L1 use in EFL task-based interaction: a matter of gender?

Agurtzane Azkarai

doi:10.1515/eujal-2014-9911

Enjoy 40% off

academic books on De Gruyter Brill *

Article

L1 use in EFL task-based interaction: a matter of gender?

An erratum for this article can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2016-9911

Agurtzane Azkarai

Published/Copyright: July 11, 2015

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal European Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 3 Issue 2

Abstract

This study analyzes the impact of gender on first language (L1) use and the functions it served during English as foreign language (EFL) task-based interaction. Participants were all Spanish EFL learners who worked in matched (male-male, female-female) and mixed (female-male) gender dyads on four communicative tasks: dictogloss, text editing, picture placement and picture differences task. The findings reported differences between females and males in L1 use and the functions it served during interaction: females employed their L1 more than males and the functions it served also varied in males and females. Moreover, differences were also found depending on the gender of the interlocutor, as males employed their L1 more when working with females, and the amount of some L1 functions differed when females worked with females or with males. This study supports a balanced use of the L1, as it helped these learners overcome their communication problems during their EFL task-based interaction.

Resumen

Este estudio analiza el impacto del género en el uso y funciones de la lengua materna (L1) durante la interacción basada en tareas en inglés como lengua extranjera (ILE). Los participantes eran todos aprendices españoles de ILE que trabajaron en parejas del mismo género (hombre-hombre, mujer-mujer) y de género distinto (mujer-hombre) mientras realizaban cuatro tareas comunicativas: dictoglosia, texto para editar, localización de objetos, diferencias entre imágenes. Los resultados indicaron que había diferencias entre mujeres y hombres en el uso y funciones de la L1 durante la interacción: las mujeres emplearon su L1 más que los hombres y el número de algunas funciones de la L1 también varió entre mujeres y hombres. También se encontraron diferencias dependiendo del género del interlocutor, ya que los hombres emplearon su L1 más cuando trabajaban con mujeres, y el número de algunas funciones de la L1 también varió dependiendo de si las mujeres trabajaron con mujeres o con hombres. Este estudio demuestra que un uso controlado de la L1 puede ayudar a los aprendices de ILE en algunos problemas durante la comunicación oral.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersucht die geschlechtsspezifische Nutzung der L1 (Spanisch) in der aufgabenbezogenen Kommunikation in der Fremdsprache Englisch (EaF). Die Teilnehmer der Studie bearbeiteten in homogenen (männlich-männlich; weiblich-weiblich) und heterogenen Gruppen (weiblich-männlich) vier unterschiedliche Übungen: Diktoglosse, Textverarbeitung, Bildplatzierung und Bildunterschiede. Die Ergebnisse zeigen Unterschiede zwischen männlichen und weiblichen Teilnehmern in der Nutzung (Frequenz und Funktionen) der L1: Insgesamt nutzen weibliche Teilnehmerinnen die L1 stärker, allerdings werden auch Unterschiede mit Blick auf das Geschlecht des Gruppenpartners deutlich. Männliche Teilnehmer benutzten die L1 stärker, wenn sie mit weiblichen Teilnehmerinnen arbeiteten, zudem anderen folgte der Einsatz der L1 unterschiedlichen Funktionen, je nachdem, ob weibliche Teilnehmerinnen mit männlichen oder mit anderen weiblichen Teilnehmerinnen zusammen arbeiteten. Die Ergebnisse der Studie unterstützen ein Plädoyer für einen balancierten Einsatz der L1 im Unterricht EaF, da die L1 den Lernern in der aufgabenbezogenen Kommunikation hilft, sprachliche Probleme zu überwinden.

Keywords: L1 use/functions; Gender; Task-based interaction; EFL; collaborative work

Correction Statement

Correction added after publication on July 11, 2015: The DOI of this article was mistakenly 10.1515/eujal-2014-0011 and was corrected to: 10.1515/eujal-2014-9911.

Acknowledgements

I would also like to thank Professor María del Pilar García Mayo for her fruitful comments on the manuscript, and also the participants of the study who agreed to collaborate in this project. Thanks a lot to the two anonymous reviewers for all their interesting comments and suggestions crucial to improve this manuscript. I would also like to thank Professor Kristin Bührig for her help with the abstract and Professor Rhonda Oliver for her corrections on the manuscript. Finally, I want to thank Professor Vicente Núñez Antón, for his help with the statistical analysis. Of course, all errors remain my own.

Funding: This work was supported by the Basque Government (predoctoral grant BFI08.281, and research grant IT-311-10 ‘Language and Speech’) and the University of the Basque Country (UFI11/06).

References

Alcón, Eva & Victoria Codina. 1996. The impact of gender on negotiation and vocabulary learning in a situation of interaction. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 12. 21–35.Search in Google Scholar

Alegría de la Colina, Ana & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2009. Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: the use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics 47(3). 325–345.10.1515/iral.2009.014Search in Google Scholar

Alley, David C. 2005. A study of Spanish II high school students’ discourse during group work. Foreign Language Annals 38(2). 250–257.10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02489.xSearch in Google Scholar

Antón, Marta & Frederick DiCamilla. 1998. Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 54. 314–342.10.3138/cmlr.54.3.314Search in Google Scholar

Aries, Elizabeth Joan. 1976. Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Behaviour 7(1). 7–18.Search in Google Scholar

Azkarai, Agurtzane. 2015. Males and females in EFL task-based interaction: does gender have an impact on LREs? VIAL 12. 9-35.Search in Google Scholar

Azkarai, Agurtzane & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2012. Does gender influence task performance in EFL? Interactive tasks and language related episodes. In Eva Alcón Soler & María del Pilar Safont Jordá (eds.), Language Learners’ Discourse across L2 Instructional Settings. 249–278. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401208598_013Search in Google Scholar

Azkarai, Agurtzane & María del Pilar García Mayo. Forthcoming. Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research. doi:10.1177/136216881454171710.1177/1362168814541717Search in Google Scholar

Brooks, Frank B. & Richard Donato. 1994. Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77. 262–274.10.2307/344508Search in Google Scholar

Carless, David. 2008. Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal 62(4). 331–338.10.1093/elt/ccm090Search in Google Scholar

DiCamilla, Frederick & Marta Antón. 2012. Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22(2). 160–188.10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00302.xSearch in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar. 2002a. The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(2). 156–175.10.1111/1473-4192.t01-1-00029Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar. 2002b. Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research 37. 323–341.10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00008-9Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar (ed.). 2007. Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599286Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar & Eva Alcón Soler. 2013. Negotiated input and output interaction. In Julia Herschensohn & Martha Young-Scholten (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 209–229. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139051729.014Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, María del Pilar & María Luisa García Lecumberri (eds.). 2003. Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853596407Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan. 1997. Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan. 2003. Input and interaction. In Catherine Doughty & Michael Long (eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 224–255. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756492.ch9Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan & Alison Mackey. 2007. Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In Bill VanPatten & Jessica Williams (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction. 175–199. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan M. & Evangeline Marlos Varonis. 1985. Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Susan M. Gass & Carolyn G. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. 149–161. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan M. & Evangeline Marlos. 1986. Sex differences in non-native speaker/non-native speaker interactions. In Richard R. Day (ed.), “Talking to Learn”: Conversation in second language acquisition. 327–351. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Kasanga, Luanga A. 1996. Effect of gender on the rate of interaction: some implications for second language acquisition and classroom practice. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 111(2). 155–192.10.1075/itl.111-112.07kasSearch in Google Scholar

Keck, Casey, M., Gina Iberri-Shea, Nicole Tracy-Ventura & Safary Wa-Mbaleka. 2006. Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In John M. Norris & Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching. 91–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.13.08kecSearch in Google Scholar

Kowal, Maria & Merrill Swain. 1994. Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness 3(2), 73–93.Search in Google Scholar

Lázaro, Amparo & María del Pilar García Mayo. 2012. L1 use and morphosyntactic development in the oral production of EFL learners in a CLIL context. International Review of Applied Linguistics 50. 135–160.10.1515/iral-2012-0006Search in Google Scholar

Long, Michael H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 413–468. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3Search in Google Scholar

Mackey, Alison & Jaemyung Goo. 2007. Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Alison Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition, 407–472. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Maltz, Daniel N. & Ruth A. Borker. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In John J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 195–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620836.013Search in Google Scholar

Muñoz, Carmen. (ed.) (2006) Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853598937Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein. 2000. Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: some pedagogical possibilities. The Modern Language Journal 84(2). 241–250.10.1111/0026-7902.00065Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, Rhonda. 2002. The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal 86(1). 97–111.10.1111/1540-4781.00138Search in Google Scholar

Oxenden, Clive, Christina Latham-Koenig & Paul Seligson. 1997a. New English File Elementary. Student’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Oxenden, Clive, Christina Latham-Koenig & Paul Seligson. 1997b. New English File Pre Intermediate. Student’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Oxenden, Clive, Christina Latham-Koenig & Paul Seligson. 1997c. New English File Upper Intermediate. Student’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Philp, Jenefer & Rita Tognini. 2009. Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 245–266.10.1515/iral.2009.011Search in Google Scholar

Pica, Teresa. 1994. Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning 44. 493–527.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.xSearch in Google Scholar

Pica, Teresa, Ruth Kanagy & Joseph Falodun. 1993. Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In Graham Crookes & Susan M. Gass (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning, 9–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Pica, Teresa, Hyun-Sook Kang & Shannon Sauro. 2006. Information gap tasks. Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 301–338.10.1017/S027226310606013XSearch in Google Scholar

Pica, Teresa, Lloyd Holliday, Nora Lewis & Lynelle Morgenthaler. 1989. Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistics demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11. 63–90.10.1017/S027226310000783XSearch in Google Scholar

Pica, Teresa, Lloyd Holliday, Nora Lewis, Dom Berducci & Jeanne Newman. 1991. Language learning through interaction: what role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13. 343–376.10.1017/S0272263100010020Search in Google Scholar

Ross-Feldman, Lauren. 2005. Task-based Interactions between Second Language Learners: Exploring the Role of Gender. (Doctoral dissertation). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.Search in Google Scholar

Ross-Feldman, Lauren. 2007. Interaction in the L2 classroom: does gender influence learning opportunities? In Alison Mackey (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies, 52–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shehadeh, Ali. 1994. Gender differences and second language acquisition. Research Journal of Aleppo University (Arts and Humanities Series) 26. 73–98.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2007. Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research 11(2). 143–159.10.1177/1362168807074600Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy & Ali Aldosari. 2010. Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research 14(4). 355–375.10.1177/1362168810375362Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy & Gillian Wigglesworth. 2003. Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly 32(4). 760–770.10.2307/3588224Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Sharon Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion learners working together. The Modern Language Journal 82(3). 320–327.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.xSearch in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Sharon Lapkin. 2000. Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4. 251–274.10.1177/136216880000400304Search in Google Scholar

Syndicate, U.C.L.E. 2001. Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand. Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wajnryb, Ruth. 1990. Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix

Examples of some of the tasks employed in the present study:

Dictogloss (lower-intermediate level version):

I was very optimistic when I went to meet Claire. My first impression was that she was very friendly and very extrovert. Physically she was my type: she was quite slim and not very tall with long dark hair, very pretty! And she was very funny too! She had a great sense of humor, we laughed a lot. But the only problem was that Claire was very talkative.

Text Editing (upper-intermediate level version):

Original Text:

Louise Woodward was the 18-year old nanny convicted in 1998 by a court in the United States of murdering the infant Matthew Eappen. Recently she spoke about her experience of a televised court case at the Edinburg Television Festival.

Louise criticized the televising of trials. ‘It should never be the case of looking into a defendant’s eyes and making a decision on their guilt or innocence, ‘she told the Edinburg Television Festival. ‘It should be the law that decides on a person’s guilt, but television, with its human and emotional interest, takes the attention away from this.’

Although she thought it was an inevitable development, she added: ‘Television turns everything into entertainment. We should remember that in the end courtrooms are serious places. It is people’s lives and future lives that you are dealing with. It is not a soap opera and people should not see it like that. Serious issues should not be trivialized.’ [...]

Modified Text:

Louise Woodward was the 18-year nanny convicted in 1998 by a court in the United States of murder the infant Matthew Eappen. Recently she speak her experience of a televised court case the Edinburg Television Festival.

Louise criticize the televising of trials. ‘It should never be the case of looking into a defendant’s eyes and making a decision their guilt or innocence, ‘she told the Edinburg Television Festival. ‘It should be the law decides on a person’s guilt, but television, with its human and emotional interest, takes the attention from this.’

Although she thought it was an inevitable development, she add: ‘Television turn everything in entertainment. We should remember that in end courtrooms are serious places. It is people lives and future lives you are dealing with. It is not a soap opera and people should not see it like that. Serious things should not be trivialized.’ [...]

Picture Placement (in color in the original task)