Key concepts in applied linguistics. The use of previously known languages by L2 learners: a not so clear-cut phenomenon

ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 191 KEY CONCEPTS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS/CONCEPTOS CLAVE DE LA LINGÜÍSTICA APLICADA The Use of Previously Known Languages by L2 Learners: A not so Clear-Cut Phenomenon María Martínez-Adrián The University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Spain [email protected] As is well known, second language (L2) learners resort to their previously known languages, among other issues, when confronted with communication problems during interaction or for task-related procedures, as illustrated in (1) (use of Spanish) and (2) (use of Catalan): (1) CHI1: cómo se dice enfadada ? [how do you say angry?] CHI2: cross? (From Martínez-Adrián & Arratibel-Irazusta, 2020) (2) CHA: et toca a tu, no? [it’s your turn, isn’t it?] (From Vraciu & Pladevall-Ballester, 2020) Even though the use of previously known languages by L2 learners during production is so evident, its conception is not so crystal-clear. First of all, its investigation has been approached from a cognitive (i.e. Poulisse, 1993) and a sociocultural perspective (i.e. Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Second, this study Key concepts in Applied Linguistics ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 192 gains in complexity when multilingual learners are the target of these investigations (Cenoz, 2001), as not only the mother tongue/s but any other language known by the learner could be employed during production. This paper delves into the complexities of the use of previously known languages by L2 learners as regards its conceptualisation, issues related to the methodology employed for its investigation and the analysis of the variables that determine its use. To this end, I will first of all outline the main theoretical approaches to the study of this phenomenon, highlighting the main uses of previously known languages considered within them, the factors examined and the type of designs followed. It goes on to present several methodological issues which might explain the existence of mixed results in the literature. The last part of the paper is devoted to the interaction existing among the variables under investigation which brings to light its not so straightforward relationship. From a cognitive perspective, it is customary to speak about crosslinguistic influence as a learning strategy and a communication strategy. As for crosslinguistic influence as a learning strategy, learners make use of prior linguistic experience to construct hypotheses in the L2 (Schachter, 1983), which are later on tested by searching confirmatory or disconfirmatory input. In the case of crosslinguistic influence as a communication strategy, learners employ their previously known languages (as well as other devices such as miming, avoidance, appeals for assistance) to compensate for the lack of knowledge during production (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). María Martínez-Adrián ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 193 In general terms, the study of communication strategies has been approached from two different perspectives: interactional (i.e. Tarone & Yule, 1987) and psycholinguistic (i.e. Poulisse, 1993). Existing taxonomies in both perspectives include previously known language-based strategies. While Tarone’s (1983) taxonomy includes conscious transfer encompassing both language switch (Turkish ‘ balon’ for ‘ballon’ (from Tarone, 1983)) and literal translation (‘He invites him to drink’ for ‘They toast one another’ (from Tarone, 1983)), Poulisse, Bongaerts, and Kellerman (1990) talk about transfer strategies which are broken down into borrowings (Dutch ‘ etalage’ for English ‘shop-window’), foreignizings (‘ cuffer’ from French ‘coiffeur’) (Poulisse, 1990, p. 60)) and literal translations (‘my elders’ for English ‘parents’) (Poulisse, 1990, p. 109)). The bulk of studies exploring the use of communication strategies by L2 learners have devoted their attention to the classification of communication strategies, effectiveness of communication strategies, factors affecting choice of communication strategies, and teachability of communication strategies. In particular, among the factors examined in these investigations, proficiency in the target language (i.e. ArratibelIrazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018, 2019; Bialystok, 1983; Jourdain, 2000; Gallardo-del-Puerto, Basterrechea, & Martínez-Adrián, 2020; Liskin-Gasparro, 1996; Muñoz, 2007; Paribakht, 1985; Poulisse, Bongaerts, & Kellerman, 1990; Tarone, 1977), personality (Haastrup & Philipson, 1983; Luján Ortega & Clark-Carter, 2000); age (Cenoz, 2001; Gost & Celaya, 2005), learning and cognitive style (Luján Ortega & Clark-Carter, 2000; Littlemore, 2001); gender (Basterrechea, Martínez-Adrián, & Gallardo-del-Puerto, 2017; Key concepts in Applied Linguistics ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 194 Jiménez Catalán, 2003; Wang, 2008); task-type and task-related features such as cognitive demands, time constraints and interlocutor’s role (Poulisse Bongaerts, & Kellerman, 1990; Khanji, 1993; Viladot & Celaya, 2007) and learning programme (CLIL vs. Non-CLIL learning context) (Agustín-Llach, 2009; Celaya, 2008; Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Gallardo-del-Puerto, 2015; MartínezAdrián & Gutiérrez-Mangado, 2015; Pladevall Vallester & Vraciu, 2017) have been found to affect the frequency and choice of communication strategies. Some of these studies have examined production data (oral and written) (i.e. Agustín Llach, 2009; Arratibel-Irazusta & MartínezAdrián, 2018, 2019; Caballero & Celaya, 2019; Cenoz, 2001, 2003; Gost & Celaya, 2005; Muñoz, 2007; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994), while others have examined learners’ self-reported use of communication strategies (i.e. Kaivanpanach et al., 2012; MartínezAdrián, Gallardo-del-Puerto, & Basterrechea, 2019; Ollo Jiménez & Martínez-Adrián, 2019; Purdie & Oliver, 1999). The target of these investigations has been primarily adult and adolescent learners (i.e. Barea Neira, 2018; Fernández Dobao, 2001; Ghout-Khenoune, 2012; Martínez-Adrián & Gutiérrez-Mangado, 2015, Poulisse, Bongaerts, & Kellerman, 1990; Rosas Maldonado, 2016) but primary-school learners are receiving increasing attention in recent years (Agustín Llach, 2009, 2016; Gallardo-del-Puerto, 2015; Gallardo-del-Puerto, Basterrechea & Martínez-Adrián, 2020; Pladevall-Ballester & Vraciu, 2017) From a sociocultural perspective, the use of previously known languages is considered an essential tool that assists learners during collaborative tasks and mediates their own mental activity through private speech (Alegría De La Colina & García Mayo, 2009; María Martínez-Adrián ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 195 Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). L2 learners use their previously known languages for functions such as task management (i.e. to plan, organize and monitor the activity), grammar and vocabulary deliberations, off-task talk (i.e. casual talk) and phatics (i.e. the use of expressions such as ok , well , and so in the learners’ previously known languages to facilitate the flow of speech). Factors such as proficiency level in the target language (DiCamilla & Antón, 2012; Martínez-Adrián, 2020a; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Vraciu & Pladevall-Ballester, 2020), gender (Azkarai, 2015; Azkarai & Imaz Agirre, 2017; Ross-Feldman, 2005), type of learning programme (CLIL vs. Non-CLIL) (García Mayo & Hidalgo Gordo, 2017; García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015; Martínez-Adrián, 2020b), task-type (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2017; Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Rayati, Yaqubi, & Harsejsani, 2012; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003) and task-modality (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Martínez-Adrián & Arratibel-Irazusta, 2020; Payant & Kim, 2019) have been found to affect the use of previously known languages during task-based interaction. This line of research has been particularly evident in the case of adult learners, but in the last five years, researchers are especially committed to the study of young learners so as to offer this population the best learning conditions (García Mayo, 2018). In addition to the existence of different theoretical approaches for this phenomenon, when it comes to the methodology employed in investigations framed within cognitive or sociocultural theories, its study is not without limitations and intricacies, which may explain the existence of mixed results in the literature. First of all, in a good number of studies it is typical to observe how several Key concepts in Applied Linguistics ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 196 strategies or categories are merged under a higher-order category. For example, the use of borrowings, foreignizings and calques are typically included within the category ‘transfer’. Even if this categorization is correct and in line with the taxonomy devised in the Nijmegen project1 (Poulisse, Bongaerts, & Kellerman, 1990), more robust conclusions can be drawn if the three strategies within ‘transfer’ are treated individually as they have been found not to follow the same path in different studies (see Agustín Llach, 2016; Arratibel-Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018; Gallardo-del-Puerto, 2015; Gallardo del Puerto, Basterrechea, & Martínez-Adrián, 2020). Likewise, the existence of different categorizations and tags both in cognitive and sociocultural perspectives adds further complexity. For instance, while certain studies talk about ‘conscious transfer’, other investigations talk about ‘borrowings’ within the cognitive strand. Similarly, while some studies within the sociocultural strand consider the use of previously known languages for metacognitive purposes (i.e. task-related procedures), other investigations speak about the use of these languages for metacomments instead. Apart from the problematicity as regards the existence of different tags, it is also important to tackle not only amount/frequency of use of learners’ previously known languages but also a more detailed analysis of the different functions and the most common manifestations of these languages, alongside the study of the use of the target language. This type of analysis will widen the scope of the study and will provide a fairer picture of the use of the learner’s 1 This project on the use of communication strategies by first language (L1) Dutch learners of L2 English was pioneer in devising a more comprehensive taxonomy and in providing a more exhaustive study of proficiency and task effects. María Martínez-Adrián ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 197 language repertoire in the multilingual class. The use of a wide array of tasks is another issue that may lead to mixed results. Studies on the effect of proficiency on the use of previously known languages have attested different findings when examining foreignizings (Agustín Llach, 2009; Arratibel-Irazusta & MartínezAdrián, 2018; Celaya, 2008; Gallardo-del-Puerto, 2015; MartínezAdrián, Gallardo-del-Puerto, & Basterrechea, 2019). While in oral production and in self-report questionnaires, less proficient learners have been found to favor the use of this strategy, studies examining written production have proved the opposite. Mixed results may also be explained by the small gap in proficiency existing between the groups tested. The review of different investigations that have examined learners with small differences in terms of proficiency levels (Arratibel-Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018, 2019; Gallardodel-Puerto, Basterrechea, & Martínez-Adrián, 2020) suggests the inclusion of a wider gap between groups that could potentially yield larger differences, all of which could lead to a more thorough view of strategy development. Apart from these methodological issues, we cannot dismiss the interaction existing among the variables under investigation, which has been attested in studies carried out within the cognitive and sociocultural strand. Studies on communication strategies that have looked into the variable ‘proficiency in the target language’ have revealed how proficiency is sometimes overruled by the nature of the task in adult learners. In this case, in highly-demanding tasks, advanced learners have been found to employ previously known language-based strategies (Fernández Dobao, 2002; Poulisse, Bongaerts, & Kellerman, 1990). Similarly, several investigations examining child and adolescent learners immersed in a CLIL Key concepts in Applied Linguistics ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 198 programme have concluded that proficiency may be overruled by participation in this type of educational programme, as beginner learners participating in these bilingual programmes have been observed to employ L2-based strategies more typical of advanced learners (i.e. the use of paraphrasing in the target language) (Arratibel-Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2019; Martínez-Adrián, 2020a; Martínez-Adrián, Gallardo-del-Puerto, & Basterrechea, 2019). Likewise, proficiency has been found to interact with the variable ‘age’ in younger learners and adolescents, as older participants have been found to use their previously known languages to a higher extent, especially for less cooperative and more external-to-the task categories such as metacomments (i.e. metacognitive talk), discourse markers (i.e. phatics) and private speech (ArratibelIrazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018; García Mayo & Hidalgo Gordo, 2017; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2017; García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015; Martínez-Adrián, 2020a). These results are also in line with other studies conducted with young learners that have explored proficiency-pairings and time effects (Vraciu & Pladevall Ballester, 2020), according to which older children make more use of their previously known languages at age 11-12, when learners display more analytic abilities in language learning and a higher level of metalinguistic awareness. In a similar vein, investigations within the sociocultural strand that have analysed the impact of the variable ‘task-modality’ in child learners (Martínez-Adrián & Arratibel-Irazusta, 2020) indicate that it has a limited impact on the functions of previously known languages. Unlike adults, young learners employ them for discussing vocabulary issues in both speaking tasks as well as in speaking+writing tasks, while grammar talk among these learners María Martínez-Adrián ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 199 is uncommon in this population. These young learners are in the need of vocabulary to move the task forward and they rely on their previously known languages to avoid communication breakdowns. However, their still developing metalanguage skills might explain their lower reliance on their previously known languages for grammar discussions. This clearly reinforces not only the need for research with young learners given their uniqueness in their engagement in the language learning process (Mackey & Gass, 2005 as cited in Oliver & Azkarai, 2017) but also the examination of age effects within this population. In this respect, other investigations with children which have focused on different issues from the use of previously known languages such as vocabulary acquisition have revealed that age and its associated cognitive processes may have an impact on the performance of communicative tasks in young learners. Iglesias Diéguez (2020) has shown how 6th year primary school learners seem to be more resourceful and to communicate more successfully than 4th year students when performing a storytelling task. Similarly, tasks with a written output appear to be more beneficial for 6th year learners than for their younger counterparts, as they focus on accuracy to a higher extent, showing a similar pattern to adult learners in this case (Niu, 2009; Payant & Kim, 2019). Thus, the mediating effect of variables such as the nature of the task (see Fernández Dobao, 2002; Poulisse, Bongaerts, & Kellerman, 1990), the learning context (Arratibel-Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2019; Martínez-Adrián, 2020a; Martínez-Adrián, Gallardo-del-Puerto, & Basterrechea, 2019) and age (ArratibelIrazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018; García Mayo & Hidalgo Gordo, 2017; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2017; García Mayo & Lázaro Key concepts in Applied Linguistics ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 206 Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners' focus on form. Language Awareness, 18 (3-4), 384-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197256 Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37 , 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000058 Ollo Jiménez, P., & Martínez-Adrián, M. (2019). A study of self-reported opinions of L1-based communication strategies in CLIL and NONCLIL secondary-school learners of L3 English. RAEL: Revista Electrónica de Linguística Aplicada, 18 (1), 72-90. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2015-0120 Paribakht, T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 6 , 132-146. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.2.132 Payant, C., & Kim, Y. J. (2019). Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (5), 614-627. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1292999 Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vraciu, A. (2017). Exploring early EFL: L1 use in oral narratives by CLIL and non-CLIL primary school learners. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 124-148). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783098118-009 Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English . Dordrecht: Foris. Poulisse, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical communication strategies. In R. Schreuder, & B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 157-189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.6.09pou Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15 , 36-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.1.36 Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1990). The use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch learners of English . Dordrecht: Foris. Purdie, N., & Oliver, R. (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System, 27 , 375-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00032-9 María Martínez-Adrián ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 207 Rayati, R. A., Yaqubi, B., & Harsejsani, R. (2012). L1 use and language-related episodes (LREs) in an EFL setting. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 3 (4), 99-125. Rosas Maldonado, M. (2016). Communication strategies used by different level L2 English learners in oral interaction. Revista Signos, 49 (90), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342016000100004 Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions between second language learners: Exploring the role of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University. Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language transfer. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 98-111). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners' use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14 , 355-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375362 Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, J. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 760-770. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588224 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1191/136216800125087 Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In H.D. Brown, C.A. Yorio, & R.C. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 194-203). Washington, DC: TESOL. Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 61-74). New York: Longman Ink. Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in East-West interactions. In L.E. Smith (Ed.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. 49-65). New York: Prentice Hall. Viladot, J., & Celaya, M. (2007). 'How do you say preparar?': L1 use in EFL oral production and task-related differences. In M. Losada Friend et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th international AEDEAN conference . Huelva: U de Huelva. Key concepts in Applied Linguistics ELIA 20, 2020, pp. 191-208 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2020.i20.07 208 Vraciu, A., & Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2020). L1 use in peer interaction: exploring time and proficiency pairing effects in primary school EFL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism . https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1767029 Wang, L.M. (2008). EFL 学习者习得交际策略的性别差异研究 [A study of gender differences in communication strategies by EFL learners]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 8 , 37-41. Dr. María Martínez-Adrián is an Associate Professor at the UPV/EHU and a member of the Laslab research group (www.laslab.org). She has co-edited the volumes Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition published by John Benjamins (Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics award 2014), Crosslinguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice published by Springer and a special issue on L1 use in CLIL/CBI settings published by the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Her work has appeared in books published by Springer and Multilingual Matters, and in journals such as RESLA, IJES, ITL, JICB, LTR, EUJAL, IRAL, INJAL, SSLLT, among others. First version received: September, 2020 Final version accepted: October, 2020