Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign language classroom: a cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk

Abstract

This article examines the language choices made by native-speaker teachers of Japanese, Korean, German and French in foreign language (FL) classrooms in New Zealand secondary schools. It explores these teachers’ patterns of alternation between English, the majority language, and the TL, using both AS-units (Analysis of Speech units), devised by Foster et al. (2000) and a multiple-category coding system entitled ‘Functional Language Alternation Analysis of Teacher Talk’ (FLAATT), developed expressly to allow a cross-linguistic comparison of the relationship between teachers’ language choices and particular pedagogic functions. Findings suggest that the participating teachers differed markedly from one another not only in the amount of TL used but also in the pedagogic functions they used most frequently and in the language (TL or English) they chose for these functions. There was a tendency by most teachers to avoid complex interactions in the TL, limiting the potential for intake and for real communication on the part of the students. Implications are drawn for research and for teacher education.

The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers' perspective

“…Another difference between this study and previous ones can be found when we compare it to Kim and Elder's (2005). These two authors concluded that native-speaker teachers have also often been found to use a high proportion of L1, as their non-native colleagues do.…”

L1 in the IRF cycle: a case study of Chinese EFL classrooms

“…First, in meaning-focused IRF cycles, L1 can be used to in students' responses to promote a more dialogic interaction. Rather than modelling the use of language in form-focused IRF cycle, fluency and communicative purposes are emphasized in meaning-focused IRF cycle where L1 may offer appropriate expressions for communication (Kim and Elder 2005). Waring (2009, p. 817) advocates that the restricted IRF cycle is 'almost impervious to restructuring'.…”

“…The function of L1 in classrooms has been examined and discussed by a number of researchers (Cummins 2008;Kim and Elder 2005;Littlewood and Yu 2011;Macaro 2005;Philip 2016). They summarize the function of L1 into different categories.…”

L1 en el aula de L2: ¿por qué no?

“…Esta enérgica defensa del uso de la L2 está relacionada con la necesidad de proporcionar a los aprendices el máximo input posible en lengua meta no solo durante las explicaciones de clase y la realización de actividades, sino también para el manejo del aula y el mantenimiento de la disciplina (Ellis, 1984: 133;Chaudron, 1988: 121;Wang, 2002). El cambio a la L1, incluso en funciones lingüísticas secundarias, supone privar a los aprendices de un valuable input en L2 (Ellis, 1984;Kim y Elder, 2005;Rolin-Ianziti y Varshney, 2008). Turnbull y Arnett (2002: 205) citan una larga serie de estudios que muestran una correlación directa entre el uso de la lengua meta por parte del profesor y la adquisición de la L2, lo cual constituye sin duda el argumento 3 La negociación del significado es uno de los factores con los que González García (2009: 10 y ss.)…”