Combined effects: Task-type and proficiency

Few studies to date have investigated the combined effects of task type and language proficiency on L1 functions. . To address this gap, Storch and Aldosari (2010) compared the functions the L1 serves during a story completion task, a written composition task, and a text- editing task with 36 Arabic (L1) learners of English (L2). Three groups of proficiency pairings were established: higher-higher proficiency dyads (H-H), lower-lower proficiency dyads (L-L), and mixed proficiency dyads (H-L). Their analysis included all single word utterances and turns. They identified two types of turns: total/predominant L1 turns (e.g., turns containing an equal or greater number of L1 words) and minor L1 turns (e.g., turns containing fewer L1 words). They reported that the text-editing task elicited the largest amount of L1 mediation and was highest for

the L-L dyads. No significant differences were observed between the story completion group and the written composition group. The majority of the L1 turns were total/predominant turn and the percentage was significantly higher for L-L dyads. In addition, they uncovered a task and proficiency grouping effect. The editing task engendered the highest percentage of

total/predominant L1 turns and was predominant for L-L dyads. The story completion task elicited the greatest amount of L2 mediation. With respect to the specific mediating functions, they identified five functions: (1) task management (e.g., clarifying instructions, getting learners’ attention, commenting on the quality of work, choosing the topic, negotiating the sequence, and producing phatic expressions); (2) discussion and formation of ideas; (3) grammar deliberations; (4) vocabulary deliberation; and (5) mechanics deliberation. For the story completion task and text-editing task, the L1 was used primarily for task management and vocabulary deliberations. For the written composition task, the L1 was used for generating ideas, vocabulary deliberations, and task management. To summarize their findings, the L1 primarily served task management functions followed by negotiation of vocabulary, supporting previous findings (Storch &

Wigglesworth, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Thoms, et al., 2005). They conclude that task type impacts the amount of L1 mediation and that this effect is most salient for L-L dyads.

Studies reporting on L1 mediation focus on describing the functions of the L1 and the impact of task type on these functions. Although the study of L2 functions in the L3

development is an underexplored area, two studies investigated CLI on lexical switches and attributed L2 functions to these lexical switches. Hammarberg (2001) conducted a longitudinal case study with a learner of Swedish as an L3. L3, in this study, was operationalized as the language currently being learned, while any language learned after the L1 was considered an L2. Their participant was in fact learning a fifth language: English (L1), German (L2), French (L2),

Italian (L2), and Swedish, the L3. This two-year exploratory study was concerned with

naturalistic acquisition (i.e., the participant learned Swedish through exposure at work and social contexts). During this 2-year period, the focal participant was interviewed approximately 52 times. They identified seven functions of the L1 and L2 switches and include the following: (1) editing functions (self-repairs); (2) meta-comments (e.g., comments on the communicative situation); (3) meta-frame (e.g., a question about lexis); (4) explicit insertion of lexis; (5) implicit insertion of lexis; (6) non-elicited insertion of lexis; (7) utterances with no pragmatic function. The main finding is that the learner relied on the L1 (English) and German (L2) and seldom turned to other L2s to support the discourse. Moreover, they found that L1 mediation served pragmatic functions and the L2 provided lexis. Finally, they report that the amount of L1 and L2 mediation decreased significantly around the eight month.

Bono (2011), primarily concerned with lexical transfer, also examined the specific roles that the L1 and the L2 served in the acquisition of an L3. In her study, 42 participants taking a Spanish class completed a series of informal conversation tasks outside regularly scheduled classes. Her rationale for using informal conversation topics was that she believed it would increase the probability of language switches into other languages. While the majority of their participants shared a similar background, namely, French (L1), English (L2), and learning Spanish (L3), some had studied German (L3) before Spanish (L4). In their study, they identified three functions of the participant’s languages: (1) pragmatic functions, (2) metalinguistic

functions (e.g., reflection on linguistic forms), and (3) lexical inserts. Lexical inserts were further divided into three categories. The first of these, explicit inserts, are items that are embedded in a metalinguistic frame/question. The second, implicit inserts, is an implicit request for a lexical item (indicated via raising intonation). And the third, non-elicit inserts, are inserts that do not

indicate any request. They found that the most frequent functions of the L1 and the L2s were implicit lexical inserts and these were more frequent with the beginners. Moreover, a total of 10.5% of the lexical inserts were realized through the L2. Interestingly, a majority of these inserts (63%) constituted non-elicit inserts. The other two functions were mediated via the L1. Their findings support the ‘L2 Factor’ hypothesis in that learners turned to a typologically more distant language during the tasks.

In review, a number of studies provide empirical evidence that learners of an L2 rely on L1 mediation: the L1 acts as a cognitive and social tool that mediates the development of higher mental functions. More recently, the idea that other languages can provide support has been examined in naturalistic settings. However, research adopting an SCT perspective has yet to examine the cognitive and social functions of learners’ L2s in the development of an L3, and importantly, in classroom-based settings. With the present study, the role(s) of the L1 and the L2 was investigated with four focal participants who completed a series of collaborative tasks over the course of one academic semester. The study contributes to our understanding of task type effects on the functions of the L1 and the L2 in one authentic FL classroom. While further explorations of L1 and L2 mediation are warranted, the relationship between L1-L2 mediation and L3 development needs to be considered. The following section presents evidence that L1s provide L2 learning opportunities.