This paper considers the attitudes and behaviours of University language lecturers and their students regarding the use of the L1 in the higher education L2 classroom. A case-study of one Irish Higher Education Institution was carried out and qualitative interviews conducted with six lecturers in Japanese and six in German. The results indicated widespread support among the participants for the judicious use of the L1 in limited instances particularly where it can facilitate a reduction in cognitive overload and learner anxiety by, for example, the explanation of complex terminology, concepts and grammatical structures as well as in the creation of a relaxed classroom environment. Implications for the language classroom and for this field of research are considered.
A review of the literature on language teaching reveals predominantly negative attitudes towards the use of translation in language teaching (TILT) (Cook, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to explore the question of whether this negativity is reflected in the attitudes and behaviours of university lecturers engaged in language teaching as well as to consider the background and contextual factors associated with these attitudes and behaviours. A case-study of one Irish Higher Education Institution was conducted and qualitative interviews carried out with six lecturers in Japanese and six in German in conjunction with a review of the relevant documentation including course outlines and module descriptors. The results indicated widespread support on the ground for the use of TILT in some form suggesting a need for further research on the impact of the use of TILT on the language learning process. KeywordsTranslation, language teaching, L1, Grammar Translation I IntroductionCriticisms leveled against translation have had a negative impact on academic opinion regarding its use in language teaching (Cook, 2010). Most notable is the association of Translation in Language Teaching (TILT) (Cook, 2010) with the Grammar Translation approach to language teaching.The insidious association of Translation in Language Teaching with dull and authoritarian Grammar Translation, combined with the insinuation that Grammar Translation had nothing good in it at all, has lodged itself so deeply in the collective consciousness of the language-teaching profession, that it is difficult to prise it out at all, and it has hardly moved for a hundred years. The result has been an arid period in the use and development of TILT, and serious detriment to language teaching as a whole (Cook, 2010, p. 156). However, as Schjoldager (2004), Cook (2009 and Lems, Miller and Soro (2010) point out, TILT continues to be used in practice in many parts of the world. This paper uses a case-study approach to begin to address the following research questions:1. What are the attitudes of university language lecturers towards the use of TILT? 2. What behaviours in terms of the use of TILT are associated with more positive or negative attitudes towards its use? 3. What background factors are associated with more positive or negative attitudes towards its use?In order to frame these questions, the following section reviews the pertinent literature, outlining the events that led to the demise of translation in the classroom, and presents the case for and against the use of translation as a language learning tool. II Literature review 1 The demise of TILTDespite the widespread popular assumption that translation should play a major and necessary part in the study of a foreign language, recent theories of language teaching and learning have at best ignored the role of translation, and at worst vilified it. From the end of the nineteenth century onwards almost all influential theoretical works on language teaching have assumed without argument that a new l...
IMPORTANCEOveractivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).INTERVENTIONSPatients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.RESULTSOn February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707
This study investigates effects of long-term language contact and individual linguistic experience on the realization of lexical stress correlates in Welsh and Welsh English. To this end, a production study was carried out in which participants were asked to read out Welsh and English disyllabic words with stress on the penultimate syllable, placed within carrier phrases. Recordings were made of the productions of Welsh and English target words, by two groups of Welsh-English bilinguals differing in home language, as well as the productions of English target words by Welsh English monolinguals and speakers of Southern Standard British English (SSBE). Acoustic measures were taken of fundamental frequency (f0) and intensity ratios of stressed and unstressed vowels, duration of stressed and unstressed vowels, and duration of the post-stress consonant. The results of acoustic comparisons of Welsh English with SSBE and Welsh revealed that SSBE differs from the other groups in all measures of lexical stress. Welsh and Welsh English, however, show considerable phonetic overlap, albeit with languagespecific differences in two of the five measures (unstressed vowel duration, intensity ratio). These findings suggest cross-language convergence in the realization of lexical stress in Welsh and Welsh English disyllabic words with penultimate stress. Individual linguistic experience, in turn, did not play a major role in the realization of lexical stress in these words. Bilinguals did not differ from monolinguals when speaking English, and home language also had no effect on any measure. This suggests that other factors must be responsible for the observed patterns. We discuss the possibility that the varieties of Welsh and Welsh English spoken in this community function as a sign of regional or peer group identity, rather than as markers of linguistic experience.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.