Search

A considerable body of research within the interaction framework (Long, 1996) has centred on the language-related episodes (LREs) which occur when learners topicalize a specific linguistic item while they are engaged in meaning-focused tasks. Several studies have shown that the production of LREs may be influenced by the proficiency level of the learners (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004). Sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Appel, 1994) has also explored collaborative work and the effect that pairing learners with the same proficiency levels or different "patterns of interaction" (Storch, 2002) has on the production of LREs (e.g., Mozaffari, 2017; Storch & Aldosari 2013), but little research has compared the effect of the pair formation method (student-selected vs. proficiency-matched) on young learners' production of LREs and pair dynamics. This study compares young CLIL learners (aged 10-12) in student-selected and proficiency-matched pairs in task-based interaction. Results indicate that learners produce more meaning-based than form-based LREs, regardless of their pair formation method. The percentage of meaning-based LREs which are resolved accurately is much higher in proficiency-matched dyads than in student-selected ones. As for the patterns of interaction (Storch, 2002), the dynamics of proficiency-matched dyads are of a more collaborative nature than those of self-selected pairs.

This paper explores whether language typology plays any role in lexical availability and spelling accuracy in L2 English. Two groups of adult speakers were compared: a group of native speakers of a language typologically distant from English with a logographic writing system (Chinese; n = 13) vs. a group of native speakers of a language typologically closer to English with an alphabetic system (Spanish; n = 14). All participants performed a lexical availability task (Carcedo González, 1998a) which was later on analyzed in terms of the "total number of words" and the "total number of words containing spelling mistakes" per each of the 15 semantic categories included. Spanish speakers displayed larger available lexica and fewer spelling mistakes than Chinese speakers, an outcome which would confirm the positive influence of L1-L2 proximity on L2 lexical availability and the deleterious effect of having a non-alphabetic L1 writing system on L2 spelling accuracy

English reflexive anaphora in cases of VP-ellipsis may allow for strict and sloppy readings. A few L2 studies (Epoge, 2012; Park, 2016; Ying, 2005) have focused on determining the role that L2 proficiency may exert on learners' choices in bare, referential, and non-referential contexts. This paper provides data from 104 Spanish learners of English (A2, B1, and B2 levels) and 32 native speakers of English. Results showed that participants tended to interpret reflexives sloppily in bare and non-referential contexts, whereas strict readings prevailed in referential ones. There existed significant differences in the interpretation of learners versus native speakers, whilst the differences among the three learner groups were not so marked. However, the least proficient group differed most from native speakers. Findings partially confirm previous research and discrepancies may be tentatively ascribed to extraneous variables (e.g., the learners' L1, the range of the proficiency levels, or the characteristics of the control groups). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of communication strategies (CSs) in oral and written second language (L2) production has been widely investigated (e.g. Muñoz, 2007). As for content and language integrated learning (CLIL) settings, learners seem to resort to the first language (L1) less often than in traditional foreign language instruction (e.g. Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). However, few studies have examined what L2 learners say about their use of CSs by means of questionnaires -- e.g. Ehrman & Oxford (1990), with adult English as a foreign language (EFL) learners -- and little is known about the reported use of CSs by young learners (Purdie & Oliver, 1999), and much less by young CLIL learners. This study examines learners' self-reported opinions about the use of CSs ("guessing," "miming," "morphological creativity," "dictionary," "predicting," "paraphrasing," "borrowing," "calque," "foreignizing," "avoidance" and "appeal for assistance"). An adapted survey (Kellerman, Bongaerts, & Poulisse, 1987; Oxford, 1989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Yule & Tarone, 1990) was administered to CLIL learners of English in grades 5 and 6 of primary education. Quantitative differences in terms of the type of strategies used were explored. Analyses showed striking similarities between grades 5 and 6 as well as significant differences in the use of the different CSs, paraphrasing and appeal for assistance being the most frequent strategies, whereas morphological creativity and miming obtained the lowest frequency. Findings are discussed in the light of learners' age and the nature of CLIL instruction.

Little is known about young CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) learners' attention to formal aspects of the target language when engaged in collaborative task-based interaction. Previous research on language-related episodes (LREs) with other populations indicates that certain variables (e.g. target language proficiency or pair formation method) may play a role in the production of LREs. This study investigates the amount, types and resolution of LREs produced by primary education CLIL learners in a collaborative picture-ordering + story-telling task depending on two variables – L2 English proficiency (grade 5 dyads vs. grade 6 dyads) and pairing method (proficiency-matched dyads vs. student self-selected dyads). Findings indicate that young CLIL learners' interactive behaviour in L2 English, at least in terms of LRE production, does not differ as a consequence of target language proficiency, whereas pair formation method exerts some influence, self-selected pairs producing and resolving more meaning-based LREs. No differences were found for form-focused LREs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the effect of two distinct computer-based phonetic training procedures administered in an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) classroom with young learners. Students' perceptual awareness of the occurrence of an English schwa in an unstressed position in content words was tested in two experimental groups, which underwent differentiated training regimes (auditory discrimination/identification practice and listen-and-repeat practice), and a control group, which received no phonetic treatment. A training effect was shown by the significant improvement in the perception abilities of the two experimental groups only. In addition, both experimental groups exhibited comparable improvement in all the variables analyzed. Training effects were also found for the word-familiarity variable, which was mitigated after treatment. Results suggest a positive impact of both aural and imitation computer-based phonetic training on L2 sound perceptual awareness in classroom settings with young learners.

The present study aims at determining whether instruction in the form of explicit phonetic training and of implicit exposure to native input impacted Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) students' phonological awareness of the occurrence of English schwa in unstressed syllables of content words (bacon). Four intact CLIL groups were administered a perception task immediately before and after an intervention period of one month in which two groups underwent explicit instruction on the incidence of reduced vowels versus full vowels in English disyllabic words while another group was exposed to native input in their CLIL sessions. A fourth CLIL group with neither explicit intervention nor native teacher input served as control group. All four groups tended to judge both schwas and full vowels as correct in the pre-test, indicating that they were not knowledgeable of the general pattern of vowel reduction occurrence in unstressed syllables in English prior to intervention. In the post-test, the three experimental groups significantly improved their ability to identify full vowels as incorrect, the groups receiving explicit instruction exhibiting higher gains than the group which was implicitly exposed to native input. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies investigating compensatory strategies (CSs) by means of questionnaires in English‐as‐a‐Foreign‐Language (EFL) contexts with young learners are lacking, particularly in Content‐and‐Language‐Integrated‐Learning (CLIL) environments. Three different proficiency groups of young English learners in a CLIL programme were administered a survey to explore the existence of intergroup differences regarding the amount and types of CSs used. Learners exhibited a moderately high use of CSs overall, and no differences emerged regarding the total number of CSs as a function of target language (TL) proficiency. In terms of types of CSs used, they reported using some CSs (paraphrasing) which are typical of more advanced learners. However, more proficient learners were found to draw on some non L2‐based strategies (avoidance, foreignising, miming) to a lesser extent than less proficient learners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of communication strategies (CSs) in oral and written second language (L2) production has been widely investigated (e.g. Muñoz, 2007). As for content and language integrated learning (CLIL) settings, learners seem to resort to the first language (L1) less often than in traditional foreign language instruction (e.g. Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). However, few studies have examined what L2 learners say about their use of CSs by means of questionnaires – e.g. Ehrman & Oxford (1990), with adult English as a foreign language (EFL) learners – and little is known about the reported use of CSs by young learners (Purdie & Oliver, 1999), and much less by young CLIL learners. This study examines learners' self-reported opinions about the use of CSs (guessing, miming, morphological creativity, dictionary, predicting, paraphrasing, borrowing, calque, foreignizing, avoidance and appeal for assistance). An adapted survey (Kellerman, Bongaerts, & Poulisse, 1987; Oxford, 1989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Yule & Tarone, 1990) was administered to CLIL learners of English in grades 5 and 6 of primary education. Quantitative differences in terms of the type of strategies used were explored. Analyses showed striking similarities between grades 5 and 6 as well as significant differences in the use of the different CSs, paraphrasing and appeal for assistance being the most frequent strategies, whereas morphological creativity and miming obtained the lowest frequency. Findings are discussed in the light of learners' age and the nature of CLIL instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the use of the language (L1s) in content-based and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Topics include to address as the nature of the English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) programme may have an effect on teachers' discourse and their use of the L1 in L2 pedagogy; mentions exploring how L1 use may develop the acquisition of a second language (L2); and also mentions how teachers can develop a systematic approach to planning and using the L1.

The capacity of non-native evaluators to perform foreign accent ( FA) judgments has been questioned. This study explores differences between linguistically trained non-native judges ( NNJs) who are teachers of English familiar with the students' L1s and naïve native judges ( NJs) who do not speak the students' L1s. Both groups were compared in their global evaluation of FA and its potential communicative effects (comprehensibility and irritation) in two groups of language learners (more and less experienced). Results show striking similarities between the two groups of judges. NNJs were as able as NJs to assess FA despite finding it more comprehensible than the NJs did. It is suggested that NNJs' linguistic training promotes a more analytic approach to FA evaluation, which can compensate for the lack of native intuitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]