Language biographical schemas, response modalities and L2-strategies: a sociolinguistic approach to language biographies

(1) P9_first data collection

An important aspect concerning P9’s language learning situation is his self-motivation (language biographical schema 1) to pass level B1 of the German test (referring to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, CEFRL), along with the self-positioning associated with it (339–344, language biographical schema 2). He describes, through other-positioning (337, language biographical schema 3), that everyone – as indeterminate actors – believed he would not pass the test. In response to the interviewer’s questions, P9 attempts to specify these actors by referring vaguely to many people and offering an explanatory yet temporally unstructured description (337). Only later in the excerpt (341) can it be inferred that the actors are classmates or other test takers. The contextualization remains unclear, as P9 positions himself in opposition to the (indeterminate) actors on the one hand, while simultaneously aligning himself with the learner group through the deictic reference we.

As a distancing strategy from this other-positioning, P9 mimics the actors’ perspective by indirectly reproducing their judgment – marked by the use of the general extender and stuff like that (microstructural meaning regulation 1) and the polyphonic phrase blabla (338, microstructural meaning regulation 2). The general extenders have been categorized as a substitutive L2-strategy and are characterized as follows, equally in German and English:

In English, general extenders are typically phrase- or clause-final expressions with the basic syntactic structure, conjunction + noun phrase, which extend otherwise complete utterances (hence ‘extenders’). They are also non-specific in their reference (hence ‘general’) (Overstreet 2005: 1847)

With regard to the frequency in the language biographical data of our participants, the possibility of a continuation that remains unspecified through a general extender is not only used to mark vagueness (cf. König 2014: 209–210), but is also understood as an L2-specific strategy within an ‘economically’ organized learner variety. The high frequency of general extenders has also been observed in learners’ monological sequences. The often-used construction “conjunction + (premodifier) vague expression (postmodifier)” (Tarone 2007: 145) fulfills a similar function to passe-partout expressions in learner language contexts: “Since a vague utterance conveys the implication that more could be said, its use seems to suggest that the speaker treats the hearer as someone who understands the implication” (Terraschke 2007: 143).

According to Tarone (1980: 221), the frequent use of general extenders such as and stuff like that can serve both to economize on speaking time and to avoid potentially delicate subject matter. It should be added that general extenders may also function to circumvent explanatory details in the context of communicative problem-solving mechanisms, especially when they occur within the boundaries of a turn construction unit (TCU) rather than at the end of an utterance.

The use of the onomatopoeic expression blabla is common in colloquial German to mark indirect speech and typically carries pejorative connotations (Finkbeiner 2016: 313). Through this non-autosemantic expression (Finkbeiner 2016: 313), one may infer that the participant has been exposed to informal German input. The causal connections and stepwise structure, particularly in the final section, indicate a descriptive mode of presentation.

(2) P9_first data collection

Subsequently, P9 reconstructs an important turning point in his language biography. As König (2018: 15) states for narrative reconstructions of language biographies, language biographical turning points are either implicitly reproduced through direct thought enactments or explicitly evaluated through comments. In the present excerpt, the turning point is implicitly marked by the presentation of thoughts (779) and the general extender and stuff like that (meaning regulation). The preceding restructuring (L2-strategy) and the substitution of information (778–779, L2-strategy), respectively, emphasize the affective character of this reconstructed event, through which P9 positions himself in relation to the rupture caused by his forced migration and arrival in Germany (language biographical schema 1).

The narrative beginning (776) deals with his first half-year in Germany, which was psychologically stressful. P9 elaborates on this aspect only vaguely, using expressions such as and stuff like that and many problems (cf. König 2018: 183), and then transitions into a descriptive, partially chronologically arranged way of speaking. His initially overwhelming demands, which he hints at the beginning, develop into a self-determined approach to learning German (language biographical schema 2) through support from a tutor (782) and the psychological counseling of his forced migration by a specialized institution (783, anonymized with xx).

(3) P9_second data colletion

This interview excerpt is taken from the conversation with P9 that took place one year later. He now attends vocational school while training to become a pharmaceutical commercial employee. P9 continues the first, biographical interview with a short narrative statement. He describes the change in teaching method (477), meaning his lessons are now less focused on grammar (language biographical schema 1). His use of German as a migration language becomes more natural (481–482). The positive self-assessment of his language skills (486–487) is also evident in the implicit comparison with previous experiences with German in the classroom. Less teaching time is devoted to the German language (483–484), which he explicitly evaluates as a turning point. However, he breaks off this evaluation with that is not/ (-) (485).

P9 has developed linguistically, despite the reduced amount of teaching time. The subsequent relativization of his self-assessment (language biographical schema 2) is based on the fact that his language skills are no longer tested in school exams (488–489). The illustrative comparisons between the earlier and later language learning situations in German, characterized by restructuring (L2-strategy), make it evident that the German language has become a more integrative part of his language biography at the time of the survey. This is also evident at the microstructural level: when reconstructing his memories of German lessons in the vocational integration class, P9 uses a paratactic argument structure (479–481, response modality: giving information). He describes the former, guided lessons using a so-called dense construction (478–479), that is, a construction of everyday narrative that typically forms a fragment of an utterance or an elliptical structure (Günthner 2006: 97).

The various steps of qualitative analysis illustrated in this case study were applied to the language biographical interviews of the entire sample and summarized in a group comparison. The results of this analysis will be presented in the following.

3.3.1 Language biographical schemas

Referring to language biographical motifs related to their lives in Germany, young refugees primarily mentioned schemas that are related to positioning processes (see Figure 2). In addition, learning opportunities in Germany and the associated schemas of language learning motivation and language learning strategies were also addressed. The latter narrative schemas in particular illustrate how the language biographies are shaped by forced migration, since the prospects of staying are also dependent on language competence. The external conditions of migration and language policy that are at work also have an effect on language learning motivation and corresponding language learning strategies. In varying degrees, the answers refer to language use, language attitudes, language contact and language awareness.

This language specific reference and its linguistic realization have so far received only limited attention in language biography research (Graßmann 2011). Language attitudes, which are mentioned in many language biographical studies, play a less prominent role in the present sample (Riehl 2014; König 2014). Common to all language biographies is the reference to language use and language contact situations in Germany. With the exception of P18, whose prospects of staying in Germany were uncertain and who had hardly any contact with the German language, the participants predominantly focused on German language use and language contact situations in Germany. It is notable that language acquisition contexts and language contact situations, which have previously been a central focus of language biography research from the perspective of the speakers, are rather marginal – particularly concerning experiences in the country of origin. This suggests that the speakers in the study avoid naming the related, personal environment. In addition, the educational biographies of the young refugees were often interrupted by the warlike and oppressive circumstances prevailing in their countries of origin. Language attitudes regarding the respective L1 and L1 varieties in the context of a new multilingual situation in Germany only played a marginal role. Unanimously, the respondents included their respective dialects in their multilingual repertoires (e.g., Hazaragi or Herati).

The following graph (Figure 2) gives an overview of the frequencies of the respective schemas across speakers at the two data collection points.

Figure 2:

Language biographical schemas (code frequencies in segments)

When comparing the first (e.g. P9_1) and second (e.g. P9_2) interviews, there is a notable increase in the density and differentiation of language biographical schemas for several participants (e.g., P9, P10, P20). For instance, P9 shows a marked rise in positioning statements (from 23 to 38) and learning opportunities (from 10 to 33), indicating a growing reflexivity regarding their own language learning process and their positioning in the new environment. Similarly, P10 exhibits consistent attention to language use (from 23 to 28) and contact (from 8 to 17), suggesting a more active engagement with their German-speaking surroundings.

The data of participant P20 are particularly salient: while P20_1 reflects a rather limited range of schema references, the second interview (P20_2) shows the most pronounced increase across all categories, particularly in positioning (37), learning opportunity (41), and language motivation (20). This shift likely reflects not only increased linguistic competence, but also a growing recognition of the sociolinguistic requirements in the new social context.

In order to further substantiate these findings and identify broader patterns across participants, a hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted based on the aggregated distribution of language biographical schemas at both data collection points (Figure 3).

Three main participant clusters can be identified, each characterized by distinctive language biographical profiles.

• Cluster 1: Participants with highly positioning- and opportunity-oriented language biographies (P1, P9, P20): This cluster is characterized by particularly high values in the categories of positioning, learning opportunity, and language use. Participants in this group narrate their language biographies in close relation to biographical transitions such as forced migration, educational integration, and the linguistic negotiation of their role within the host society. A central feature of these narratives is a strong emphasis on language as a means of accessing education, participation, and future prospects. The prominent positioning schema indicates a reflective stance toward their own migration biographies.

• Cluster 2: Participants with balanced schema distributions and moderate differentiation (P10, P21, P16): The second cluster comprises participants whose language biographies display a more balanced and distributed pattern across multiple categories. Although learning strategy and language contact are prominent in this group, no single schema clearly dominates. These participants present intermediate profiles, combining motivational and usage-related elements without explicitly highlighting them through strong narrative or evaluative language. P16 in particular shows higher awareness-related content while engaging less in explicit positioning, suggesting a more cognitively or introspectively oriented profile.

• Cluster 3: Participants with reduced thematic elaboration and fragmentary profiles (P2, P3, P17, P18): Participants in the third cluster exhibit overall lower schema frequencies, especially in reflexive categories such as language awareness and language attitudes. Their language biographies appear less elaborate or developed, often characterized by descriptive or fragmented statements. It is plausible that biographical discontinuities, emotional distance, or linguistic insecurities result in language-related experiences being less narratively structured or contextualized. Lower values in learning motivation and learning opportunity may also point to limited access to formal education or weaker institutional support structures.

Figure 3:

Language biographical profiles

The cluster analysis reveals that, despite individual variation, typical patterns in the structuring of language biographical narratives can be identified. These patterns correlate with factors such as narrative reflexivity, positioning strategies, and institutional access to education.

3.3.2 Macrostructural response modalities

The overview of the response modalities used in the linguistic reconstruction of the narrative schemas illustrates that primarily the non-narrative response modalities of depicting and illustrating were employed (see Figure 4). This finding implies that the microstructural regulation of meaning follows a topical structure (Roll 2003: 73), which tends to be temporally unstructured. This result is further supported by the respondents’ tendency to refrain from providing a temporal, chronological account of their language biographical self-image. The descriptive responses regarding the content-related, language biographical categories often include contrasting comparisons between the period before and after migration, as well as between the respective country of origin and Germany as the recipient country. The microstructural regulation of meaning is characterized by generalizing expressions and the use of the present and past tenses in a generalizing mode (Roll 2003: 73). The qualitative examination of the data showed that in this context general extenders such as und so (‘and stuff like that’) or focus particles (so, ‘such’) were frequently used and the semantically induced vagueness contributed to the generalization of the language biographical proposition.

Sub-patterns of the language biographical reconstructions include reporting and informing answers. Here, sentences with the expletive it and passive constructions play a lesser role; instead, sequences of actions, coordinated through universal connectors, are employed (Breindl 2016: 53).

Although one would typically expect a chronological structure in language biographical autobiographies, such accounts occurred only infrequently. Justificatory response modalities also appeared less frequently. Narrative elements influenced the respondents’ response modalities in varying ways, while the narrative mode was employed only rarely. The language biographies of P9, P1, P16, and P20, in particular, are characterized by narrative response elements.

The following figure (Figure 4) illustrates the frequencies of macrostructural response modalities at the two points of data collection.

Figure 4:

Macrostructural response modalities (code frequencies in segments)

This becomes particularly evident when comparing the two interviews conducted with these participants. While P16_1 already exhibited high frequencies of descriptive (65) and illustrative (42) responses, in P16_2, the use of descriptive formulations significantly decreased (38), whereas narration (14) and justification (1) remained low. Similarly, P9_1 employed 27 descriptive and 16 illustrative responses, while P9_2 showed a slightly more balanced usage (18/19), along with an increase in reporting responses (from 15 to 25).

Particularly striking is the case of participant P1, who produced a markedly higher number of descriptive responses in the second interview (54 in P1_2 compared to 28 in P1_1), accompanied by a notable increase in illustrative (22) and reporting utterances (13). In contrast, P20, who had minimal verbal elaboration in the first, interpreter-supported interview phase (Description: 0, Narration: 1), showed a marked increase in the second interview phase, conducted without interpreter support (Description: 30, Narration: 31, Illustration: 21). This makes this case the most pronounced example of development in narrative response modalities between the two data collection phases.

A possible explanation is that the response modalities tend to be generalizing and are temporally unstructured. Speakers largely avoid chronologically presented accounts of language biographical experiences in the country of origin. This is also related to sensitive topics of forced migration, the causes of forced migration and the psychosocial situation of the respondents. Direct informative reconstructions are observed less frequently, and the same applies to the resolution of an evaluation conflict – both towards oneself and towards the interlocutor.

The following microstructural meaning regulations are crucial for the construction of language biographical narratives influenced by forced migration: then–today oppositions, as well as earlier–now oppositions, generalizations, and fragmentary summaries (Roll 2003: 80). The facts described are organized according to their relevance. Linked to the structuring and sequential coordination of speech acts are characteristic knowledge structures, such as evaluating (describing) and substantiating or refuting claims (illustrating).

Despite variations in microstructural forms related to the coordination of speech acts, such as different sentence-linking procedures, the most frequent macrostructural response modalities are evenly distributed across all ten language biographies. For instance, as the sociodemographic data indicate, interviewees P1, P9, and P16 each have different educational backgrounds. P9 completed school in Afghanistan up to the third grade, while P16 attended secondary school up to the 9th grade in Syria. P1 also attended school in Afghanistan and was later tutored privately. Thus, it can be assumed that the educational background the respondents brought with them has less influence on their verbal response modalities. Based on the described language biographical experiences, we may presume that factors such as learning opportunities, language learning motivation, and external or family support also impact language acquisition processes. Meister (1997) arrives at similar conclusions in her study on the biographical transitions of adolescent migrants from Poland, highlighting that the ‘acculturation career’ of young people is shaped by a variety of factors: The family background, the age of the interviewees and the specific biographical situation associated with it, the integration into peer groups, the school and educational situation, future prospects and self-identification.

3.3.3.1 L2-strategies of first data collection

Following Poulisse and Schils (1989), the lexical strategies are divided into two domains: superordinating strategies, which replace missing words directly, and subordinating strategies, which involve further problem-solving for unresolved lexical gaps. Poulisse and Schils (1989) showed that the use of L2-strategies depended more on the type of verbal interaction (e.g., picture description, retelling, or free interview) than on linguistic competence. More proficient L2 speakers tended to use holistic strategies like approximation and relied less on transfer strategies during free interviews. It was found that regardless of language proficiency, L2 speakers used holistic (e.g., lexical approximations) and linguistic (morphological creativity, transfer strategies) strategies especially in retelling and free interviews, and analytical strategies (paraphrasing) in picture descriptions. As shown in Figure 5, our data confirm these findings: the study group predominantly relies on macro-reconceptualizations such as approximations, passe-partout words, and restructurings. However, micro-reconceptualizations are also employed, including analytical strategies like paraphrasing, semantic or grammatical coinages, and grammatical reductions. A more detailed picture of linguistic-communicative learning strategies emerges from the analysis of the longitudinal data.

Figure 5:

L2-strategies

For instance, participant P16, who exhibits the highest number of formulation activities overall, used a wide range of L2-strategies already in the first interview (P16_1), including paraphrasing (42), restructuring (19), and approximation (16). In the follow-up interview (P16_2), there is a notable decrease in all three strategies (paraphrasing: 16, restructuring: 25, approximation: 4), possibly indicating a shift toward more fluent or economical verbal planning. In contrast, participant P9 showed a relatively stable but slightly reduced use of L2-strategies from P9_1 to P9_2, including paraphrasing (from 28 to 11) and restructuring (11 to 15).

Participant P1 presents a different development: the first interview (P1_1) already includes a wide use of paraphrasing (17) and passe-partout words (9). In the second interview (P1_2), these values increase (paraphrasing: 18, passe-partout words: 11) alongside a rise in restructuring (from 11 to 25). This suggests not only greater fluency but also an increased effort to reframe and clarify utterances linguistically– possibly reflecting enhanced metalinguistic awareness or strategic planning.

By comparison, participants such as P2 and P3 demonstrate a narrower range of strategies across both interviews, often relying on a few stable mechanisms like grammatical reduction, message replacement, and paraphrasing. These patterns may be linked to less confident language use or to limited access to complex formulation activities.

Overall, the interindividual variation and longitudinal developments confirm that L2-strategies in biographical interviews are not only indicators of linguistic competence, but also reflect familiarity with the interview format, topic sensitivity, and individual coping mechanisms. The dominance of paraphrasing and restructuring across nearly all cases – regardless of proficiency – aligns with Poulisse and Schils’ findings, while approximations and grammatical reductions remain essential tools in contexts of lexical uncertainty. The data suggest that learners draw on both analytical and holistic strategies in order to ensure narrative continuity under conditions of linguistic limitation.

3.3.3.2 Longitudinal perspective: L2-strategies

To analyze the interdependence between language competence and the use of different types of L2 strategies, the strategies employed by the six participants who spoke German in both surveys (P9, P1, P16, P3, P2, P10) will now be examined in more detail. We assume that due to the length of stay, schooling, and appropriate input, the language skills of all six speakers had improved at the time of the second survey. As the comparison shows, the speakers predominantly apply mechanisms at the level of macro- and micro-reconceptualization and substitution. The L2-learners speaking in German in their interviews used more paraphrasing at the first data collection point than at the second. This overall decline is clearly visible in Figure 6, which illustrates the frequencies of L2 strategies at the two points of data collection.

For instance, P16 shows a marked decrease in paraphrasing (from 42 to 16), P9 drops from 28 to 11, and P10 slightly decreases from 8 to 6. P1, by contrast, maintains a nearly stable level (17 to 18), while P2 and P3 show consistently low values across both data points.

An exception to the general pattern is observed in P1 and P3, as both participants used fewer L2-strategies in both interviews. This may be due to regular language contact with L1 speakers of German in the private sphere, as both speakers indicated in their interviews. Following Poulisse and Schils (1989), an increase in paraphrasing as a specific L2-strategy is often related to lower lexical proficiency. Hence, the reduced use of paraphrasing may be interpreted as an indicator of increasing lexical and pragmatic competence.

A similar tendency is visible in the reduction of grammatical problem-solving strategies. Grammatical reduction decreases for P9 (from 11 to 1), P16 (3 to 0), and P2 (4 to 2). In P1, however, an increase is observed (from 3 to 6), which may reflect a more conscious strategy to reduce utterances in complex syntactic structures. Grammatical substitutions, on the other hand, are almost entirely absent in the second round across all six speakers, suggesting increasing confidence in morphosyntactic accuracy.

Figure 6:

L2-strategies

While these declines indicate a reduced need for analytic strategies, the use of restructuring increased substantially in the second round of data collection for most speakers. As demonstrated in Figure 6, restructuring frequencies rise from 11 to 15 for P9, from 19 to 25 for P16, and from 11 to 25 for P1. This suggests that more proficient speakers increasingly rely on discourse-level planning strategies rather than lexical repair alone. P2 and P10 also show moderate increases, whereas P3 remains relatively stable at a low level.

Regarding approximations, the trend is heterogeneous. While some participants such as P1 and P2 increase their use of this strategy (P1: 2 to 6; P2: 2 to 4), others like P9 and P16 reduce it (P9: 5 to 3; P16: 16 to 4). This may suggest improved lexical precision, reducing the necessity of approximation as a communicative tool. Notably, P9 reports reaching B2 level competence by the time of the second interview, which supports this interpretation.

A more consistent pattern is found in the increased use of passe-partout words. In Figure 6, it becomes evident that all six speakers either maintain or increase their use of general extenders. For example, P1 increases from 8 to 11, P2 from 4 to 6, and P10 from 2 to 4. These elements may be interpreted as markers of increased colloquial fluency and genre awareness, indicating that these speakers adopt discourse strategies common among native speakers.

In summary, Figure 6 illustrates that the competent L2-speakers rely less on lexical and grammatical repair strategies over time, while at the same time employing more discourse-oriented strategies such as restructuring and passe-partout expressions. This supports the hypothesis that more advanced speakers use fewer compensatory strategies, and rely instead on holistic and macro-structural repair mechanisms.

Thus, the respondents can be considered competent speakers for two reasons: First, the total number of lexical and especially grammatical L2-strategies in the language biographical interview is relatively low: “It appeared that ‘proficiency level’ is inversely related to the number of compensatory strategies used by the subjects: the most advanced subjects used fewer compensatory strategies than did the least proficient” (Poulisse and Schils 1989: 15, emphasis in original).

Second, due to the exolingual conversational setting, transfer-based strategies such as code-switching are used rarely. In isolated cases, some speakers resorted to English as their first foreign language (e.g., P2 and P10) by using insertions (cf. Muysken 2000: 679), but these remained marginal.

The decrease in lexical approximations across most participants suggests an increase in lexical knowledge between the two survey waves. The longitudinal comparison also reveals that not only the quantity, but the quality of L2-strategies employed serves as an indicator of language development. Further research with a broader sample and repeated longitudinal interviews would help to clarify how different types of L2-strategies correlate with stages of language acquisition.

Linearity in the use of L2-strategies cannot be assumed, as both this data and the study by Poulisse and Schils (1989) demonstrate. Instead, the variation in individual profiles and strategy preferences points to the need for a more nuanced taxonomy that incorporates both learner type and situational variables.