二语课堂中母语使用情况

An Emergent Perspective on the Use of the First Language in the English ‐as ‐a ‐Foreign ‐Language ClassroomPAUL J.MOOREUniversity of QueenslandSchool of Languages and Comparative Cultural StudiesSt Lucia,Queensland,4072AustraliaEmail:paul_moore@This study investigates contextual features surrounding the use of a first language (L1)in a Japanese university English ‐as ‐a ‐foreign ‐language (EFL)course during peer interaction in the extended preparation phase leading up to two oral presentation tasks (OP1and OP3),performed seven months apart.Interaction data were analysed in terms of the amount of L1production,the distribution of L1use within and across tasks and dyads,and the focus of learner talk.Contextual in fluences on L1use were also investigated.The amount of L1use increased from OP1to OP3and the overall proportion of L1talk was higher than that found in previous studies.Within dyads,learners generally used less L1over time.This was attributed to the shifting focus of talk from procedural to content ‐creation activity.Some learners were consistently high or low users of L1,while others varied.Variability was attributed to differences in second language (L2)pro ficiency,levels of engagement with the task and/or interlocutor,and the negotiation of task control and pedagogic roles within a dyad.Finally,it was found that the language chosen for the initial utterance of an exchange may in fluence that of following utterances.The results support the contention that L1use emerges naturally in classroom discourse and that attempts to in fluence it should involve raising awareness of contextual conditions surrounding its emergence.THE USE OF THE FIRST LANGUAGE (L1)BY teachers and/or learners in the second or foreign language (L2)classroom remains a controversial issue.Both cognitive second language acquisition (SLA)theory (e.g.,Duff &Polio,1990;Polio &Duff,1994)and Communicative Language Teach-ing (CLT)methodologies have been cited as providing empirical support for the “English only ”classroom,where use of the L1is seen as a “problem ”to be avoided,and teachers ’lapses into L1result in feelings of guilt (Auerbach,1993;Cook,2001;Edstrom,2006;Turnbull &Dailey ‐O ’Cain,2009b).Challenges to this perspective are becoming increasingly common,and these often draw on Vygotskian SLA studies (e.g.,Antón &DiCamilla,1998;Swain &Lapkin,2000)or a long history of research into bilingual discourse (cf.,García,2009;Gumperz,1976;Turnbull &Dailey ‐O ’Cain 2009a,2009b),with researchers arguing not whether L1use should be sanctioned but whether it should be fostered (e.g.,Cook,2001),limited (e.g.,Turnbull,2001),or controlled in some principled and systematic way,and how classroom ‐based L2development might best be supported by some kind of judicious use of the L1.Further,from more recent critical ecological perspectives (e.g.,Kramsch,2009;van Lier,2004),the bench-mark for learner performance is not the nativeThe Modern Language Journal ,97,1,(2013)DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01429.x 0026-7902/13/239–253$1.50/0©2013The Modern LanguageJournalspeaker of the target language but the thinking, feeling,emergent bilingual/multilingual(Byram, 1997;Kramsch,1993,2009;Turnbull&Dailey‐O’Cain,2009a).From this perspective,research aims to understand situated discursive practice, or languaging(García,2007,2009),with interest in languaging about language(Swain,2006;Swain et al.,2009)and translanguaging,or discursive practices where two or more languages intersect in fluid and contextualised ways(Creese&Black-ledge,2010;García,2007).These perspectives are informed by ongoing research into the actual purposes to which L1is put in classroom discourse (e.g.,Alegría de la Colina&García Mayo,2009; Antón&DiCamilla,1998;Creese&Blackledge, 2010;Storch&Wigglesworth,2003).This article presents an investigation into L1use by learners in dyads during an extended prepara-tion phase leading to an oral performance task.It aims to extendfindings regarding the purposes and functions of L1use by examining contextual features present when L1use emerges in ongoing task‐based activity,both within dyads and across partners.While it is accepted that a principled approach to L1use(e.g.,Cook,2001;Levine,2009, 2011)is,to some extent,in the domain of teacher control and responsibility,it is argued here that L1 use in learner–learner dialogue is emergent and influenced by the dynamic and sometimes idio-syncratic negotiation of interdependent contextu-al(culturally and locally situated)individual and interpersonal features.The article represents not so much an argument for optimal L1use,or simply an extension to studies identifying purposes for L1 use,but an exploration of the context surrounding the emergence of L1in the L2classroom. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY ANDTASK‐BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING Although research from the perspective of Vygotskian sociocultural theory(SCT;Vygotsky, 1978,1986)in second language acquisition has developed alongside that of so‐called mainstream cognitive processing SLA,it has become promi-nent in the last15years as part of the social turn in applied linguistics(Block,2003)and other fields.Whereas mainstream SLA has,for example, been concerned with manipulating task variables and conditions to observe effects on language production,SCT research privileges the effects of contextualised learner agency in interaction on individual learning.Although the two paradigms have been represented in the literature as incom-mensurable(Dunn&Lantolf,1998;Kinginger,2001),their focus has been usefully encapsulated by Breen’s(1987)distinction between the“task‐as‐workplan”and the“task‐in‐process”(p.25;cf. Breen,1989,p.188)as well as by Coughlan and Duff’s(1994,pp.174–175)distinction between task,or“behavioural blueprint,”as designed by researchers/materials designers,and the activity that results when learners act on their negotiated interpretations of the task rubric.Such distinctions provide an avenue for complementary research into the differing effects of manipulation of task features and conditions,as well as the effects of context and learner agency on task‐based activity and learning(see Foster&Ohta,2005,for an interesting collaborative study).Vygotsky’s(1978,1986)sociocultural theory posits that social interaction is the driver of individual development of knowledge and cogni-tive processes and that this development is mediated by semiotic and physical tools.Vygotsky’s focus on the role of language as a mediating tool in the development of childhood cognition has been particularly appropriate to SLA,where language is both the mediating tool and the object of learning (Lantolf&Appel,1994).The main SCT constructs implicated in investigations into the roles and functions of L1in learner interaction in the L2 classroom relate to the sociocognitive negotiation of pedagogic roles,intersubjectivity,and intraper-sonal constructs of inner and private speech. The construct of scaffolding(Wood,Bruner,& Ross,1976)relates to relationships and processes whereby an expert,or more competent peer,may assist the task performance of a novice,or less competent peer,through such means as simplify-ing the task,focusing the activity,demonstrating ideal performance,and recasting errors.Such assistance is further hypothesized to enable greater task competence for the novice than if he/she were to perform the task unassisted,and to lead to internalization of aspects of co‐constructed performance and development of individual competence.Further research has shown that learners of similar proficiency can collaboratively scaffold each other’s task‐based interaction and performance(Donato,1994;Storch,2002;Swain &Lapkin,1998).Intersubjectivity(e.g.,Rommetveit,1985)has been interpreted in the literature variably as a state of shared situation definition to be achieved and maintained(Antón&DiCamilla,1998,see below) or as a process of“negotiating shared contexts of understanding”(Donato,1994,p.39).For the purposes of the current study it will be interpreted as an ongoing dialogic process of negotiating partially shared perspectives and goals related to240The Modern Language Journal97(2013)the unfolding activity learners are engaged in. Intersubjectivity involves both cognitive and socio‐affective dimensions of task‐based activity(Wells, 1999),and as such it has been an important construct in exploring links between the ways in which learners interact and the effectiveness of the interaction in terms of language development. Along with the internalization of external interpersonal processes(Vygotsky,1978),Vygotsky (1986)argues that children develop intrapersonal levels of speech,either vocal private speech,1or sub‐vocal inner speech.These constructs feature heavily in studies into L1use in the L2classroom as there is evidence that learners naturally and inevitably draw on their L1in both private and inner speech.PREVIOUS STUDIES INTO L1USE IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOM Research into L1use in the classroom common-ly investigates teachers’and learners’perceptions of L1use via survey data(e.g.,Carless,2008;Rivers, 2010),or teachers’use of L1through analysis of teacher talk(e.g.,de la Campa&Nassaji,2009). Although this research provides valuable infor-mation surrounding the use of L1,its validity is challenged by the difference between participant reports and the observed phenomena in situ(cf. Macaro,2001;Turnbull,2001).2To highlight this limitation,Storch and Wigglesworth(2003)noted the discrepancy between learner reports of their own L1use and the often implicit nature of such use(cf.Duff&Polio,1990;Gumperz,1976).Less research focuses on the actual use of L1by learners in the classroom.Nevertheless,calls for research into learner–learner interaction have resulted in a limited number of studies,and these studies often investigate both the amount and the constructive roles of L1use in classroom‐based L2learning. In their study of peer revision during dyadic writing activities,Villamil and de Guerrero(1996) found that L1Spanish was used in38out of40 interactions as a tool to manage the task,including “making meaning of text,retrieving language from memory,exploring and expanding content, guiding their interaction and maintaining dia-logue”(p.60).L1use was also implicated in several other strategies,including scaffolding,resorting to interlanguage knowledge,and vocalizing private speech,as well as during so‐called“social‐cogni-tive”activities(e.g.,negotiations regarding task procedures and focusing on form)and“social”features of the interaction related to task control, affect,and the level of collaboration.Although the authors did not provide quantification of L1use,they noted that during the peer‐revision activity, the L1was generally used as a“verbal matrix”(p.60),meaning the L2text was an object that was manipulated through the use of the L1.Antón and Di Camilla(1998)investigated the L1use of beginning adult learners of Spanish as they performed collaborative writing tasks. Interpersonally,learners used the L1to develop collective scaffolding(Donato,1994)in terms of maintaining interest and focus on task goals, managing the task,and accessing and negotiating linguistic forms(cf.Wood,Bruner,&Ross,1976). The authors also noted the use of L1to establish intersubjectivity,interpreted as“a shared per-spective on the task”(Antón&Di Camilla,1998,p. 327)that,once established and maintained,allows learners to complete the task efficiently and effectively.Finally,L1use was identified in private speech,specifically with regard to analysing the task and structuring a response,and vocalising, questioning,and evaluating grammatical choices. Swain and Lapkin(2000)investigated the amount and functions of L1use in French immersion year eight dyads as they performed jigsaw and dictogloss tasks,with both tasks involv-ing oral interaction as the learners worked towards the collaborative production of a written text. They found that students used the L1during an average of25%of turns,with no significant difference between tasks,although there was high variability across dyads.The functions of L1 identified in the study were“moving the task along”(roughly equating with de Guerrero& Villamil’s[1994]“about‐task”category;57%of L1 turns),focusing attention(on form and vocabu-lary;29%of L1turns),and“interpersonal interaction”(including off‐task talk[12%]and negotiating disagreement[3%])(Swain&Lapkin, 2000,p.257–258).Swain and Lapkin also found that higher proficiency students used the L1less than lower proficiency students.While warning against the active encouragement of the L1,Swain and Lapkin concluded that“[w]ithout their L1 use,the task presented to them may not have been accomplished as effectively,or perhaps it might not have been accomplished at all”(p.268). Storch and Wigglesworth(2003)reported on a study into the L1use of learner dyads with a shared L1as they completed a text reconstruction and a joint composition task.After three of the six focal pairs made minimal use of the L1,the authors encouraged the remaining three dyads to use the L1.Two of these dyads used the L1for30%–50% of their interaction.The authors found that learners used the L1for the same kinds of functions identified by Swain and Lapkin(2000).Paul J.Moore241Learners reported that they found L1use effective in grammatical meta‐talk and interpersonal nego-tiations.Storch and Wigglesworth also found that learners who were asked to interact in the L1often chose not to do so for a range of reasons,including perceptions that L1use was“not allowed”(p.767) in the L2setting(cf.Cook,2001),that it might be detrimental to L2learning,or,interestingly,that the NS researcher would not be able to under-stand.In other words,learner use of L1was emergent and influenced by learner perceptions, prior experience of L2learning,the task rubric, and aspects of the immediate situation.Finally,as noted above,Storch and Wigglesworth found that learners were not always completely aware that they had been interacting in their L1.Storch and Aldosari(2010)investigated the L1 use of15dyads of EFL learners in a Saudi Arabian college,with different combinations of high(H) and low(L)proficiency(H–H,H–L,and L–L)and task type(jigsaw,composition,and editing).The authors noted that pair work is rare in such a context,where large classes employing traditional teacher‐centred methodology are common.Over-all,only7%of the word count and16%of turns were conducted in the L1.The authors suggested that learner perceptions that they should avoid L1 use and that pair work is an opportunity for L2 practice are the major reasons for low levels of L1 use.In contrast to Swain and Lapkin’s(2000)finding that task type did not affect the amount of L1,Storch and Aldosari found that the editing task resulted in more L1use than the other two tasks,with L–L dyads showing the highest differ-ence between the other two tasks’word counts (Jigsaw6%,Composition3%)and the editing task(29%).They attributed both effects(task type and the difference between learner groups)to task difficulty and task focus3:The editing task required understanding and improvement of an imperfect text and required a focus on form as opposed to the focus on meaning in the other two tasks.Although proficiency‐related differences were reported for the editing tasks,there was little difference in this regard on the other two tasks,in contrast to Swain and Lapkin’s(2000)finding of across‐the‐board differences in L1use between high‐and low‐proficiency dyads.Finally, the authors identified dyads as high(>10%), moderate(5–10%),or low(<5%)L1‐using dyads,finding that low L1users remained so across all task types.This raises the question of whether learners establish a pattern of L1use that may influence later interactions.Two conversation analysis studies are also relevant for their emic learner perspective and micro‐analytic methodology,respectively.Scott and de la Fuente(2008),in a laboratory study involving six dyads each of intermediate French and Spanish foreign language learners,employed stimulated recall methodology to investigate learners’interaction based on a grammatical consciousness‐raising task.Three dyads in each language group were allowed to use the L1,while the other three were instructed to use the L2only. The tasks lastedfive minutes and were completed in front of one of the researchers.The authors found that the interaction of dyads where L1was permitted involved fewer pauses,more equal participation,and more use of metalinguistic terminology than the other dyads.All learners reported relying on the use of L1inner speech (translation and metalinguistic speech)to com-plete the task.The authors concluded that, when learners are required to interact solely in the L2on such form‐focused tasks,there is an added burden for learners to process and produce metalinguistic talk.Üstünel and Seed-house(2005)analysed classroom interaction in a Modern Languages program in a Turkish univer-sity where all the teachers were native speakers of Turkish.The study identified similar pedagogi-cal functions of L1use to those reported above, but its main focus was on how L1use emerges at the micro‐analytic level.In what appear to be teacher‐directed conversation classes,4the authors found three“systematic preference organisation patterns”(p.321)involving code‐switching:1.Where a teacher’s question received noresponse after one attempt at modification,the teacher repeated the question in Turkishafter a pause of one second.2.Where the teacher encouraged the learnersto use the L2,the learners expressedalignment or misalignment with the teach-er’s pedagogical focus through their use ofL2or L1,respectively.3.Where the teacher encouraged the learnersto code‐switch(to check understanding,forexample),the learners expressed alignmentor misalignment as above.AlthoughÜstünel and Seedhouse’s study inves-tigated teachers’(as opposed to learners’)use of L1,it is included here because of its focus on the contextualised emergence of L1use and its emphasis on the conversation analysis(CA) proposal that there is“order at all points in relation to code‐switching in L2interaction”(p.322; emphasis in original).242The Modern Language Journal97(2013)In summary,research reveals L1use to be a naturally occurring phenomenon in the L2 classroom at the levels of external,private,and inner speech,and it may be drawn on either explicitly or implicitly for a variety of purposes. The studies reported much variability in the amount of L1employed by learners in interaction, and investigations into whether EFL as opposed to ESL contexts result in different amounts of L1use are inconclusive.In addition,findings are incon-clusive regarding the influence of task type, learner proficiency,task familiarity,and interloc-utor familiarity on the amount of L1use.Also worthy of further investigation arefindings that so called low L1‐using dyads(or learners)may consistently refrain from drawing on their L1, irrespective of task type(or interlocutor).By comparison,the studies are consistent in their finding that the L1is used for constructive sociocognitive purposes related to about‐task,on‐task,and off‐task negotiations,which are hypoth-esised to be conducive to second language learning.The CA contention that patterns of L1 use may be uncovered by microanalysis is also worthy of further investigation.Finally,it should be noted that the researchers nearly unanimously interpreted theirfindings as supporting a limited and principled role for L1in the L2classroom,as far as such a phenomenon can be controlled. THE PRESENT STUDYThe present study aims to investigate the amount,function,and contextual features sur-rounding the emergence of L1in EFL task‐based interaction over time and across partners.Where-as the studies reported here employed short, discrete tasks designed to elicit different types of learner interaction(e.g.,form focused vs.content construction),the current study involves dyads interacting over several weeks in preparation for oral presentation tasks,which were an integral part of the Oral Presentation course from which data were collected.The data used for the present study are a subset of interaction data drawn from a larger longitudinal study into task‐based activity in a Japanese undergraduate EFL classroom.The following research questions are addressed by the study:In a task‐based EFL classroom where learners interact in dyads over an extended period of time to develop collaboratively and perform oral presentations:1.For what proportion of learner–learnerinteraction is L1used?2.Do learners use L1consistently,either overtime with the same partner or acrosspartners?3.In what sociocognitive contexts do learnersemploy their L1?4.Are there any identifiable(systematic oremergent)contextual influences on L1use?METHODContext and ParticipantsThe study was undertaken in the School of English and Cultures of a university in Japan.The Oral Presentation class aimed to develop learners’oral presentation task‐related and language‐related skills and met once a week for the entire academic year(25weeks over two semesters;1.5hours per week).After permission was gained from the university to conduct the study,potential participants were given the choice between a non‐research class(taught by another teacher)and a research class(taught by the researcher),as described by the course convenor.Those learners who chose the research class were formally invited to participate and were informed of the research aims and ethical procedures relating to voluntary participation and confidentiality(including the use of pseudonyms).The study’s participants included12learners(10male and2female; aged19to33).Most learners’English language proficiency fell within the intermediate range for which the class was designed(TOEFL450–480) with the exception of two learners:Yasuko,whose proficiency was below this range,and Mina,whose proficiency was higher.5TasksThe study focuses on task‐based interaction leading up to two oral presentation tasks:Oral Performance1(OP1),conducted in thefirst semester,and Oral Performance3(OP3),con-ducted in the second semester,seven months later.6Thefirst presentation was ten minutes long and involved biographies of well‐known British, American,or Canadian people.The presentation was done in dyads,with partners chosen by the learners in a previous pedagogic task.Each learner was asked to share the preparation and presentation time equally.Preparation time was three weeks,though the presentation was to be rehearsed in front of a peer group after two weeks. Marking criteria focused on content,structure, and paralinguistic features of the presentation.Paul J.Moore243These criteria were made available to the learners at the beginning of the course and had been used by the learners in a previous pedagogic ter presentations involved more learner autonomy with regard to topic choice,style of presentation, and use of visual data.They were also progressively longer,with thefinal presentation15to20 minutes in length.Data CollectionInteraction data were collected using small analogue tape recorders in weeks4–5(OP1)and weeks19–21(OP3).While interaction data are the focus of the current investigation,the larger study, from which these data are drawn,also involved the collection of performance and reflection data, and these are referenced to the extent that they inform the investigation into L1use.Oral perform-ances were recorded on both video and audiotape during weeks7–8(OP1)and week24(OP3).OP1 performances were spread over three weeks because of practical delays and absences,and OP3performances were recorded in one week because participants agreed to lengthen the class time from1.5hours to2.5hours.Reflection tasks were part of the pedagogic approach in the course, in that they aimed to raise learner awareness of their own developing task skills and task‐based language skills.They were also designed to gain insights into the learners’experience of the task‐based interaction with their partners and peers,as well as their critical awareness of their own performance in terms of task and language skills. They took the form of ongoing written self‐evaluations and included learner reflections on the use of L1.Data AnalysisData analysis included both descriptive statisti-cal analysis and qualitative analysis of case studies. Interaction data were categorised,coded,and analysed(22transcripts in total)according to the emergent dialogically negotiated cognitive focus of learners,defined as activity frames.This was done using QSR NVivo7software(Bazeley,2007); interrater agreement on a sample of seven tran-scripts was82%.These were then classified according to several emergent subcategories under three general headings of procedural, content‐creation,and off‐task activity,based on de Guerrero and Villamil’s(1994)distinction among about‐task,on‐task,and off‐task activity.These activity frames represented the dialogic context from which L1use emerged.In other words,where other studies havefirst identified L1use and coded such use according to discrete functions,the approach in the current study was to identify systematically the dialogic context from which L1 use emerged.Such an approach is hypothesised to provide stronger insights into how,and possibly why,L1use emerges in particular contexts.The unit of analysis for distribution of L1in previous studies varies from word count(de la Campa&Nassaji,2009)to turn count(Swain& Lapkin,2000)to both(Storch&Aldosari,2010). Storch and Aldosari provide a useful review of the suitability of various units of analysis.They employed word counts to measure the amount of L1use and turn counts to measure L1functions, commenting that,while both methods provide high coding reliability,turn count is“an inexact measure”(p.361)due to the variability of turn lengths.Word counts and proportions were considered appropriate here because of the focus on distribution of L1talk,the bottom‐up focus with regard to context,and the fact that L1distribution was triangulated with quantification of other types of distribution of talk.One issue related to translation arose in the study;that is,similarities between Japanese and English backchanneling devices(“un”and“mm,”for example)meant that it was sometimes unclear which language was being used.In such cases,the utterance was coded as the same language as the surrounding text.The script used for translation was a modified version of the Hepburn system of Romanisation, which is common in applied linguistics research. Slightly modified CA transcription conventions were used,as is also common in bilingual sociocultural research(cf.Mori,2002;Ohta, 2001).In addition to the above quantitative data, transcripts,as well as reflection and observation data,were analysed to investigate whether any identifiable microanalytical contextual features may have had an influence on the emergence, sustenance,or discontinuation of L1use. FINDINGSTo answer thefirst two research questions, quantitative data were used to identify the amount of L1used and whether L1use was consistent over time and across partners.This was followed by both quantitative and qualitative analyses of the contexts in which L1use arose in the study, highlighting aspects of the linguistic and sociocul-tural context that may have influenced L1use in the study.244The Modern Language Journal97(2013)Proportion of Learner –Learner Interaction in L1Table 1provides an overview of the learners ’use of L1in the study.Data were collected from Oral Presentation 1(OP1)and Oral Presentation 3(OP3)to ascertain whether there were differences across interactions with the same partners and across partners over time.Word counts include such phenomena as repetitions,false starts,and backchannel utterances.Although the overall word counts and percen-tages mask variance in individual cases,they show two interesting trends that support additional qualitative analysis.First,the overall percentage of L1use was higher in OP3interactions than in OP1interactions.Second,within dyads,learners on average used less L1across interactions in both OP1and OP3.This coincides with a changing focus of learner talk over the interaction (see discussion of Table 4below).L1Use Over Time With the Same PartnerTable 2shows L1use within dyads across interactions for dyads who completed more thanone interaction prior to their oral performance (8of 11dyads)for OP1and OP3.In line with the overall trend towards decreasing use of L1across interactions,the data in this table show that individual use of L1decreased for the majority of learners across interactions (10of 16instances over OP1and OP3).In three instances each L1use remained stable (OP1:Ken;OP3:Ken,Yasuko;see discussion of Table 3)or increased (OP1:Mina,Keita,Nao).Mina ’s increased L1use occurred during attempted con flict resolution related to negotiation of research roles and interaction goals (see discussion of Example 2below),and Keita and Nao ’s increase occurred as the dyad engaged in a high amount of negotiation of form in the L1during content creation.L1Use Across PartnersTable 3compares overall L1use for individuals across partners in OP1and OP3.Four findings from this table are worthy of note.First,some students ’use of L1remained relatively constant across partners (with a maximum of 6%difference for Ken,Keita,Taro,and Daito).Two of these learners (Ken and Taro)also showed little variation across interactions within dyads (with ranges of 2%and 6%,respectively)as reported in Table 2.Second,given these data,some learners could be labelled high or low L1users.Third,L1use by other learners varied widely across partners (the range for Mina was 59%difference —i.e.,from 18%L1use in OP1with Ken to 77%in OP3with Daito;the range for Yasuko was 56%;Taku,28%;Tomo,46%;and Ichiro 40%).Finally,learners who interacted with peers who had lower L2pro ficiency (Mina,Taro,and Tomo)invariably used more L1in those interactions than with peers of similar pro ficiency.TABLE 1Overall Word Counts for OP1and OP3Including L1Total wordsL1words L1%OP1week 183********OP1week 2482862213OP1Overall 131********OP3week 12805158957OP3week 24744158033OP3week 37446226730OP3Overall 14995543636Total28192792328TABLE 2Paul J.Moore245。