FOCUS ON MULTILINGUALISM:A STUDY OF TRILINGUAL WRITING

Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter

University of the Basque Country/Ikerbasque

Published as: Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on Multilingualism: a Study
of Trilingual Writing, The Modern Language Journal, 95, 3, 356-369 DOI:
10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x

Abstract

This article we start by looking at the similarities between Second Language

Acquisition studies and studies on bilingualism, and at new trends pointing in the
direction of looking at the different languages in the speaker’s linguistic repertoire.
Based on these trends, we propose a “Focus on Multilingualism” that looks at the whole
linguistic repertoire and the relationships between the languages when conducting
research, teaching or assessing different languages. In the second part of the article we
report on the results of an exploratory study on the development of writing skills in
Basque, Spanish and English. We explore different ways to look at the three languages
and their interaction by focusing on the multilingual speaker rather than each of the
specific languages. We argue that by focusing on the different languages we can gain
new insights about the way languages are learned and used.

Introduction

In this paper we combine different perspectives in the study of Second Language

Acquisition and Bi/Multilingualism studies as a basis to propose a “Focus on
Multilingualism” for both research and teaching. First, in the section “Second Language
Acquisition and Bilingualism” we look at some common characteristics of research and
teaching in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism and some new trends that
bring together these two areas of Applied Linguistics and the different languages being
learned and used in school contexts.
We follow with the section “The Study” so as to analyse if a “Focus on
Multilingualism” perspective can provide new information as compared to traditional
approaches. In order to do so an exploratory research study on writing skills in Basque,
Spanish and English in formal and informal contexts is reported. Then we look at the
correlations between the scores in the three languages, multidirectionality in language
transfer, common general writing skills and language mixing in informal writing.
Finally, we discuss the potential contribution of “Focus on Multilingualism” for
research in language acquisition and language use and also for language teaching.

Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism

Traditionally studies on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Bilingualism

have ignored each other. While SLA has focused on the process of becoming bilingual,
bilingualism looks at what it means to be bilingual (see also Block, 2003, Ortega, 2010).
1
SLA has addressed issues such as the role of different factors affecting the acquisition
of second languages (age, motivation, etc), the development of phonetic, lexicon,
morphosyntactic, pragmatic and discourse competence in a second language or the
effect of instruction or different types of instruction on SLA (see for example Doughty
& Long, 2005). Bilingualism has paid attention to the psycholinguistic functioning of
the mind when having two codes, the early acquisition of two languages or the cognitive
outcomes of being bilingual. At the social and educational levels, the main focus has
been on the provision and evaluation of bilingual education and on language policy in
society (see for example Baker, 2006).
In educational contexts, research on SLA and research on bilingualism take
different angles but at the same time they share some characteristics:

i. They have rarely gone beyond two languages, although SLA and bilingualism are
sometimes used as umbrella terms for additional languages.
ii. Bilingual competence and L2 competence have been measured from a monolingual
perspective against the yardstick of the native speaker of the different languages in the
case of bilingualism or the target language in SLA.
iii. Code-mixing and code switching have a strong tradition in the study of bilingualism
from a sociolinguistic perspective (see for example, Muysken, 2000; Gardner-Chloros,
2009). Whereas multilinguals establish “soft boundaries” between their languages,
“hard boundaries” have been built between languages in school contexts both in the
case of second/foreign language acquisition and bilingual education. Some indicators of
this separation are the association of one teacher to one language, or specific use of one
classroom for a specific language. Even in the case of bilingual and multilingual schools
the syllabuses for the different languages are often independent and not integrated. This
approach has been called “parallel monolingualism” (Heller 1999: 271) or “two
solitudes” (Cummins 2005: 588).
These common characteristics of bilingualism and SLA are widespread and
generally accepted in different parts of the world but some points have been contested
since the late 1980’s. For example, in the field of bilingualism, Grosjean criticized the
monolingual view of bilingualism that he called the ‘fractional view’ that evaluates a
bilingual as two monolinguals in one person (Grosjean, 1985). He proposed a bilingual
(or holistic) view of bilingualism so that bilinguals are considered as fully competent
speaker-hearers who have a unique linguistic profile (Grosjean, 1989; 2008).
In the field of SLA, Cook (1995) proposed that L2 users are fundamentally
different from L1 users and should be examined in their own right. Because of the
presence of more than one language in their repertoire, Cook argued that “second
language users” develop a complex type of competence, which is qualitatively different
from the competence of monolingual speakers of a language (Cook 1992). Cook
proposed the notion of “multicompetence” to designate a unique form of language
competence that is not necessarily comparable to that of monolinguals. Cook adopts a
view of languages as discrete systems in his proposal of multicompetence and has been
criticized for not paying enough attention to the role of context (see Hall, Cheng &
Carlson, 2006).
In the last years there have been new trends in SLA and also in bilingualism
theory and research that are compatible with this holistic approach proposed by
Grosjean and Cook. Taken together these proposals go beyond two languages, highlight
the characteristics of bilinguals and multilinguals as being different from native
speakers, and emphasize the interaction between their languages.

2
New trends in SLA

In SLA, the focus on the language has switched to an increasing interest in the
learner, the communicative interaction and the context in which the interaction takes
place. According to Dynamic Systems Theory, SLA can be understood as a complex,
dynamic system in which all variables are interrelated and can influence one another
(Larsen-Freeman, 1997; De Bot, Lowie & Verspoor, 2007). The context in which
communication takes place is crucial because a language is not a fixed code that is
ready-made for users before they start using it, but it is created or at the very least
assembled from conventional units each time it is used. (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron,
2008: 101). As Herdina & Jessner (2002: 89) point out when referring to
bi/multilingualism the development of a multilingual repertoire has characteristics such
as non-linearity, interdependence and complexity.
Sociocultural and ecological approaches are also important trends in SLA
research, which are compatible with Dynamic Systems Theory (Van Lier, 2004). These
approaches have gained ground since the publication of Firth and Wagner’s article in
1997 in which they argue for the impossibility of analysing SLA learners’ performance
in isolation from the context. As Kramsch & Whiteside (2008) point out, learners need
to acquire the skills and competences to be accepted as competent members of a
community of practice; it is not enough to have the correct mental representations.
When applied to multilingualism, ecological approaches look at interactions in
multilingual environments as complex dynamic systems where speakers shape the very
context in which the language is learned and used (Kramsch 2010).
In the last years, there has been a growing body of research on the acquisition of
a third or additional languages (see for example articles in the International Journal of
Multilingualism). The main issue discussed in this research is the identification of the
characteristics that distinguish SLA from the acquisition of additional languages (L3,
L4, etc). Even though the focus is often, as in the case of SLA, on the process of
acquiring a specific language, the identification of specific characteristics associated
with additional languages is necessarily linked to the outcomes of being bi/multilingual.
Therefore, bi/multilingualism and the third (or additional) language acquisition are
brought together. One of the outcomes of bi/multilingualism often associated with the
acquisition of additional language is the development of metalinguistic awareness,
understood as the ability to reflect on language and to manipulate it (see also Bialystok,
2001). Bilinguals have been reported to have advantages over monolinguals in some
dimensions of metalinguistic awareness that demand high levels of control of attention
(Bialystok 2001, see also Jessner 2006).
A related trend in Applied Linguistics is the extended use of English as a lingua
franca and the role of the native speaker as a model in SLA (Seidlhofer, 2007;
Canagarajah, 2007). Research in this area analyzes communication practices among
speakers of different languages; it brings together the use of English and
bi/multilingualism, and at the same time, considers multilingual competence as a
different type of competence. The widespread use of English along with other languages
calls into question the goal of achieving a level of competence similar to that of the
monolingual native speaker of the target language or using several languages in the way
monolingual speakers of each of the languages use them.
These new trends in SLA (or in the acquisition of additional languages) are
compatible with the findings reported in neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics about
the strong interaction between the languages used by multilingual speakers. For

3
example, a strong level of activation of the different languages has been reported when
speakers of three languages complete tasks in one of the languages (Dijkstra & Van
Hell, 2003). In a similar vein, when reviewing a number of studies on the multilingual
lexicon, Singleton (2003: 169) concluded that there is a "high degree of connectivity
and dynamic interplay between the L1 mental lexicon and additional mental lexicons".

New trends in bilingualism

Code-switching has been considered “the most distinctive behaviour of the

bilingual speaker; there is no better behavioural indicator to show that a speaker is
bilingual than when s/he is using two languages simultaneously in social interaction.”
(Li Wei & Wu, 2009: 193). Multilinguals may mix or switch languages because they
have a lexical gap and need a word from the other language they know but they also
mix or switch languages in creative ways for different communicative functions.
Multilinguals use the languages at their disposal as a resource in communication and
these practices contribute to the development of their multilingual and multicultural
identities (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007). Code-mixing and code-switching practices are
common from a very early age in the case of bilingual and trilingual children and they
are topic-related and affected by cultural and situational factors (Stavans & Swisher,
2006). In fact, cross-linguistic processes are related to linguistic, psycholinguistic and
sociolinguistic factors and range from transfer of one single element to code-switching
(see Muysken, 2000; Gardner-Chloros, 2009). Transfer from the first into the second
language has traditionally been a central issue in SLA research. Traditionally it was
considered a deficient use of the target language due to the influence of the first
language and was referred to as “interference” Nowadays, this term is discredited
because of its behavioristic connotations and “cross-linguistic influence” has more
currency (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). As the study of transfer has focused on the second
language, the influence of the L1 on the L2 has been the main type of transfer analysed.
Nowadays it has been proved that it can be bidirectional (Cook, 2003; Jarvis &
Pavlenko, 2008). Studies in third language acquisition have also reported other patterns
and particularly that L3 learners are influenced both by their first and second languages
(Clyne, 1997; Williams & Hammarberg 1998; De Angelis, 2007, Ringbom, 2007;
Cenoz, 2009).
Can transfer (or “cross-linguistic influence”) really be distinguished from code-
switching and code-mixing? By adopting a more holistic view that brings together SLA
and bi/multilingualism studies and takes into account all the languages in the linguistic
repertoire of the multilingual learner and user, transfer, code-mixing and code-switching
processes can be better represented as different positions along a continuum than as
separate processes. Such studies show that the languages that are being learned and used
are interrelated. As Garcia (2008: 32) explains languages “are not fixed codes by
themselves; they are fluid codes framed within social practices”. Multilingual speakers
have more resources available in their linguistic repertoire than monolingual speakers
and they use them to achieve their communication goals. As Block (2007:72) suggests,
multilinguals do not seem to be semilingual but hyperlingual.
The idea of mixing elements from different languages is not considered acceptable
by most researchers, teacher educators and teachers. However, some steps have been
given in a different direction and the idea of using different languages as a resource in
bi/multilingual educational contexts has been proposed recently. Terms such as
“translanguaging” (Williams, 2002; see also García, 2008) or “flexible bilingualism”
(Creese & Blackledge, 2010) refer to multilingual practices that use languages as a

4
resource without establishing clear-cut boundaries between the languages.
Translanguaging refers to the combination of two (or more) languages in a systematic
way within the same learning activity. Baker (2006: 297) highlights that the alternation
of languages needs to be the result of “strategic classroom language planning” and not
just allowing for code-switching in the classroom. According to Williams (2002: 29)
translanguaging “is a natural way of developing and strengthening both languages
whilst simultaneously gaining a deeper understanding”. The idea of translanguaging is
appealing because it establishes a bridge between the way languages are used by
bi/multilingual in everyday communication and the teaching and learning of languages
at school. However, it is still too early to know what the effect of these pedagogical
practices combining different languages on bi/multilingual proficiency is.
Within multilingual education another recent trend is to develop an integrated
curriculum including the different languages As Elorza and Muñoa explain (2008: 91),
an integrated curriculum “...brings together complementary facets of the learning
processes, while contrasting the specific linguistic aspects of each language. At the
same time it transfers, applies and generalizes what has been learned in one language
to the others”. An integrated curriculum can offer the best conditions to develop
metalinguistic awareness and enhance the acquisition of different languages.
Another trend that combines two languages in the same conversation is
“receptive multilingualism”. This takes place when interlocutors use their respective
first languages while speaking to each other (Ten Thije & Zeevaert, 2007). Receptive
multilingualism is part of the tradition of multilingual communication and has been
promoted as a way to increase mobility and improve communication among European
citizens but it is not common in school contexts yet.
These practices go against the conventions in most school contexts but as it has
already been said, they are characteristic of interaction among multilingual speakers.
These practices can also be found in the linguistic landscape particularly in the case of
commercial signs that combine languages not always to convey meaning but also to
increase their communicative effect (see Cenoz & Gorter, 2008). However, as Cenoz,
Gorter & Aiestaran (2010) reported, the use of two or more languages in signs inside
school buildings is rather exceptional. Even in the case of schools that aim at
developing multilingual competence, languages tend to be separated.
Outside the school, the same students who are taught to forget about the other
languages in their repertoire and to focus on one language at the time often engage in
multilingual practices. Their out-of-school practices combine elements from different
languages but also other semiotic elements (icons, fonts, sound and visuals) when
interacting with their peers on the internet (Facebook, MSN, etc) or texting.

A focus on multilingualism

So far we have seen that new trends in research on SLA and bi/multilingualism
are moving from the idea of considering one language at the time as if they were stored
in separate containers to focusing on the whole individual or social repertoire and
highlighting the connections between the languages. There have been interesting
theoretical advances that propose a more holistic view of the languages used and being
learned so that all the languages spoken by multilingual speakers and/or taught at school
are taken into account. Furthermore, the relationship between these languages can be
considered both in language learning and language use. As we have already seen, there
are pointers in the same direction in neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics and
sociolinguistics. However, a truly “Focus on Multilingualism” when conducting

5
research on SLA (or the acquisition of additional languages) and in the study of
bi/multilingualism is not yet common. For example, even though studies focusing on
third language acquisition bring together the outcomes of bilingualism and the
acquisition of an additional language they rarely adopt a genuine “multilingual”
perspective and just take bilingualism as one of the independent variables when
analysing the process of L3 acquisition (see Cenoz, 2009 for a review). This is the
canonical “monolingual focus” which follows the SLA tradition.
In contrast to these traditional approaches, “Focus on Multilingualism” looks at
the whole linguistic repertoire and the relationships between the languages when
conducting research, teaching or assessing different languages. The difference between
the traditional approach and “Focus on Multilingualism” can be seen in the following
figures:

Figure 1. Traditional approach Figure 2. “Focus on Multilingualism”

Both approaches aim at increasing competencies in different languages albeit

through a different conceptualization. Instead of considering each language a separate
entity, “Focus on Multilingualism” looks at the different languages as a whole and
explores their commonalities. It creates connections between the languages being
learned at school by using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy and highlights the
relationships between languages by creating specific activities so as to enhance
metalinguistic awareness.

“why is it needed in SLA research and what would it look like” INSTEAD OF
TRADITIONAL
-TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT S/HE KNOWS
The most common approaches to multilingualism in education both in research and
teaching go against the way languages are processed and do not take into account new
insights such as Dynamic System Theories or studies in psycholinguistics that prove the
relationship between the languages. These traditional approaches also go against the
way languages are used by multilinguals including code-mixing and code-switching in
conversations, the combination of different languages in the linguistic landscape or
multilingualism and multimodality on the internet.

> “why is it needed in school contexts and what would it look like.”

*BECAUSE WHAT YOU LEARN IN ONE LANGUGE TO ANOTHER

Research in educational settings that adopts a “Focus on Multilingualism”

approach applies to education the new trends identified in SLA and bi/multilingualism

6
studies such as Dynamic Systems Theory, sociocultural and ecological approaches,
additional languages, multilingualism in the linguistic landscape, code-switching and
translanguaging in school contexts. Furthermore it looks at multilingual learners as
different and not comparable to monolingual native speakers. Multilingual learners can
use their different languages as a resource and can have other multilingual learners as a
reference. “Focus on Multilingualism”, is potentially a more efficient way to acquire
languages than the traditional approach that keeps languages separated. In fact, it could
identify “connected growers” understood as subsystems that support each others’
growth (De Bot, Lowie & Verspoor, 2007).

As defined by Cenoz (2009: 32) Multilingual education implies teaching more

than two languages provided that schools aim at multilingualism and multiliteracy. It
combines bilingualism with the acquisition of a third or additional language.
Although multilingual schools aim at multilingualism as an outcome, their approach to
multilingualism has limitations because it does not reinforce the relationship between
the languages. In fact, schools have traditionally isolated the different languages that are
taught but new theoretical proposals and research studies in SLA, bilingualism,
psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and sociolinguistics point in a different direction. In
spite of the importance of multilingualism, there are still many areas to be explored, and
a “Focus on Multilingualism” is a crucial one.

**

A first step when adopting a “Focus on Multilingualism” approach in research on the

acquisition of languages in multilingual education is to analyse the contribution that this
focus can potentially have as compared to more traditional approach. In the next section
we report on an exploratory study that inquires how such approach contributes to the
acquisition of multilingualism in writing. The study aims at answering the following
question:

Does a “Focus on Multilingualism” based on written production in three languages

provide different information about multilingual learners than a monolingual
perspective?

The study

In this section we report the results of a exploratory study that aims at finding out what
type of relevant information can be found when a “Focus on Multilingualism”
perspective is adopted by looking at the different languages that are being learned and
used in a multilingual school instead of focusing only on a target language. As it will be
seen in this section we adopted a step-wise strategy to data analysis so as to explore
different possibilities. First, we will use a conventional approach by evaluating the
languages separately and then we will look at their relationship and goes into more
direct comparisons and hybrid texts. This study looks at writing skills and it is

7
exploratory showing some data so as to illustrate the possibilities that a “Focus on
Multilingualism” can provide as compared to focusing on each language at the time.
In this study we look at written production in Basque, Spanish and English. This
study was carried out in Basque schools, which can be regarded as a real laboratory of
multilingualism including three or four languages in the curriculum used as school
subjects and languages of instruction and bringing together situations of minority
language education, immersion education, and CLIL.

Subjects. Participants were 165 secondary school students (77 male; 85 female) who
had Basque and/or Spanish as their first language and lived in the Basque Country
(Spain). According to the background questionnaire participants filled in, Basque was
the first language for 31% of the students, Spanish was the first language for 46% of the
students and the rest of the students, 23%, had both Basque and Spanish as their first
languages. The mean age for the participants was 14.6. They all had Basque as the
language of instruction and they also studied Spanish and English as school subjects.
Although Basque is becoming the preferred language of instruction in some areas of the
Basque Country, Spanish is the majority language at the community level and the use of
Basque as the language of instruction does not prevent students from acquiring similar
levels of proficiency in Spanish as students who learn through the medium of Spanish
(Cenoz, 2009). English is introduced as a school subject from kindergarten but for a
limited number of sessions (2 to 4 hours per week) and there is not much exposure to
English outside the school. Some children study French as a fourth language.

Instruments and procedure. Participants completed a background questionnaire which

included questions on the knowledge and use of Basque in their social networks. They
wrote three compositions at school, one in each of the three languages analysed:
Basque, Spanish and English. Students were given a picture for each language and had
to write a composition in each language on different days. The instructions were in the
three cases the following: “Please describe in your own words what you see on the
picture, or tell a story about the people on the picture”. They were asked to write
approximately 250 words in each of the languages. The compositions were based on
pictures and were on different topics for the three languages but had a similar format.
Students were asked to write the compositions on different days. The compositions were
analysed by using the CLAN program following the CHAT and LIDES coding systems
(MacWhinney, 2000; Lipps Group, 2000). Some samples of informal communication
on Tuenti, the Spanish-based social network similar to Facebook, were also analysed.
These texts are examples of natural interaction outside school without any instructions
about the languages to used.

Results. In order to answer our research question four different analyses were
conducted. All of them had a “Focus on Multilingualism” approach and looked at the
production in the three languages at the same time. The analyses are the following: i)
composition scores; ii) multidirectionality in language transfer; iii) general writing
skills; iv) language mixing in informal writing.

i) Composition scores. The first step was to look at the possible relationship between
the compositions in the three languages by looking at the scores achieved in different
dimensions of writing. The compositions were graded according to the holistic approach
proposed by Jacobs et al. (1981). This system uses scales adding up to 100 points and
distributed as follows: content (30), organization (20), vocabulary (20), language use

8
(25) and mechanics (5). Once the results of the tests were codified, analyses were
conducted by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The scores
obtained in the compositions in the three languages can be seen in table 1 and the
correlations between the different dimensions measured and the total scores in table 2.

Table 1. Scores of compositions in Basque,Spanish and English

Basque Spanish English

S.D. S.D. S.D.

Content
26.76 2.34 26.08 2.29 22.24 3.78
(max=30)
Organization
18.02 1.67 17.40 1.58 15.02 3.04
(max=30)
Grammar
21.04 2.14 20.60 1.96 15.28 3.72
(max=30)
Vocabulary
17.34 1.60 17.15 1.59 12.82 2.88
(max=30)
Mechanics
4.44 .63 4.23 .71 3.47 1.00
(max=30)

Total
87.60 6.68 85.49 6.90 68.83 12.62

Table 2. Correlations between compositions in Basque, Spanish and English

Basque and Basque and Spanish and

9
 Spanish English English
Content 0.25* 0.31** 0.53**
Organization 0.13 0.12 0.31**
Grammar 0.24* 0.41** 0.28*
Vocabulary 0.21* 0.42** 0.30**
Mechanics 0.46** 0.20* 0.42**
Total 0.36** 0.47** 0.47**
*p < .05 **p < .01

The results indicate that there are significant correlations between each pair of
languages for most dimensions. In fact, with the exception of ‘organization’ all the other
correlations are significant. At the same time, there is no clear pattern indicating that the
correlations between two specific languages are much stronger than between other pairs
of languages. This is very interesting taking into account the combination of languages.
English is a Germanic language, Spanish a Romance languages and Basque is a non-
Indo-European language of unknown origin. The grammar of Basque is completely
different from the grammar of English and Spanish but our results indicate that the
correlations are significant. After centuries of contact between Basque and Spanish, the
vocabulary of these two languages has elements in common but the higher correlations
correspond to the correlations between Basque and English.
These results indicate that the different dimensions evaluated in the three
languages (content, structure, vocabulary, grammar and mechanics) are related to each
other. The results point in the direction that multilingual speakers have some skills
across their different languages. Students with a high score in mechanics or vocabulary
in one of the languages would also obtain good results in the other languages and vice
versa. The relationship between the languages used by multilinguals has been pointed
out in previous research in the case of writing skills (see for example, Sagasta, 2003).

ii) Multidirectionality in language transfer

As we have already seen cross-linguistic influence can take part in different

directions. When analysing the compositions it was observed that multilingual learners
use their languages in multiple directions and do not transfer only from the L1 to the L2.
The following examples are indicative of the different directions. Please notice that the
numbers in brackets correspond to the subjects’ IDs.

a. Transfer from the L1 (Spanish) to the L3 (English)

At the right, it is the bathroom, the lavadora for the clothes, and the bath to the peoples
of the house (122)

In this case a noun ‘lavadora”, the Spanish word for ‘washing machine’ is transferred
from the L1 to the L3. This is a common type of transfer identified in studies on third
language acquisition.

b. Transfer from the L2 (Basque) to the L3 (English)

On the chidrens room I'm looked a four children, one fish, a lot of toys for example a
montatzeko pieces (130) (montatzeko=to put together)

10
In this case the learner uses her L2 to transfer a verb from the L2 to the L3. This is also
a common type of transfer in L3 acquisition.

c. Transfer from the L1 (Spanish) to the L2 (Basque)

Spanish (L1) to Basque (L2)

parkean umeak jolasten daude eta tabernan izozkiak ezkatzen daude gero jendea
eguzkia hartzen daude eta jaten (5)
(children are playing in the park and ordering ice creams in the bar then people are
sunbathing and eating)

This is the most typical type of transfer studied in SLA, that is from the L1 to the L2. In
this case it is a direct translation from Spanish “están pidiendo” (are ordering) into
Basque instead of using the Basque form “eskatzen ari dira”.

d. Transfer from Basque (L1) to Spanish (L2)

En el corral de alado ahí más caballos con sus corceles, junto a ellos se encuentran las
vacas con sus txekorras. (100)
(On the farm next to it there are more horses with their chargers, next to them there are
cows with their calves)

This is also transfer from the L1 to the L2. The term used in Basque is “txekorras”
instead of the Spanish “terneras” (calves). In this case the learner has replaced the
Basque plural morpheme “k” by the Spanish morpheme “s” writing “txekorras” instead
of “txekorrak”.

e. Transfer from Basque (L2) to Spanish (L1)

…una cabra que se va a caer por una chirristra (154)

(…a goat that is going to fall down the slide)

In this case a Spanish L1 speaker uses a term in Basque ‘chirristra’ (slide) instead of the
Spanish term ‘tobogán’. The spelling of the Basque word is following Spanish rules
‘chirristra’ instead of the Basque ‘txirristra’. This Basque word is very commonly used
in Spanish spoken in the Basque Country.

f. Transfer from Spanish (L2) to Basque (L1)

…aldi berean, gurasoak deskantsatzen duten bitartean (35)

(… at the same time, while the parents are resting)

This is also an example from L2 influence on L1 but in this case from Spanish to
Basque. The word ‘deskansatzen’ comes from the Spanish ‘descansar’ and it is used
instead of the Basque ‘atsedenaldia hartzen’. This type of cross-linguistic influence
from the majority language (Spanish) to the lesser used language (Basque) is very
common in Basque.

g. Transfer from the L3 (English) to the L2 (Basque)

11
Behe eskuin aldean emakume batzuen artean ume batzuk daude ‘picnic’ bat egiten (7)
(On the right of the cows there are some children having a picnic among some women)
The word ‘picnic’ is in English but it is quite common in Spanish and Basque.

h. Transfer from L3 (English) to L1 (Basque)

Tennisean jolastu dugu (35)
(We played tennis)

In this example, there seems to be an influence of English spelling when writing in

Basque (tennisean instead of tenisean). Language transfer from English into Basque and
Spanish was very limited in the data probably due to the fact that learners are less
proficient in English as compared to that of the other two languages and the limited
exposure to English outside school.
These examples show that all languages interact in different directions and
clearly indicate that cross-linguistic influence is a multidirectional phenomenon which
is not limited to transferring from the L1 to the L2. In the specific setting in which these
compositions were written students tend to use terms or structures from other languages
when they have difficulties and transfer from the L1 and L2 into the L3 is the most
common type because of their limitations with English. The examples also show that in
some cases learners use a term from another language not only because of difficulties
but because they find the term matches their communicative intent better or because it is
commonly used by other speakers in a bilingual context. One way or another,
multilingual speakers use their resources in their repertoire in different ways for
communicative purposes. As it is a written task so they can be more aware of the target
language and have time to decide how to use other languages.

iii) General writing strategies

A qualitative analysis of the same compositions confirms the relationship between the
three languages. This analysis shows that individual students tend to use the same
general strategy to approach the task. For example, some students prefer to write a story
and they do so in the three languages while others prefer to write a description of each
of the pictures. It is not common for the same student to write a story in Spanish and a
description in Basque or English. In general, the quality of the compositions is weaker
in English, their third language.
The similar approach multilingual students have when they write in each of the
languages can be seen in the following examples:

Student 7 speaks Spanish at home. He has chosen to write a description of what he sees
in the three pictures rather than a story. When the three descriptions are compared we
can see that he shows a preference for colours that is not found so clearly in other
compositions.

E.At the third floor there are a pink room and a yellow room. At the pink one there are
pillows and teddys also. Is a bed and a armary violet. At the yellow there are a lot of
box, there is a girl. In the floor is a carpet and at one whole is a green door.

12
S …puedo ver a pequeñas familias de caballos, son de colores muy diferentes; gris,
marrón, amarillo...,. Una niña, que está enfrente de unas botas negras que hay en la
pared…
(I can see small families of horses, they are of different colours, grey, brown, yellow.. A
girl who is facing some back books that are on the wall)

B…. baloi gorri batekin, beste bat mangito laranja batzuk jantzita dituela jolasean
dago, Beherago mahai bat dago, egurrezkoa, sombrila hori bat duela alboan eta toaila
gorria azpian.
(..with a red ball, another one wearing orange rings is playing. Below there is a wooden
table, and it has a yellow sunshade next to it and a red towel under it)

Another example can be seen in the case of student 105. This student speaks Basque at
home. She has chosen to write a story and starts her three compositions by focusing on
the age, birthdays or celebrations.

E.Like every year, my parents are going to organise their aniversary celebr
ation. It is a very special time for ther. (105)

S.Recuerdo perfectamente aquel verano que cumplí los siete años.

(I remember very well that summer when I turned seven)

B. Egun berezia izan zen, berezia eta bakarra. Ez dut sekula ahaztuko bederatzi urte
nitueneko uda hura
(It was a special day, special and singular. I will never forget the summer when I
became nine)

A third example of similar ways to approach the writing task in the three languages can
be found in the case of student 10, who speaks Spanish at home, shows a preference for
location when describing the pictures in the three languages. In the case of Spanish and
Basque, her stronger languages, she also announces what she is going to describe.

E. This house have three floors. In the first floor at the right side is the kitchen, … In the
left is the living room, …At the meadle of this two rooms is the hall … In the second
room at the left is a room …In the meadle of this two rooms is a corridor..

S: En este texto voy a hacer una descripción del dibujo de arriba, que esta dividido en
siete partes bien diferenciadas por vallas. La primera parte que está abajo y a la
hizquierda ….. La segunda parcela, que está separada por la anterior con una valla de
rijilla, … A la derecha de esta parte,….Mas arriba hay otra parcela ocupada por las
gallinas que comen del suelo

(In this text I‘ll make a description of the picture above, which is divided into seven
distinct parts by fences. The first part is on the bottom on the left, The second part,
which is separated from the previous one by a mesh fence ... To the right of this part, ...
A bit higher there is another part occupied by hens that eat from the ground)

13
B: Testu honetan pantano honen deskribapena egingo dut.
Irudiaren behekaldean ezkerrean familia bat dago, .Mahaiaren ezkerrean emakume bat
dago toailan etzanda lotan.Beherago manta batean bi ume daude jaten zestan eta
izozkailuan dagoen janaria.Eskubirantz emakume beltzarantz bat dago eguzkia hartzen,
eta eskubirago bi ume … Irudiaren eskubiko beheko erpinean bi ume ..

(In this text I’ll make a description of this resevoir. On the left bottom side of the
picture there is a family. On the left of the table there is a woman sleeping on a towel.
Further down there are two children eating the food that is in the basket and in the
fridge. To the right, there is a dark woman sunbathing and more to the right two
children. On the further right end on the bottom two children)

These examples show that multilingual learners use similar strategies and focus on the
same themes in writing a composition in three languages. These examples and the
correlations in content shown in table 2 point in the same direction suggesting that there
is an underlying common multilingual strategy that is then produced in three languages.
Obviously, it is the same person writing in different languages and each person has
developed writing competences that can be shared across languages. By looking at the
three languages the idea of the learner as a multilingual person using different languages
is a lot more evident than if we focus on only one of the languages.

iv) Language mixing in informal writing Comentario [A1]: say something about
identity when tuenti and relate it to li wei,
suresh and shohamy?
The next point in our analysis was to explore the way multilingual speakers can use
their total linguistic repertoire for communicative purposes in a more informal context.
In order to do these we collected some extracts from interaction on the social network
Tuenti (Spanish version of Facebook). This type of writing, a rather new genre, is best
characterized by combining the written conventions and other notational forms with the
spoken languages making allowances that no other communicative platforms make.
These extracts are just examples collected with a few similar ones so as to have see how
languages were used in informal contexts and can only be regarded as pointers to the
existence of some phenomena that can be explored much further. In the following
example we can see two 15 year old boys discussing how to write a composition. M. is
asking for help. The main language in the interaction is Spanish but the composition has
to be written in Basque, the main school language. The students also use some English
in the interaction and some items that are not clearly belonging to any of these
languages. In the following extract Basque has regular font, Spanish is in bold and
English in italics.

M: me ayudas con la carta? y en serio como pongo al principio? (Can you help me
with the letter? Seriously how do I start?)
H: sqe ya t e dicho (I have already told you)
M : klase maitia: 11 urte hauetan.. y luego? (Dear class: in these 11 years.. and then?)
H: izan zarete ikaragarriak beti egon zarete hor larri nebilenean eta beti apollatu
zenidazuten bainan orain etorri da denbora agur esatea nire bizitza orain Kenian pasako
dudalako (you havc been great, you have always been there when I needed you and you
have always supported me but now the time has come to say goodbye, I will spend my
life in Kenya now)

14
M: pero asi no llego a 200 hitz ni de coña (but there is no way I get to 200 words like
this)
H: posible 50 % si pero porqe no lo hiciste ayer? o la semana pasada? (perhaps
50% but why didn’t you do it yesterday? Or last week?)
M: pues xq no apetecia jaj (I didn’t feel like it, jaj)
H:ya (ok)
M: e nose de ke scribir lo de la despedida no me da para 200 hitzas ni d koña
y lo de scribir a un famoso..n mola jaj (I don’t know what to write about, the goodbye
does not get to 200 words at all and to write about a famous person, I don’t like it)
H: noo eso no escrib a uno d tu clase (not that, write to one in your class)
M: me escribes una carta? Jajaja (Can you write the letter for me? Jajaja
H: muaaajabea (muaaajabea)
M: ai nid jelp (I need help)
H: i know pero ya te dicho todo (I know but I have told you everything)
M: pero noseeeeeeee eske no se me okurre nada tio aver helllp help jelp (but I don’t
know I cannot think of anything guy, let’s see help help help)

This interaction shows how multilinguals mix languages and create a hybrid text
combining not only the three languages but mixing languages in other ways as well.
Basque is the language of the task and Spanish the main language of interaction. Basque
and Spanish are used alternatively in different utterances but are also mixed in some
utterances as in when M. says ‘no me da para 200 hitzas’ using the Basque word
“hitzak” instead of the Spanish “palabras” (words). The Spanish derived ‘apollatu’
(from ‘apoyar’ support) is used instead of ‘lagundu’ in a Basque utterance. English and
Spanish are also mixed in the last two utterances.
Apart from mixing languages this text uses other resources for communication
purposes:
-Spelling the Spanish way when an utterance is in English: ai nid jelp
-Spelling in non formal ways (texting, internet) “xq sqe ya te dicho” instead of
“porque, es que ya te he dicho”(because I have told you). This type of spelling is not
used in Basque because Basque is the language used in the task M. has to give to his
teacher. It is interesting to see how the functions of the two languages are distinguished.
-Spelling in different ways helllp help jelp (help) or repeating the vowels’noseeeeeeee’
instead of “no se”. These are ways for M. to emphasize that he really needs help from
H.
These multilingual students are using not only different languages but different modes
of communication. The development of multimedia technology, communication
channels and media has encouraged multimodal literacy which is based on the
affordances provided by gesture, sound, visuals and other semiotic symbols including
language but not limited to language. Texts used when chatting or texting messages
include different colours, different types of fonts and icons next to the actual language.
These other modalities are not usually seen in school contexts. An exception we found
in our data was the following utterance:

This is happy  family!! (17)

This is an example of the way an icon is integrated in the text, a common practice when
secondary school students communicate among themselves. This is an only case in the
compositions but shows that new literacy practices occasionally make their way to
school.

15
DISCUSSION

These four steps taken in this exploratory study clearly show that a “Focus on
Multilingualism” research perspective offers a different perspective from the traditional
focus on one language at a time. Traditionally the multilingual person’s competence in
one language has been compared to the ideal native speaker of that language. A “Focus
on Multilingualism” allows us to look at the different languages of the multilingual at
the same time instead of separately. It provides a vision of the complexity of the
relationships between the languages, their processing, and the existing links between
them. By doing this, the focus is the multilingual person rather than the language. A
multilingual person can have similar strengths and weaknesses in different dimensions
of writing (content, structure, etc) and therefore, uses similar general strategies when
facing the task of writing a composition independently of the language used for each of
the compositions. The examples analysed here suggest that multilinguals establish “soft
boundaries” between languages even in the case of written language and they take the
elements they need from other languages. These elements are sometimes needed when
students face difficulties because they do not know a specific word or structure in the
target language. In other cases the use of a different language can be related to other
factors. Multilingual speakers may find a term or expression more appropriate to convey
their communicative intent in one language than in others. Using other languages can
also be related to attitudes or perceptions of the different languages. For example, many
Spanish speakers in the Basque country would use the Basque word for “father” and
“mother” because they more affective. When some speakers use terms in English it can
be because they want to sound more modern or cosmopolitan. The analyses of the
compositions clearly show that the other languages of the multilingual person cannot be
ignored any longer. A multilingual mind, a multilingual person, has some specific
characteristics which are different from those of a monolingual (see also Cook, 2003
Grosjean, 2008). These differences can be seen more clearly by going beyond two
languages because more complex interaction patterns emerge when three or more
languages are considered that when only the relationship between two languages can be
analysed.
A “Focus on Multilingualism” provides a better picture of the way languages are
acquired. De Bot, Lowie & Verspoor (2007:19) discuss Dynamic System Theory as an
approach to SLA and conclude that it is important to discover “which sub-systems are
precursors of other sub-systems and which sub-systems are connected growers”.
Connected growers need fewer resources because they support each other’s growth. The
exploratory study discussed here shows that a “Focus on Multilingualism” can identify
similar patterns in writing skills in three languages and therefore, can potentially help to
identify these connected growers. As De Bot, Lowie & Verspoor (2007:19) point out
this identification can have clear implication for language teaching.
A “Focus on Multilingualism” approach also highlights the need to look at real
literacy practices that include translanguaging, codemixing and codeswitching (see
García, this volume; Li Wei, this volume). These are common practices among
multilinguals and cannot be ignored in research on the acquisition of second or
additional languages. Furthermore, multilingual speakers can improve their achievement
when these practices are allowed. As Hornberger (2005: 607) pointed out
“bi/multilinguals´ learning is maximized when they are allowed and enabled to draw
from across all their existing language skills”.

16
 There is a need to bridge the gap between out-of-school multilingual and
multimodal practices and formal school practices. As Block (2007:80) points out “there
is a need for teachers to draw on the considerable language resources that such students
bring with them to class”. In the case of multilingualism one of these resources is the
ability to combine different languages in communication. However languages are very
often separated in school contexts and there is a need to go into what Blackledge &
Creese (2009, see also Creese & Blackledge, 2010) call “flexible bilingual pedagogy”
with permeable boundaries between languages. The traditional strategy of separating
languages and using only the target language in a class does not allow multilinguals to
use a powerful resource in communication (see also Macaro, 2006; Li Wei & Wu,
2009).
“Focus on Multilingualism” considers that if multilinguals have some special
characteristics when learning and using languages, monolingual native speakers of each
of the languages they speak cannot be their appropriate reference. This implies that the
goal in multilingual education should be to be competent multilingual speakers. Another
implication for school contexts is the need to integrate the curricula of the different
languages so as to trigger the benefits of being multilingual. Taking into account that
resources for processing languages are limited and that time devoted to language
learning at school is also limited, it is desirable to benefit from connected growers so
that what is learned in one language can be easily transferred to other languages. By
integrating the curricula of the different languages these connections are more likely to
be activated.
The data reported in this article are exploratory but they suggests that by
focusing on multilingualism and the multilingual speakers we can acquire new insights
of the way several languages are acquired and used in multilingual educational contexts.

References

Baker, C. (2006) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.
Bialystok, E. (2001) Bilingualism in Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Blackledge, A & Creese, A. (2009). Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective. London
Continuum
Block, D. (2003) The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Washington:
Georgetown University Press.
Block, D. (2007) Bilingualism: four assumptions and four responses. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching 1: 66-82.
Canagarajah, S. (2007) Lingua franca English, multilingual communities and language
acquisition. Modern Language Journal 91: 923-939.
Cenoz, J. (2009) Towards Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2008) The linguistic landscape as an additional source of input
in second language acquisition. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics
46: 267-287.
Cenoz, J.; Gorter, D. & Aiestaran, J. (2010) The linguistic landscape in
multilingual schools. Paper Third International Linguistic Landscape
Workshop. Strasbourg 5-7 May, 2010
Clyne, M. (1997) Some of the things trilinguals do. International Journal of
Bilingualism 1, 95–116.

17
Cook, V. (1992) Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning 42:
557-591.
Cook, V. (1995) Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. Language,
Culture and Curriculum 8: 93-98.
Cook, V. (ed)(2003) Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual
classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching. The Modern
Language Journal 94: 103-115.
Cummins, J. (2005) A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language
competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. Modern
Language Journal 89: 585–592
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or Additional Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
De Bot, K.; Lowie,W. & Verspoor, M. (2007) A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to
second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10: 7–21.
Dijkstra, T. & Van Hell, J. G. (2003) Testing the language mode hypothesis using
trilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 6: 2-16.
Doughty, C. & Long, M.H. (eds) (2005) The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. London: Blackwell.
García, O. (ed)(2008). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gardner-Choros, P. (2009) Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grosjean, F. (1985) The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6: 467-477.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in
one person. Brain and Language 36: 3-15.
Grosjean, F. (2008) Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, J.K.; Cheng, A. & Carlson, M.T. (2006) Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a
theory of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27: 220-240.
Heller, M. (1999) Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography.
London: Longman.
Herdina, P. & Jessner, U. (2002) A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Perspectives of
Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological
spaces in heritage language education. Modern Language Journal, 89, 605–609.
Jacobs, H., Zingraf, S.A., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F., & Hughey, J.B. (1981).
Testing ESL Composition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008) Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition.
New York/London: Routledge.
Jessner, U. (2006) Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Kramsch, C. & Whiteside, A. (2007) Three fundamental concepts in SLA and their
relevance in multilingual contexts. Modern Language Journal 91: 905–920.
Kramsch, C. (2010) The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics 18: 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008) Research methodology on language
development from a complex theory perspective. Modern Language Journal 92:
200–213.

18
LIPPS Group (2000) The LIDES Coding Manual. A Document for Preparing and
Analysing Language Interaction Data. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4
(2), pp. 131-271. ISBN 0-9533353-6-4
Li Wei & Wu, C. (2009) Polite Chinese revisited: creativity and the use of
codeswitching in the Chinese complementary school classroom. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 12: 193-211.
Macaro, E. (2006) Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: a communication and learning
strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-Native Language Teachers. Perceptions,
Challenges and Contributions to the Profession, 63-84.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah,
NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Third Edition. Vol 1: The Format and
Programs.
Muysken, P. (2000) Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2010) The Bilingual Turn in SLA. Plenary address at the American
Association for Applied Linguistics Atlanta, GA, March 6-9.
Ringbom, H. (2007) Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sagasta, M.P. (2003) Acquiring writing skills in a third language: The positive effects
of bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 7, 27-42.
Seidlhofer, B. (2007) Common Property: English as a Lingua Franca in Europe. In J.
Cummins, & C. Davison (eds) International Handbook of English Language
Teaching. New York/Berlin: Springer. 137-153.
Singleton, D. (2003) Perspectives on the multilingual lexicon: a critical synthesis. In J.
Cenoz; U. Jessner & B. Hufeisen (eds) The Multilingual Lexicon. Dordrecht:
Kluwer. 167-176.
Stavans, A. & Swisher, V. (2006). Language switching as a window on trilingual
acquisition. International Journal of Multilingualism 3: 193–220.
Ten Thije, J.D. & Zeevaert, L. (eds) (2007) Receptive Multilingualism. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Van Lier, L. (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural
Perspective. New York/Berlin: Springer.
Williams, C. (s.d.) Extending Bilingualism in the Education System. Unpublished
document (http://www.assemblywales.org).
Williams, S. & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production:
Implications for polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics 19, 295-333.

19