473 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 10 (3). 2020. 473-500 http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.4 http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL English learners María Martínez-Adrián Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU), Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0324-0443 maria.martineza@ehu.eus Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU), Spain https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2274-6423 izaskun.arratibel@ehu.eus Abstract This article contributes to the scarcity of research on the interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages (PKL) in young learn- ers. It examines the use of Basque/Spanish by CLIL learners (aged 10-11) dur- ing oral interaction while completing two collaborative tasks in English: a speaking task and a speaking + writing task. Findings indicate that these learn- ers are extensive users of their PKL. Task-modality is particularly evident in the case of amount of PKL use, as a higher number of PKL turns are obtained in the speaking + writing task. However, task-modality has a limited effect on the functions of PKL, which contrasts with previous studies with adults. Despite the extensive use of their PKL, these young and low-proficient learners em- ploy them as cognitive tools that facilitate the organization of the tasks, the co-construction of meaning and the attention to formal aspects of language such as mechanics. Keywords: CLIL; task-modality; use of previously known languages; task-based interaction María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 474 1. Introduction The use of previously known languages (henceforth PKL) during task-based interac- tion has been the focus of attention of numerous English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) investigations, predominantly with adult learners. These studies have tackled the effect of factors such as proficiency, onset age, gender, task-type (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Cenoz, 2001; Muñoz, 2007), and to a lesser extent, task-modality effects (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015, 2017; Payant & Kim, 2019). In this last respect, when comparing collaborative speaking tasks to tasks that include oral and written components, learners tend to resort to their PKL to a higher extent in the latter. In terms of functions, while learn- ers have been found to use their PKL mainly for vocabulary searches in speaking tasks, in speaking + writing tasks, grammar talk is more common. Recent years have witnessed the implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs all over Europe, and with their inception, an explosion of research examining the effect of the more natural, meaningful and in- tense input provided in these learning contexts. Specifically, CLIL studies on the use of PKL have mainly concentrated on secondary-school learners (Arratibel-Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018, 2019; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2016; Lázaro-Ibarrola & García Mayo, 2012; Martínez-Adrián & Gutiérrez-Mangado, 2015), but a growing bulk of research exists with primary-school learners (Azkarai & Imaz Agirre, 2017; Gallardo-del- Puerto, 2015; García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017; García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015; Gutiérrez-Mangado, 2015; Martínez-Adrián, 2020a). However, unlike research with adults in ESL and EFL settings, CLIL research has mainly analyzed the variable profi- ciency and there is a need to examine a wider range of variables such as task-type or task-modality, particularly with young learners. This paper will try to fill these gaps by examining the use of PKL (Basque and Spanish) during the oral interaction of young CLIL learners (aged 10-11) while per- forming two collaborative tasks: a speaking task and a speaking + writing task. Sec- tion 2 reviews the main empirical findings concerning the use of PKL during dyadic interaction and task-modality effects. In section 3, the research questions are formu- lated and the study is described. Section 4 presents the results. The paper finishes with the discussion of the results and the main conclusions drawn from the study. 2. Literature review 2.1. The use of PKL when performing communicative tasks in English The use of PKL when performing communicative tasks in English has been the focus of attention of numerous investigations in ESL and EFL contexts, particularly with The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 475 adult learners. These investigations have tackled the effects of factors such as pro- ficiency, onset age, gender and task-type (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Cenoz, 2001; Muñoz, 2007). As for proficiency, low-proficiency learners have been found to make use of PKL to a higher extent (Di Camilla & Antón, 2012; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). In terms of functions, low-proficient learners use their PKL for task management and high-proficient learners to discuss vocabulary searches (Di Camilla & Antón, 2012). Regarding onset age, older learners have been reported to make a greater use of PKL during interaction (Cenoz, 2001, 2003). With respect to gender effects, while Ross-Feldman (2005) did not observe differences between males and fe- males in terms of amount of PKL use, Azkarai (2015) reported a higher use of the first language (L1) by females. When functions were explored, females used the L1 mainly for a phatic function (i.e., to overcome communication breakdowns), while males employed their L1 mainly for off-task and vocabulary issues. Task-type has also been claimed to affect the use and functions of the L1 (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Lasito & Storch, 2013; Rayati, Yaqubi, & Harsejsani, 2012; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). The participants in these investigations did not make an excessive use of PKL, which has led researchers to claim that PKL should not be banned during pair-work, as its use might aid in the language learning process. In terms of amount of PKL, tasks with a written component generate a higher use of PKL. In the case of functions, learners employ their PKL for a variety of purposes such as task management, vocabulary and grammar discussions, off-task and phatics, among others, and they differ from task to task. For example, while the use of PKL for vocabulary discussions is more common in tasks that focus on oral communi- cation (Lasito & Storch, 2013), grammar talk and mechanics are more frequent in editing tasks (Rayati et al., 2012; Storch & Aldosari, 2010). Recent years have witnessed a growing body of research with young learners (Enever, 2011, García Mayo, 2017, 2018; Haselgreen, Drew, & Sørheim, 2012; Nikolov, 2009). However, studies examining the use of PKL by younger learners in ESL and EFL contexts (Pinter, 2007; Shintani, 2012; Tognini & Oliver, 2012) do not examine the functions of PKL in detail like studies conducted with adult learners (see Azkarai & García Mayo, 2017 for a review of these studies in this respect), and a call for more research with younger learners has been made. Children are unique and engage in the language learning process in ways that are distinct from their older counterparts, which reinforces the specificity of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research with this population (Mackey & Gass, 2005 as cited in Oliver & Azkarai, 2017). Following Piaget’s theory (1929), “cognitive development is gradual, initially localized (see, e.g., Gombert, 1992), María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 476 and involves the construction of increasingly sophisticated mental representa- tions (see, e.g., Bialystok, 1994, 2001; Bialystok & Ryan, 1985)” (Roehr-Brackin, 2018, p. 10). Likewise, “language is an integrated part of general cognition that develops from localized, item-based to more abstract and general representa- tions” (Roehr-Brackin, 2018, p. 10). The need for more research with young learners has been particularly man- ifested in EFL contexts, usually considered low input contexts (Pinter, 2011), where learners are not exposed to large amounts of input as in ESL settings. The programs introducing foreign languages at an early age have proliferated in recent years, in particular CLIL programs in which in addition to English as a school sub- ject, different subjects are taught through a foreign language. Despite the great diversity of CLIL programs, all of them are characterized by the provision of more natural, meaningful and intense input than in mainstream EFL classrooms (Coyle, 2007; Lázaro-Ibarrola & García Mayo, 2012; Marsh, 2002; Muñoz, 2007). Taking into account that CLIL programs are the norm more than the exception in the case of young learners in some European countries such as Spain, several researchers have pointed out the need to do research in these settings so as to provide learn- ers with the best learning conditions (García Mayo, 2018). Most research in CLIL contexts on the use of PKL during oral production has concentrated on secondary education (Arratibel-Irazusta & Martínez- Adrián, 2018, 2019; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2016; Lázaro-Ibarrola & García Mayo, 2012; Martínez-Adrián & Gutiérrez-Mangado, 2015), even though a growing interest in the study of primary-school learners has been observed in recent years (e.g., Azkarai & Imaz Agirre, 2017; Gallardo-del-Puerto, 2015; García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017; García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015; Gutiérrez-Mangado, 2015; Mar- tínez-Adrián, 2020a). The general finding that emerges from these studies is that CLIL learners do not rely so much on their PKL since the exposure to more in- tense and meaningful input provided in CLIL lessons leads them to a greater command of the target language (TL) and in turn to a decrease in the use of the PKL. These studies also confirm the facilitative role of PKL for task completion (García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017; Martínez-Adrián, 2020a). Unlike research with adults in ESL and EFL contexts that has examined a wide range of factors (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Cenoz, 2001; Muñoz, 2007), CLIL studies have mainly addressed the effect of proficiency (Ar- ratibel-Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018, 2019; Lázaro-Ibarrola & García Mayo, 2012; Martínez-Adrián, 2020b; Pladevall-Ballester & Vraciu, 2017, this issue). Task and gender effects have been looked into in a few studies (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2017; Azkarai & Imaz Agirre, 2017). As for proficiency effects, results are somewhat contradictory. While Lázaro-Ibarrola and García Mayo (2012) found that in secondary school learners The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 477 the use of the PKL in appeals for assistance and discourse markers significantly decreased with proficiency growth, other studies with similar age learners such as Arratibel-Irazusta and Martínez-Adrián (2018, 2019) revealed not only the in- existence of a significant decrease of PKL use (interactional strategies, transfer lapses – that is, borrowings and foreignizings – code-switching and discourse markers), but also of TL-based strategies (i.e., analytic and holistic). Other inves- tigations conducted with primary school learners that offer a comparison of CLIL and mainstream EFL learner groups (matched for hours of exposure) following a longitudinal perspective attested a decreasing tendency in the use of catego- ries such as borrowings and code-switching in both groups (Pladevall-Ballester & Vraciu, 2017), a finding contrasting with other investigations in which a lower use of PKL was found on the part of CLIL learners. More recent studies con- ducted with young learners have examined the use of PKL together with TL use in appeals for assistance, clarification requests, metacomments, discourse markers and private speech in different age/proficiency groups (Martínez- Adrián, 2020b). While a greater use of PKL was revealed in the group of older and more proficient learners, especially in the case of those strategies that were less cooperative and more external to the task itself, both age/proficiency groups performed similarly in the case of TL use, except for metacomments, where a slightly higher use was observed in younger learners. Intragroup anal- yses also showed that learners in both age/proficiency groups resorted to their PKL more frequently than to English, except for metacomments. In terms of types, metacomments, followed by discourse markers and appeals for assis- tance, were the most common manifestations of PKL in both groups. Meta- comments were also most commonly served by the use of TL English. Other studies have investigated the effect of task-repetition and gender in young learners. Azkarai and García Mayo (2017) explored the effect of two types of task repetition (exact and procedural) at two testing times. L1 use de- creased at the second testing time in both repetition conditions. Appeals, bor- rowings and metacognitive uses were the most common functions including L1 use of the learners at both testing times. Azkarai and Imaz Agirre (2017) exam- ined the effect of gender on L1 use in two age groups of primary-school learners while completing a spot-the-difference task. Boys were reported to employ the L1 more often than girls, especially the older ones, and mainly to overcome com- munication breakdowns. In contrast, girls used the L1 only on occasions where they considered it necessary. The overview of research carried out with CLIL learners has revealed that the vast majority of studies have explored the effect of proficiency and has un- covered the need to examine other variables, especially with young learners. The present study will try to add to the literature in this respect. María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 478 2.2. Task-modality effects and the use of PKL Research on dyadic task-based interaction has shown that more immediate tasks such as collaborative speaking tasks draw learners’ attention to meaning while tasks that incorporate a written component promote more attention to formal linguistic aspects and demand higher levels of accuracy because of the greater planning time and more opportunities for editing they offer to the learner (Adams, 2006; Adams & Ross-Feldman, 2008; García Mayo & Azkarai, 2016). In other words, a modality effect has been obtained in several investigations as learners have been shown to produce and resolve more language related episodes (LREs)1 when comparing speaking to speaking + writing tasks. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these stud- ies have been conducted with adults in ESL contexts (Adams, 2006; Adams & Ross- Feldman, 2008; Ross-Feldman, 2007) and EFL settings (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2012; García Mayo & Azkarai, 2016; Niu, 2009; Payant & Kim, 2019), and research carried out with younger learners, particularly in EFL settings, is in its infancy (García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019). In line with research conducted with adults, more LREs were produced by 6th year primary-school learners in the speaking + writing mo- dality in García Mayo and Imaz Agirre (2019). As for the nature of LREs, lexical LREs were more frequent than form in both the speaking and the speaking + writing task. It seems as if children were in the need of producing more lexical LREs to move both tasks along. In terms of outcome, a higher percentage of resolved LREs was found in the speaking + writing task, supporting previous research with adults. As regards the interface between task-modality and the use of PKL, to the knowledge of the authors, just two studies with adult learners in an EFL setting have been conducted in this respect (cf. Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Payant & Kim, 2019). Azkarai and García Mayo (2015) gathered data from 44 EFL Spanish learners at university. Participants paired up in same-proficiency dyads to per- form four different tasks: picture placement and picture differences constituted the speaking modality tasks and dictogloss together with text editing the speak- ing + writing modality tasks. All L1 turns were codified according to L1 or second language (L2) predominance2 and the functions that the L1 served on the basis of the categorization adopted by Alegría de la Colina and García Mayo (2009), and Storch and Aldosari (2010): off-task, metacognitive talk, grammar talk, vo- cabulary, and phatics. The analysis of the results indicated that learners made minimal use of the L1, as also reported in other investigations with adult learners 1 LREs are defined as “any part of the dialogue in which students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or other- or self-correct” (Swain, 1998, p. 70). 2 Predominant L1 turns include more L1 words than L2 words, while minor L1 turns contain fewer L1 words than L2 words. The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 479 (Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 2000), which supports the claim that pair work provides learners with many opportunities to use their L2. In terms of the na- ture of turns, this study showed a greater production of minor L1 turns, which con- trasts with Storch and Aldosari (2010). In particular, minor turns were more common in the functions of vocabulary and phatics, while predominant L1 turns were more frequent in off-task, metacognitive and grammar talk. As for task-modality effects in L1 use and its functions, more L1 turns were produced in speaking + writing tasks than in speaking tasks. When learners worked in the speaking + writing tasks, off- task, metacognitive talk, grammar talk and phatics were more common. In speaking tasks, learners employed the L1 for vocabulary searches. Thus, these results align with previous findings in which L1 use was task dependent (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). Azkarai and García Mayo (2015) also compared same-modality tasks. Greater reliance on the L1 was observed in text editing and picture placement than in their modality coun- terparts. The authors ascribed greater use of the L1 in these tasks to the complexity of these tasks. As regards the functions of L1 use, off-task and metacognitive talk were more frequent in dictogloss and picture placement tasks than in their modality counterparts, while grammar talk and vocabulary searches were more frequent in the text edition and picture differences than same modality tasks. Payant and Kim (2019) examined the impact of task modality on learners’ use of the L1 during the production of LREs. To this end, five dyads of L1 Spanish-L2 English bilingual learners of L3 French performed two decision-making tasks, both of them including oral and written components. Form-based and lexis-based LREs were codified for each language pattern and for each modality. As in Azkarai and García Mayo (2015), a greater number of LREs produced in the L1 was obtained in the written modality. However, learners preferred to use the TL French in the oral modality. The same language pattern applied to the types of LREs produced. Given the scarcity of research along these lines, a call has been made for more studies with young learners and in other instructional settings such as CLIL (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Azkarai & García Mayo, 2017). Thus, this article will try to fill these gaps by examining the use of PKL (Basque and Spanish) by young CLIL learners (aged 10-11) during oral interaction while completing two collaborative tasks: a speaking task and a speaking + writing task. 3. The study 3.1. Research questions Based on previous findings regarding the use of PKL in young CLIL learners, the pre- sent study analyzes the nature of PKL turns and the existence of task-modality María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 480 effects (speaking vs. speaking + writing task). More specifically, we address the following research questions: 1. Are there any differences in terms of amount between predominant and minor PKL-based turns? 2. Which functions do PKL-based predominant and minor turns serve? 3. Are there any differences between tasks (speaking vs. speaking + writ- ing) with respect to the production of PKL turns and their functions? 4. What functions are more commonly served by PKL in each task? 3.2. Participants The present study, which is part of a larger project, was conducted in a state school in the Basque Country in northern Spain. The participants in the study are 50 (15 females and 35 males) learners of third language (L3) English in the 5th and 6th year (ages 10-11) of primary education immersed in a CLIL program. The vast majority of the students come from Spanish-speaking families as this language is the majority language in the area where these learners live. Never- theless, all of them are enrolled at school in Model D, in which the vast majority of subjects are taught in Basque except for the Spanish language and its litera- ture, which is taught in Spanish, English as a language subject, and content sub- jects such as science, arts and crafts or physical education, which are taught in English. As Lasagabaster (2007) mentions, this model can be seen as an early total immersion program which allows students from Spanish-speaking families to obtain a high command in L2 Basque, so that they are considered Span- ish/Basque bilinguals (Cenoz, 2009). The context in which the participants live has been defined as additive trilingualism where Basque, the language of in- struction, is a minority language of Spain, Spanish is the majority language, and English is the main foreign language (Cenoz & Valencia, 1994). All the participants started learning English in pre-primary education as a school subject. Since the 3rd year, English is also used as a vehicular language for some con- tent subjects as mentioned above. In the 5th and 6th years, in which learners in the present study are enrolled, students receive 3 hours a week of instruction in EFL and 2 to 4 hours a week of CLIL instruction. Therefore, learners receive 5 to 7 weekly hours of instruction in the TL. At the moment of data gathering, 5th year learners had re- ceived from 777 hours of exposure to English, and 6th graders 962 hours. As far as their English proficiency is concerned, all the students were considered beginner (A1-A2)3 3 Basic users according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 481 learners according to the scores they obtained in the Key English Test (KET), ad- ministered at the outset of the study (UCLES, 2014).4 3.3. Instruments and data analysis Data were collected by means of four different instruments which are part of a wider project on the use of collaborative tasks among primary-school children. Participants were first tested on general proficiency by means of the KET, which was completed during classtime. Subsequently, they were matched in pairs on the basis of their proficiency scores so as to perform a speaking and a speaking + writ- ing task. Previous studies analyzing task-modality effects both on the production of LREs and on PKL use have employed similar tasks (Adams & Ross-Feldman, 2008; Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; García Mayo & Azkarai, 2016; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019; Niu, 2009; Payant & Kim, 2019). Nevertheless, taking into ac- count that the framing of the task could overrule its inherent focus (Philp, Walter, & Basturkmen, 2010), we decided to ask participants in both tasks to pay special attention to accuracy. Likewise, they were asked to carry out the task naturally by employing all their resources at hand. If doubts or difficulties concerning vocabu- lary issues emerged during task completion, they could always seek their part- ner’s help but not the investigator’s help. In each of these tasks, and prior to their completion, participants were individually asked to grade their motivation using a motivation thermometer. Specifically, they were requested to tell from 0 to 10 how they felt before and after doing each of the tasks and to select one of the reasons provided by the investigator to justify their motivation grade. With respect to the speaking task, each dyad had to order a set of 6 pic- tures taken from the book Sparks 1 (House & Scott, 2009)5 and then, in turns, they had to narrate the episodes depicted in them in story mode. The vignettes showed a girl who was provided with the picture of a rag-doll she had to sew out of the set of pieces given. The girl starts sewing but the rag-doll does not match the one shown in the picture, as the legs were sewn where the arms should be and the arms where the legs should be. When she looks at the result, she starts crying. Her friend, the fairy, sees that the girl is very upset and decides to help her by sprinkling some magic dust on the doll. Suddenly, the arms and the legs are sewn in the right positions, which makes the girl really happy. This type of task has been widely employed in several investigations with both children 4 The fact that they are still beginner learners despite the additional exposure received since grade 3 aligns with the research findings reported in other CLIL studies that have claimed that a later start in CLIL could optimize resources (see Muñoz, 2015, for a review of these findings). 5 Note that this book is not used in this school. María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 482 and adults for similar research purposes in both non-CLIL and CLIL settings (e.g., Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Arratibel-Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018, 2019; García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017; García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015; Martínez-Adrián, 2020a; Storch & Aldosari, 2010). For the speaking + writing task, learners had to examine some pictures provided by the investigator in which a boy in a park had found a lost dog. With the help of some clues, they had to decide who the owner of the dog was and why they thought so. Then, they had to write down a short note for the boy explaining who the owner of the dog was, why they thought so, and also giving instructions on how to take the dog back to its owner. Similar tasks have been administered in previous studies with EFL adults (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015) and more recently with child CLIL learners (García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019).6 7 Even if similar tasks have been used already with child learners in other investiga- tions, the researchers held several meetings with the school teachers so as to en- sure that the task was appropriate for the learners tested and to discuss possible adaptations. It was also pilot-tested with similar-age children so as to detect po- tential problems that could emerge during the administration of the tasks. All the tasks were audio and videotaped, transcribed and codified into CHILDES (McWhinney, 2000). All turns that included the use of PKL (i.e., Basque and Spanish) were identified. These turns were classified according to language predominance, that is, whether they were predominant (¿esto es una chica o un chico? – “Is this a girl or a boy”) or minor (the owner is Jack Smith the vet punto – “the owner is Jack Smith the vet, full stop”) PKL-based turns. Subsequently, they were subdivided according to the different functions they served on the basis of Azkarai and García Mayo (2015) and Storch and Aldosari (2010), namely off-task, metacognitive talk, grammar talk, vocabulary, phatics, and mechanics. The description provided below contains examples of our database: 6 As Azkarai and García Mayo (2015) indicate, even if the interface between task-based lan- guage teaching and CLIL is still in its infancy, we can observe the use of similar tasks to the ones employed in EFL in recent studies with CLIL children (García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017; García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015). 7 We are aware, as pointed out by one of the reviewers, that the tasks used in the speaking and in the speaking + writing modality also differ in type. The speaking task is a storytelling task, while the speaking + writing task is an opinion gap task. Ideally, both conditions should have kept constant the level of complexity between tasks. However, this study is part of a bigger project on task-modality in which we have extended prior research with adults to children by designing similar tasks (see García Mayo & Azkarai, 2016 with adults and García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019 with children). But so as to solve the limitation of previous studies as regards the lack of control of accuracy that both modalities demand, we kept instructions constant by asking learners to attend to accuracy in both modalities. The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 483 Off-task Off-task refers to those situations in which participants use their PKL as casual talk that is not related to the task (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015), as illustrated in (1): (1) CHI1: Que feo, mira que cara tiene el perro, parece un animatronic. [How ugly, look at the dog’s face, it looks like an ‘animatronic’] Metacognitive talk Metacognitive talk, as can be observed in (2), includes instances in which the students use their PKL to talk about the task itself in order to plan, organize and monitor the activity, among other functions (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015). (2) CHI1: Yo creo que esta es la segunda. [I think this is the second] CHI2: y luego le sigue esto. [and then this follows] Grammar talk Grammar talk involves cases in which learners use their PKL to discuss issues related to grammar such as morphosyntax and text structure (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Storch & Aldosari, 2010), as showed in (3): (3) CHI1: his o her? [his or her?] CHI2: es his. [it is his] Vocabulary Vocabulary includes the use of students’ PKL in deliberations over word/sen- tence meaning, word searches and word choice (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Storch & Aldosari, 2010), as observed in (4): (4) CHI1: cómo se dice enfadada? [how do you say angry?] CHI2: cross? Phatics Phatics, as illustrated in (5), refers to expressions such as ok, well, so produced in Basque and Spanish to establish social contact and to express sociability ra- ther than specific meaning (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015): (5) CHI1: and friend is very o sea girl is very happy because the doll is pretty. [and friend is very I mean girl is very happy because the doll is pretty] María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 484 Mechanics Mechanics involves instances in which participants use their PKL to discuss punctuation, spelling and pronunciation (Storch & Aldosari, 2010), as in (6): (6) CHI1: his con hache. [his with ‘h’] With respect to statistical analyses, results were analyzed by means of SPSS 24 (IMB Corp., 2010). Both descriptive and inferential analyses were com- puted. In the case of descriptive analyses, means, medians, standard deviations, minimum and maximum scores were calculated. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were run to verify the normality of distribution of the samples. As the data did not meet the criteria for normal distribution, Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Tests and Friedman Tests were performed for intertask and intratask comparisons. 4. Results So as to answer the first research question, all turns were tallied and those that included the use of PKL were identified. Subsequently, they were subdivided into predominant and minor turns. In addition, so as to enrich the analysis, the total number of words produced were calculated and the number of PKL words subtracted from this word count (see Table 1). This analysis indicated that from the total count of turns (3453 turns), 37.91% (1309 turns) included use of stu- dents’ PKL. Focusing on the total number of words produced by the participants (13511 words), the same trend that was observed for turns was found as 37.63% of those words (5084 words) were uttered in Basque and/or in Spanish. When subdividing the turns that presented use of PKL into predominant or minor turns, 87.39% of those turns (1144 turns) were predominant whereas only 12.61% of the turns (165 turns) were minor. A Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test re- vealed that the difference between predominant and minor PKL turns was sta- tistically significant (Z = -4.061, p = .001). Table 1 Production of PKL turns and words in all tasks Total Mean Median SD Min. Max. Turns 3453 149.26 155.00 53.046 53 248 PKL turns 1309 (37.91%) 56.35 53.00 40.642 1 163 Predominant PKL turns 1144 (87.39%) 49.26 39.00 38.118 1 148 Minor PKL turns 165 (12.61%) 7.09 6.00 5.401 0 19 Words 13511 580.96 569.00 220.905 286 1175 PKL words 5084 (37.63%) 216.30 188.00 175.348 3 750 The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 485 The second question inquired into the main functions that predominant and minor turns served. When examining the mean number of turns in Table 2, predominant turns were significantly more frequent in off-task, metacognitive talk, mechanics and vocabulary. No statistically significant differences emerged in grammar talk and in phatics. Table 2 Functions and Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for PKL turns in all tasks Type of turn Total Mean Median SD Min. Max. Z Sig. Off-task Pred. 43 (3.76%) 1.87 .00 4.475 0 19 -2.536 .011 Minor 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 Metacognitive talk Pred. 686 (59.97%) 29.35 24.00 24.487 0 81 -4.016 .001 Minor 28 (16.97%) 1.17 1.00 1.723 0 6 Grammar talk Pred. 4 (0.35%) .17 .00 .388 0 1 -1.732 .083 Minor 1 (0.61%) .04 .00 .209 0 1 Vocabulary Pred. 328 (28.67%) 14.26 8.00 13.616 0 55 -3.432 .001 Minor 107 (64.85%) 4.65 4.00 3.892 0 15 Phatics Pred. 10 (0.87%) .43 .00 .590 0 2 -1.934 .053 Minor 21 (12.73%) .87 1.00 .968 0 3 Mechanics Pred. 73 (6.38%) 3.17 2.00 3.128 0 11 -3.434 .001 Minor 8 (4.85%) .35 .00 .573 0 2 In order to analyze these results in more detail, the main functions that predominant and minor turns served in each of the tasks were examined. For the speaking task, as can be observed by looking at the means in Table 3, pre- dominant turns were significantly more frequently used in off-task, metacogni- tive talk and vocabulary. No statistically significant differences were revealed between predominant and minor turns in grammar talk, phatics and mechanics. Table 3 Functions and Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for PKL turns in the speaking task Type of turn Total Mean Median SD Min. Max. Z Sig. Off-task Pred. 7 (1.73%) .29 .00 .690 0 3 -2.121 .034 Minor 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 Metacognitive talk Pred. 228 (56.44%) 9.50 3.50 10.726 0 30 -3.644 .001 Minor 9 (8.49%) .38 .00 .770 0 3 Grammar talk Pred. 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 .000 1.000 Minor 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 Vocabulary Pred. 162 (40.10%) 6.75 4.50 6.668 0 22 -2.192 .028 Minor 83 (78.30%) 3.46 3.00 2.797 0 12 Phatics Pred. 7 (1.73%) .29 .00 .550 0 2 -1.706 .088 Minor 14 (13.21%) .58 .00 .717 0 2 Mechanics Pred. 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 .000 1.000 Minor 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 486 In the speaking + writing task, as can be observed in Table 4, predominant turns were significantly more common in off-task, metacognitive talk, vocabulary and mechanics. However, the comparison between predominant and minor turns did not yield statistically significant differences in grammar talk and phatics. Table 4 Functions and Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for PKL turns in the speaking + writing task Type of turn Total Mean Median SD Min. Max. Z Sig. Off-task Pred. 36 (4.86%) 1.57 .00 4.450 0 19 -2.214 .027 Minor 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 Metacognitive talk Pred. 458 (61.89%) 19.91 23.00 16.121 0 56 -3.921 .001 Minor 19 (32.2%) .83 .00 1.527 0 6 Grammar talk Pred. 4 (0.54%) .17 .00 .388 0 1 -1.732 .083 Minor 1 (1.69%) .04 .00 .209 0 1 Vocabulary Pred. 166 (22.43%) 7.22 4.00 8.101 0 34 -3.533 .001 Minor 24 (40.68%) 1.04 .00 1.492 0 4 Phatics Pred. 3 (0.41%) .13 .00 .344 0 1 -1.414 .157 Minor 7 (11.86%) .30 .00 .559 0 2 Mechanics Pred. 73 (9.86%) 3.17 2.00 3.128 0 11 -3.434 .001 Minor 8 (13.56%) .35 .00 .573 0 2 With respect to the third research question that looked into task modality effects, differences between the speaking and the speaking + writing tasks re- garding the production of PKL turns and their functions were examined. As in the case of the first research question, the total number of words produced as well as the words produced in their PKL have been considered. Table 5 Production of PKL turns, words, and Wilcoxon’s signed rank test in both tasks Task Total Mean Median SD Min. Max. Z Sig. Turns Speaking 1217 50.71 49.50 21.068 20 97 -4.198 .001Speaking + writing 2236 97.22 91.00 36.835 33 164 PKL turns Speaking 510 (41.91%) 21.25 16.00 16.791 1 61 -3.225 .001Speaking + writing 799 (35.73%) 34.74 37.00 25.673 0 102 Pred. PKL turns Speaking 404 (79.22%) 16.83 11.00 15.650 0 51 -3.573 .001Speaking + writing 740 (92.62%) 32.17 31.00 24.563 0 97 Minor PKL turns Speaking 106 (20.78%) 4.42 4.00 3.092 0 13 -3.008 .003Speaking + writing 59 (7.38%) 2.57 1.00 2.873 0 10 Words Speaking 5625 234.38 234.00 80.385 108 419 -3.209 .001Speaking + writing 7886 342.87 297.00 162.688 119 756 PKL words Speaking 1949 (34.65%) 81.21 58.00 72.399 3 247 -3.087 .002Speaking + writing 3135 (39.75%) 136.30 141.00 113.511 0 503 The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 487 When analyzing the turns, as can be observed in Table 5, the speaking + writing task yielded a greater number of turns and words when compared to the speaking task. Participants also produced significantly more turns and words in their PKL in the speaking + writing task than in the speaking task. In addition, predominant PKL turns were significantly more frequent in the speaking + writ- ing task, and minor PKL turns in the speaking task. When comparing tasks in terms of amount of PKL in each function (see Table 6), metacognitive talk and mechanics were significantly more frequent in the speaking + writing task. In contrast, off-task, grammar talk, vocabulary and phatics were equally served by participants’ PKL in both tasks, as no statistically significant differences were observed. Table 6 Functions and Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for PKL turns in both tasks Task Total Mean Median SD Min. Max. Z Sig. Off-task Speaking 7 (1.37%) .29 .00 .690 0 3 -.954 .340Speaking + writing 36 (4.51%) 1.57 .00 4.450 0 19 Metacogni- tive talk Speaking 237 (46.47%) 9.88 3.50 10.674 0 30 -3.398 .001Speaking + writing 477 (59.7%) 20.74 24.00 16.501 0 56 Grammar talk Speaking 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 -1.890 .059Speaking + writing 5 (0.63%) .22 .00 .518 0 2 Vocabulary Speaking 245 (48.04%) 10.21 8.50 8.377 0 28 -1.729 .084Speaking + writing 190 (23.78%) 8.26 6.00 8.708 0 37 Phatics Speaking 21 (4.12%) .88 1.00 .992 0 4 -1.707 .088Speaking + writing 10 (1.25%) .43 .00 .728 0 3 Mechanics Speaking 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 -3.832 .001Speaking + writing 81 (10.14%) 3.52 3.00 3.102 0 11 When considering the nature of PKL turns and their functions between tasks, predominant PKL turns serving the function of metacognitive talk, gram- mar talk and mechanics yielded a statistically significant difference in favor of the speaking + writing task, as illustrated in Table 7. On the other hand, no dif- ferences were obtained in off-task, vocabulary and phatics predominant turns. María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 488 Table 7 Functions and Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for predominant PKL turns in both tasks Task Total Mean Median SD Min. Max. Z Sig. Predominant off-task Speaking 7 (1.73%) .29 .00 .690 0 3 -.954 .340Speaking + writing 36 (4.86%) 1.57 .00 4.450 0 19 Predominant metacognitive talk Speaking 228 (56.44%) 9.50 3.50 10.726 0 30 -3.462 .001Speaking + writing 458 (61.89%) 19.91 23.00 16.121 0 56 Predominant grammar talk Speaking 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 -2.000 .046Speaking + writing 4 (0.54%) .17 .00 .388 0 1 Predominant vocabulary Speaking 162 (40.10%) 6.75 4.50 6.668 0 22 -.175 .861Speaking + writing 166 (22.43%) 7.22 4.00 8.101 0 34 Predominant phatics Speaking 7 (1.73%) .29 .00 .550 0 2 -1.155 .248Speaking + writing 3 (0.41%) .13 .00 .344 0 1 Predominant mechanics Speaking 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 -3.629 .001Speaking + writing 73 (9.86%) 3.17 2.00 3.128 0 11 In the case of minor PKL turns, as shown in Table 8, vocabulary was signif- icantly more frequently used in the speaking task. In contrast, mechanics pre- sented statistically significant differences in favor of the speaking + writing task. In the case of off-task, metacognitive talk, grammar talk, and phatics no differ- ences were obtained. Table 8 Functions and Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for minor PKL turns in both tasks Task Total Mean Median SD Min. Max. Z Sig. Minor off-task Speaking 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 .000 1.000Speaking + writing 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 Minor meta- cognitive talk Speaking 9 (8.49%) .38 .00 .770 0 3 -1.124 .261Speaking + writing 19 (32.2%) .83 .00 1.527 0 6 Minor gram- mar talk Speaking 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 -1.000 .317Speaking + writing 1 (1.69%) .04 .00 .209 0 1 Minor vocabu- lary Speaking 83 (78.30%) 3.46 3.00 2.797 0 12 -3.876 .001Speaking + writing 24 (40.68%) 1.04 .00 1.492 0 4 Minor phatics Speaking 14 (13.21%) .58 .00 .717 0 2 -1.350 .177Speaking + writing 7 (11.86%) .30 .00 .559 0 2 Minor me- chanics Speaking 0 (0%) .00 .00 .000 0 0 -2.530 .011Speaking + writing 8 (13.56%) .35 .00 .573 0 2 The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 489 Finally, the last research question pertained to the functions more com- monly served by participants’ PKL in each task. Figure 1 depicts the descriptive comparison of the use of Spanish/Basque in the different categories in the speaking task. Figure 1 Functions more commonly served by participants’ PKL in the speaking task Table 9 Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for the functions of PKL turns in the speaking task Z Sig. Metacognitive talk – Off-task -3.828 .001 Grammar talk – Off-task -2.121 .034 Vocabulary – Off-task -4.109 .001 Phatics – Off-task -3.116 .002 Mechanics – Off-task -2.121 .034 Grammar talk – Metacognitive talk -3.923 .001 Vocabulary – Metacognitive talk -.777 .437 Phatics – Metacognitive talk -3.725 .001 Mechanics – Metacognitive talk -3.923 .001 Vocabulary – Grammar talk -4.108 .001 Phatics – Grammar talk -3.407 .001 Mechanics – Grammar talk .000 1.000 Phatics – Vocabulary -4.146 .001 Mechanics – Vocabulary -4.108 .001 Mechanics – Phatics -3.407 .001 As shown in Figure 1, vocabulary and metacognitive talk were more com- monly served by the use of Basque/Spanish, followed by phatics and off-task. In contrast, no instances of grammar and mechanics were found in this task. The Friedman test performed reported the existence of statistically significant differ- ences (chi-square = 85.572, p = .001). Consequently, post-hoc analyses were con- ducted. The Wilcoxon’s Signed Rank Test (see Table 9) confirmed the inexistence 10,21 9,88 0,88 0,29 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 490 of significant differences between vocabulary and metacognitive talk. But the differ- ences between these two and the rest of the categories examined reached signifi- cance. Statistically significant differences also emerged among off-task, grammar talk, phatics, and mechanics, except for the contrast between mechanics and grammar. Figure 2 shows the results for the speaking + writing task. Metacognitive talk was the most common manifestation of Basque/Spanish use, followed by vocabulary and mechanics. Grammar talk, even if it is present in this task, is the least common category. Figure 2 Functions more commonly served by participants’ PKL in the speaking + writing task Table 10 Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for the functions of PKL turns in the speak- ing + writing task Z Sig. Metacognitive talk – Off-task -4.017 .001 Grammar talk – Off-task -1.292 .196 Vocabulary – Off-task -3.270 .001 Phatics – Off-task -.574 .566 Mechanics – Off-task -2.381 .017 Grammar talk – Metacognitive talk -4.016 .001 Vocabulary – Metacognitive talk -3.717 .001 Phatics – Metacognitive talk -4.016 .001 Mechanics – Metacognitive talk -3.683 .001 Vocabulary – Grammar talk -3.923 .001 Phatics – Grammar talk -1.026 .305 Mechanics – Grammar talk -3.833 .001 Phatics – Vocabulary -3.826 .001 Mechanics – Vocabulary -2.641 .008 Mechanics – Phatics -3.633 .001 The Friedman test conducted revealed the existence of statistically signifi- cant differences among the categories (chi-square = 80.857, p = .001). Post-hoc analyses (see Table 10) indicated that metacognitive talk significantly differed from 20,74 8,26 3,52 1,57 0,43 0,22 0 5 10 15 20 25 The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 491 the rest of the categories. Similarly, vocabulary and mechanics presented signifi- cant differences with respect to off-task, grammar talk and phatics. No differences were reported for the contrast between grammar talk, phatics and off-task. 5. Discussion and conclusion In this section the four research questions of the study will be answered. As re- gards the first research question (Are there any differences in terms of amount between predominant and minor turns?), unlike other investigations with adults (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Storch & Aldosari, 2010), the child learners of the present study made greater use of their PKL. According to Storch and Aldosari (2010), they could be considered extensive users of their PKL as PKL words ac- counted for 37.63% of the total number of words, and over 37% of the turns were in the PKL. Their low proficiency probably explains the widespread use of predominant PKL turns, even though other factors could also be explored. One of these potential factors is related to the instructions. Learners were asked to perform these tasks naturally by using all their resources at hand. Therefore, when they used their PKL during task performance, they were not instructed to switch into English. In addition, learners were not so familiar with this type of tasks, which could have prompted them to rely more on their PKL. Likewise, pair dynamics or personality traits, which are beyond the scope of the present paper, could also have impacted the results. With respect to the second research question (Which functions do pre- dominant and minor turns serve?), when considering all tasks, predominant PKL turns were significantly more frequent in off-task, metacognitive talk, mechan- ics, and vocabulary. This applies to each individual task, with the exception of mechanics, which was inexistent in the speaking task. Learners tend to perform these functions by means of turns entirely produced in their PKL as in (7-10). In off-task (7), learners feel free to talk in their PKL about issues unrelated to the task. In metacognitive talk (8), learners mainly employed their PKL when they did not understand the instructions of the tasks well, and also to meet task re- quirements or to organize themselves. Likewise, when discussing vocabulary (9) or mechanics issues (10), they employed much more predominant turns to clear up their doubts or to make their decisions as regards word meaning/choice more effectively so as to prevent communication breakdowns: (7) *CHI1: pregunta si nos regalan el lápiz. [ask if they can give us the pencil] (8) *CHI1: primero hay que poner una nota del chico. [first we have to write a note to the boy] María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 492 (9) *CHI2: eh (.) boy (…) eh (…) como se dice impresionado? [how do you say impressed?] *CHI1: eh im (.) impressing? *CHI2: impressing the toy. (10) *CHI2: works (.) erre ka ese. [works, ‘r’, ‘k’, ‘s’] This result partially aligns with Azkarai and García Mayo (2015) as they also found that predominant turns were more frequent in off-task and metacog- nitive talk. However, in their study, vocabulary searches were more common in the case of minor turns. In those turns, according to Azkarai and García Mayo (2015), the university learners in their study just referred to the word they needed in English. In the current study, the fact that the participants were even lower proficiency learners than in Azkarai and García Mayo (2015) and that they were child learners could explain the use of predominant turns for vocabulary deliberations. These learners were primarily making use of appeals for assis- tance during vocabulary deliberations, which they were producing entirely in Spanish most of the time. Appeals for assistance are strategies widely used by young learners in recent investigations carried out with children and oral pro- duction (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2017; García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017; Martínez- Adrián, 2020a), and also with children and self-reported opinions (Martínez- Adrián, Gallardo-del-Puerto, & Basterrechea, 2019). As an answer to the third research question (Are there any differences be- tween tasks [speaking vs. speaking + writing] with respect to the production of PKL turns and their functions?), task-modality effects were evident in the case of the production of PKL turns. A greater number of PKL turns were produced in the speaking + writing task, as well as a higher number of PKL words. These find- ings align with previous research on task-modality effects conducted with adults (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Payant & Kim, 2019) as well as those studies an- alyzing the effect of task-type (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Storch & Aldosari, 2010; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003), according to which the addi- tion of a writing component generates more use of PKL than oral communicative tasks. As for the effect of task-modality on the functions of PKL, the demands of PKL for the different functions are similar in both tasks, except for metacognitive talk and mechanics, which yielded significant differences in favor of the speaking + writing task. This could be explained by the demands of the speaking + writing task. The fact that in this task learners talked to each other during task comple- tion and also had to submit a written product could entail a greater investment of time in talking about task procedures. In addition, this finding could be due to the differences between tasks in terms of task-complexity reported in the The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 493 methodology. Unlike the speaking task, in which they simply had to order the pictures, in the speaking + writing task they had to decide not only the owner of the dog but also the best way to take it to its owner. These very low-proficient learners, when confronted with a more complex task, could have spent more time talking about the focus of the task and reaching a joint understanding of task requirements. We acknowledge that this limitation in task design could have impacted the results and that future interventions should consider keeping the same level of complexity between tasks constant. Similarly, mechanics was inexistent in the speaking task as no episodes emerged in the speaking task dur- ing which learners could have talked about pronunciation issues. However, this category was productive in the speaking + writing task when discussing spelling and punctuation. That is, unlike in the speaking + writing task, in the more im- mediate task, they did not spend time on employing the PKL to discuss more language related issues in spite of having been requested to attend to accuracy as well as to content. They were more interested in meeting the communicative demands of the speaking task (Niu, 2009; Payant & Kim, 2019). This result is in line with Storch and Aldosari (2010), who found that mechanics was more com- mon in the low-low proficiency pairs, particularly in the editing task. These results are in contrast to Azkarai and García Mayo (2015) in that greater differences were observed in their study. For example, in their study, learners resorted to the L1 to a higher extent to discuss grammar issues in the speaking + writing task. In the present study, grammar talk in the PKL was prac- tically non-existent in the data. However, the same child learners have been found to produce more grammar LREs in the speaking + writing task in other studies that are being currently conducted (Martínez-Adrián, Gallardo-del- Puerto, & Arratibel-Irazusta, 2019). However, when examining these grammar episodes in detail, the tendency in these learners is to resolve them by simply providing the relevant form without further elaborations in the form of justifica- tions for the choice made (see Niu, 2009, for the classification of LREs in terms of elaborations). The fact that they are young and beginner learners could explain the low number of metalinguistic explanations either in the PKL or in the TL. Cog- nitive and personal traits are already fully developed in the case of adults. In con- trast, young learners’ metalanguage awareness skills are developing, and scaffold- ing each other’s language might be challenging and costly, which could account for their difficulties in verbalizing rules (Muñoz, 2017; Tellier & Roehr-Bracking, 2017). Likewise, primary education in Spain is marked by a strong oral component and a special emphasis on vocabulary (Muñoz, 2017). In addition, unlike Azkarai and García Mayo (2015), who found a greater reliance on the L1 for vocabulary purposes in the speaking task, in the present study, the younger learners employed the PKL to a similar extent for this function María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 494 in both tasks. Note that in studies on LREs currently conducted with the same learners as well as in previous studies with similar-age learners (García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019), vocabulary is key in both speaking and speaking + writing tasks. These young learners need vocabulary to move the tasks along and, the use of PKL to avoid communication breakdowns. More specifically, PKL medi- ated the discussion of vocabulary issues in the form of predominant turns in similar proportions in both tasks, while minor turns were more frequently used in the speaking task than in the speaking + writing task. As regards the fourth research question (What functions are more com- monly served by PKL in each task?), vocabulary and metacognitive talk were the most common functions, followed by phatics in the speaking task. These are the functions with greater use of the PKL in previous investigations with both children (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2017; García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017; Martínez-Adrián, 2020a, 2020b) and adults (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Arratibel- Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián, 2018; Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Storch & Al- dosari, 2010). Grammar and mechanics were inexistent in this task, as also at- tested in other studies that have examined oral tasks (Lasito & Storch, 2013). In the case of the speaking + writing task, metacognitive talk was the most common function followed by vocabulary and mechanics. These findings contrast with studies conducted with adults in which PKL mediated grammar talk to a greater extent (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Rayati et al., 2012; Payant & Kim, 2019). But even if PKL did not intervene in gram- mar talk, these young learners do employ them when attending to other formal aspects such as mechanics. In fact, previous studies carried out with adolescents on collaborative writing have concluded that vocabulary and spelling attract a lot of attention from young learners (Kim & McDonough, 2011). This paper has contributed to the scarcity of studies examining the interface between task-modality and the use of PKL (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2015; Payant & Kim, 2019), particularly in the case of young learners. The analysis of the data has revealed that these learners are extensive users of PKL, most of the times in the form of predominant turns. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that they are young and low-proficient learners, and the use of PKL in this case acts as a cogni- tive tool, facilitating the organization of the tasks, the co-construction of meaning and the attention to formal aspects of language such as mechanics. Given their young age and their low proficiency, had we banned the use of their PKL during interaction, these learners could not have moved the tasks forward. As regards task-modality, it had an effect on the amount of PKL use, as a higher number of PKL turns and PKL words in the speaking + writing task were obtained. Nevertheless, task-modality had a limited effect on functions of PKL use, which contrasts with previous studies conducted with adults. In the present The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 495 study, higher use of PKL was observed in metacognitive talk and mechanics in the speaking + writing task, while no differences emerged between tasks in the other categories. Unlike previous research with adults, vocabulary was key in both tasks to move them forward and grammar talk mediated by PKL was nearly inexistent in the database, a finding that was ascribed to the low number of elaborations in the form of metalinguistic explanations. If these learners were capable of discussing grammar issues more extensively, they could have re- sorted to their PKL to verbalize their thoughts. Perhaps a more structured task such as an editing task could have prompted the provision of further grammar explanations and in turn a higher use of PKL. Overall, the findings indicate the benefits of these tasks in contributing to the promotion of learning opportunities for young CLIL learners. These collabo- rative tasks offer young learners opportunities to question their language use. In particular, these tasks lead learners to notice holes in their interlanguage sys- tems and to receive assistance by their peers, with their PKL playing a major role as mediators. However, even if the speaking + writing task is associated with more grammar discussions, they are not so elaborated, which seems to indicate that formal aspects of language should be particularly enhanced in CLIL con- texts. Perhaps more focused tasks could bring about more extensive discussions about form, and in turn, greater noticing of gaps. In addition, by examining the use of their PKL in these discussions, we will be especially contributing to the effect of translanguaging practices in the learning of grammar (see Pawlak, 2019) and to the call made by some researchers for the exploration of the status of learners’ PKL as regards the interface Task-based Language Teaching and Con- tent-based Instruction (Ortega, 2015). Future research should shed more light on the effect of more and less structured tasks as regards the functions of both PKL use and TL use. Similarly, future studies should consider a larger number of participants and different types of pairings (pairs vs. small groups; teacher-selected vs. self-selected pairs). Likewise, the study of task-modality effects across age, proficiency and gender both in CLIL and non-CLIL settings, would be advisable. More specifically, by comparing CLIL to non-CLIL learners, we could investigate the effect of the input provided in CLIL programs or if similar benefits emerge in both settings in young and older learners. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the grants awarded by the Spanish Min- istry of Economy and Competitiveness (FFI2016-74950-P) (AEI/FEDER/UE) and the Basque Government (IT904-16). María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 496 References Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL: In- ternational Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7-34. Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243-265). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). Oral interaction in task- based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 47(3), 325-345. Arratibel-Irazusta, I., & Martínez-Adrián, M. (2018). The use of previously known languages in the oral production of L3 English learners: A pseudolongitu- dinal study. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 229-254. Arratibel-Irazusta, I., & Martínez-Adrián, M. (2019). The use of communication strategies in L3 English CLIL learners. In M. J. Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. Mar- tínez-Adrián, & F. Gallardo-del-Puerto (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Azkarai, A. (2015). L1 use in EFL task-based interaction: A matter of gender? Eu- ropean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 159-179. Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2012). Does gender influence task perfor- mance in EFL? Interactive tasks and language related episodes. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds.), Language learners’ discourse across L2 instructional settings. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2015). Task modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19, 550-571. Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21, 480-495. Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2017). Gender and age in child interaction in an EFL CLIL context: An exploratory study. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 103-123). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157-168. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cogni- tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1985). Toward a definition of metalinguistic skill. Mer- rill-Palmer Quarterly, 31(3), 229-251. Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on crosslin- guistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 497 U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 8-20). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Implica- tions for the organization of the multilingual mental lexicon. Bulletin VALS- ASLA (Vereinigung für angewandte Linguistik in der Schweiz), 78, 1-11. Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque educational research from an international perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 195-207. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Toward a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Ed- ucation and Bilingualism, 10, 543-562. DiCamilla, F., & Antón, M. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Jour- nal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 160-188. Enever, J. (2011). ELLiE: Early language learning in Europe. London: British Council. Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. (2015, April). L1 influence in CLIL vs. EFL schoolchildren: A study of codeswitching and transfer lapses. Paper presented at the 33th AESLA International Conference, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.) (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. García Mayo, M. P. (2018). Child task-based interaction in EFL settings: Research and challenges. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 119-143. García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modal- ity impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Research agenda and pedagogical implications (pp. 241-266). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. García Mayo, M. P., & Hidalgo, M. A. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132-145. García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL pri- mary school children. System, 80, 165-175. García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40-54. Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester. Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. J. (2015, April). The development of L1 use by school- children in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. Paper presented at the 33th AESLA International Conference, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Haselgreen, A., Drew, I., & Sørheim, B. (2012). The young language learner: Re- search-based insights into teaching and learning. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 498 House, S., & Scott, K. (2009). Sparks 1. London: Richmond. IBM Corp. (2010). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 19.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pre-task modelling to encourage collab- orative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15, 183-199. Lasagabaster, D. (2007). Trilingüismo escolar: Sobre la presencia del inglés en el sistema educativo vasco. Hizkunea, 10, 1-13. Lasito, & Storch, N. (2013). Comparing pair and small group interactions on oral tasks. RELC Journal, 44, 361-375. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2016). Are CLIL learners simply faster or also different? Evidence from L1 use in the repair sequences and discourse markers of CLIL and EFL learners. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics (VIAL), 13, 127-145. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2012). L1 use and morphosyntactic development in the oral production of EFL learners in a CLIL context. In- ternational Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 135-160. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and de- sign. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Marsh, D. (2002) Content and language integrated learning: The European dimen- sion actions, trends and foresight potential. Brussels: European Commission. Martínez-Adrián, M. (2020a). ¿Los juntamos? A study of L1 use in interactional strategies in CLIL vs. non-CLIL primary school learners. International Re- view of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 58(1), 1-27. Martínez-Adrián, M. (2020b). The use of previously known languages and target language English during task-based interaction: A pseudolongitudinal study of primary-school CLIL learners. Euro-American Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 7(1), 59-77. Martínez-Adrián, M., & Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. J. (2015). L1 use, lexical richness, accuracy and complexity in CLIL and non-CLIL learners. Atlantis, Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies, 37, 175-197. Martínez-Adrián, M., Gallardo-del-Puerto, F., & Basterrechea, M. (2019). On self-reported use of communication strategies by CLIL learners in primary education. Language Teaching Research, 23(1), 39-57. Martínez-Adrián, M., Gallardo-del-Puerto, F., & Arratibel-Irazusta, I. (2019, Septem- ber). Collaborative dialogue in young CLIL learners: A study on the effect of task modality. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Child For- eign/Second Language Learning (CFSLL), Pedagogical University of Cracow. McWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Muñoz, C. (2007). Cross-linguistic influence and language switches in L4 oral pro- duction. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 73-94. The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL. . . 499 Muñoz, C. (2015). Time and timing in CLIL: a comparative approach to language gains. In M. J. Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 87-102). Berlin: Springer. Muñoz, C. (2017). The development of language awareness at the transition from primary to secondary school. In M. P. García-Mayo, (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 49-68). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Nikolov, M. (2009). Early learning of modern foreign languages: Processes and outcomes. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 384-402. Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguis- tics, 37, 62-76. Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge. Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 54, 103-109. Pawlak, M. (2019, September). Teaching foreign language grammar to children: The role of individual differences. Plenary talk at the 2nd International Conference on Child Foreign/Second Language Learning (CFSLL), Pedagog- ical University of Cracow. Payant, C., & Kim, Y. J. (2019). Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Jour- nal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(5), 614-627. Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign lan- guage classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Aware- ness, 19, 261-279. Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children prac- ticing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 189-207. Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Basingstoke, U.K: Palgrave Macmillan Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vraciu, A. (2017). Exploring early EFL: L1 Use in oral narratives by CLIL and non-CLIL primary school learners. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research in- sights (pp. 124–148). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rayati, R. A., Yaqubi, B., & Harsejsani, R. (2012). L1 use and language-related episodes (LREs) in an EFL setting. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 3(4), 99-125. Roehr-Brackin, K. (2018). Metalinguistic awareness and second language acqui- sition. New York: Routledge. María Martínez-Adrián, Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta 500 Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions between second language learners: Exploring the role of gender (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 52-77). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shintani, N. (2012). Repeating input-based tasks with young beginner learners: The role of the teacher. RELC Journal, 43, 39-51. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355-375. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, J. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760-770. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251-274. Tellier, A., & Roehr-Brackin, K. (2017). Raising children’s metalinguistic aware- ness to enhance classroom second language learning. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research in- sights (pp. 22-48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Tognini, R., & Oliver, R. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In E. Alcón Soler, & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds.), Discourse and learning across L2 instructional contexts (pp. 53-78). Amterdam: Rodopi. UCLES. (2014). Key English test for schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.