THE İNTERACTION OF LANGUAGES IN THE LEXICAL SEARCH OF MULTILINGUAL LANGUAGE USERS

(BARKER, 2006)

Who knows more than two languages?

Who knows more than three languages?

Suppose that you are in a study in which you are asked to translate from your L1 to L3, and from your L2 to L3.

What properties of the language would you make use of – lexical, phonological, syntactical etc.?

Ben universitye gittim. Yazları farmer olarak babama yardım ediyordum.

Let’s remember then, the conditions in which lexical transfer occurs!

Lexical Transfer Occurs When:

the TL (target language) element has not been acquired because of insufficient input or no input at all;

the TL element has been internalized by the learner but he/she cannot access/activate it at the moment of performance (especially in immediate tasks such as speaking);

the rules acquired are not sufficient/complete and do not account for all necessary applications;

the rules can only be approximated, e.g. the English system of indefinite and definite articles.

(Gabrys, 1999: 170– 71).

There are many factors affecting language performance of multilinguals; such as

the real and perceived langugae distance Languge markedness Learners’ learning history etc.

BUTThe study by Danuta Gabrys-Barker (2006) considers the influence of another variable which is lexical processing and its results in trilingual context.

Lexical Transfer Errors in Multilingual Production

language switches; coinages; deceptive cognates; calques; semantic extensions.

Both in meaning

and in form

Coinages A subcategory of coinage, blend happens when the learner does

not have the counterpart of a word in TL. He creates a new word by using the characteristics of an already known word either in L1 or in L2. Ceremonie – Zeremonie (German) Conflict – confliction (by Esra)(French)

Deceptive Cognates If there is formal similarity in one word between two langugaes,in

order to find the meaning of the intended one, the learner uses the similar L2 word. Sympathy (English) (sempati – Turkish) Macchina (Italian) (makine – Turkish) Appartement/ Appartment (French/English) (Apartman - Turkish)

Foreignising strategy is used

Calque Word or phrase borrowed from another language by

literal, word-for-word or root-for-root translation.

Heavy-headed – Ağırbaşlı (English – Turkish)

Semantic extensions The wrong contextual use of the word, overextension or

near synonym

Arkadaşım güzel, kibar ve ateşli bir kadındır. (English – hot) Get out! (Turkish – dışarı çıkar mısınız lütfen?) (by Emrah)

Ringbom (2001) believes that as the learner’s L2 proficiency develops, these lexical transfer errors occur less and less.

How does a multilingual brain function? Are all the languages stored in the brain seperately or is there any

interconnectedness?

Herwig(2001):The languages in the multilingual brain are linked, but they can also be activetated independently.Paradis (1987):Languages of a multilingual are not static but flexible and dynamic

Lexical Processing of Multilinguals

Lexical process:1. Lexical search ( the stage of appropriate conceptualization)2. Lexical retrieval (access and activation of an appropriate wowrd in mental lexicon)

When several languages are involved, language processing becomes a complex procedure determined by linguistic variables such as:

Word characteristics Language proficiency

STUDY DESCRİPTİON

The paper investigates the problem of lexical search performed by multilingual language users and analyzes the interaction of different languages present or not present during translation process (L1, L2 and L3).

Research Hypothesis: the language of input the informants are exposed to while performing the task will be the main but not the only variable determining the language processing and the final outcome (the translation of the text).

The study focuses on the analysis of types of lexical processing observed and the examples of transfer errors resulting from the activation and interaction of the languages involved in the task.

INFORMANTS

Students at a foreign language department of a Portuguese university

L1 =>Portuguese L2 => advanced English L3 => pre-intermediate German

The selected text: a short newspaper article about wine industry The first group: from Portuguese to German (L3) The second group: from English (L2) to German(L3) Text difficulty: Slightly beyond their L3 competence

METHOD

Simultaneous introspection (a verbalization of language processing concurrent with the performance of translation task). It allows both for analyzing the translation and following the process-

Thinking aloud protocols (TAP)

Written translation as a non-immediate task is preferred since the task involves conscious processing.

P.S. The informants had practiced verbalization beforehand.

IN LEXİCAL SELECTİON:

Attention was paid to lexical accuracy and the ability to manipulate the text in the case of lexical inadequacy, and not to the grammatical correctness.

The researchers wanted to know which items would bring about a more elaborate lexical search.

LEXİCAL PROCESSİNG İN BOTH CASES

Patterns of lexical search in the L1 input task:

The verbalization data in the L1 task is very scarce.

The level of verbalization observed is higher than in the L2 task by 22% (Gabry -Barker, 2002),

The learners commented not on processing the language, but the task difficulty or of one’s performance

Ai nao fico a minima idea de como se diz (I haven’t

got the slightest idea)

•Subjects made no attempt to reformulate the text or use any strategy.

Subjects were incapable of restructuring the text in L1 or they were not aware that the lexical search might be facilitated by L1 text manipulation.

There were only two subjects who activated their L2, this didn’t facilitate the performance, rather it led to code-switching in L1 or L2.

Consider this example:“…mercados-mercados-mercados…market-market-

business-greipe auf die immer grossere….”

THE HOLİSTİC ANALYSİS OF SUBJECTS’ PERFORMANCE İN L1 TASK (GABRYS-BARKER, 2002)

Input Search Output Comment

Pattern 1 L1 0 0 No verbalisation

Pattern 2 L1 L3/L1 L3 L3 activation, syntactic processing

Pattern 3 L1 L1/L2/L3 L1/L2 Code-switching

With reference to

The Task (verbalisation & translation)*The lack & incompleteness of verbalisations and the translated text*Extremely long pauses*Word by word translation, fragmentary, jumping across the text

Language Processing*Failure and lack of persistence in the lexical search (no code-switching)*Focus more on grammatical than lexical processing*Mechanical repetition used extensively*No L1 awareness manifested in the performance

Affective Level of Performance*Negative evaluation of the task (High difficulty)*Negative evaluation of oneself (Giving up)

Patterns of Lexical Search in the L2 Input Task

Level of verbalization

L2 51% while L1 73 %

However, the L2 performance demonstrates more explicit linguistic processing data as opposed to the L1 task data, which provide very little evidence of language processing.

Patterns of Lexical Search in the L2 Input Task

In L2 task, the subjects used various lexical search strategies:

Simplification:(…) hm-pointed out-called attention-ok say it the other

way-hat gesagt-das ist-es ist sehr wichtig

Foreignizing: producing a word that would resemble an L3 lexical item

in spelling or suffix, etc:producers I don’t know – Produktoren* – Produktoren

Semantic extension: called attention to the need to develop markets – emphasised –

emphasised – reminded – ennerte von (the correct synonym of “remind” in German: erinnert)– stressed –stress – não

Word Coinage:• Creation of long- typically German- complex words

Wine producers – wie sagt man dass – Weinmachers – Weinmachers – I don’t know if this word exists in German – Weinmacher

Code-switching

Des drei representatives – representanten fur (…) die Government – die Government

Patterns of Lexical Search in the L2 Input Task

In the first stage, automatic translation into L1

In the second stage, L3 is activated

In both stages, no explicit processing or verbalisation is manifested.

With reference to

The Task (verbalisation & translation)*More verbal processing observed and richer data than in L1 task*Text analysis at a higher level

Language Processing*More elaborate language processing search observed (fewer instances of no translation or code-switching)*Cross-linguistic consultation commonly noticed between L2 and L3*A range of L2 based recall strategies used for the purposes of lexical search*Little use made of L1 competence and language awareness*Importance of metalinguistic awareness in L2 and L3

Affective Level of Performance*Task difficulty *Negative evaluation of one’s performance*The comments activates L1 for negative evaluation and L2 for positive remarks

NON-TRANSFER ERRORS

They are all examples of paraphrasing and these errors constitute only approximations on the intended meaning.

The learner tries to translate English word “profoundly” into German, he is to say “beeinfluss hat”, but instead he used the only word he knows for this meaning, which is “sehr wichitg” only a paraphrase.

How do you think we can use this research in the environment of second/foreign language learning and teaching?

Implications for the Practice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

1) Degree of automaticity: In L1 input, verbalization was much more automatic and lexical search didn’t activate their L1 or possibly L2.

In L2 input it was more elaborate, conscious and deliberate which showed their metalinguistic knowledge.

Implications for the Practice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

2) Languages activated:

In L1 input, mostly L1 and occasionally L3. In the second group mostly source language (L2)

and L3 to a lesser degree. Only the ones (10%) who had acquired L3 in natural settings first translated L2 items into L1 and performed the search in L3.

Implications for the Practice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

3) Approach to the task: In L1 input translation, it was much more a word-for-word

process and automatic solutions to individual words were observed. The second group process the text itself and their focus on the correctness of form is also seen.

Implications for the Practice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

4) Strategies of retrieval:

No detailed comments except for affective comments expressing difficulty were observed due to automatic processing. In L2 input strategies based on L2 lexical competence such as paraphrase, circumlocution, blending, semantic field search were observed.

Code-switching seems to appear in both tasks. The learners are unable to access to the language that is not a surface one.

Implications for the Practice of Second/Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

5) Types of errors:

87% transfer errors in L1 vs. 60% transfer errors in L2 due to different processing strategies. In both cases the language of input served as the source for lexical transfer just like code-switching examples.

SOME DİDACTİC İMPLİCATİONS The study highlights the importance of learners’

metacognition understood as both knowledge about and knowledge how.

The subjects’ expertise in their mother tongue did not facilitate their performence, and this is because their language awareness in L1 implicit. A surprising deduction is that eliminating L1 from language teaching (which is highly suggested) can be the direct cause of this.

SOME DİDACTİC İMPLİCATİONS

The use of prior knowledge, i.e. of one’s L1, could contribute to learners’

success both at the cognitive level (objective language progress) and at the affective level (less anxiety and

higher self-confidence)

THANK YOU!

THANK YOU!