The Questionnaire

The main research concern of qualitative research, and of studies within the GTM paradigm, is to “discover meaningful patterns descriptive of particular phenomenon”

(Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003, p. 3). The particular phenomenon I wanted to study was how multilinguals rely on their several languages in an intersemiotic meaning making process, the ways they access target words and the “’human’ side” (Mack et al., 2005, p. 1) of these processes, namely the multilinguals’ opinions, beliefs and behaviours in relationship with these processes. As I intended to use the think-aloud method and the interview as methods of data collection, I planned to engage a limited number of multilingual participants to take part in the study. Thus, the sampling of participants was circumscribed first by the research concerns and then by the methods of data collection I envisaged to use. Such framed sampling is known as criterion sampling (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Palys, 2008) or quota sampling (Mack et al., 2005) and both are types of purposive sampling.

Sampling was conducted by way of a questionnaire (see Appendix G). The main characteristics of the questionnaire are presented here. In the section dedicated to the research procedure, the process of sampling is detailed.

The questionnaire was devised to collect biographical data and information about language learning and use of a group of respondents belonging to a larger population of multilinguals. The criteria based on which the participants in the study were chosen are presented below along with their theoretical underpinnings and working definition adopted in the study. The criteria are as follows:

1. A linguistic repertoire uniting more than two languages at various proficiency levels with “a patchwork of competences and skills” (Blommaert & Backus, 2013b, p. 11)

This criterion establishes the need for the participant to have a multilingual language knowledge. In my view, multilinguality is the “knowledge and use of more than two languages with fluctuating linguistic and communicative competence” (Boksay Pap, 2015, p. 87). Any of the languages of a multilingual can be used separately or intervowen with the other languages parts of the MML, depending on the communicative situation or the linguistic problem to be solved. In the sampling process, proficiency levels for the languages known and used by the participants were not a requirement. This is partly because of the much-contested ways of how to define proficiency (Blommaert & Backus, 2013b), partly because of the disagreement surrounding language proficiency tests (Broek & van den Ende, 2013;

Fulcher, 2003, 2004; Jessner, 2008a) and partly because of the impossibility and impracticality of testing each research participant’s proficiency level in each language he uses (Jessner, 2008a; Thompson, 2015). Instead of testing the language proficiency for each

language, the current research on multilinguality has adopted the notions of “multilingual proficiency” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002, p. 128) and “flexible multilingualism” (Ganassin &

Holmes, 2013, p. 342), and switched its focus to asking the participants to report on their self-perceived ability to use their languages (Grosjean, 2011; Todeva & Cenoz, 2009).

2. The presence of English in the linguistic repertoire as one of the foreign languages learnt (preferably in educational settings)

English is the most studied foreign language in continental Europe (Vassiliou &

Semeta, 2012), being either the first or the second foreign language taught in elementary and secondary schools. Consequently, it is sure to be one of the languages which is part of multilingual people’s linguistic repertoire. In light of these, I reasoned that it would not be difficult to find multilingual participants who know and use English. The set of questions exploring the respondents’ English knowledge and use contains a series of questions (Questions 28, 29, 30) which collected information about the respondents’ strategies in situations when they faced lexical problems and information about the languages used in inner thinking. These aspects of language use have been introduced in the questionnaire because the exploration of the strategies used to tackle lexical problems and reliance on dictionaries can yield valuable information on the organization and dynamics of the MML (Centeno-Cortés & Jiménez Jiménez, 2004; Jiménez Jiménez, 2015; Santos Garcia &

Saldana Salazar, 2007). Nevertheless, in the questionnaire, Questions 28-30 had only orienting value in the sense that the answers to these questions were not taken into consideration in the process of purposeful sampling. The topics of strategies for solving lexical problems, dictionary use, and thinking in languages were explored in the later stages of the research, namely during the think-aloud process and the post-task interview.

3. Having studied English approximately four years

As it was mentioned earlier, a certain language proficiency level in any of the languages present in the linguistic repertoire was not imposed as a requirement. However, a period of approximately four years dedicated to studying English was set as a sampling criterion.

Based on studies (Brutt-Griffler, 2010; Vassiliou & Semeta, 2012) exploring vocabulary and genre knowledge of young learners who were learning their first foreign language in formal school settings, it is suggested that within this time period, learners manage to master the knowledge useful in describing familiar everyday activities, events and experiences, immediate environment, opinions, plans, and in giving reasons. Furthermore, within this time period, they are introduced to writing narratives in the foreign language they study (Chisega-Negrila & Ionel, 2012; Knoblauch & Brannon, 1983; Söter, 1988).

4. Usual practice and use of the languages belonging to the linguistic repertoire In the sampling process, the criterion of usual practice and use of language had the role of identifying participants with a heterogeneous and varied linguistic diet (Bak &

Mehmedbegovic, 2017). The criterion of usual practice and use of language is a multidimensional construct which falls along a continuum. It comprises all the languages known by an individual irrespective of the proficiency level and of being modern languages, such as French or English, or classical ones, such as Latin or Greek. Frequency of language use depends on a series of contextual factors and one of its characteristics is high idiosyncrasy, which manifests both at individual and group level. For instance, in a multilingual linguistic space (Gogolin et al., 2013), such as the western region of Romania where several languages coexist, a secondary-school multilingual individual whose home language and L1 is Transylvanian Hungarian uses this language on a daily basis for mundane communication. At the same time, he probably uses standard Hungarian during the Hungarian language and literature lessons. He uses his L2 Romanian, the official language of the country, for communication within the larger society, including friends and acquaintances. Furthermore, he uses his L3 English during the English lessons at school, and for socializing and communicative purposes on the net. Then, he uses L4 Latin strictly for carrying out school-related tasks, such as reading, translating, and, sometimes, memorizing texts. Additionally, he may use his L5 French similarly to his L4 Latin.

Alternatively, if he has contacts on the net, he can also extend the use of this L5 language to this linguistic space. This is an example which gives a quick glance at how varied and stratified multilingual language use can be for one individual in one multilingual linguistic space. The questionnaire employed for sampling contains questions that attempt to take stock of the respondents’ languages and the varied aspects of use.

5. Familiarity with narrative composition tasks based on pictorial representations A fifth criterion in the recruitment of participants was familiarity with narrative composition tasks based on picture series. This kind of writing task is sometimes employed in lower- and upper-secondary-school L1 writing classes (Fülöp, 2006), and it occasionally appears as a task in teaching writing in a foreign language (Polio, 2003). There are also foreign language proficiency tests, such as the ECL Language Test developed by the European Consortium for the Certificate of Attainment in Modern Languages, which use pictorial representations as writing prompts.

Notwithstanding the identification of narrative skills as being valuable assets for cognition (Hardy, 1974; Herman, 2009, 2013) and as constituting a firm support for learning in general (M. C. Clark & Rossiter, 2008; Moon, 2010; Radcliffe, 2012), narrative writing

tends to be somewhat marginalised (Nash, 2004). This tendency is one of the result of the hierarchy of knowing propagated by contemporary education in general, which privileges certain types of knowledge and skills over others (Moon, 2010; Radcliffe, 2012). As a result, familiarity with narrative composition, and especially composition based on pictorial representations, cannot be taken for granted in the case of secondary school students. The criterion of familiarity with narrative composition tasks was aimed at sampling multilingual participants who were able to take part in the research, and especially in the think-aloud activity, without needing preliminary training in composition writing.

The process of preparing the questionnaire took place similarly to the pre-task interview. In this process, the hybrid brainstorming (Girotra et al., 2010; Korde & Paulus, 2017) sessions with the colleagues in my doctoral-school group proved extremely effective in terms of both delineating the criteria for sampling and making adjustments to the wording of questions.

This section provided a detailed account of the data collection instruments so as to provide a clear-cut background for the description of how the study was conducted. The next section outlines the data collection.