4 Findings and Discussion
4.1 Findings by Research Instruments
4.1.3 Findings from the Post-Task Interview
This section presents the findings derived from the data collected in the post-task interviews. The aim is to complete the picture of language reliance patterns in terms of L3-word retrieval in the process of composing the L3 narrative based on a series of L3-wordless pictures. Similarly, the goal is to give an account of how the data from the post-task interviews contributed to the substantiation of the already existent categories and how this substantiation supported theoretical coding.
The post-task interview was conducted two days after each participant completed the think-aloud activity. The questions were focused on particular aspects of how the participants employed their languages in the process of composing the L3 narrative and also aimed at clarifying certain issues they mentioned during the pre-task interviews. The post-task interview schedule is attached in Appendix F. The open codes and focused codes developed in the analysis of the post-task interviews are listed in Table 8.
In what follows, the present section discusses the categories the development of which started earlier and which became further grounded in the data collected in the post-task interviews. The presentation of categories is accompanied by their discussion in relation to the existing empirical and theoretical literature.
1. Languages used together
One of the focused codes which gained further ground in the analysis of the post-task interviews was that of languages used together. This focused code subsumed the following open codes in the analysis of the pre-ask interview data: foreign language through the L2 and L2 link to foreign languages.
During the analysis of the post-task interviews, the following two open codes were developed and later merged into the focused code languages used together:
- convenience-guided use of the L2, and
- L2 dictionary in the L1 learning environment in learning the L3.
I assigned the open code convenience-guided use of the L2 (where convenience is an in vivo code) to those accounts in which the participants described their reliance on L2 Romanian as a support for L3 English as easy (in Hungarian, könnyű) or easier (in Hungarian, könnyebb) compared to the L1 Hungarian, at hand (in Hungarian, kézenfekvő), convenient (in Hungarian, előnyös), more convenient (in Hungarian, előnyösebb) compared to Hungarian,
and natural (in Hungarian, természetes). Excerpt (36), Excerpt (37), Excerpt (38), and Excerpt (39) are examples in which the participants reflect on the employment of the L2 Romanian as a support language. The letters P.E. are the initials of the researcher.
(36)
P.E.: A történet fogalmazása közben többször fordítottál románról angolra. Miért ezt az utat választottad?
B.A.: Nem tudom…valahogy könnyebb a románról eljutni az angol szóra. Ezen soha nem gondolkodtam. Valahogy természetesnek tűnik.
[P E.: While you were composing the story, you translated several times from Romanian into English. Why did you choose this way?
B.A.: I don’t know…somehow it is easier to arrive at the English word from the Romanian. I have never thought about this. Somehow it seems natural.]
(37)
P.E.: Itt először magyarul mondod a szót, majd áttértél a románra és végül a román szótárban kerested meg a szót.
S.S.: Igen, mert könnyebb használni a román szótárt. Mindig ezt használjuk angol órán is. /…/ Most tudom, mire tetszik gondolni. Arra, hogy nem tudok jól magyarul.
[P.E.: Here, you first said the Hungarian word, then you switched to Romanian and looked up the word in the Romanian dictionary.
S.S.: Yes, because it’s easier to use the Romanian dictionary. We always use this dictionary during the English lessons. /…/ I know what you are thinking about now. That I do not know Hungarian well.]
(38)
P. E.: Elég gyakran románról angolra fordítottad, amit írni akartál.
P. L.: Mert olyan angol szavak voltak, amiket nem is tudtam volna. A román szavak ugrottak be /…/ kéznél voltak. Engem nem érdekel, hogy most románt vagy magyart használok. Az a fontos, hogy meg tudjam írni az angol szöveget.
[P. E.: You translated from Romanian into English quite often.
P. L.: Because there were English words that I couldn’t have known. The Romanian words popped in /…/ they were at hand. I don’t care if I use Romanian or Hungarian. What is important is to be able to write the English text.]
(39)
P.E.: Néhol románul mondtad a szöveget, aztán fordítottad angolra.
F.L.: Azt hiszem így volt könnyebb. Volt néhány szó, ami nem jutott eszembe, pedig tanultam őket. Például az istállót. Előnyösebb volt gyorsan előszedni a szót románul, mert az jutott eszembe. Haladni akartam az írással.
[P.E.: Sometimes you said the text in Romanian, and then you translated it into English.
F.L.: I think it was easier this way. There were some words that I didn’t remember, albeit I had learnt them. For instance, stable. It was more convenient to come up with the Romanian word because I remembered it. I wanted to progress with the writing.]
Some participants gave as a reason for it being easy or convenient to rely on the L2 Romanian in the process of retrieval of the L3 English words the fact that the L2 word was quicker to remember, and thus it seemingly acted as a link to the L3 English target word (Excerpt 38 and Excerpt 39). The ease of the process of using an L2 Romanian word so as to access an L3 English word was also described as being natural (Excerpt 36).
The open code convenience-guided use also got support from accounts which do not explicitly spell out the term. They suggest that reliance on the L2 (or the L1) in building up an L3 text is guided by its being useful or helpful in speeding up the process of creating the L3 text (and solving the problem). Examples of such accounts can be found in Excerpts (38) and Excerpt (39). In view of these above, the convenience-guided use of the L2 was defined as the reliance on a non-native language guided by the user’s feeling of its usefulness (a positive attitude-judgment) in the retrieval of a second or foreign language lexical unit, and in the process of solving a non-native language linguistic task. Thus, from this standpoint, certain languages are used together, in the present case, L3 English and L2 Romanian, if one of them, here, L2 Romanian, is perceived useful and acts as a facilitator in the retrieval of the lexical units of the other, here, L3 English. The connection between these two languages is characterised by the language user’s feeling of ease-of-retrieval (Kurilla &
Westerman, 2008; Wanke, 2013) and most probably it works based on a retrieval strategy which seems to have developed due to the frequent experienced ease in the retrieval of the L3 English lexical units when starting from the L2 Romanian ones.
Closely linked to the open code of convenience-guided use of the L2 is the open code of L2 dictionary in the L1 learning environment in learning the L3. Excerpt (37), which I also included as an example for the convenience-guided use open code, contains an account about the L2 Romanian dictionary use for looking up L3-words. During the think-aloud activity, the participants used almost exclusively the Romanian-English bilingual dictionary
when they needed to look up an L3 English target word, although they could have also used the Hungarian-English bilingual dictionary as this latter was also put at their disposal. In the post-task interview, I asked the participants to comment on their use of dictionary, which I interpreted as one of the attributes of the L3 English word retrieval. Excerpt (40) and Excerpt (41) contain accounts referring to the role of the Romanian-English dictionary in the L1 Hungarian minority education:
(40)
P.E.: Ott volt a magyar-angol szótár is, de nem azt használtad.
P.F.: A magyar szótárt nem nagyon ismerem. Az angolnál a román
szótárt használjuk, de a román szótárral keresem ki a német szavakat is. Nem csak az angol szavakat. Ezt szoktam meg.
P.E.: Soha nem próbáltad használni a magyar-angol szótárt?
P.F.: Valamikor régebben volt egy magyar szótáram is, de nem volt meg benne minden szó. Hát, elég gyenge volt.
[P.E.: The Hungarian-English dictionary was there, too, but you didn’t use it.
P.F.: I don’t really know the Hungarian dictionary. For English, we use the Romanian dictionary, but I also look up German words in the Romanian dictionary, not only the English words. I got accustomed to this.
P.E.: Have you never tried to use the Hungarian-English dictionary?
P.F.: Some time ago, I had a Hungarian dictionary too, but it did not contain all the words. Well, it was a rather low quality one.]
(41)
P.E.: Nem furcsa, hogy a román szótárt használod az angol szavak kikereséséhez?
B.Cs.: Szerintem nem. Ha felvételizni akarsz valahova, a román nyelvet kérik. Ha fordítás van, senkit nem érdekel a magyar. A tanárnő azt mondta, hogy a román szótárt használjuk, mert előnyösebb.
P.E.: Miben előnyösebb?
B.Cs.: Megszokjuk használni. Meg a két nyelvet párosítani. Nem tudom. De mindegy, mert a vizsgán úgysem használhat az ember szótárt.
[Isn’t it strange that you use the Romanian dictionary to look up the English words?
B.Cs.: I don’t think so. If you want to apply somewhere (i.e., an educational institution), Romanian is a requirement. If there is a translation task, nobody is interested in Hungarian. The teacher said that we use the Romanian dictionary because it is more convenient.
P.E.: In what way is it convenient?
B.Cs.: We get used to using it. And to pairing up the two languages. I don’t know.
But it is all the same because, anyhow, one is not allowed to use the dictionary at an exam.]
The first issue that can capture our attention in these excerpts in connection with the use of the Romanian-English bilingual dictionary is the imposed nature of this use, in the sense that the larger educational context demanded and enforced it. In the case of the six research participants who at the time of the research were attending the Hungarian minority education, the connection between the languages L1 Hungarian-L2 Romanian-L3 English was a more complex one than in the case of those six research participants who were attending the Romanian mainstream education. Although in the closer educational context these former participants used L1 Hungarian as the language of education, and this was officially the language which was relied on by teachers in the teaching of foreign languages, L2 Romanian, which is the official language of the country, was present during the language lessons in the form of dictionary use and translation tasks. This situation can be presumed to be at the roots of these Transylvanian-Hungarian multilinguals’ preference for relying more on their L2 Romanian than on their L1 Hungarian in the process of L3 English lexical unit retrieval in general and during the narrative composition task.
2. Language use demarcated by place and activity
The open code L2 dictionary in the L1 learning environment in learning the L3 was also included in the category language use demarcated by place/activity because the employment of the Romanian-English dictionary was visibly connected to the activity of looking up L3 English words and linked to the tasks assigned at school.
The present category was further substantiated by the accounts of those participants who were attending mainstream Romanian education and talked about aiming to employ solely L3 English when composing texts in English, and also about employing L2 Romanian for a wide range of academic activities, and even for thinking. Excerpt (42) and Excerpt (43) illustrate two such accounts.
(42)
P.E.: Amikor nem jutott eszedbe egy angol szó, akkor a románt használtad segítségként. Sokszor románul is fogalmaztál, majd lefordítottad angolra.
Általában így dolgozol, amikor angol szöveget kell írnod?
Sz.E.: Nem mindig, mert próbálok angolul fogalmazni, egyenesen angolul fogalmazni. De mindent románul tanulok, és ezen a nyelven könnyebben tudok gondolkodni. Ezért a fogalmazás is könnyebben megy.
[P.E.: When you did not remember an English word, you used a Romanian one as help. You often composed the text in Romanian, and then you translated it. Is it the usual way you proceed when you have to write an English text?
Sz.E.: Not always because I try to compose in English, directly in English. But I learn everything in Romanian, and I can think more easily in it. This is why composing is easier, too.]
(43)
P.E.: Gyakran fordítottál románról angolra, és a román-angol szótárt használtad.
Szoktál magyar-angol szótárt használni?
H.B.: Nem, mert nincs rá szükségem. Az iskolában minden románul megy, minden tantárgyat románul tanulok. Nem kell fordítanom magyarra, mert mindent megértek.
[P.E.: You often translated from Romanian into English and you used the Romanian-English dictionary. Do you ever use the Hungarian-English
dictionary?
H.B.: No, because I don’t need it. At school, everything is in Romanian. I learn every subject in Romanian. I don’t have to translate anything into Hungarian because I understand everything.]
3. Similarities across languages support reliance
A third category which got more substance from the data collected in the post-task interviews, is that of similarities across languages as a supporting factor for language reliance, understood as the employment of one language as a support, or facilitator, for processing of another language or languages. The power of similar vocabulary items—be they interlingual homographs or cognates—in organizing the mental lexicon and in guiding reliance on language has been already demonstrated by SLA, bilingual research (e.g., Kondrak, 2013; Peeters et al., 2013; Rigbom, 2007; Vucinic, 2011), and multilingual studies
(Hall & Ecke, 2003). Thus, this phenomenon can be regarded as a well-documented and conspicuous characteristic of the ability of knowing and using several languages: it is one of the “realities” (Todeva & Cenoz, 2009, book title) of the multilingual condition. The power of similar vocabulary in organizing bilinguals’ and multilinuals’ mental lexicon and in establishing support languages has usually been discussed under the umbrella terms of cross-linguistic influence and language transfer. While several researchers have drawn parallels between cross-linguistic influence and speech errors (e.g., Ecke, 2001, 2015;
Poulisse, 1999; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994), others have adopted a more positive approach and focused on its beneficial effect on? cognition and language use (e.g., Cummins, 2010;
Creese, 2010; Ringbom, 2007). The research participants mentioned in the pre-task interview (see Excerpt (5)) how similarities between and across languages acted as positive factors in language learning and processing. Instances of cognate facilitation were also present in the think-aloud protocols (see Excerpt (27), Excerpt (28)). Then, the post-task interviews yielded additional comments on the facilitative role of similar words. One such account is illustrated in Excerpt (44). These pieces of data were coded and taken into consideration in theory building. Initially, I interpreted the category of similarity across languages as support for reliance as an independent category closely connected to the category languages used together. In a subsequent stage of coding, I changed the category similarity across languages as support for reliance into a property, or dimension, of the category languages used together. The relationship between this category and its property is one of cause-effect based on Spradley (1979, p. 111): similarity between languages causes their coupling, or similar languages are used one in the support for the other.
(44)
P.E.: Beszéltél arról, hogy a hasonló szavak miatt könnyebb tanulni bizonyos nyelveket. Az angolt és a németet említetted. Mit értesz a hasonló alatt?
S.S.: Amikor elkezdtem a németet, akkor láttam mennyi szót tudok már az angol miatt. Akkor hasonló két szó, ha például egyformán írják. Vagy majdnem egyformán írják. És ugyanazt jelentik.
P.E.: Tudsz adni egy példát?
S.S.: Nem tudok….most nem jut eszembe ilyen./../ Hát, a legkönnyebb, például, a blue és a blau. Vagy az end és az ende.
[P.E.: You mentioned that because of the similar words it is easier to learn certain languages. You mentioned English and German. What do you mean by similar?
S.S.: When I started German, I realized how many words I already knew because of English. Two words are similar when they are written similarly. Or almost similarly. And they have the same meaning.
P.E.: Can you give me an example?
S.S.: I can’t…I don’t remember any now. /…/ Well, the easiest, for instance is blue and blau. Or, end and ende.]
With a closer examination of the property similarities across languages as support for reliance, we immediately notice that its essence lies in the potential of orthographically, phonologically and sematically similar lexical units belonging to different languages to contribute to the fluency of mental processes in terms of encoding or accessing relevant target vocabulary. The organizing power of similar vocabulary units across languages within the mental lexicon is a very strong one because it is a mechanism rooted in a basic learning process, distilled in the principle that existing knowledge plays a crucial role in further learning (Bransford et al., 2000; Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Dienes et al., 2011; Piaget, 1963; Ringbom, 2007; Schank & Abelson, 1977; Spiro, 1977; Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1934). It can be argued that the effect of similar vocabulary units to link languages, and by extension to determine which language is employed as a support for the other, can overshadow the effects of other mental-lexicon organizing effects. This is especially so because similar lexical units across languages themselves can produce in the language user the feeling of ease-of-processing because of the frequency facilitation effect, that is, because of the “simultaneous activation of the same information from two sources” (Vucinic, 2011, p.122).
Thus, at this stage of theory building I was in the possession of one superposed category grounded in the data through two subcategories which descrbe two phenomena that can both potentially lead to a multilingual’s same action of relying on the support of the words belonging to one language in the processing of the words of another language:
- languages used together because of the similarities across languages in terms of cognates and interlingual homographs, and the fluency of mental processes these make possible;
- languages used together as a consequence of encoding specificity (one being the context for learning the other) and the subsequent effect of fluency in processing.
In Section 5 dedicated to theory building, I propose a substantive theory that incorporates the core category languages used together with its two subcategories despite the fact that the first subcategory has already gained the status of a well-documented principle of reliance on languages in bilingualism and SLA studies. Thus, at this stage, assuming the risk of being
admonished for having reinvented the wheel and putting forward a substantive theory containing an already well-documented phenomenon, I maintained a larger conceptual landscape.
The formulation of the substantive theory was followed by a new stage of theoretical sampling which aimed at a better nuancing of its categories and delimiting the theory’s scope as proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), Lehmann (2010), Urquhart et al. (2010) and Urquhart (2013, 2019). To better delimit the theory’s scope, I collected data from a group of multilinguals who knew and used typologically distant languages. This second phase of the research—not included in the present dissertation— can be considered as a step taken toward theory extension (Urquhart, 2019).