Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BACKGROUND
Recent ndings (e.g., Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Brooks & Donato,
1994) suggest that the L1 may be a useful tool for learning the L2. These
empirical investigations have studied L2 learning processes within a
sociocultural framework, examining L1 interactions used by learners as
they participate in cognitively demanding L2 activities. Within this
framework, it is argued that an L1 shared by learners is able to function
as a psychological tool. In other words, the use of the L1 may provide
learners with additional cognitive support that allows them to analyse
language and work at a higher level than would be possible were they
restricted to sole use of their L2.
The L1 use has been shown to have this function both in foreign
language classrooms (e.g., Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Brooks & Donato,
1994) and in immersion classrooms (Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Anton and
DiCamillas study of ve pairs of adult learners of Spanish as a foreign
language showed that learners used their L1 (English) to scaffold
assistance. These studies have demonstrated that the L1 can serve a
number of functions, including enlisting and maintaining interest in the
task as well as developing strategies and approaches to make a difcult
task more manageable. These functions are similar to those identied by
Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) in studies of childrens L1 acquisition.
The L1 also allowed learners to focus on the goals of the task and work
out ways to address specic problems. Wood et al. propose that the L1
not only assists learners in the process and completion of the task but
also creates a social and cognitive space in which learners are able to
provide each other and themselves with help throughout the task (p.
METHOD
The study was conceptualised within a sociocultural framework to
investigate whether learners in an ESL context would use their L1 as a
mediating tool in performing complex tasks and, if so, what cognitive
Participants
Twenty-four university ESL students volunteered to participate in the
study, forming 12 pairs: 6 with a shared L1 and 6 with different L1s. The
students were of similar ages, educational backgrounds, and ESL pro-
ciency levels (considered intermediate in this context). We focus our
report only on the data of the 6 pairs with the shared L1. Three of these
pairs (3, 8, and 10) spoke Indonesian as their L1 and 3 pairs (5, 6, and 9)
spoke Mandarin Chinese as their L1.
Procedure
The participants were asked to complete two tasks together: a text
reconstruction task and a short joint composition task (see the Appen-
dix) using a graphic prompt (a task developed by Wigglesworth; see
OLoughlin & Wigglesworth, 2003). As the learners completed the tasks,
their talk was audiotaped.
Following the collection of data from the rst three pairs (3, 5, and 8)
with a shared L1, we noted that despite the shared L1, learners rarely
used it when completing the task. Therefore, the next three pairs (6, 9,
and 10) were given slightly different instructions. They were told that if
they felt their L1 would be helpful to them in completing the tasks, they
should feel free to use it. Unlike other studies on the use of L1, which
relied only on recorded pair talk, we also interviewed our participants
individually after they had completed the two tasks to elicit their
attitudes toward the use of their L1. All interviews were recorded.
Data Analysis
The recorded pair talk was transcribed and, where the L1 was used,
translated by a native speaker of the language. We then analysed the talk
and calculated the quantity of L1 use as a percentage of the total use.
The L1 use of the students was then segmented into episodes that varied
in length from a single word to several turns. Each episode was then
coded for its function. To check for interrater reliability, we indepen-
dently coded one complete transcript for episodes. The interrater
reliability was 84%. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.
FINDINGS
How Much L1 Was Used?
All but two pairs, both made up of speakers of Chinese, made minimal
use of the shared L1. Note that these pairs were among those who were
specically encouraged to use their L1. Pair 9 used the L1 extensively,
approximately 50% of the time in the joint composition task and
approximately 30% of the time in the text reconstruction task. Pair 6
used the L1 approximately 25% of the time in the joint composition task,
mainly toward the end of the task, and approximately 50% of the time in
the text reconstruction task. This task included a long session, constitut-
ing approximately 15% of the total turns in the task, of personal chat in
Chinese that was not related to the task activity. The remaining four
pairs, including Pair 10, who were also actively encouraged to use their
L1, used the L1 only for odd words and occasional phrases.
Student 1:
Chose a few that are special, this one, this one
Student 2:
Right, this small one, . . . 1985 . . . let me rst choose
Student 1:
We just need to pick 2 points, this one . . .
Student 2:
What about this, . . . should we rst group which subject that have
most women and which has most men according to its tendency?
Then compare the two groups, which will give us 3 paragraphs
Student 1: Right, . . . this one increased, this one also increased
Student 2: Right, and this one has been increasing continuously
Student 1: This one is also continuously increasing (Pair 9, joint composition
task; translated from Chinese)
TABLE 1
Functions of L1 Episodes During the Two Tasks
Pair 3: Indonesian
Joint composition 1 0 0 0
Reconstruction 0 1 0 0
Pair 5: Chinese
Joint composition 0 0 1 0
Reconstruction 1 0 0 0
Pair 6: Chinesea
Joint composition 10 7 1 0
Reconstruction 4 1 15 11
Pair 8: Indonesian
Joint composition 0 0 0 0
Reconstruction 0 1 0 3
Pair 9: Chinesea
Joint composition 13 14 4 4
Reconstruction 3 6 12 18
Pair 10: Indonesiana
Joint composition 2 0 0 0
Reconstruction 1 3 5 2
a
Pair was instructed to use the L1.
In the reconstruction task, on the other hand, the students used their
L1s mainly to clarify issues of meaning and vocabulary, as shown in the
example below:
Student 1: You know, this sentence is wrong. The meaning of this sentence is
that the least amount of Asian students came to Australia was in
1949. Asian students, what does the word minimal mean?
Student 2: It means the least (Pair 9, reconstruction task; translated from
Chinese)
Just like I forgot how to call the . . . past tense . . . I dont know how to call this
tense, so I will speak in Chinese. (Xiao,1 Pair 9)
Only one word he cannot understand, so I say its the, tell him, yeah
(inaudible) . . . yeah involve he cannot understand, just say very . . . whisper!
(Quan, Pair 5; translated from Chinese)
1
All students names are pseudonyms.
Because it is difcult for me to say in English word, you know, a English word,
international students, maybe it, it can show my idea very clear and in my rst
language, maybe one word can show what I mean, but in English, I, in can
several sentence, maybe several sentences she can understand. (Linda, Pair 6)
Another student noted that, in arguing, one slips into the use of the L1
almost without noticing it:
Students also clearly felt that in an ESL setting, they should maximize
the use of the target language as a means of improving their English
speaking skills.
If you talking with a partner . . . with the same native language, so not good
for writing the English. (Peter, Pair 9)
Other reasons given for reluctance to use the L1 related to the setting of
the activity. One student noted that he used his L1 at home whereas in
class he was expected to speak in English. Another noted that it never
occurred to him to speak in his L1 in the classroom, as speaking in the
L2 in class was automatic:
Another student pointed out that the L1 would have facilitated greater
depth of discussion:
THE AUTHORS
Neomy Storch is a senior lecturer in ESL and an adjunct lecturer in applied
linguistics in the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University
of Melbourne. Her research interests are in ESL pedagogy, particularly the teaching
of writing and the nature of pair interaction in L2 classrooms.
REFERENCES
Anton, M., & DeCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative
interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314342.
Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign
language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262274.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Socio-
cultural theory and second language learning (pp. 126). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
OLoughlin, K., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Task design in IELTS Academic Writing
Task 1: The effect of quantity and manner of presentation of information on
candidate writing. In IELTS: International English language testing system (Research
Reports 2003, Vol. 4, pp. 89130). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: IELTS.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 97114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the
rst language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251274.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom:
Social cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 5175.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100.
1600
1400 Doctorate
1200
1000 Research Masters
800
600 Coursework Masters
400
200 Postgraduate Diploma
0
1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
1600
1400 Doctorate
1200
1000 Research Masters
800
600 Coursework Masters
400
200 Postgraduate Diploma
0
1985 1990 1995 2000
Year