Cover not available
Part of
Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies
Edited by Wataru Suzuki and Neomy Storch
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 55] 2020
► pp. 41–66

Chapter 2
The role of L1 use by high-proficiency learners in L2 vocabulary development

A quasi-experimental study of L1 languaging

| Universidad Andres Bello
| The Mayflower School
This study investigated second language (L2) learners’ use of first language (L1) as a means to resolve lexical issues during collaborative writing tasks (i.e., L1 languaging). Participants were 34 8th grade high-proficiency English learners in Chile who shared their L1 (Spanish). Their vocabulary development was tested via the vocabulary knowledge scale (VKS). Their interactions during the collaborative writing tasks were audio-recorded. The transcripts were first analysed in light of L1 focus such as content, language, and task management. Then, lexical language-related episodes (LREs) involving L1 were examined. The regression models of the VKS and LRE scores showed that L1 languaging was associated with higher gains in vocabulary knowledge.
Keywords: L1 languaging, collective scaffolding, vocabulary development, collaborative writing tasks
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
    • L1 use and L2 learning
    • Vocabulary development in interaction
  • The study
    • Context and participants
    • Data collection
    • Collaborative writing tasks
    • Vocabulary knowledge scale
    • Data analysis
    • L1 functions
    • L1 languaging
    • Vocabulary development and L1 languaging
  • Results
    • Overview: L1 use and functions
    • L1 languaging
    • Vocabulary development
    • L1 languaging and vocabulary development
  • Discussion
    • L1 use and collaborative writing
    • L1 languaging by high-proficiency learners
    • L1 languaging and vocabulary development
  • Conclusion and pedagogical implications
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 14 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.02sat
References (47)
References
Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. d. P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 550–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, S., Lyster, R., Sterzuk, A., & Genesee, F. (2017). Context-appropriate crosslinguistic pedagogy. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 30–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barahona, M. (2016). Challenges and accomplishments of ELT at primary level in Chile: Towards the aspiration of becoming a bilingual country. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(82), 1–24.Google Scholar
Brooks, F., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de la Colina, A. A., & García Mayo, M. d. P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 325–345.Google Scholar
DiCamilla, F. J., & Antón, M. (2004). Private speech: A study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 36–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 160–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ender, A. (2014). Implicit and explicit cognitive processes in incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 536–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C. A. (1999). Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary learning through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 225–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. d. P., & Hidalgo, M. Á. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janebi Enayat, M., Amirian, S. M. R., Zareian, G., & Ghaniabadi, S. (2018). Reliable measure of written receptive vocabulary size: Using the L2 depth of vocabulary knowledge as a yardstick. SAGE Open, 8(1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowry, L. (1993). The giver. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2015). Perceived benefits and challenges with the use of collaborative tasks in EFL contexts. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 225–245). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, P. J. (2013). An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in the English-as-a-foreign-language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 239–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K., & Loewen, S. (2015). A teacher’s first language use in form-focused episodes in Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 133–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newton, J. (2013). Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 164–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., Nguyen, B., & Sato, M. (2017). Child ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 468–487). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, J. W., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8(2), 1–5.Google Scholar
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. (2012). The language-learning self, self-enhancement activities, and self perceptual change. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 317–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning, 67(2), 249–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In C. Lambert & R. Oliver (Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts. (pp. 215-236) Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2019). Methodological strengths, challenges, and joys of classroom-based quasi-experimental research: Metacognitive instruction and corrective feedback. In R. DeKeyser & G. Prieto Botana (Eds.), Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability (pp. 31–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Oyanedel, J. C. (2019). “I think that is a better way to teach but…”: EFL teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 84, 110–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, V., & de la Fuente, M. -J. (2008). What’s the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Sato, M. (2019). Comparing the same task in different L2 learning contexts: An Activity Theory perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 50–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2009). Languaging in grammar exercises by Japanese EFL learners of differing proficiency. System, 37(2), 217–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Deters, P. (2013). Exploring the effect of languaging activities on cognitive functioning: The case of an older adult in a long-term care facility. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 37(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 5–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells, G. (1999). Using L1 to master L2: A response to Antón and DiCamilla’s ‘socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom’. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 248–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Calzada, Asier & Agurtzane Azkarai
2024. Exploring learner-related variables in child collaborative writing: interaction mindset, willingness to communicate and proficiency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Heathco, Gregory J.
2024. AI translated task setup for non-native English speaking students. Communication Teacher ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2023. Chapter 2. Metacognitive approaches to collaborative writing. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Shabaka-Fernández, Sonia
2023. The effect of teacher language use in Spanish EFL classrooms. The Language Learning Journal 51:2 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Meixiu & William J. Crawford
2022. Attention to form in collaborative writing: language-related episodes in L1 and L2 use conditions. Language Awareness 31:2 ► pp. 194 ff. DOI logo
Barahona, Malba, Catalina Delaporte‐Raurich & Ximena Ibaceta‐Quijanes
2021. “It is impossible to teach English in English”: Preservice teachers’ struggles to facilitate L2 comprehensibility in English. TESOL Journal 12:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.