A study of self-reported opinions of L1-based communication strategies in CLIL and NON-CLIL secondary-school learners of L3 English

  1. Patricia Ollo Jiménez 1
  2. María Martínez Adrián 1
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Journal:
RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada

ISSN: 1885-9089

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 18

Issue: 1

Pages: 72-90

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada

Abstract

This study examines the effect of Content-and-Language-Integrated-Learning (CLIL) and proficiency level in the foreign language (FL) on bilingual Basque/Spanish secondary school learners’ self-reported opinions of the use of first language (L1)-based communication strategies (CSs) in four different age/proficiency CLIL and NON-CLIL groups of third language (L3) English learners. The Quick Placement Test (QPT) was used to test general proficiency and a questionnaire taken from Martínez-Adrián, Gallardo-del-Puerto and Basterrechea (2019) was administered so as to explore learners’ self-reported opinions of their use of L1-based CSs. Results show that CLIL and more proficient learners reported to use L1-based CSs to a lesser extent than NON-CLIL and less proficient learners. Additionally, borrowings are common among beginner CLIL learners and students in a transitional proficient stage between an elementary and intermediate level whereas none of L1-based CSs are typical either of more experienced CLIL learners or of more proficient ones.

Bibliographic References

  • Agustín Llach, M. P. (2009). The role of Spanish L1 in the vocabulary of CLIL and non-CLIL EFL learners. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and M. J. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp. 112-129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Agustín Llach, M. P. (2011). Lexical Errors and Accuracy in Foreign Language Writing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Agustín Llach, M. P. (2014). Exploring the lexical profile of young CLIL learners. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2 (1), 53–73.
  • Agustín Llach, M. P. (2016). Age and type of instruction (CLIL vs. traditional EFL) in lexical development. International Journal of English Studies, 16 (1), 75-96.
  • Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (PP. 100-118) London: Longman.
  • Bialystok, E. & Frölich, M. (1980). Oral communication strategies for lexical difficulties. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5 (1), 3-30.
  • Celaya, M. L. (1992). Transfer in English as a Foreign Language: A Study on Tenses. Barcelona: PPU.
  • Celaya, M.L. (2007). I study natus in English: lexical transfer in CLIL and regular learners. Eds. R. Monray and A. Sánchez. Murcia: University of Murcia. 43-49.
  • Celaya, M. L. & Torras, M.R. (2001). L1 influence and EFL vocabulary: Do children rely more on L1 than adult learners?. Proceedings of the XXV AEDEAN Conference. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
  • Celaya, M. L. & Torras, M.R. (2001). L1 influence and EFL vocabulary: Do children rely more on L1 than adult learners?. Proceedings of the XXV AEDEAN Conference. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
  • Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufessen & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psicholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 8-19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 8-19
  • Cenoz, J. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Implications for the organization of the multilingual mental lexicon. Bulletin VALS-ASLA (Vereinigung für angewandte Linguistik in der Schweiz),78, 1-11.
  • Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.
  • Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. (2015). L1 influence in CLIL vs. EFL schoolchildren: A study of codeswitching and transfer lapses. Paper presented at the 33rd AESLA International Conference. Technical University of Madrid. April, 16-18.
  • Gallardo-del-Puerto, F., Gómez Lacabex, E. & García Lecumberri, M. L. (2009). Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign language contexts: The assessment of English pronunciation. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp. 63-80). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. & Gómez Lacabex, E. (2013). The impact of additional CLIL exposure on oral English production. Journal of English Studies,11, 113-131
  • Gené Gil, M., Juan Garau, M. & Salazar Noguera, J. (2012). A case study exploring oral language choice between the target language and the L1s in mainstream CLIL learners and EFL secondary education. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 7, 133-146.
  • Jourdain, S. (2000). A native-like ability to circumlocute. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 185-197.
  • Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 30-41.
  • Lo, Y. Y. & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Curriculum genres and task structure as frameworks to analyse teachers’ use of L1 in CBI classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (1), 78-90
  • Manzano Vázquez, B. (2014). Lexical transfer in the written production of a CLIL group and a non-CLIL group. International Journal of English Studies, 14 (2), 57-76.
  • Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M. P. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan.
  • Muñoz, C. 2007. Cross-linguistic influence and language switches in L4 oral production. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 73-94.
  • Navés, T. (2009). Effective Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Programmes. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp .22-40). Bern: International Academic Publishers.
  • Navés, T. (2011). The promising benefits of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra & F. Gallardo-del-Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp.103-128). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Navés, T., Mialpeix, I. & Celaya, M. L. (2005). Who transfers more…and what? Cross-linguistic influence in relation to school grade and language dominance in EFL. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2 (2), 113-134.
  • Navés, T., & Victori, M. (2010). CLIL in Catalonia: An Overview of Research Studies. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and D. Lasagabaster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher training (pp. 30-54). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Poulisse, N. (1987). Problems and solutions in the classification of compensatory strategies. Second Language Research, 3 (2), 141-153.
  • Poulisse, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical communication strategies. In R. Screuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 157-189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
  • Poulisse, N. & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15 (1), 36-57.
  • Purdie, N. & Oliver, R. (1990). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System, 27, 375-38.
  • Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio & R. C (Eds.), Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice, On Tesol 77 (pp. 194-203). Washington D. C.: TESOL.
  • Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in east-west interactions. In E. Larry Smith (Ed.), Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes (pp. 49-65). NY: Prentice-Hall.
  • Villareal Olaizola, I. & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). Tense and agreement morphology in the interlanguage of the Basque / Spanish bilinguals: CLIL versus non-CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp.157-175). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Wannaruk, A. (2003). Communication strategies employed by EST students. Studies of language and language teaching, 12, 1-18.
Data source: Dialnet