Language attrition is the loss of a first or second language or a portion of that language by individuals. Speakers who routinely use more than one language may not use either of their languages in ways which are exactly like that of a monolingual speaker. In sequential bilingualism, for example, there is often evidence of interference from the first language (L1) in the second language (L2) system. Describing these interference phenomena and accounting for them on the basis of theoretical models of linguistic knowledge has long been a focus of interest of Applied Linguistics. More recently, research has started to investigate linguistic traffic which goes the other way: L2 interferences and contact phenomena evident in the L1. Such phenomena are probably experienced to some extent by all bilinguals. They are, however, most evident among speakers for whom a language other than the L1 has started to play an important, if not dominant, role in everyday life (Schmid and Köpke, 2007). This is the case for migrants who move to a country where a language is spoken which, for them, is a second or foreign language. We refer to the phenomena of L1 change and L2 interference which can be observed in such situations as language attrition.

Academic study origins

Only in the past few decades has the study of language attrition become a sub-field of linguistics beginning with a 1980 conference at the University of Pennsylvania titled Loss of Language Skills (Lambert and Freed, 1982). The aim of this conference was to discuss areas of second language (L2) attrition and to ideate on possible areas of future research in L2 loss. The conference revealed that attrition is a wide topic covering different types of language loss and that there are many possible reasons for the loss. A related phenomenon is the loss of language due to contact with other, more dominant languages, possibly leading to language death.

The field gained new momentum with two conferences held in Amsterdam in 2002 and 2005, as well as a series of graduate workshops and panels at international conferences such as the International Symposium on Bilingualism (2007, 2009), the annual conferences of the European Second Language Association and the AILA W0rld Congress (2008). The outcome of some of these meetings have been published in edited volumes (Schmid et al. 2004; Köpke et al. 2007) and special issues of journals, such as the Journal of Neurolinguistics (Vol. 17:1, 2004), the International Journal of Bilingualism (Vol. 8:3, 2004) and Bilingualism: Language and Cognition (Vol. 13:1, 2010).

First Language Attrition (FLA)

The term 'First Language Attrition' (FLA) refers to the gradual decline in native language proficiency among migrants. As a speaker uses their L2 frequently and becomes proficient (or even dominant) in it, some aspects of the L1 can become subject to L2 influence or deteriorate.

L1 attrition is a process which is governed by two factors: the presence and development of the L2 system on the one hand, and the diminished exposure to and use of the L1 on the other (Schmid & Köpke, 2007); that is, it is a process typically witnessed among migrants who use the later-learned environmental language in daily life. The current consensus is that attrition manifests itself first and most noticeably in lexical access and the mental lexicon (e.g. Ammerlaan, 1996; Schmid & Köpke, 2008) while grammatical and phonological representations appear more stable among speakers for whom emigration took place after puberty (Schmid, 2009).

Attrition research has often wrestled with the problem of how to establish the border between the ‘normal’ influence of the L2 on the L1, which all bilinguals probably experience to some degree (as is suggested by, among others, Cook 2003), and the (consequently to some degree ‘abnormal’) process of L1 attrition, which is confined to migrants. It has recently been suggested that this distinction is not only impossible to draw, but also unhelpful, as “bilinguals may not have one ‘normal’ language (in which they are indistinguishable from monolinguals [...]) and one ‘deviant’ one (in which knowledge is less extensive than that of monolinguals, and also tainted by interference from L1 in SLA and from L2 in attrition)” (Schmid & Köpke 2007:3). Rather, while L1 attrition may be the most clearly pronounced end of the entire spectrum of multicompetence, and therefore a more satisfying object of investigation than the L1 system of a beginning L2 learner (which may not show substantial and noticeable signs of change), attrition is undoubtedly part of this continuum, and not a discrete and unique state of development.

Like second language acquisition (SLA), FLA is mediated by a number of external factors, such as exposure and use (e.g. Hulsen 2000; Schmid 2007, Schmid & Dusseldorp 2009), attitude and motivation (Ben-Rafael & Schmid 2007, Schmid 2002) or aptitude (Bylund 2008). However, the overall impact of these factors is far less strongly pronounced than what has been found in SLA.

L1 attriters, like L2 learners, may use language differently from native speakers. In particular, they can have variability on certain rules which native speakers apply deterministically (Sorace 2005, Tsimpli et al. 2004). In the context of attrition, however, there is strong evidence that this optionality is not indicative of any underlying representational deficits: the same individuals do not appear to encounter recurring problems with the same kinds of grammatical phenomena in different speech situations or on different tasks (Schmid 2009). This suggests that problems of L1 attriters are due to momentary conflicts between the two linguistic systems and not indicative of a structural change to underlying linguistic knowledge (that is, to an emerging representational deficit of any kind).

This assumption is in line with a range of investigations of L1 attrition which argue that this process may affect interface phenomena (e.g. the distribution of overt and null subjects in pro-drop languages) but will not touch the narrow syntax (e.g. Tsimpli et al. 2004, Montrul 2004, 2008).

Manifestations of language attrition

L1

Lexical L1 attrition

It has often been pointed out that L1 attrition usually first manifests itself in the lexicon (Schmid & Köpke, 2008). It is possible for lexical representations in the L1 to be influenced by the semantic potential of corresponding items in the L2. Instances of such interlanguage effects are reported by e.g. Pavlenko (2003, 2004), who concludes that for her L1 Russian speakers, a number of Russian terms appear to have gained a different meaning by semantic extension from their L2, English. Secondly, it has been noted that among attriters, lexical access can become impaired, resulting in poorer performance on picture naming tasks (Ammerlaan, 1996; Hulsen, 2000, Montrul 2008) and reduced lexical diversity in free speech (Schmid, 2002).

Grammatical L1 attrition

Generative approaches to L1 attrition often focus on the possibility that the developing linguistic system may show evidence of irrevocable structural changes to the actual grammar of a native language. This was highlighted early on in the history of attrition research: “It is crucial to know whether a given example of language loss can be attributed to a change in how the relevant language is represented in the mind of the user or to a change in the way stable knowledge (competence) is being used.” (Sharwood Smith 1983:49, his emphasis). In a similar vein, Seliger and Vago define the object of investigation as “the disintegration or attrition of the structure of a first language (L1) in contact situations with a second language (L2)” (Seliger and Vago 1991:3). However, most research appears to indicate that attrition does not affect uninterpretable features, but that variability may be observed in features that are interpretable at the interface levels (Tsimpli et al. 2004:274; Tsimpli 2007: 85). There therefore seems to be little evidence for an actual restructuring of the language system: the narrow syntax remains unaffected, and the observed variability may be ascribed to the cognitive demands of bilingual processing.

L2

Lambert and Moore (1986) attempted to define numerous hypotheses regarding the nature of language loss, crossed with various aspects of language. They envisioned a test to be given to American State Department employees that would include four linguistic categories (syntax, morphology, lexicon, and phonology) and three skill areas (reading, listening, and speaking). A translation component would feature on a sub-section of each skill area tested. The test was to include linguistic features which are most difficult, according to teachers, for students to master. Such a test may confound testing what was not acquired with what was lost. Lambert, in personal communication with Köpke and Schmid (2004), described the results as 'not substantial enough to help much in the development of the new field of language skill attrition'.

The use of translation tests to study language loss is inappropriate for a number of reasons: it is questionable what such tests measure; too much variation; the difference between attriters and bilinguals is complex; activating two languages at once may cause interference.

Yoshitomi (1992) attempted to define a model of language attrition that was related to neurological and psychological aspects of language learning and unlearning. She discussed four possible hypotheses and five key aspects related to acquisition and attrition. The hypotheses are:

1. Reverse order: last learned, first forgotten. Studies by Russell (1999) and Hayashi (1999) both looked at the Japanese negation system and both found that attrition was the reverse order of acquisition. Yoshitomi and others, including Yukawa (1998) argue that attrition can occur so rapidly, it is impossible to determine the order of loss.

2. Inverse relation: better learned, better retained. Language items that are acquired first also happen to be those that are most reinforced. As a result, hypotheses 1 and 2 capture the main linguistic characteristics of language attrition (Yoshitomi, p. 297).

3. Critical period: at or around age 9. As a child grows, he becomes less able to master native-like abilities. Furthermore, various linguistic features (for example phonology or syntax) may have different stages or age limits for mastering. Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson (2003) argue that after childhood, in general, it becomes more and more difficult to acquire "native-like-ness", but that there is no cut-off point in particular. Furthermore, they discuss a number of cases where a native-like L2 was acquired during adulthood.

4. Affect: motivation and attitude.

According to Yoshitomi, the five key aspects related to attrition are: neuroplasticity, consolidation, permastore/savings, decreased accessibility, and receptive vs. productive abilities.

The regression hypothesis (last thing learned, first thing lost)

The regression hypothesis, first formulated by Roman Jakobson in 1941, goes back to the beginnings of psychology and psychoanalysis. Generally speaking, it states that that which was learned first will be retained last, both in 'normal' processes of forgetting and in pathological conditions such as aphasia or dementia. As a template for language forgetting, the regression hypothesis has long seemed an attractive paradigm. However, as Keijzer (2007) points out, regression is not in itself a theoretical or explanatory framework. Both order of acquisition and order of attrition need to be put into the larger context of linguistic theory in order to gain explanatory adequacy.

L1

Keijzer (2007) conducts a study on the L1 attrition of Dutch in anglophone Canada. Her study compares language acquisition in children with non-pathological language attrition found in emigrant populations and contrasts it with language use in non-attrited, mature speakers. In particular, it examines the parallels and divergences between advanced stages of L1 Dutch acquisition (in adolescents) and the L1 attrition of Dutch émigrés in Anglophone Canada, as opposed to control subjects. She finds some evidence that later-learned rules, for example with respect to diminutive and plural formation, do indeed erode before the earlier learned information. However, there is also considerable interaction between the first and second language, so a straightforward 'regression pattern' cannot be observed.

L2

Citing the studies on the regression hypothesis that have been done, Yukawa (1998) says that the results have been contradictory. It is possible that attrition is a case-by-case situation depending on a number of variables (age, proficiency, literacy, the similarities between the L1 and L2, and whether the L1 or the L2 is attriting). The threshold hypothesis states that there may be a level of proficiency that once attained, enables the attriting language to remain stable.

The age effect

L1 attrition

While attriters are reliably outperformed by native speakers on a range of tasks measuring overall proficiency there is an astonishingly small range of variability and low incidence of non-targetlike use in data even from speakers who claim not to have used their L1 for many decades (in some cases upwards of 60 years, e.g. de Bot & Clyne 1994, Schmid 2002), provided they emigrated after puberty: the most strongly attrited speakers still tend to compare favourably to very advanced L2 learners (Schmid 2009). If, on the other hand, environmental exposure to the L1 ceases before puberty, the L1 system can deteriorate radically. There are few principled and systematic investigations of FLA specifically investigating the impact of AoA. However, converging evidence suggests an age effect on FLA which is much stronger and more clearly delineated than the effects which have been found in SLA research. Two studies which consider pre- and postpuberty migrants (Ammerlaan 1996, AoA 0-29 yrs; Pelc 2001, AoA 8–32 years) find that AoA is one of the most important predictors of ultimate proficiency, while a number of studies which investigate the impact of age among postpuberty migrants fail to find any effect whatsoever (Köpke 1999, AoA 14-36 yrs; Schmid 2002, AoA 12-29 yrs; Schmid 2007, AoA 17-51 yrs). A range of studies conducted by Montrul on Spanish heritage speakers in the US as well as Spanish-English bilinguals with varying levels of AoA also suggests that the L1 system of early bilinguals may be similar to that of L2 speakers, while later learners pattern with monolinguals in their L1 (e.g. Montrul 2008, 2009). These findings therefore indicate strongly that early (pre-puberty) and late (post-puberty) exposure to an L2 environment have a different impact on possible fossilization and/or deterioration of the linguistic system. A recent investigation, focussing specifically on the age effect in L1 attrition, lends further substantiation to the assumption of a qualitative change around puberty: Bylund (2009) investigates the L1 of 31 Spanish speakers who emigrated to Sweden between the ages of 1 and 19 years and concludes that "there is a small gradual decline in attrition susceptibility during the maturation period followed by a major decline at its end (posited at around age 12)" (Bylund 2009:706). The strongest indication that an L1 can be extremely vulnerable to attrition if exposure ceases before puberty, on the other hand, comes from a study of Korean adoptees in France reported by Pallier (2007). This investigation could find no trace of L1 knowledge in speakers (who had been between 3 and 10 years old when they were adopted by French-speaking families) on a range of speech identification and recognition tasks, nor did an fMRI study reveal any differences in brain activation when exposing these speakers to Korean as opposed to unknown languages (Japanese or Polish). In all respects, the Korean adoptees presented in exactly the same way as the French controls. All available evidence on the age effect for L1 attrition therefore indicates that the development of susceptibility displays a curved, not a linear, function. This suggests that in native language learning there is indeed a Critical Period effect, and that full development of native language capacities necessitates exposure to L1 input for the entire duration of this CP.

L2 attrition

In Hansen & Reetz-Kurashige (1999), Hansen cites her own research on L2-Hindi and Urdu attrition in young children. As young pre-school children in India and Pakistan, the subjects of her study were often judged to be native speakers of Hindi or Urdu; their mother was far less proficient. On return visits to their home country, the United States, both children appeared to lose all their L2 while the mother noticed no decline in her own L2 abilities. Twenty years later, those same young children as adults comprehend not a word from recordings of their own animated conversations in Hindi-Urdu; the mother still understands much of them

Yamamoto (2001) found a link between age and bilinguality. In fact, a number of factors are at play in bilingual families. In her study, bicultural families that maintained only one language, the minority language, in the household, were able to raise bilingual, bicultural children without fail. Families that adopted the one parent - one language policy were able to raise bilingual children at first but when the children joined the dominant language school system, there was a 50% chance that children would lose their minority language abilities. In families that had more than one child, the older child was most likely to retain two languages, if it was at all possible. Younger siblings in families with more than two other brothers and sisters had little chance of maintaining or ever becoming bilingual.

Attrition and frequency of use

One of the basic predictions of psycholinguistic research with respect to L1 attrition is that language loss can be attributed to language disuse (e.g. Paradis, 2007; Köpke, 2007). According to this prediction, attrition will be most radical among those individuals who rarely or never speak their L1 in daily life, while those speakers who use the L1 regularly, for example within their family or with friends, will to some degree be protected against its deterioration. This assumption is based on the simple fact that rehearsal of information can maintain accessibility. The amount of use which a potential attriter makes of her L1 strikes most researchers intuitively as one of the most important factors in determining the attritional process (e.g. Cook 2005; Paradis, 2007). Obler (1993) believes that less-frequently used items are more difficult to retrieve. The speed of retrieving a correct form or the actual production of an incorrect form is not indicative of loss but may be retrieval failure instead. In other words, what appears to be lost is in fact difficult to retrieve.

There is, however, little direct evidence that the degree to which a language system will attrite is dependent on the amount to which the language is being used in everyday life. Two early studies report that those subjects who used their L1 on an extremely infrequent basis showed more attrition over time (de Bot, Gommans & Rossing 1991 and Köpke 1999). On the other hand, there is also some evidence for a negative correlation, suggesting that the attriters who used their L1 on a daily basis actually performed worse on some tasks (Jaspaert & Kroon 1989).

However, more recent, larger-scale studies of attrition which attempt to systematically elicit information on language use in a large range of settings have failed to discover any strong links between frequency of L1 use and degree of L1 attrition (Schmid 2007, Schmid & Dusseldorp, forthc.)

Motivation

Paradis (2007:128) predicts that "Motivation/affect may play an important role by influencing the activation threshold. Thus attrition may be accelerated by a negative emotional attitude toward L1, which will raise the L1 activation threshold. It may be retarded by a positive emotional attitude toward L1, which will lower its activation threshold." However, the link between motivation and attrition has been difficult to establish. Schmid & Dusseldorp (2010) fail to find any predictors for individual performance among a large number of measures of motivation, identity, and acculturation. Given Paradis' prediction, this finding is surprising, and may be linked to methodological difficulties of measurement: by definition, studies of language attrition are conducted a long time after migration has taken place (speakers investigated in such studies typically have a period of residence in the L2 environment of several decades). The operative factor for the degree of attrition, however, is probably the attitude towards both L1 and L2 at the beginning of this period, when massive and intensive L2 learning is taking place, affecting the overall system of multicompetence. However, attitudes are not stable and constant across a person's life, and what is measured at the moment that the degree of individual attrition is assessed may bear very little relation to the original feelings of the speaker. It is difficult to see how this methodological problem can be overcome, as it is impossible for the attrition researcher to go back in time, and impractical to measure attitudes at one point in time and attrition effects at a second point, decades later. The only study which has made an attempt in the direction of assessing identity at the time of migration is Schmid (2002), who investigated attrition in historical context. Her analysis of oral history interviews with German Jews points strongly towards an important correlation of attitude and identity at the moment of migration and eventual L1 attrition. The reasons for this pattern of L1 attrition probably lie in a situation where the persecuted minority had the same L1 as the dominant majority, and the L1 thus became associated with elements of identity of that dominant group. In such situations, a symbolic link between the language and the persecuting regime can lead to a rejection of that language. Discovering such a link and its impact on the language attrition process is extremely complicated for most groups of migrants, since measurements are usually applied a long time after migration took place. However, the findings presented here suggest that it is the attitude at the moment of migration, not what is assessed several decades later, that impacts most strongly on the attritional process.

Other studies on bilingualism and attrition

Gardner, Lalonde, & Moorcroft (1987) investigated the nature of L2-French skills attriting by L1-English grade 12 students during the summer vacation, and the role played by attitudes and motivation in promoting language achievement and language maintenance. Students who finished the L2 class highly proficient are more likely to retain what they knew. Yet, interestingly, high achievers in the classroom situation are no more likely to make efforts to use the L2 outside the classroom unless they have positive attitudes and high levels of motivation. The authors write: "an underlying determinant of both acquisition and use is motivation”(p. 44).

In fact, the nature of language acquisition is still so complex and so much is still unknown, not all students will have the same experiences during the incubation period. It is possible that some students will appear to attrite in some areas and others will appear to attrite in other areas. Some students will appear to maintain the level that they had previously achieved. And still, other students will appear to improve.

Murtagh (2003) investigated retention and attrition of L2-Irish in Ireland with second level school students . At Time 1, she found that most participants were motivated instrumentally, yet the immersion students were most likely to be motivated integratively and they had the most positive attitudes towards learning Irish. Immersion school students were also more likely to have opportunities to use Irish outside the classroom/school environment. Self-reports correlated with ability. She concludes that the educational setting (immersion schools, for example) and the use of the language outside the classroom were the best predictors for L2-Irish acquisition. Eighteen months later, Murtagh finds that the majority of groups 1 and 2 believe their Irish ability has attrited, the immersion group less so. The results from the tests, however, do not show any overall attrition . 'Time' as a factor did not exert any overall significant change on the sample's proficiency in Irish (Murtagh, p. 159).

Fujita (2002), in a study evaluating attrition among bilingual Japanese children, says that a number of factors are seen as necessary to maintain the two languages in the returnee child. Those factors include: age on arrival in the L2 environment, length of residence in the L2 environment, and proficiency levels of the L1. Furthermore, she found that L2 attrition was closely related to another factor: age of the child on returning to the L1 environment. Children returning around or before 9 were more likely to attrite than those returning later. Upon returning from overseas, pressure from society, their family, their peers and themselves force returnee children to switch channels back to the L1 and they quickly make effort to attain the level of native-like L1 proficiency of their peers. At the same time, lack of L2 support in the schools in particular and in society in general results in an overall L2 loss .

Sum

The loss of a native language is often experienced as something profoundly moving, disturbing or shocking, both by those who experience it and by those who witness it in others: “To lose your own language was like forgetting your mother, and as sad, in a way”, because it is “like losing part of one’s soul” is how Alexander McCall Smith puts it (The Full Cupboard of Life, p. 163). This intuitive appeal of the topic of language attrition can be seen as both a blessing and a curse. Researchers who investigate level-ordered morphology or articulatory phonetics will probably rarely find that their friends and family, or even colleagues who work in different areas, show great interest in or enthusiasm for their work. Those of us who study language attrition find ourselves with a much more receptive audience. On the other hand, we also find an audience with many preconceived ideas about attrition – a much rarer problem for the level-ordered morphologist or articulatory phonetician. Worse, we may find such notions in ourselves. Preconceived ideas are unscientific. They are also often wrong. In order to achieve a better understanding of the process of language attrition, scientific investigations first have to identify those areas of the L1 system which are most likely to be affected by influence from the L2. Initially, in the absence of experimental data and evidence of L1 attrition itself, a profitable approach is to look to neighbouring areas of linguistic investigation, such as language contact, creolisation, L2 acquisition, or aphasia. In the early years of L1 attrition research, the 1980s, many researchers made valuable contributions of this nature, often augmented by small-scale experiments and/or case studies (see Köpke & Schmid, 2004). A number of strong predictions with intriguing theoretical implications were made during this period of L1 attrition research (ibid). There are a number of factors which will impact in different ways on the process of L1 attrition. Frequent use (interactive or receptive) of a particular language may help to maintain the native language system intact, and so may a positive attitude towards the language or the speech community. On the other hand, none of these factors may be enough in themselves, and not all exposure to the language may be helpful. A small, loose-knit L1 social network may even have a detrimental effect and accelerate language change. Most importantly, however, the opportunity to use a language and the willingness to do so are factors which interact in complex ways to determine the process of language attrition. As yet, our understanding of this interaction is quite limited.

See also

Language

Linguistics

Multilingualism

Second language attrition

References

One Language or Two?: Answers to Questions about Bilingualism in Language-Delayed and Typically Developing Children

Retention and Attrition of Irish as a Second Language (PDF: 5.2 MB) by Lelia Murtagh: PhD thesis, University of Groningen.

Akinci, M.-A. (n.d.). Practiques langagières et représentations subjectives de la vitalité ethnolinguistique des immigrés turcs en France. (retrieved from the Internet2004/11/08).

Ammerlaan, T. (1996). “You get a bit wobbly...” – Exploring bilingual lexical retrieval processes in the context of first language attrition. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Nijmefen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.

Ben-Rafael, M. and Schmid, M. S. 2007: Language attrition and ideology: Two groups of immigrants in Israel. In Köpke, B., Schmid, M. S., Keijzer, M., and Dostert, S., editors, Language attrition: Theoretical Perspectives, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 205-26.

Berko Gleason, J. (1982). Insights from Child Language Acquisition for Second Language Loss. In R.D. Lambert & B. F. Freed (Eds.), "The Loss of Language Skills". Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Bylund, E. 2008. Age Differences in First Language. Stockholm University PhD dissertation.

Bylund, E. 2009. Maturational constraints and first language attrition. Language Learning 59(3): 687-715.

Cook, V. (2005). “The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind”. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on First Language Attrition, Amsterdam, 18.8.2005.

Cook, V. 2003. The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Vivian Cook (ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 1–18). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

de Bot, K. & Clyne, M. (1994). “A 16-year longitudinal study of language attrition in Dutch immigrants in Australia”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 15 (1), 17-28.

de Bot, K., Gommans, P. & Rossing, C. (1991). “L1 loss in an L2 environment: Dutch immigrants in France”. In H.W. Seliger & R.M. Vago (Eds.), First Language Attrition. (pp. 87–98). Cambridge: CUP.

de Bot, K., Gommans, P., & Rossing, C (1991). L1 Loss in an L2 environment: Dutch immigrants in France. In H.W.Seliger and R.M. Vago (Eds.), "First Language Attrition". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fujita, M. (2002). Second Language English Attrition of Japanese Bilingual Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Tokyo, Japan. *Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R.N, & Moorcroft, R. (1987). Second Language Attrition: The Role of Motivation and Use. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol.6, No.1: 29-47.

Hansen, L. (2001). Japanese Attrition in Contexts of Japanese Bilingualism. In M.G. Noguchi and S. Fotos (Eds.), "Studies in Japanese Bilingualism Bilingual Education" (p. 353 - p. 372). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Hansen, L. and Reetz-Kurashige, A. (1999). Investigating Second Language Attrition: An Introduction. In Lynne Hansen (Ed.). "Second Language Attrition: Evidence from Japanese Contexts" (p. 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hayashi, Brenda (1999). Testing the regression hypotheis: The remains of the Japanese negation system in Micronesia. In Lynne Hansen (Ed.). "Second Language Attrition: Evidence from Japanese Contexts" (p. 154 - p. 168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hulsen, M. (2000). Language Loss and Language Processing: Three generations of Dutch migrants in New Zealand. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.

Hyltenstam, K. and Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational Constraints in SLA. In Doughty & Long (Eds.), "The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition". Rowley, MA: Blackwell.

Jaspaert, K., Kroon, S., van Hout, R. (1986). Points of Reference in First-Language Loss Research. In B. Weltens, K. de Bot, and T. van Els (Eds.), "Language Attrition in Progress, Studies on Language Acquisition" (p. 37 - p. 49). Dordrecht, NL: Foris Publications.

Keijzer M (2007) Last in first our? An investigation of the regression hypothesis in Dutch emigrants in Anglophone Canada. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, PhD dissertation.

Köpke, B. 1999. L’attrition de la première langue chez le bilingue tardif: implications pour l’étude psycholinguistique du bilinguisme. Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail PhD Dissertation.

Köpke, B. 2007. Language attrition at the crossroads of brain, mind and society. In Köpke, B., Schmid, M. S., Keijzer, M., and Dostert, S., editors, Language attrition: Theoretical Perspectives, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 9-37.

Köpke, B. & M. S. Schmid. 2004. Language attrition: the next phase. In Schmid et al. (eds.), pp. 1–43. The manuscript version of this paper can be downloaded here

Köpke, B., M.S. Schmid, M. Keijzer & S. Dostert (Eds.). 2007. Language Attrition: Theoretical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lambert, R.D. & Freed, B.F. (Eds). (1982). The Loss of Language Skills. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lambert, R.D. & Moore, S.J. (1986). Problem Areas in the Study of Language Attrition. In B. Weltens, K. de Bot, and T. van Els (Eds.), "Language Attrition in Progress, Studies on Language Acquisition" (p. 177 - p. 186). Dordrecht, NL: Foris Publications.

Montrul, S. 2004. Convergent outcomes in L2 acquisition and L1 loss. In M. S. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (259-279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Montrul, S. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Montrul, S. 2009. Re-examining the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 225-257.

Murtagh, L. (2003). Retention and Attrition of Irish as a Second Language: A longitudinal study of general and communicative proficiency in Irish among second level school leavers and the influence of instructional background, language use and attitude/motivation variables. Proefschrift (ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Letteren), Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. (retrieved November 24, 2004). http://www.www.ub.rug.nl/eldoc/dis/arts/l.murtagh/thesis.pdf

Obler, L.K. (1993). Neurolinguistic aspects of second language development and attrition. In K. Hyltenstam and A. Viberg (Eds.), "Progression & Regression in Language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological, & linguistic perspectives (p. 178 - p. 195). Stockholm, Centre for Research on Bilingualism: Camridge University Press.

Olshtain, E. and Barzilay, M. (1991). Lexical retrieval difficulties in adult language attrition. In H.W.Seliger and R.M. Vago (Eds.), "First Language Attrition". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pallier, C. 2007. Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition. In Köpke et al. (eds.), 155-168.

Paradis, M. 2007: L1 attrition features predicted by a neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. In Köpke, B., Schmid, M. S., Keijzer, M., and Dostert, S., editors, Language attrition: Theoretical Perspectives, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 121-33.

Pavlenko, A. (2003). “I feel clumsy speaking Russian”: L2 influence on L1 in narratives of Russian L2 users of English. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 32–61). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pavlenko, A. (2004). L2 influence and L1 attrition in adult bilingualism. In M. S. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer & L. Weilemar (Eds), First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (pp. 47–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pelc, L. 2001. L1 Lexical, Morphological and Morphosyntactic Attrition in Greek-English Bilinguals. CUNY PhD dissertation.

Russell, Robert (1999). Lexical maintenance and attrition in Japanese as a second language. In Lynne Hansen (Ed.). "Second Language Attrition: Evidence from Japanese Contexts" (p. 114 - p. 141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmid, M. S. 2002. First Language Attrition, Use, and Maintenance: The case of German Jews in Anglophone countries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schmid, M. S. 2007. The role of L1 use for L1 attrition, in Köpke et al. (eds), 135-153. The manuscript version of this paper can be downloaded here

Schmid, M. S. 2009. On L1 attrition and the linguistic system. EUROSLA Yearbook 9, 212-244. The manuscript version of this paper can be downloaded here

Schmid, M. S., B. Köpke, M. Keijzer & L. Weilemar. 2004. First Language Attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Schmid, M. S. & B. Köpke. 2007. Bilingualism and attrition. In Köpke, B., Schmid, M. S., Keijzer, M., and Dostert, S., editors, Language attrition: Theoretical Perspectives, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1-7. The manuscript version of this paper can be downloaded here

Schmid, M.S. & B. Köpke. 2008. L1 attrition and the mental lexicon. In: A. Pavlenko (Ed.) The bilingual mental lexicon: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 209–238). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. The manuscript version of this paper can be downloaded here

Schmid, M. S. & E. Dusseldorp. 2010. Quantitative analyses in a multivariate study of language attrition. Second Language Research 26(1). The manuscript version of this paper can be downloaded here

Seliger, H. W. and Vago, R. M. 1991. “The Study of First Language Attrition: An Overview.” In First Language Attrition, Seliger, H.W. and Vago, R. M. (eds), 3-15. Cambridge University Press.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1983. “On explaining language loss.” In Language Development on the Crossroads, Felix, S. and Wode, H. (Eds.), 49-69. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Sorace, A. 2005. “Selective optionality in language development. ” In Syntax and variation. Reconciling the biological and the social, Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. P., (Eds.) , 55-80 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 55-80.

Tsimpli, I. 2007. “First language attrition from a minimalist perspective: Interface vulnerability and processing effects.” In Köpke et al. (eds.), 83-98.

Tsimpli, I., Sorace, A., Heycock, C. and Filiaci, F. 2004. “First language attrition and syntactic subjects: A study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English.” International Journal of Bilingualism 8(3): 257-277.

Yamamoto, M. (2001). Language Use in Interlingual Families: A Japanese-English Sociolinguistic Study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Yoshitomi, A. (1992). Towards a Model of Language Attrition: Neurological and Psychological Contributions. "Issues in Applied Linguistics Vol 3, No 2:" 293-318.

Yukawa, E. (1998). L1 Japanese Attrition and Regaining: Three case studies of two early bilingual children. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.

Category:Education policy Category:Linguistic rights Category:Sociolinguistics

Coordinates	37°12′5″N112°9′16″N
Name	Rachael Ray
Caption	Rachael Ray in 2007 at The Heart Truth
Birth name	Rachael Domenica Ray
Birth date	August 25, 1968
Birth place	Glens Falls, New York, U.S.
Occupation	Television personality, author, celebrity chef
Years active	2001–present
Spouse	John CusimanoSeptember 24, 2005 - present
Website	http://www.rachaelray.com

Rachael Domenica Ray (born August 25, 1968) is an American television personality, celebrity chef and author. She hosts the syndicated talk and lifestyle program Rachael Ray and three Food Network series, 30 Minute Meals, Rachael Ray's Tasty Travels and $40 a Day. Ray wrote cookbooks based on the 30 Minute Meals concept, and launched a magazine, Every Day with Rachael Ray, in 2006. Ray's television shows have won two Daytime Emmy Awards.

Personal life

Ray was born in Glens Falls, New York. Her parents are Elsa Scuderi, an Italian (Sicilian) American and James Ray, who is of French, Scottish and Welsh descent. She was raised on Cape Cod, Massachusetts where her family owned four restaurants. When Ray was 8, her family moved to Lake George, New York. Her mother managed restaurants in upstate New York.

Career

Cooking

Ray teaches simple recipes that she says can be completed in 30 minutes or less, although critics claim that her concept does not include preparation.

Ray says that her Sicilian maternal grandfather, Emmanuel Scuderi, and her Cajun ancestry serve as a strong influence on her cooking. She uses ingredients such as fresh herbs, garlic and chicken stock to boost flavors. She believes that measuring "takes away from the creative, hands-on process of cooking" and instead favors approximations such as "half a palmful". To critics of her shortcut techniques, Ray responds, "I have no formal anything. I'm completely unqualified for any job I've ever had." She acknowledges that she cannot bake because it requires measured ingredients, that she cannot make coffee, and that she burns bread under the broiler.

On her television programs, she has used catch phrases such as "EVOO" (extra-virgin olive oil), "yum-o," "G.B." (garbage bowl), "Oh my gravy!", "entréetizer" (entrée-sized appetizer), "stoup" (cross between a soup and stew), and "choup" (thicker than a soup but thinner than a chowder). In 2007, The Oxford American College Dictionary announced the addition of the term EVOO, short for extra-virgin olive oil, which Ray had helped to popularize, and credited her with coining the phrase.

The set of 30 Minute Meals uses a yellow Model 61C Chambers stove from the 1950s, notable for its top-opening broiler, super-insulated oven, and unique Thermowell.

On November 12, 2006, Ray and Mario Batali defeated the team of Bobby Flay and Giada De Laurentiis on an episode of Iron Chef America during which cranberries were the secret ingredient. On March 18, 2007, Food Network debuted a Rachael Ray episode of its special Chefography series, on which she stated that "the worst day of (her) life" was Iron Chef America, admitting to being anxious about it for weeks before. She also told commentator Alton Brown that she was "a cook, not a chef."

Television

In 2005, Ray signed a deal with Oprah Winfrey and King World Productions to host a syndicated daytime TV talk show. The show, Rachael Ray, premiered on September 18, 2006. Recurrent appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show were used to fuel the launch, much as Dr. Phil's show was spun off based on his own frequent visits to Oprah. The show tapes in New York City. In coordination with the syndication announcement, Ray said, "People know me for my love of food, but I have so much more I want to share."

Ray has appeared on The View, The Today Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, The Late Show with David Letterman, Nightline, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Larry King Live, Cake Boss and the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson.

For Sesame Street’s 38th season, Ray appeared in an episode to present "pumpernickel" as .

On January 12, 2008, Ray's television series Rachael's Vacation premiered on the Food Network. The show is a five-part food travelogue shot in various European countries.

In 2008 Ray became a producer of a Latin cooking show on the Food Network called Viva Daisy!. The show starred Daisy Martínez.

In August 2009, Ray appeared as herself on Million Dollar Password (US game show) for charity for Yum-O! and her own charity for animal rescue with Regis Philbin.

Ray also appeared on the hidden camera show I Get That a Lot, pretending to be an employee at a dry cleaners.

In September 2010, a new show, her first new cooking show in eight years, Rachael Ray's Week In a Day began airing on the Cooking Channel.

Magazines

In 2003, she posed for the men's magazine FHM. A writer for The New York Times wrote, "The shots feature Ray in short-shorts with an exposed midriff, licking chocolate off a big wooden spoon, eating a strawberry and sitting in a sink, laughing as suds cascade down her thighs."

The Reader's Digest Association launched Ray's eponymous magazine, Every Day with Rachael Ray on October 25, 2005. The magazine featured seven issues in 2006, and increased to ten issues in 2007.

Product endorsements

In November 2006, Ray became a spokeswoman for Nabisco crackers. She appears in commercials and on boxes for the many Nabisco products. Many boxes with Ray's picture have her recipes.

In February 2007, WestPoint Home launched sheets, blankets, and coverlets designed by Ray. Within six months, WestPoint expanded Ray's bed and bath line to include the "Moppine", a two-in-one dish towel/oven mitt, as Ray is often seen with a kitchen towel over her shoulder that doubles for her as an ersatz mitt.

In March 2007, the Dunkin' Donuts company announced Ray as its celebrity endorser, mainly of its coffee, since she had denied being able to make coffee herself. As part of a promotional campaign, Ray describes the company's coffee as "fantabulous." Celebrity chef and Travel Channel personality Anthony Bourdain, however, disparagingly referred to Ray's affiliation with Dunkin' Donuts as "evil," and went on to compare it to "endorsing crack for kids."

In May 2007, Ray's recipes were made available on AT&T; cellular phones via the "Rachael Ray Recipes on the Run" feature.

In July 2008, Rachael Ray Nutrish pet food was introduced. The dog foods are created from recipes that Ray developed for her pit bull, Isaboo. All proceeds from the sale of these products go to Rachael's Rescue, a charity founded by Ray to help at-risk animals.

In June 2010, Rachael Ray Nutrish just 6 dog treats were introduced. These treats contain six simple, natural ingredients. As with the food, proceeds from the sale of these dog treats go to Rachael's Rescue.

Awards and recognition

in 2007]]

2004, ranked #92 on "FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2004".

2006, ranked #71 on "FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2006".

2006, 30 Minute Meals received a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Service Show. Ray was also nominated for Outstanding Service Show Host.

2006, named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people. She was nominated by fellow Food Network star Mario Batali. 2006, according to Forbes magazine, Ray earned about $6 million June 2005-June 2006. from her books and television shows (excluding her new series, Rachael Ray).

February 21, 2007, Ray announced on her show that a wax creation was made of her and that this wax figure will be on display at Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum in New York City.

2007, nominated for Daytime Emmy Award, Outstanding Talk Show Host.

April 2007, Ray launched a charity, "The Yum-O! Organization", with help from Bill Clinton, to help children eat healthier. June 2008, The Rachael Ray Show received a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Talk Show/Entertainment. June 2008, according to Forbes magazine, Ray earned about $18 million June 2007-June 2008 June 2009, according to Forbes magazine, Ray earned about $15 million in the year ending June 2009, as well as naming her as the 79th most powerful celebrity in the world. August 2009, The Rachael Ray Show received a second Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Talk Show/Entertainment.

Charity work

In 2006, Rachael Ray launched a nonprofit organization called Yum-O! The mission of Yum-O! is to “empower kids and their families to develop healthy relationships with food and cooking. This is achieved by teaching families to cook, feeding hungry kids, and funding cooking education”.

Bibliography

30 Minute Meals (1999)

Rachael Ray's Open House Cookbook (2000)

Comfort Foods (2001)

Veggie Meals (2001)

30-Minute Meals 2 (2003)

Get Togethers: Rachael Ray 30 Minute Meals (2003)

Cooking Rocks!: Rachael Ray 30-Minute Meals for Kids (2004)

$40 a Day: Best Eats in Town (2004)

Rachael Ray's 30-Minute Meals: Cooking 'Round the Clock (2004)

Rachael Ray's 30-Minute Meals for Kids: Cooking Rocks! (2004)

Rachael Ray's 30-Minute Get Real Meals : Eat Healthy Without Going to Extremes (2005)

Rachael Ray 365: No Repeats: A Year of Deliciously Different Dinners (2005)

Rachael Ray 2, 4, 6, 8: Great Meals for Couples or Crowds (2006)

Rachael Ray's Express Lane Meals (2006)

Rachael Ray: Just In Time (2007)

Yum-O! The Family Cookbook (2008)

Rachael Ray's Big Orange Book (2008)

Rachael Ray's Book Of 10: More Than 300 Recipes To Cook Every Day (2009)

Rachael Ray's Look and Cook (2010)

References

External links

Rachael Ray's official site

Category:1968 births Category:American food writers Category:American people of French descent Category:American people of Italian descent Category:American people of Scottish descent Category:American people of Sicilian descent Category:American people of Welsh descent Category:American television chefs Category:American television talk show hosts Category:Food Network chefs Category:Living people Category:People from Barnstable County, Massachusetts Category:People from Warren County, New York

Coordinates	37°12′5″N112°9′16″N
Caption	Charlie Brooks as Janine Butcher (2010)
Image2
Caption2	Janine in 1996, as portrayed by Alexia Demetriou
Name	Janine Butcher
Alias
Introducer	Mike Gibbon (1989)Matthew Robinson (1999)Diederick Santer (2008)
Portrayer	Rebecca Michael (1989–93)Alexia Demetriou (1993–96)Charlie Brooks (1999—)
Years	1989–96, 1999–2004, 2008—
First	22 June 1989
Spinoffs	EastEnders: Last Tango in Walford (2010)
Classification	Present; regular
Born	30 October 1983
Home	43a Albert Square
Occupation
Husband	Barry Evans (2003–04) David (2008)Ryan Malloy (2010—)
Father	Frank Butcher
Mother	June Butcher
Brothers	Ricky Butcher
Sisters	Diane ButcherClare Butcher
Halfbrothers	Danny Butcher
Grandfathers	Chike Butcher
Grandmothers	Mo ButcherLydia Simmonds
Uncles	Norman Simmonds
Aunts	Joan Garwood
Nephews	Jacques ButcherLiam Butcher
Nieces	Natasha ButcherTiffany Dean

Janine Malloy (née Butcher; previously Evans) is a fictional character from the British soap opera EastEnders, currently portrayed by Charlie Brooks. Rebecca Michael originally portrayed the character from 1989 until 1993, when the role was given to Alexia Demetriou for three years. Brooks took on the role in 1999. After a three episode guest stint in April 2008 which saw the character reappear for her father Frank's funeral, Brooks agreed to reprise her role full-time, returning permanently in December 2008. Janine's storylines typically involve her in an antagonistic role; the character has been described as a "super-bitch" and a "classic villainess".

Creation

The character was first mentioned in September 1987, when her father Frank Butcher (Mike Reid) first appeared on-screen. Frank and his children Ricky (Sid Owen) and Diane (Sophie Lawrence) were introduced as regular characters in 1988. However, Janine did not become a regular character until a year later, in June 1989, her arrival completing the Butcher family.

The character was initially seen as a six year old, played by Rebecca Michael. In 1993, following a storyline that saw her stepmother Pat (Pam St. Clement) imprisoned for manslaughter, Janine was sent to stay with her off-screen sister Clare, but returned later that year, played by a different actress, 11-year old Alexia Demetriou. Demetriou played Janine between 14 October 1993 to 12 March 1996, when the character was written out again. In reality, Demetriou left to concentrate on her studies.

Janine was reintroduced by executive producer Matthew Robinson in 1999 as a 16 year old, played this time by actress Charlie Brooks.

Development

In 2002, a storyline saw Janine using drugs and then turning to prostitution to fund the habit. As part of the storyline, Janine was shown about to snort cocaine, a scene which caused some viewers to complain to the BBC. Discussing her character's behaviour, Brooks said, "Sleeping with her pusher is very sad and desperate. But she feels she has to do it to get more drugs. Janine has such low self-esteem that she's deliberately reckless. She thinks, 'Why not take drugs if they make me feel good about myself for a while?' I think she knows she's on a slippery slope but she believes she can get out of it like she's always done before."

Brooks left the show in 2004 but returned again in 2008. In June 2009 she signed a three-year contract.

In December 2009, the show's executive producer, Diederick Santer teased about upcoming storylines involving Janine and her flatmate Ryan Malloy (Neil McDermott), saying: "There's something really interesting with Ryan and Janine [...]. They're both people who don't know how to love. So will they fall in love? And if they do, can they cope with it? Will they understand the alien feelings coursing through their bodies?" In August 2010, Janine proposes to Ryan. Brooks said that the idea of getting married would be daunting for the character, but added that she believes Janine is genuinely in love with Ryan. She commented: "It's easy to assume that Janine is playing games or using him for sex, but [...] Ryan clearly adores her too, so he may be the man to tame her wild ways." Brooks hinted at possible trouble for the couple if Janine discovers that Ryan fathered a baby with Stacey Branning (Lacey Turner), saying "Janine will be absolutely destroyed when she finds out. She wants Ryan all to herself, and the idea of a baby snatching his attention away would be devastating. All she needs is to be loved."

In February 2011, Margaret Tyzack was cast as Janine's estranged grandmother, Lydia Simmonds. "A lady of class and dignity", Lydia's backstory states that she loved her daughter June but hated the man she married, Frank, so she grew old alone and lived a life of solitude. Lydia and Janine have been estranged for many years and Janine is shocked to have her grandmother back in her life. Executive Producer Bryan Kirkwood said: "I can't wait to see Janine meet her match."

Storylines

Backstory

Janine's mother, June, died of cancer when Janine was three years old, and she went to live with her sister Clare. Her father Frank (Mike Reid) moved to Walford with her older siblings Ricky (Sid Owen) and Diane (Sophie Lawrence) and married Pat Wicks (Pam St. Clement). Clare moved to Manchester in 1989, leaving Janine with Pat and Frank.

1989–2005

A troublesome child, Janine throws tantrums, runs away, is a bed-wetter, a sleepwalker, a thief, a compulsive liar and self-harmer, and hates Pat. Unable to discipline her, Pat forces Frank to take Janine to family therapy, which helps somewhat. When Frank has a breakdown and disappears in 1994, Janine stays with Pat but finds her father's absence upsetting. She is overjoyed at Frank's return and decides to move to Manchester with him in 1996. However, Frank returns to Walford in 1998, leaving Janine with Clare again.

Janine returns in 1999 to live with Frank and his new wife, Peggy (Barbara Windsor). She sets about coming between them, continuously trying to antagonise Frank with rebellious behaviour. She sleeps with Jamie Mitchell (Jack Ryder) to infuriate her father, then humiliates Jamie by spreading rumours about his inadequate prowess in bed. Frank abandons Janine again in 2000 after the breakdown of his marriage to Peggy.

Homeless, Janine is taken in by Terry Raymond (Gavin Richards); they start a business together as estate agents. Terry sees Janine as a surrogate daughter but her constant manipulation tests his patience. Janine uses him for money, purposefully dresses like his deceased daughter Tiffany (Martine McCutcheon), ruins his relationships with women and tries to seduce him. Janine also begins sleeping with Billy Mitchell (Perry Fenwick) until he runs out of money. All of this behaviour infuriates Terry. Janine starts using cocaine, pestering Terry for money to feed her habit. When Terry refuses, she resorts to sleeping with her drug dealer, Lee Vickers, in exchange for cocaine; Vickers beats Terry when he tries to warn him off. Upon seeing Janine's lack of remorse, Terry throws her out and leaves Walford, ignoring her pleas for him to stay.

Owing Vickers money for drugs, Janine turns to prostitution under the pseudonym "Blonde Bombshell". One of her clients, Matt, falls in love and proposes, then attempts suicide upon discovering she is still a prostitute. Ian Beale (Adam Woodyatt) begins using her services, but she later blackmails him, threatening to tell his wife Laura (Hannah Waterman) unless he gives her money. Depressed, Janine begins drinking heavily, and nearly dies of alcohol poisoning. She gives up prostitution, but when Laura discovers she has been sleeping with Ian, she throws a pan of boiling milk in Janine's face. Janine becomes agoraphobic as a result — she eats dog food because she is too afraid to go out and buy groceries. She eventually gets over this, aided by Billy. Janine hopes to rekindle their relationship but is devastated when he confesses he is in love with Little Mo Slater (Kacey Ainsworth). Her attempts to ruin their blossoming romance fail.

Janine gets a job working at Barry Evans's (Shaun Williamson) car lot. She and Paul Trueman (Gary Beadle) concoct a plan to fleece Barry of his money. She seduces Barry and moves in with him but, unknown to him, she is sleeping with Paul too. Barry eventually proposes to Janine and she accepts, thinking that Barry has a life-threatening heart murmur. They marry on New Year's Eve 2003 in Scotland, but Janine is furious to discover that Barry's illness is a false alarm. Barry forces Janine to take a stroll around the hills and cliffs, but Janine cracks and confesses everything. Barry, refusing to believe that she does not love him, tries to embrace her. Repulsed, Janine pushes him away and he rolls down a hill, fatally hitting his head on a rock; Janine watches him die. Janine inherits Barry's estate, leaving his son, Jack, with nothing. She has Barry cremated in Scotland, denying his friends and family a chance to pay their respects, making Barry's ex-wife Natalie (Lucy Speed) suspicious. Natalie grows close to Paul Trueman, who is wracked with guilt about his role in Barry's demise. Spurred on by Natalie, Paul eventually goes to the police implicating Janine. She is arrested but released, due to lack of evidence. She takes pleasure in telling Natalie that she has got away with murder, but telling Pat is her downfall. Pat is also good friends with Laura Beale, who has an on-going feud with Janine. Janine further marginalises herself from all the locals by reporting Laura for benefit fraud and announces it in the vic.Janine is seen fighting Laura just before Laura accidentally dies after falling down the stairs and Laura is found with Janine's skin under her nails following their fight. Although Janine is with Pat at the time of death, Pat avenges Barry's murder by refusing to give Janine an alibi despite Janine begging for help and blaming her actions on her hard childhood but Pat brands her pure evil. In desperation, Janine goes to Paul and offers to sleep with him in return for an alibi, but, shameful about his own role in Barry's death, he throws her out, and she is arrested by police waiting outside as she tries to flee the from the square with a bag of money. Janine is then charged with Laura's murder and remanded in custody in May 2004.

Janine stands trial off-screen in 2005 and Frank tries to persuade Pat to tell the truth in court, giving Janine an alibi. Pat refuses but a conversation with Laura's mother, who is desperate for the truth, forces Pat to tell the court what really happened. Janine is released but abandons Frank outside the courtroom.

2008—

Janine returns for Frank's funeral in April 2008, and is angry to find that he has not left her any money in his will; she scatters his ashes before departing. However, in December 2008 Pat and Ricky discover that Janine is masquerading as a Jewish orphan named "Judith Bernstein" in order to marry an elderly Jewish man named David (Harry Towb) for his money. They trace Janine to the synagogue where the wedding is taking place. Just after they are pronounced man and wife, Pat declares Janine a fraud before the congregation. David has a heart attack and dies, and a now homeless Janine has no choice but to return to Walford.

She makes various enemies, among them Jack Branning (Scott Maslen), whom Janine drugs and then restrains in order to gain a taped confession of his past misdemeanours, which she uses as blackmail to gain control of Walford's car lot. Pat and Jack usurp her, reclaiming the business, and in anger Janine speeds off in her car and accidentally hits Danielle Jones (Lauren Crace), killing her. Although Janine is cleared of any wrongdoing by the police, Danielle's mother Ronnie Mitchell (Samantha Womack) cannot forgive her. In retaliation towards this rejection, Janine teams up with Ronnie's ostracised father, Archie (Larry Lamb); they make plans to ruin the Mitchell family by taking The Queen Victoria public house from them. When they manipulate Sam Mitchell (Danniella Westbrook) into breaking her bail terms, the Mitchells lose bail surety and face financial ruin. Ian Beale provides the Mitchells with a loan on the condition they use their pub as collateral. However, Janine has sex with Ian recording the tryst, then blackmails him, threatening to show his wife Jane (Laurie Brett) unless he sells the Mitchell loan to Archie. Archie subsequently takes control of the Vic when the Mitchells are unable to meet the terms of the loan.

Meanwhile, Janine and her flat mate Ryan Malloy (Neil McDermott) - whom Janine is sleeping with - plan to fleece Archie. Archie and Janine announce their engagement but on Christmas Day 2009, Archie - realising that Janine has been intending to con him - throws her out onto the street leaving her distraught. That same day, Archie is murdered by an unknown assailant. Janine becomes one of the suspects for his murder, though she denies it and feigns distress over Archie's death. While she attempts to frame Ian and the Mitchells for the murder, Peggy attempts to frame her, planting evidence in her flat, which leads to an arrest but no charge. In the end, Janine is cleared and Bradley Branning (Charlie Clements) is held falsely responsible for the murder.

When Ryan confesses his love for Janine, she does not respond. It is not until he attempts to leave Walford that she admits her true feelings for him and they begin a legitimate romance. Despite Janine nearly straying with a wealthy man on her hen night, she and Ryan marry, but marital happiness is short-lived when Ryan discovers that he is the father of Stacey Branning's (Lacey Turner) daughter Lily. A feud erupts between Janine and Stacey when Janine, jealous of Stacey and Ryan's bond, reports her to social services for neglecting Lily. Later she kidnaps Lily, suggesting to Ryan that they leave Walford with the child so that she can separate Ryan from Stacey. Her games push Ryan and Stacey closer together and they begin an affair. When Janine finds out, she vows to kill them both. She buys sedatives and poisons Ryan with them. He is left bedridden but manages to escape and ends their marriage publicly after being released from hospital. Hurt and angry, Janine finds out that Stacey is the real murderer of Archie Mitchell and goes public with this information, but is largely ignored with no concrete evidence. Desperate, Janine visits Stacey and stabs herself in an attempt to frame her but Stacey escapes the country before arrest. Blaming Janine for Stacey leaving, Ryan refuses to reuinte with Janine and attempts to kill her by removing her oxygen tubing when she is hospitalised. She is saved by Ricky's chance arrival, but both Ricky and Pat denounce Janine's actions when she admits that her injuries are self-inflicted.

When Ryan's sister Whitney Dean (Shona McGarty) is left homeless and jobless, Janine takes her in. Janine uses Whitney to make money, coaxing her into escorting and stealing from her employer. However, Janine jealously rejects Whitney when a client refuses to sleep with Janine, hoping to see Whitney instead. Janine then cannot afford her rent and moves in with Ricky and his family. Whitney goes missing but Janine lies that she is with Ryan, however, she soon admits she does not know where Whitney is. Janine and Lauren Branning (Jacqueline Jossa) search for her, and track her down to Dartford where Janine leans that Whitney is being sexually exploited by Rob Grayson (Jody Latham). She tells Whitney she cares about her and recalls her previous experience as a drug-addicted prostitute, advising Whitney to return home. Whitney refuses to leave and Janine is evicted by Rob. Janine and Lauren then watch helplessly as Rob drives Whitney away. Concerned for Whitney's welfare, an anxious Lauren tells Ricky and Carol Jackson (Lindsey Coulson) about Whitney's situation, Ricky visits Janine where he shouts at her for neglecting Whitney and tells her that she will be to blame and at fault if Whitney never returns home and that she is not to come near his family again. Whitney is eventually found by Lauren and returns home to Ricky.

Ricky and Janine receive news that their maternal, rich, grandmother, Lydia Simmonds (Heather Chasen), is very sick and in need of someone to look after her. Janine decides to take in her granny with the ulterior motive of having a place in her will. Janine soon learns that Lydia is very similar to herself and they both put on an act of hating each other. Janine eventually admits she loves her granny and enjoys looking after her. Lydia's health quickly deteriorates and Janine sees the copy of her will in which Lydia has left all her money to a charity. Janine stays up with Lydia and tells her she doesn't care about not being in the will. Lydia explains that she wanted to look after Janine after her mother died but Pat and Frank wouldn't allow it. After giving Janine her mothers locket Lydia dies. Janine is devastated by Lydia's death and refuses to be comforted by Pat after finding out she stopped her seeing her gran. The Square (including Pat) speculate whether Janine killed Lydia. Ryan calls the police on Janine after he too suspects she murdered Lydia. Janine is questioned but released without charge.

Reception

Janine has been well received by critics although some of her storylines have come under criticism. In 2001, it was reported that education experts blamed delinquent young characters in soap operas, like Janine, for increasing disorder and violence in schools. In 2002, scenes involving the character were the source of viewer complaints, when Janine prostituted herself to pay for cocaine that she was about to snort. Television watchdog Mediawatch UK claimed "the scenes were another example of the gradual erosion of standards of taste and decency". Tory MP Tim Yeo also chastised the scenes saying, "The makers of a programme as popular and influential as EastEnders, particular on a public service channel, have a duty to be responsible in terms of not glamorising drug-taking, especially when a young audience is watching." In March 2009, Brooks won the "Bad Girl" award at the 2009 All About Soap Bubble Awards, which are voted for by the public, for her portrayal of Janine, saying: "I'm thrilled that viewers think I am so good at being bad!" Brooks also won Villain of the Year at the British Soap Awards in 2004 for her portrayal of the same character, and was nominated in the same category in 2011. Brooks won her third Inside Soap Award for Best Bitch in 2009. In February 2011, the love triangle storyline between Janine, Ryan and Stacey was nominated in the "Best Love Triangle" category at the 2011 All About Soap Bubble Awards.

See also

List of soap opera recasts

List of soap opera villains

References

External links

Category:EastEnders characters Category:Fictional businesspeople Category:Fictional con artists Category:Fictional criminals Category:Fictional drug dealers Category:Fictional killers Category:Fictional prostitutes Category:Fictional secretaries Category:Fictional characters introduced in 1989

Coordinates	37°12′5″N112°9′16″N
Name	Donald “Donny” Deutsch
Birth date	November 22, 1957
Birth place	Hollis Hills, New York

Donald “Donny” Deutsch (born November 22, 1957) is an American television personality and advertising executive. He is also the former host of the CNBC talk show The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch.

Early life

Deutsch was born in Hollis Hills, a neighborhood in the New York City borough of Queens to a Jewish family. He attended P.S. 188, Martin Van Buren High School, and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Deutsch was criticized in February 2010 when he called Florida's Cuban-American Senate candidate Marco Rubio a "coconut" on The Joy Behar Show.

Deutsch purchased a five-story property in New York City for $21 million and reportedly spent another $20 million on renovations. Deutsch also purchased a $29 million home on Long Island.

Notes

External links

Donny Deutsch Official Website

Donny Deutsch Profile

The Big Idea (a redirect to the CNBC blog 15838512)

Donny Deutsch profile at CNBC Anchors & Reporters

Category:1957 births Category:Living people Category:American Jews Category:American businesspeople Category:American business journalists Category:American television talk show hosts Category:Businesspeople in advertising Category:Martin Van Buren High School (New York City) alumni Category:People from Queens Category:Wharton School alumni