L2 + L3 profiles exhibit superior communicative skills in L1, particularly in linguistic and pragmatic areas, and across the three aspects of language: Form, Content and Use. Likewise, as students age, the developmental progression in acquiring linguistic and pragmatic competences, as well as in the three aspects of language (Form, Content, and Use), shows a greater difference between students with L1 + L2 + L3 profiles and those with L1 + L2 profiles. Finally, data indicate that, at early ages, students with two FLs achieve higher maximum scores in OL development in L1 compared to those with one FL. The performance gap between these groups increases at ages five and six, while remaining balanced at ages three and four.

The reliability and validity of the PLON-R as a standardized instrument for the early assessment of OL skills reinforce the scientific rigor of the study by highlighting the tool’s established psychometric properties. References supporting this are included, specifically citing the validation conducted by the Government of Navarre Psychopedagogical Service, which confirms the PLON-R’s suitability and effectiveness in both educational and clinical contexts.

In conclusion, the findings suggest that the early introduction of two FLs does not adversely affect the typical development of OL in L1. In fact, students with two FLs demonstrate enhanced OL quality and developmental progression in L1 compared to those with one FL. This study underscores the benefits of early multilingual education and supports the promotion of additional language learning to take advantage of the brain’s plasticity and critical learning periods.

7. Limitations of the Present Study

Among the limitations of the present research, it is worth noting that although our sample size allows for the analysis of representative linguistic profiles, a larger sample at each age level would have made the study more robust. Consequently, the results should be interpreted with some caution pending further research in this area. Additionally, it is important to recognize that the age ranges of the participants provided by language assessment tests offer compartmentalized levels, focusing on the child’s chronological age. Throughout the experimental study, we observed that it is essential to consider the developmental stage of the pupils rather than relying solely on chronological age, as variations in development can affect test performance and potentially lead to results that do not fully reflect actual abilities.

One limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size, which may affect the generalizability of the findings and should be considered when interpreting the observed differences between groups. Another limitation pertains to the inherent challenges of language assessment. Quantifying many aspects of language production is difficult due to their interrelationship with other areas of development, influencing the profile of the results. Most approaches to language assessment are time-consuming and impractical for use outside experimental settings, making it challenging to collect and assess comprehensive information reliably. This variable must be considered when interpreting the conclusions presented.

While it is hoped that this survey instrument will prove useful for assessing the OL age of early-age learners and provide data for future educational articulations in FL, it should not be viewed as the definitive method for establishing uniform criteria in the labeling function of learners. We recognize that a language assessment test is a useful tool due to its organizational structure and data provision, but it is not a perfect reflection of the vast linguistic potential of the learner, an area that remains largely unexplored.

8. Future Research

Based on the limitations outlined and the factors involved in early-age L3 learning, we propose several potential lines of research for further analysis and conclusions in this scientific discipline, since the findings of this study open new avenues for exploring the influence of multiple foreign languages on first language development.

More research is needed to corroborate the results of our study regarding the influence of two foreign languages on the mother tongue at an early age, especially considering that research on third language acquisition during early childhood remains relatively recent. Consequently, further empirical studies are required to deepen our understanding of this phenomenon. Moreover, oral language in children has not yet received sufficient attention within the field of third language acquisition, which underscores the necessity of a more thorough analysis of the potential effects that the early introduction of foreign languages may have on the development of the first language.

Considering these needs, it would also be valuable to examine more closely each of the linguistic competences addressed in our study by collecting larger and more representative population samples for each competence. This would allow for a more exhaustive analysis of specific aspects that emerged as relevant during our research process and that merits further investigation. For example, regarding phonological competence, it would be beneficial to analyze a greater number of words embedded within sentence contexts, particularly at older ages, since phonological tests often reveal more pronounced difficulties when phonemes are situated in full utterances rather than in isolation. Similarly, with respect to morphological–syntactic competence, it would be advisable to expand sentence repetition tasks to include more complex syntactic structures, incorporating both coordination and subordination and applying these across all age groups in order to observe developmental progression more accurately.

In the case of lexical–semantic competence, the inclusion of a more advanced and varied vocabulary would make it possible to establish more precise distinctions between different linguistic profiles, as the current testing instruments may not be sensitive enough to detect subtle differences. As for pragmatic competence, further research should focus on exploring in greater depth variables such as flexibility, coherence, cohesion, oral fluency, and accuracy in message transmission with a view to assessing these dimensions separately and more rigorously.

Finally, conducting larger-scale studies on the development of oral language in L1 would significantly enhance our empirical basis, as such studies could include broader age groups and thereby enable both horizontal comparisons—based on age—and vertical comparisons—based on linguistic profiles—with greater population density. Although our sample is vertically significant, comprising 110 subjects lacks horizontal significance. Expanding the horizontal scope of the sample would make it possible to draw more precise and generalizable conclusions.

In this context, extending the study to the early years of primary school would be beneficial, as the majority of TLA research focuses on written language, often neglecting OL. It is crucial to remember that while all communicative competences play a fundamental role in linguistic proficiency, oral competences significantly influence the development of written skills. As stated in this study, oral competences are the first ones acquired in the L1 and lay the foundation for language evolution. Studies from the age of six onwards provide a broader and more robust understanding of the influence of two FLs on the L1.

Another important aspect to analyze is the typological distance between languages. Evaluating OL in L1 when L2 and L3 are languages with varying typological distances from Spanish could provide valuable data on the effects of early introduction of certain FLs on L1. This would help dispel concerns regarding the maintenance and survival of regional or minority languages and clarify doubts about L3 selection for learning.

A relevant research line involves the comparison between trilingual and monolingual subjects. While this study compares trilingual profiles with bilingual ones (students exposed to two and three FLs), a comparative study with monolingual subjects would yield valuable insights into their OL in L1 and the communicative skills each group can acquire in different linguistic contexts. However, finding early-age population samples with no formal contact with any FL is already challenging.

It would also be worthwhile to compare the effects on L1 of early L3 introduction based on the age at which it begins. Assessing differences between learners starting L3 at very early and intermediate ages would reveal significant variations in L1 development.

Lastly, examining the skills that early-age trilingual learners may acquire for learning additional languages is essential. The potential of early-age trilingual speakers to learn new FLs, along with their advantages or disadvantages, remains largely unknown. Studies in this area would address fundamental questions and aid in designing multilingual and multicultural educational programs better suited to the globalized reality of students.