1 / 24

Double Talk: L1 in the L2 classroom

Double Talk: L1 in the L2 classroom. George Washington University March 2007 Virginia M. Scott Vanderbilt University. FL teaching in the 21 st century.

arleen
Download Presentation

Double Talk: L1 in the L2 classroom

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Double Talk: L1 in the L2 classroom George Washington University March 2007 Virginia M. Scott Vanderbilt University

  2. FL teaching in the 21st century • In the face of complex political, economic, and ecological challenges of the 21st century, second language learning will play an increasingly important role. • People of all languages and cultures will need to talk to each other and, more importantly, be sensitive to the many ways that people construe and convey meaning.

  3. FL teaching in the 21st century • The emergence of new super powers and the shifting roles of the old national languages of the west (French, German, Spanish) demand that we re-envision the goals of second language learning and approaches to second/foreign language teaching. • Those of us in the foreign language (FL) teaching profession in the United States can no longer afford to rely on theoretical paradigms of the past to inform the future. • In particular, we must deconstruct our traditional notions of monolingualism in order to empower learners with the necessary confidence to function in a multilingual world.

  4. Research informs practice • Theories and research suggest that target language input and interaction are essential for SLA. • Good FL teaching practice = • exclusive use of the target language (TL) by both teachers and students • avoidance of the L1  Our (often unspoken) definition of the ideal FL classroom is one that is monolingual in the TL.

  5. Double-talk • The fact is, however, that real students and real teachers use the L1 in the classroom. • Admitting that the L1 is present in the FL classroom is tantamount to admitting failure. • Suggesting that the L1 might have a role in the FL classroom is nearly heretical! • So, to avoid addressing the issue of the L1, we engage in double-talk, or deliberately ambiguous language about L1 in the L2 classroom.

  6. Bilingualism is the goal • FL pedagogy seeks to move students from monolingualism toward bilingualism. • There is no single definition of bilingualism. BILINGUAL CONTINUUM ----x-------------------------------------x-- incipientbalanced More double-talk: promoting bilingualism means engaging in a monolingual encounter with the TL in the classroom.

  7. Rethinking the monolingual paradigm • I believe we should rethink this monolingual paradigm and • acknowledge that the L1 is present in the FL classroom. • recognize the irony inherent in using a monolingual model to promote L2 learning. • Three convincing arguments: • code-switching research • interactionist theories • brain imaging research

  8. Code-switching Le prof, elle est really nice. CS is … • … the alternating use of two or more languages in a single conversation event. • … a natural, observable occurrence among people of all ages who speak more than one language. • … one indicator of whether a person is bilingual. • … the norm for many bilinguals. Yeah … So, do you want to go prendre un verre now?

  9. CS in the classroom • “In Colón’s teaching, code-switching was clearly used as a resource to help students as well as to demonstrate that dual language proficiency is a resource within a public academic setting. By modeling this carefully constructed use of code-switching, the teacher taught a lesson that students would carry with them into more challenging academic settings” (Nichols & Colón, 2000, 507-508). • “When given permission to code-switch, … students did not merely fall back on the L1 when they encountered a deficiency in their L2 learning; they also made frequent use of language alternation to indicate changes in their orientation toward the interaction and toward each other” (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2004, 519). • Levine (2004) proposes a multilingual model for the FL classroom which “… intentionally puts learners in the driver’s seat in the construction of code choice norms, granting them an indispensable role in managing classroom discourse, and compelling them to reflect critically on the ways language is or can be used” (125).

  10. Interactionist theories Lev Vygotsky 1896-1934 Social Development Theory Thought and Language (1962) Intra-personal speech • In child L1 acquisition, Vygotsky proposed that self-talk becomes inner speech, which serves to mediate and regulate activity. • In adult L2 learning “… private verbal thinking plays a crucial role in the case of L2 speakers engaged in problem-solving, and therefore it should be recognized as very important in the process of learning” (Centeno-Cortés & Jiménez, 2004, 31). ** Inner speech is in the L1. Pedagogical Psychology Institute of Moscow

  11. Interactionist theories Inter-personal speech • Swain & Lapkin (1998) incidentally found that the L1 was a “mediational tool fully available to [learners], to regulate their own behavior, to focus attention on specific L2 structures, and to generate and assess alternatives” (p. 333). • Storch & Wigglesworth (2003) found that when students used their shared L1s, they reported that it was useful for task management, task clarification, determining meaning and vocabulary, and explaining grammar.

  12. Brain imaging research [All references for these studies are not included in the bibliography.] • Paradis (2004, 116) states that “there is no evidence that the languages of bilinguals are each represented in a different locus in the brain. Both language systems seem to be represented as distinct microanatomical subsystems located in the same gross anatomical areas.” • In people who have acquired a L2 after the sensitive period for language acquisition, it appears that the two languages access a common semantic system (Dehaene et al., 1997; Illes et al., 1999; Klein et al., 1995; Marian, 2003; Marian, Spivey, & Hirsch, 2003; Xue et al., 2004).

  13. Brain imaging research • Bilingual people are able to switch back and forth between their two languages with ease. This language switching involves increased executive functioning, and it appears that the left caudate plays a universal role in monitoring and controlling the language in use (Crinion et al., 2006; Marian, Spivey, & Hirsch, 2003; Hernandez et al., 2001; Hernandez, Li, & MacWhinney, 2005). • There is a significant adaptation in the corpus callosum to accommodate multiple language capacity in bilingual people compared to monolingual people (Coggins, Kennedy, & Armstrong, 2004). In addition, there is evidence that early learning of one as opposed to two languages predicts divergent patterns of cerebral language lateralisation in adulthood (Hull & Vaid, 2006).

  14. Brain imaging research • There is little understanding of the differences in grammatical processing for the two languages among late bilinguals. It appears that grammatical processing may be more sensitive to age of acquisition than semantic/lexical processing (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003; Wartenburger et al., 2003). • Fabbro (1999) cites evidence that syntactic processing and semantic processing are organized in separate areas of the brain. He states that “the frontal lobe structures organize the syntactic components of a language only if it is learnt before the critical age. Afterwards, other brain structures account for the organization of the grammatical aspects of the second language, probably through explicit learning” (101).  All research suggests that for both early and late bilinguals, their languages operate in tandem.

  15. Research questions … • How/when do students use their L1 to support L2 learning/acquisition? • Under what conditions is L1 a hindrance / a help in L2 learning/acquisition? • During input processing, how does L1 inner speech affect L2 comprehension? • How does L1 inner speech affect L2 production? • How/when is CS productive during peer interaction? During teacher-student interaction? • What can fMRI studies tell us about the differences / similarities in processing L1 and L2 for late L2 learners?

  16. Scott & de la Fuente What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of L1 during CR form-focused tasks. This qualitative study provides preliminary insight into the role of L1 when pairs of intermediate-level college learners of French and Spanish are engaged in consciousness-raising, form-focused grammar tasks. Using conversation analysis of audiotaped interactions and stimulated recall sessions, we explored the ways students used L1 and L2 to solve a grammar problem. Students who were allowed to use the L1 (Group 1) worked collaboratively in a balanced and coherent manner; students who were required to use the L2 (Group 2) exhibited fragmented interaction and little evidence of collaboration.

  17. Scott & de la Fuente • Findings from the stimulated recall sessions suggest that reading, thinking, and talking appeared to be simultaneous and integrated processes for students in Group 1 whereas these processes appeared to be sequential and competing for students in Group 2. • In addition to suggesting that using the L1 for these kinds of tasks reduces cognitive overload, these findings invite teachers to tackle the “problem” of the L1 in the FL classroom.

  18. Scott & de la Fuente GROUP 1: L1 PROCESS L2 INPUT  OUTPUT (L1) (L1) translate recall review [Reading, thinking, talking appeared to be simultaneous and integrated processes.] GROUP 2: L2 PROCESS L2 INPUT  PROCESS L2 OUTPUT  OUTPUT (L1) (L1) (L2) translate translate recall plan review [Reading, thinking, talking appeared to be sequential and competing processes.]

  19. Practical questions … • In the FL classroom, what is productive use of the L1 and what is too much? • When should the L1 be used in the classroom? By teachers? By students? • Should students have a say in classroom L1 use?

  20. Scott & HuntingtonModern Language Journal 91(1), 2007 Reading Across Culture(s): Literature, the Interpretive Mode, and Novice Learners This qualitative study analyzes how novice learners develop the interpretive mode (as outlined in Standard 1.2) in a classroom setting when reading a literary text in L2. Using conversation analysis, we examined transcripts from video and audio recordings of students’ discussions in a teacher-moderated classroom setting (Group A) and in small groups of three to four students (Group B). Our findings indicate that novice learners were able to interpret and understand a challenging literary text in the L2 if they were in the teacher-moderated group. In addition, our findings suggest that L1 was effective in encouraging interpretive talk among students in Group A but not among students in Group B. Ultimately, these findings indicate that the nature of the teacher-moderated, yet distinctly student-centered, interaction in Group A had a clear impact on developing the interpretive mode in novice learners.

  21. Scott & HuntingtonForeign Language Annals 35(6), 2002 Reading Culture: Using Literature to Develop C2 Competence In this study we compared student attitudes and performance after reading a fact sheet about Côte d’Ivoire and after reading a poem about Côte d’Ivoire. The findings indicate that the students who read the fact sheet learned about the culture of Côte d’Ivoire in a rigid way that could foster stereotypes. Students who read the poem, on the other hand, explored their own feelings about the language and the content of the poem. The study supports our notion that literary texts contribute to students’ affective awareness and cognitive flexibility, and are therefore more effective for developing C2 competence. We also believe that this study furthers our understanding of ways to achieve the national Standards goals for gaining knowledge and understanding of other cultures. NB: Students discussed both the fact sheet and the poem in L1.

  22. Cook’s “L2 user” A L2 user … • uses a language other than L1 at any level for any purpose. • exploits whatever linguistic resources s/he has for real-life purposes, such as reporting symptoms to a doctor, negotiating a contract, or reading a poem. • stands between two languages (L1 and L2), even when apparently only using one. • has the resources of two languages (L1 and L2) readily available whenever needed. Cook, V. 2002. Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

  23. The L2 user in the FL classroom: • knows when and why L1 is used in the classroom. • understands the difference between CS and simultaneous translation. • works with sophisticated TL texts and discusses them in L1. • uses L1 (both intra- and inter-personal speech) to solve complex grammar problems. • writes creatively in the TL and uses L1 for peer editing. Quoi? What?

  24. Double talk • I remain convinced that L2 input and interaction are essential to SLA. • However, rather than engaging in double-talk and avoiding the issue of L1 in L2 learning and teaching, we need to specify when and why L1 is useful. • In so doing, I hope FL teachers will focus on promoting bilingual functioning (double talk). • We will have achieved this goal when our students view themselves as proficient L2 users rather than deficient native speakers.

More Related