Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brandon D. Tullock
Marta Fernández-Villanueva
University of Barcelona, Spain
In recent years, scholars have voiced the need for research which focuses on the ability of multilin-
guals to write across multiple languages rather than on the limitations that they face when com-
posing in a non-native language. In order to better understand multilingual writers as resourceful
and creative problem-solvers, the current study aims to investigate how German/Spanish/Catalan
multilinguals draw on the full extent of their linguistic repertoires to solve lexical problems while
writing in their fourth language, English. Think-aloud data were collected from 10 informants
(8 female, 2 male; ages 16-17) in a German immersion secondary school in Barcelona, Spain.
Analysis of the participants’ protocols revealed that the activation of lexical items across several
languages was a common approach to tackling lexical problems. The writers’ resourcefulness and
creativity were apparent in the activation of cognate forms and their willingness to experiment
with language. In their metacomments, they expressed awareness of their strategic behavior as
well as their degree of satisfaction with their solutions. It is argued that more research into the
strategic behavior of multilingual writers is necessary in order to inform multilingual pedagogy.
Introduction
Multilingual writers are a rapidly growing demographic in today’s modern, global-
ized society, as more and more individuals are finding it necessary to engage in
written communication in multiple languages on a regular basis. To date, however,
most research on multilingual writing has been conducted with the monolingual
native speaker as a model and has viewed phenomena such as code-switching and
the appearance of non-standard forms in written texts as representative of a deficit.
This gives cause for concern to a number of scholars, who work at what Ortega
and Carson (2010) call “the interface between L2 (second language) writing and
SLA (second language acquisition)” (p. 48). Grosjean’s (1989) statement that “a
bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person,” along with Cook’s (e.g., 2010)
notion of “multi-competence,” that is, the unique set of skills and metacognitive
knowledge developed as a result of knowing multiple languages, have challenged
420 Research in the Teaching of English Volume 47, Number 4, May 2013
Copyright © 2013 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
the idea of a monolingual norm and led certain researchers to call for a reorienta-
tion of writing research. According to Ortega and Carson, this different approach
will allow us to focus on “what multicompetent writers can do, as opposed to only
understanding what they cannot or wish not to do in their L2” (p. 65). Canagarajah
(2006), taking a similar stance, argues that multilingual writing research needs
to challenge a monolingual bias in order to understand multilinguals better as
resourceful problem-solvers, “shuttling creatively through discourses in order to
achieve their communicative objectives” (p. 591). Textual differences, he says, should
be considered as the result of strategic choices rather than unconscious errors and
that by studying the processes behind these choices we can come to understand
the resources multilinguals bring to their texts.
Perhaps one of the most important resources multilingual writers possess is
their ability to refer to their full linguistic repertoire while composing. In a recent
review, Manchón, Murphy, and Roca de Larios (2007) note that writers have been
shown to deploy their L1 (first language) for a variety of purposes in all stages of
composition. This behavior has been observed in multilingual writers at all profi-
ciency levels and seems to facilitate rather than inhibit text production by reducing
the load on working memory and providing access to key lexical items (see also
Manchón, Roca de Larios, & Murphy, 2009). L1 use during L2 writing is a widely
documented phenomenon, and researchers generally agree that writers use all the
languages in their linguistic repertoire while writing. This is evidenced by studies
of cross-linguistic influence, which have found evidence of transfer from multiple
languages in multilinguals’ written texts (e.g., Cenoz & Gorter, 2011). However,
few studies of the multilingual writing process have gone beyond two languages,
and the role played by non-target languages besides the L1 during composition
remains unexplored. Meanwhile, in the field of multilingualism, the role of the
L2 in L3 (third-language) acquisition and production has proved to be a fruitful
area of study, as L3 learners have been shown to rely heavily on their L2, especially
in early stages of learning (e.g., Hammarberg, 2001; Williams & Hammarberg,
1998; see also Falk & Bardel, 2010). In contexts with favorable attitudes toward
bilingualism, being bilingual has also been linked to advantages in the acquisition
of additional languages due to increased metalinguistic awareness, knowledge of
personal learning strategies, enhanced communication strategies, and a wider lin-
guistic repertoire that can be exploited as a base for transfer (Cenoz, 2003). Thus,
we feel that more research is warranted on how multilinguals’ repertoires at the
resource level (Hayes, 2012) dynamically interact while writing in environments
where multilingualism is socially promoted.
The aim of the present study is to go beyond two languages and examine the
role that previously learned languages play in the lexical searches of German/
Spanish/Catalan multilinguals as they write in their L4 (fourth language), English.
It was inspired by “The Tyrol Study,” where Jessner (2006) used concurrent think-
Literature Review
Multilingual Writing
Despite its age, Flower and Hayes’ (1981) Planning-Translating-Reviewing model
contains features that are still current in modern representations of writing. This
is especially true in Hayes’ (2012) latest revised model, which includes a control,
a process, and a resource level—the control level including motivation, goal set-
ting and writing schemas; the process level including the writing process and the
task environment; and the resource level containing working memory, attention
and long-term memory (along with all learners’ linguistic repertoires). The three
macroprocesses involved in writing—planning, translating, and reviewing—remain
in the Hayes (2012) model as proposing, translation, transcription, and evalua-
tion. (Henceforth, “translation/translator” will be referred to as “formulation/
formulator” in order to avoid confusion in a foreign language context.) In the latest
model, writers proceed through these stages in a recursive fashion, shifting their
focus to one process or the other as they attend to both high-level and low-level
goals. At the process level, the “proposer” is responsible for generating a preverbal
message. The “formulator” receives this input and converts it into a pre-text, or
candidate text, which is stored in an articulatory buffer in working memory where
it is evaluated. If deemed acceptable, it is added to the written “text thus far,” and
if not, the process may begin again with the generation of new ideas or alternative
pre-texts. The “evaluator” is supposed to be involved in all of these stages, making
judgments related to the intended written product (Hayes, 2012).
The main area where foreign language (FL) writing distinguishes itself from
L1 writing is in formulation. For formulation to be fluent, writers must have easy,
if not automatic, access to a wide range of target language knowledge. In foreign
language contexts, however, this knowledge is often limited, making it necessary
for writers to divert their attention away from the text as a whole in order to at-
tend to linguistic issues. Writers have been found to devote most of their time to
formulation (between 60% to 80%) when writing in either the L1 or the FL (Roca
de Larios, Marín, & Murphy, 2001; Wang & Wen, 2002; see also Manchón et al.,
Research Questions
The present study aims to contribute to what is known about multilingual writing
by observing the interplay between the languages that make up the repertoires
of multilingual writers as they engage in lexical problem-solving in a context in
which multilingualism is socially promoted. The following research questions will
be addressed:
Method
Participants
The participants (8 females, 2 males; ages 16-17) were selected from the 11th class,
or grade, of Gymnasium, the university preparatory path, at the Deutsche Schule
Barcelona (henceforth the Schule) on the basis of their linguistic configuration.
At the Schule, German is the language of instruction, but students also at-
tend Spanish class every day for all twelve years. As a result, students at the Schule
develop near-native-like levels of competence in both German and at least one
community language, regardless of their L1, which may be German, Spanish, or
Catalan. Catalan is also taught for the first nine years, but then it becomes an op-
tional subject along with French. English is taught as a foreign language for three
hours a week from the 5th year onward. In the 11th year, students are supposed
to have approximately a B2 (upper-intermediate) level of English.
The linguistic configuration of these students is particularly interesting
because of the typology of the languages involved. Spanish, Catalan and French
are Romance languages, whereas English and German are both West Germanic.
Despite its classification as a Germanic language, English derives a large portion
of its vocabulary from Romance languages.
Since students at the Schule come from varied linguistic backgrounds, the
status of each language in the mind of the participant depends on his or her L1.
The sociolinguistic status of each language taught at the Schule also varies:
• German—language of instruction
• Spanish—community language with instructional support
• Catalan—community language with fewer hours of instructional support
• English—first foreign language
• French—second foreign language
All 26 students who volunteered to take part in the study were asked to fill
out a sociolinguistic background questionnaire that included questions about the
acquisition of their languages as well as their patterns of use at home, at school,
and at activities outside school. As proficiency in both German and at least one of
the community languages was considered to be a crucial factor, only those who
were born in Spain and had received all of their formal education at the Schule
Writing Task
The writing task for this study was a response to the prompt: “How is growing up
nowadays different from growing up in your parents’ generation?” This topic was
chosen because it was related to what the students were presently studying in their
English classes, the assumption being that the ideational content necessary for
composing the essay would be easy to access and more working memory would
be available to deal with lexical problems. The students were given 30 minutes
to write approximately 200 words. These are roughly the conditions given to the
participants in Wang’s (2003) study and are similar to the constraints faced by
writers during English language examinations.
English native speaker along with a Spanish native speaker) conducted two record-
ing sessions in which four students were recorded individually in separate rooms
at the Schule at the same time as their regular English lessons. All instructions were
given to the participants in English so as not to influence their language-switching
behavior. Once again, they were given a mock composition to practice thinking
aloud for about ten minutes as the interlocutors selectively listened in to make sure
that they performed the technique properly. Then the students were given the actual
task and began writing their compositions. The interlocutors sporadically listened
in as the students were writing and prompted them to keep talking or to speak up
when necessary. In order to keep interaction to a minimum, interlocutors only
intervened if the informant was quiet for more than eight seconds. Once the end
of the time limit was reached, the subjects were told to finish their compositions,
which were then collected so that they could be referred to when segmenting the
transcribed data. Students were allowed to finish early or were granted a couple of
extra minutes to finish up their compositions when necessary. No dictionaries were
provided to the writers, as the study aimed to find out how they used the resources
available to them in their current stage of linguistic development. On the third
day, the remaining three students were recorded following the same procedure.
This time an additional interlocutor, a native speaker of German, was present.
Data Preparation
The first step in preparing the data for analysis was transcribing the recorded
think-aloud data. The first author, along with another trained linguist who was a
fluent speaker in all the languages involved, transcribed word for word what the
subjects said, along with phenomena such as long pauses, hesitations, yawning
and coughing. The data were then segmented and matched to sentences in the
students’ actual written compositions. Once this was done, the data were prepared
in three phases.
First, words in the compositions and words in the protocols were counted.
Composition time was measured from the instant the subjects started talking to
the moment they finished. The next step was to isolate formulation from planning,
taken to mean the planning of ideas, and from revision, which includes revisions
made to the already written text. Following Roca de Larios et al. (2001), formulation
included “both the verbalization of written material and those other utterances that,
because of their strict linear nature (lexical units, syntactic structures, etc.) could be
considered clear candidates for becoming part of the text” (pp. 510-511). Changes
made to the sentence currently being written were also categorized as formulation.
Then, lexical searches during formulation were isolated. In order to be con-
sidered a lexical search, two elements were required: evidence of a lexical gap
between what the learner wanted to say and what he or she was able to say, as well
as steps taken toward solving the problem. Sometimes a problem was revealed
through explicit problem indicators such as “How do you say…?” At other times
the perception of a problem was related to implicit clues such as long pauses or
repetition of a pre-text with a rising intonation. Those instances where the writer
expressed a word in a non-target language and then effortlessly translated the word
into English without any intervening steps were coded as binary searches and were
not included in lexical searches (see Appendix 1 for transcription conventions):
Example of Restructuring
“This is a a topic which…[cough] which… ¿cómo se dice con el que (S: how do you say
‘with which’)? With…No. No para empezar (S: no, not to start out) [cough]” This is a
topic which with that I CP
Orthographical problems were also excluded from the analysis. Once lexical
searches had been identified they were counted and categorized according to the
languages involved.
In the final phase, the lexical searches were broken down into the steps taken,
starting with the occurrence of the problem and going up to the point where the
subject either decided on a solution, even if it was only a tentative one, or gave up
and moved on. Once the lexical searches had been broken down into their compo-
nents, those problem-solving steps that involved the use of a non-target language
were identified and put into the following six categories taken from Murphy and
Roca de Larios (2010): generating lexical units or pre-texts; backtracking or back-
translating; self-questioning, problem-indicating and problem-focusing; evaluation;
metalinguistic appeal; and metacomments.
In order to establish consistency in coding the data, the first author and a
trained colleague coded two of the compositions separately. These decisions were
then compared and any disagreements were resolved. Then the same author coded
the rest of the compositions.
Results
Before interpreting the results, it is important to mention some important dif-
ferences that were observed regarding participants’ English proficiency and the
number of words in the protocols and the compositions. Half of the participants
scored at an advanced learner level (601-900) while the other half scored at the
intermediate level (401-600). The means for the Spanish and Catalan L1 students
were similar (569 and 594, respectively), while the mean proficiency of the German
ertoire, including French, a language she had been studying for under than three
years, lending support to the notion that writers draw upon their full linguistic
repertoire while composing.
The majority of the writers in this study preferred their L1 except for CA and
GC, who both used Spanish more than their L1 to support their composition. Ac-
cording to the information gathered in the background questionnaire, CA comes
from a Spanish-Catalan bilingual household and speaks only Spanish with one
of her parents, and her patterns of use reveal that she mostly uses Spanish with
friends at school. At the beginning of her composition, she starts to express herself
in Catalan before switching to Spanish:
Primer, primer les diferencias de (C: first, first the differences from) ayer . . . una
introducción . . . (S: yesterday . . . an introduction)
After these first four words, she never goes back to formulating her thoughts in
Catalan. GC, on the other hand, maintained a balance between German and Spanish
while composing. Her linguistic background questionnaire shows that, unlike the
other German L1 speakers, she mainly uses Catalan at home and only sometimes
uses German to communicate with her family. Meanwhile, with friends at school
she always uses either German or Spanish and never Catalan. The predominance
of Spanish and German over Catalan at the Schule could have influenced these
individuals to restrict their Catalan use to non-academic contexts.
of his time thinking about what to say in response to the prompt rather than how
to say it. As a result, he spent less time formulating and wrote a much shorter
composition than the others.
Of the 111 lexical searches in our data, 104 of them involved non-target lan-
guages. Even GJ, who carried out 97.3% of her composition in English, used her L1
to help her access a lexical item. A closer look at the searches involving non-target
languages revealed which ones were used. Of these 104 searches, 81 were bilingual,
22 were trilingual, and 1 was quadrilingual. These results are similar to Jessner’s
(2006), who also found more bilingual than trilingual searches.
Overall, Spanish was clearly dominant in the bilingual searches (62 of 81, see
Table 4). This dominance can be partially accounted for by the fact that over half
of these were produced by Spanish speakers, who overwhelmingly preferred their
L1. This preference for the L1 was also shared by 3 of the 4 German speakers and
1 Catalan speaker.
Seven of the 10 participants used up to 3 or 4 languages in their lexical searches
(see Table 5). The three German students who tackled fewer lexical problems than
the other participants only used German. The most frequent combination of
languages used in lexical searches was German/Spanish/English (13), followed by
German/Catalan/English (4) and Spanish/Catalan/English (4), while the combina-
tions Catalan/French/English and German/Spanish/Catalan/English each occurred
once. Again, a clear preference for the L1 can be observed, as 19 of the 23 tri- or
quadrilingual lexical searches involved the participant’s L1.
“Aunque sea muy innecessario (S: although it’s very unnecessary), obwohl (G:
although), aunque (S: although), although it, it’s a bit innecessary…” SA
However, this process could also entail a struggle to activate the target linguistic
form, as in the following example, where SJ switched back and forth between Ger-
man and Spanish before finally settling on “time”:
“. . . that each Epoche (G: epoch) , Epoche, die Epoche, época (S: epoch) each, that each,
each, // época, each // Epoche, época, each Epoche, época, // that each . . . time,” SJ
“. . . sense . . . ehm, sense vigilar, (C: without watching out) sense, sense, sense que
la policia te (C: without the police), with the, with the policia, sense que la policia ehm
. . . et detengui . . . (C: detaining you) arrête, arrête, (F: arrest) ehm, eh the police . . .
take, t’emporti, (C: take you away) ehm sense que la policia t’emporti (C: without the
police taking you away).” CR
“You have the, you have the, you have ehm easier options, easier opti- no, opciones (S:
options) you have easier, ¿cómo se dice opciones en inglés? (S: how do you say ‘options’
in English?) You have easier ways to get in connection, connect, wie heißt denn..? (G:
how do you say..?) Para conectarse con alguien, para poder (S: to connect with someone,
to be able to) connect you have easier ways to . . .” SC
Sometimes the question frame did not necessarily match the language of the pre-
text, as in the following examples, both from CR:
“Com dir (C: how to say) ‘vor allem’ (G: above all)?” CR
“Com es diu (C: how do you say) ‘Einkommen’ (G: income)?” CR
Following Murphy and Roca de Larios (2010), we also included fillers such as “a
ver (S: let’s see)” in this category, as they served a problem-focusing purpose and
often preceded re-readings or other strategic behavior.
Evaluation
Evaluation goes hand in hand with problem-focusing. Learners also engage in
self-talk to evaluate the correctness or appropriateness of their solutions. Here,
the facility with which the participants switched between languages is evident. In
this example, CP uses Spanish for evaluation, Catalan for problem-focusing, and
German for generating a pre-text:
“. . . that folgs (G: leads) to that, that eh, cause, no, causes otra vez no, (S: not ‘causes’
again) ehm that leads to..aviam ja hi he posat leads (C: let’s see have I put down ‘leads’
yet)? Hmm..which leads, si. Bueno, es igual (S: Yes, well it’s okay) that leads to ehm a
different, a different, com es diu? A veure (C: how do you say it? Let’s see), and that leads
to a different growing up . . .” CP
Metacomments
In lexical problem solving, writers made metacomments, which provided insight
into the writers’ awareness of their problem-solving approach as well as shed light
on affective factors such as engagement with the task. An example is in the fol-
lowing excerpt, where SN has decided to include the term “actuality” despite her
observation that it “sounds Spanish.“
“I think to live in the, in the actuality, so bueno una esp-, una españolada que le estoy
metiendo (S: well I’m making it sound very Spanish),. . .” SN
On the other hand, note CR’s appropriation of the English language as she shows
no reservations about coining the word “dictature” in the example below:
“They lived in, dictadura en anglès (dictatorship in English)? Pff, Bueno me lo saco de
la manga y pim pam (S: well, I’ll make it up [literally: I’ll pull it out of my sleeve] and
‘pim pam’), they, // they lived in a dictature.” CR
Metalinguistic Appeal
Metalinguistic appeal is another strategy where learners focus on language as
an object using metalinguistic terms, which can be standard or explained in the
subject’s own words. Two examples are the following:
The top three purposes for which writers used previously learned languages
were for generating lexical units; evaluation; and self-questioning, problem-indi-
cating and problem-focusing; whereas backtracking and backtranslating; meta-
comments; and metalinguistic appeal were found to a lesser extent. Spanish was
the dominant language in all the categories, and it was also the most widely used,
which is related to the overall preference for Spanish by most of the informants
in this sample. Catalan was the second most frequently used language, followed
by German. French was only used once. The widest array of languages was used
for generating pre-texts, and this purpose was the main one for which German
was used. In Figure 1, the overall frequencies of each purpose are displayed and
broken down by the language used.
While Spanish was the dominant language used for generating pre-texts, every
single writer in the sample also used German for this purpose, as is illustrated in
Figure 2. Further qualitative analysis of the subjects’ language switching behavior
in generating pre-texts revealed several episodes where writers seemed to be at least
tacitly aware of language distance at the word level. CR, who did most of her think-
ing in Catalan, generated lexical units in the widest variety of languages, including
the cognate forms: arrête (F: arrest), Einkommen (G: income), and Haushalt (G:
household). Although in all three of these cases she opted for a simplified target
form, it is possible that she was tacitly aware of and was attempting to activate the
English cognate forms. Her use of cognates also appears in the following excerpt,
when she backtranslates “attend” and expresses doubts about its appropriateness
but decides to include it anyway:
“women had to stay at home and, ehm.. ehm fer coses a casa (C: do things at home),
Haushalt (G: Household), ehm Haushalt, ehm ehm Haushalt, ehm com es diu (C: how
do you say it)? At home and do and and clean la casa o cuinar (C: the house or cook)
or attend attender, prestar attenció,(C: tend to, pay attention) o ayudar, o (S: or help or)
hmm hmm hmm attend… bueno jo diria que no es pot dir però bueno (C: well, I don’t
think you can say that but oh well) or attend the kids.” CR
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to examine how multilinguals’ linguistic reper-
toires interact at the resource level in order to solve lexical problems during foreign
language writing. The use of think-aloud protocols to gather our data was crucial
in order to gain access to the cognitive processes that underlie strategic behavior
during writing. Although this method was not entirely problem-free (some students
experienced difficulty thinking aloud; long pauses in the protocols indicated that
not all thoughts were verbalized), we were able to gather rich information that
sheds light on the multilingual writer as a creative problem-solver.
From our results, we can conclude that multilingual writing is indeed a mul-
tilingual event. As expected, learners drew on all the resources in their linguistic
repertoires, activating multiple languages while writing. Not only daily contact but
also daily use seem to have a great influence on the likelihood that a given language
will be activated during writing, which is exemplified by the predominance of
Spanish and German in our participants’ protocols. Nearly all the lexical searches
carried out by our participants involved language-switching, which corresponds
to a growing body of research that has found this to be a common strategy among
foreign language writers of all proficiency levels. In our study, this practice was not
avoided but was embraced and employed strategically, suggesting that, rather than
conflicting with one another, multilinguals’ languages cooperate during writing,
aiding in text production.
The most common reason for activating previously learned languages during
lexical problem-solving was for generating pre-texts, bridging the gap between
proposed concepts and the target language needed to express them, while back-
tracking was found to a lesser extent. Both generating pre-texts and backtracking
were often carried out with the help of cognates, which can be seen as evidence of
cross-linguistic awareness, also found in Jessner (2006).
The participants’ linguistic flexibility is exemplified in other aspects of their
behavior, including code-switching, idiosyncratic borrowings, and mixed word
formations. This behavior, supported by the information contained in metacom-
ments, demonstrates that the appearance of nonstandard forms such as “live in
the actuality” and “dictature” in the written texts were not the result of ignorance
but rather conscious decisions made despite an awareness of their deviation from
the normative standard. Here, the sociolinguistic context most likely plays an im-
portant role. These writers, operating in a context of socially valued multilingual-
ism, develop and support their own norms which deviate from the monolingual
standard. This has been described as a characteristic of English as a Lingua Franca
in Europe (Seidlhofer, Breiteneder, & Pitzl, 2006).
In conclusion, while this study has shed light on how multilinguals’ languages
interact at the resource level, it also indicates that there is still work to be done on
how researchers can jointly study and model the interaction of cognitive processes
with motivation, task engagement and, especially in the case of multilinguals, social-
affective factors in multilingual writing. Future research entailing a wide variety of
tasks across all participants’ languages and carried out in different social contexts
would be helpful in creating a more robust picture of the multilingual writer as a
creative problem-solver, a perspective that is increasingly necessary in the modern
foreign language classroom, where more and more students are entering school
with knowledge of more than one language.
Note
1. Available at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/researchenterprise/dialang/about.
References
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Toward a writing International Review of Applied Linguistics in
pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Language Teaching, 48(2-3), 185–219.
Learning from multilingual writers. College Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive
English, 68(6), 589-604. process theory of writing. College Composi-
Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of tion and Communication, 32, 365–387.
bilingualism on third language acquisition: A Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware!
review. International Journal of Bilingualism, The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one
7(1), 71-87. person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3-15.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on Hall, C. J., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a
multilingualism: A study of trilingual writ- default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisi-
ing. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), tion. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner
356–369. (Eds.), The multilingual lexicon (pp. 71-86).
Cohen, A. (1996). Verbal reports as a source New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
of insight into second language learner strat- Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in
egies. Applied Language Learning, 7(1), 5-24. L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz,
Cook, V. (2010). Multi-competence. Re- B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessenr (Eds.), Cross-
trieved from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ linguistic influence in third language acquisi-
vivian.c/Writings/Papers/MCentry.htm tion: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 21-41).
Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). The study of Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
the role of the background languages in third Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodel-
language acquisition. The state of the art. ing writing. Written Communication, 29,
369-388.
Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A dynamic Who transfers more . . . and what? Crosslin-
model of multilingualism: Perspectives of guistic influence in relation to school grade
change in psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multi- and language dominance in EFL. Internation-
lingual Matters. al Journal of Multilingualism, 2(2), 113-134.
Jessner, U. (2005). Multilingual metalanguage, Ortega, L., & Carson, J. (2010). Multicompe-
or the way multilinguals talk about their lan- tence, social context, and L2 writing research
guages. Language Awareness, 14(1), 56-68. praxis. In T. Silva and P. K. Matsuda (Eds.),
Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic awareness in Practicing theory in second language writing
multilinguals: English as a third language. (pp. 48-71). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., &
Jessner, U. (2008). A DST model of multi- Murphy, L. (1996). Strategic knowledge in
lingualism and the role of metalinguistic L1 and L2 composing: A cross-sectional
awareness. The Modern Language Journal, study. Proceedings of the European Writing
92(2), 270-283. Conference, SIG Writing (pp. 1-23). Barcelona
Autonomous University.
Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de
Larios, J. (2005). Using concurrent protocols Roca de Larios, J., Marín, J., & Murphy, L.
to explore L2 writing processes: Method- (2001). A temporal analysis of formulation
ological issues in the collection and analysis processes in L1 and L2 writing. Language
of data. In P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Learning, 51, 497-538.
Second language writing research: Perspectives Seidlhofer, B., Breiteneder, A., & Pitzl, M. L.
on the process of knowledge construction (pp. (2006). English as a Lingua Franca in Europe:
187–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Challenges for applied linguistics. Annual
Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Roca de Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 3-34.
Larios, J. (2007). Lexical retrieval processes Van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaars-
and strategies in second language writing: A dam, G. & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during
synthesis of empirical research. International L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex
Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 149-174. phenomenon. Journal of Second Language
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Writing, 18(4), 235-250.
Murphy, L. (2000). An approximation to the Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language
study of backtracking in L2 writing. Learning among writers with differing second-lan-
and Instruction, 10(1), 13-35. guage proficiency. Journal of Second Language
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Writing, 12(4), 347-375.
Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the
and problem-solving nature of foreign lan- L2 composing process: An exploratory study
guage composing processes: Implications for of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second
theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246.
foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Lan-
and research (pp. 102-129). Bristol: Multilin- guage switches in L3 production: Implica-
gual Matters. tions for a polyglot speaking model. Applied
Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). Linguistics, 19(3), 295-333.
Searching for words: One strategic use of the Woodall, B. R. (2002). Language-switching:
mother tongue by advanced Spanish EFL Using the first language while writing in a
writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, second language. Journal of Second Language
19(2), 61-81. Writing, 11(1), 7-28.
Navés, T., Miralpeix, I, & Celaya, M. L. (2005).