UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Language use in the Japanese as a foreign language classroom Nakamura, Emy Jane 2005

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2005-0283.pdf [ 9.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091984.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091984-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091984-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091984-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091984-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091984-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091984-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091984-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091984.ris

Full Text

L A N G U A G E USE IN T H E JAPANESE AS A FOREIGN L A N G U A G E C L A S S R O O M by E M Y JANE N A K A M U R A  B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1999 B . E d . , University of British C o l u m b i a , 2000  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE  M A S T E R OF  OF  ARTS  in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES M o d e r n Language Education  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A A p r i l 2005  \  © E m y Jane N a k a m u r a , 2 0 0 5  OF  Abstract  T h i s study e x a m i n e d target language ( T L ) and first language ( L I ) use i n an intermediate l e v e l Japanese-as-a-foreign-language  ( J F L ) context at a W e s t e r n C a n a d i a n  U n i v e r s i t y ( W C U ) . T h e ratio o f T L and L I use b y students and their instructors ( i n c l u d i n g instructors' p e r c e i v e d use) and the purposes for w h i c h they u s e d the T L and c o d e - s w i t c h i n g were investigated to understand h o w m i x e d - l a n g u a g e use c a n p r o v i d e s c a f f o l d i n g f o r Japanese learners, thus e n h a n c i n g their s e c o n d language ( L 2 ) l e a r n i n g experiences. T h e participants i n this study i n c l u d e d t w o focal instructors, s i x n o n - f o c a l instructors and 45 students. S i x o f the instructors were native Japanese speakers, w h i l e the other t w o were C h i n e s e and T a g a l o g speakers. F o r t y o f the students h a d C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d s , t w o were K o r e a n , 1 h a d a Japanese b a c k g r o u n d , and three c a m e f r o m A n g l o p h o n e , n o n - A s i a n ethnic b a c k g r o u n d s . T h e study was c o n d u c t e d o v e r a threem o n t h p e r i o d i n an intermediate-level J F L class f o c u s i n g o n c o n v e r s a t i o n and c o m p o s i t i o n . T h e class met four times a w e e k (50 minutes each class) for thirteen w e e k s . A qualitative approach was e m p l o y e d , and data were c o l l e c t e d through: (a) regular c l a s s r o o m observations and researcher fieldnotes; (b) semi-structured i n t e r v i e w s ; (c) a u d i o - r e c o r d e d c l a s s r o o m lectures; and (d) a u d i o - r e c o r d e d p a i r w o r k sessions. D a t a analysis f o l l o w e d S t a k e ' s (1981) suggestion o f c o d i n g w h o l e episodes, i n t e r v i e w s , or documents and then c l a s s i f y i n g t h e m a c c o r d i n g to salient themes that recur. T h e findings r e v e a l e d that language use i n such m u l t i l i n g u a l language c l a s s r o o m s is a c o m p l e x and d y n a m i c process that changes across interlocutors, task-type and task c o m p l e x i t y . B o t h instructors and students used the T L and L I (and a d d i t i o n a l languages,  ii  e s p e c i a l l y M a n d a r i n or Cantonese) for m u l t i p l e purposes d u r i n g teacher-led and c o l l a b o r a t i v e p a i r w o r k tasks. T h e prevalence o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g suggests that d r a w i n g o n a c o m b i n a t i o n o f languages p r o v i d e d s c a f f o l d i n g for students, w h i c h increased opportunities for r e c e i v i n g and processing T L input. In addition, issues c o n c e r n i n g C h i n e s e , E S L and heritage language learners i n the J F L c l a s s r o o m and their l i n g u i s t i c needs and preferences are discussed, a l o n g w i t h some p e d a g o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s .  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  ii  T a b l e o f Contents  iv  List of Tables  vii  List of Figures  ^  viii  Acknowledgements..  ix  Dedication  x  Chapter 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N  1  1.1  T h e Identification o f the P r o b l e m  1  1.2  T h e P u r p o s e o f the S t u d y  3  1.3  Q u e s t i o n s G u i d i n g the R e s e a r c h  4  1.4  T h e S i g n i f i c a n c e o f the S t u d y  4  1.5  O v e r v i e w o f the T h e s i s  6  Chapter 2 R E V I E W O F L I T E R A T U R E  8  2.1  Introduction  8  2.2  Issues i n L I and T L U s e i n the L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m  8  2.3  T h e R o l e o f L I and T L  9  2.4  2.3.1  M a x i m u m L I Use Position  2.3.2  T h e V i r t u a l [ L 2 ] and M a x i m a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n  10 11  2.3.3  The Optimal Use Position  15  2.3.3.1  T h e L e a r n e r s ' U s e o f T L & L I : E m p i r i c a l E v i d e n c e .18  2.3.3.2  The Teachers' U s e of T L & L I : E m p i r i c a l Evidence.21  A Sociocultural Perspective  22  2.4.1  23  The Zone of Proximal Development  2.5  G r o u p W o r k and C o l l a b o r a t i v e L e a r n i n g  2.6  Chapter Summary  ;  31  Chapter 3 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D O L O G Y 3.1  27  33  Introduction  33  3.2  A Q u a l i t a t i v e A p p r o a c h : M u l t i p l e C a s e Studies  33  3.3  Research Questions  35  3.4  Participants and C o n t e x t o f E x p l o r a t i o n  37  3.4.1  Participants  3.4.2  Setting  ....37 39  iv  3.5  D a t a C o l l e c t i o n Procedures  44  3.5.1  O b s e r v a t i o n s and F i e l d n o t e s  45  3.5.2  C l a s s r o o m Lectures  46  3.5.3  Student P a i r w o r k  47  3.5.4  Instructor Interviews  48  3.5.5  Student Interviews  49  3.5.6  C o u r s e materials: W r i t t e n documents  49  3.6  T r a n s c r i p t i o n P r o c e d u r e s and C o n v e n t i o n s  50  3.7  Data Analysis  50  3.8  Chapter Summary :  51  Chapter 4 F I N D I N G S A N D D I S C U S S I O N  52  4.1  Introduction  52  4.2  R a t i o o f Japanese and E n g l i s h U s e b y Instructors  52  4.3  Instructors' Perceptions o f Japanese and E n g l i s h U s e  61  4.3.1  Instructors' P e r c e p t i o n s  62  4.3.2  F o c a l Instructors' P e r c e p t i o n s  64  4.3.3  F o c a l Instructors' Students P e r c e p t i o n s  66  4.4  R a t i o o f Japanese, E n g l i s h and U s e o f O t h e r L a n g u a g e s b y Students....68 4.4.1  4.5  C l a s s r o o m Lectures  72  4.4.1.1  Japanese L a n g u a g e U s e  72  4.4.1.2  English Language Use  78  4.4.2  Pairwork Tasks  83  4.4.3  Discussion  90  Purposes for Japanese a n d E n g l i s h U s e b y Instructors  92  4.5.1  92  Instructors' and F o c a l instructors' c o m m e n t s 4.5.1.1  T h e " I d e a l " T e a c h i n g E n v i r o n m e n t and a Japanese-  4.5.1.2  Purposes f o r Japanese L a n g u a g e U s e  Only Policy  4.5.2  4.6  4.5.1.3  Purposes for E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e U s e  4.5.1.4  Factors A f f e c t i n g o f L a n g u a g e C h o i c e  Students'Comments 4.5.2.1  Thoughts on Japanese-Only P o l i c y  94 97 103  .'  106 106  4.5.2.2  Purposes for Japanese L a n g u a g e U s e  4.5.2.3  Purposes for E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e U s e  108  4.5.2.4  R e f l e c t i o n s o n Instructors' L a n g u a g e U s e  110  4.5.3  Classroom Data  4.5.4  Discussion  ...107  113 .....121  Purposes for Japanese, E n g l i s h and O t h e r L a n g u a g e U s e b y Students 122 4.6.1  4.7  -92  Instructors'  and F o c a l I n s t r u c t o r s ' C o m m e n t s  123  4.6.2  Students'Comments...  125  4.6.3  Classroom Data  128  4.6.4  Discussion  142  A d a p t a t i o n s and A d j u s t m e n t s to A c c o m m o d a t e Students' L a n g u a g e Learning Experiences  144  v  4.7.1  Code-switching  145  4.7.1.1  C o d e - s w i t c h i n g b y Instructors  146  4.7.1.2  A s s i s t e d P e r f o r m a n c e D u r i n g P e e r Interaction: L 1 . L 2 , and L 3 U s e  4.7.2  4.8  "Katakanization"  of English Vocabulary  149 154  4.7.3  Needs o f E S L Learners o f J F L  158  4.7.4  Kanji  160  4.7.5  H e r i t a g e L a n g u a g e L e a r n e r s : A n Illustrative C a s e  168  Chapter Summary  175  Chapter 5 I M P L I C A T I O N S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S  176  5.1  Introduction  176  5.2  Pedagogical Implications  176  5.3  L i m i t a t i o n s Of the S t u d y  T80  5.4  Directions for Future Research  181  5.5  Concluding Remarks  183  References  185  Appendix I  I n f o r m e d C o n s e n t F o r m for F o c a l Instructors  191  A p p e n d i x II  I n f o r m e d C o n s e n t F o r m for N o n - F o c a l Instructors  195  Appendix HI  I n f o r m e d C o n s e n t F o r m for Students  199  Appendix I V  Instructor I n t e r v i e w G u i d e  203  Appendix V  Student I n t e r v i e w G u i d e  204  Appendix V I  Transcription Conventions  206  Appendix V I I  Katakanization  Word List  207  A p p e n d i x VITI  W o r d Count Conventions  208  vi  L I S T  O F  T A B L E S  T a b l e 3.1  Participant P r o f i l e s : Instructors  38  T a b l e 3.2  Participant P r o f i l e s : F o c a l Students  40  T a b l e 4.1  Categories o f Utterances  53  T a b l e 4.2  L a n g u a g e U s e S u m m a r y o f M s . Inoue  55  T a b l e 4.3  Language Use Summary of M s . Yabuno  57  T a b l e 4.4  L a n g u a g e U s e A v e r a g e s for A l l F o u r Sessions: F o c a l Instructors  60  T a b l e 4.5  C o m p a r i s o n o f Japanese Utterances and its E q u i v a l e n t i n E n g l i s h  61  T a b l e 4.6  P e r c e i v e d U s e o f T L a n d E n g l i s h b y Instructors for Intermediate J F L Classes  .63  T a b l e 4.7  P e r c e i v e d U s e o f T L and E n g l i s h o f Instructors b y Students  67  T a b l e 4.8  L a n g u a g e U s e b y Students d u r i n g C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e s ( A l l F o u r Sessions)  72  T a b l e 4.9  Pairwork Groupings  83  T a b l e 4.10  L a n g u a g e U s e A v e r a g e s for Student P a i r w o r k  91  T a b l e 4.11  T o p F i v e Purposes for E n g l i s h U s e ( E n g l i s h & M i x e d Utterances)  114  T a b l e 4.12  T o p F i v e Purposes for N L U s e d u r i n g P a i r T a s k s  129  T a b l e 4.13  T o p F i v e Purposes for M i x e d L a n g u a g e U s e d u r i n g P a i r T a s k s . . . .  129  vii  LIST O F F I G U R E S F i g u r e 2.1  L l / T L Use Continuum  10  F i g u r e 4.1  Composition Task Outline  101  F i g u r e 4.2  Test T o p i c s ' O u t l i n e  101  F i g u r e 4.3  C o m p o s i t i o n Test Outline  102  F i g u r e 4.4  Final Examination Outline  102  F i g u r e 4.5  C o m p o s i t i o n Test O u t l i n e  102  F i g u r e 4.6  C o m p a r i n g kanji w i t h C h i n e s e Characters:  fH  162  F i g u r e 4-7  C o m p a r i n g T w o &anj7/Chinese Characters:  M> a n d i l  164  F i g u r e 4.8  C o m p a r i n g T w o &an/7/Chinese Characters:  % and JC  164  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I w o u l d l i k e to express m y gratitude to a l l those w h o supported m e throughout the c o m p l e t i o n o f this thesis. I a m deeply indebted to m y supervisor, D r . P a t r i c i a D u f f , to w h o m I extend m y sincere gratitude and a p p r e c i a t i o n . I w o u l d l i k e to thank D r . D u f f for b e l i e v i n g i n m y potential and her constant encouragement throughout this j o u r n e y . T h e support and i n s p i r a t i o n has been o v e r w h e l m i n g and I a m t r u l y grateful for this experience. I w o u l d also l i k e to thank D r . D u a n d u a n L i for b e i n g o n m y e x a m i n i n g c o m m i t t e e . D r . L i ' s suggestions and c o m m e n t s have been most h e l p f u l . I have also been greatly i n s p i r e d b y m y professors D r . P a t r i c i a D u f f , D r . M o n i q u e B o u r n o t - T r i t e s , D r . B o n n y N o r t o n , and D r . L i n g S h i , w h o s e t e a c h i n g has greatly influenced m y interest to pursue research i n second language l e a r n i n g . I a m grateful to m y c o l l e a g u e s M a r t i n G u a r d a d o and Y a y o i S h i n b o for their support d u r i n g our classes together and throughout the c o m p l e t i o n o f m y thesis. In a d d i t i o n , the c o o p e r a t i o n I r e c e i v e d f r o m m y research participants is gratefully acknowledged. L a s t l y , I w o u l d l i k e to thank m y f a m i l y and close friends for s u p p o r t i n g m e d u r i n g m y studies. T o each o f the above, I extend m y deepest appreciation. T h i s research has been supported b y the Centre for Intercultural L a n g u a g e Studies and funded, i n particular, b y the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a T e a c h i n g and L e a r n i n g Enhancement F u n d .  ix  T o m y parents, grandfather and l o v i n g m e m o r y o f m y grandmother.  Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1  The Identification of the Problem In recent years, there has been r e n e w e d interest i n the issue o f whether students'  first language ( L I ) s h o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n foreign language ( F L ) courses a n d i f so, h o w a n d to what extent. A s M a c a r o (2001) observes, "the e x c l u s i v e use o f the target language ( T L ) i n m o n o l i n g u a l foreign language c l a s s r o o m s has r e c e n t l y been the subject o f c o n s i d e r a b l e debate" (p. 531). T h e r e still r e m a i n gaps i n the research addressing questions s u c h as: H o w m u c h T L a n d L I is b e i n g used b y teachers at different l e v e l s o f F L l e a r n i n g a n d i n different contexts? W h a t differences, i f any, are there between F L teachers' p e r c e i v e d use o f the T L a n d L I , a n d their actual c l a s s r o o m use o f the T L a n d L I ? A n d h o w are teachers a n d learners o f F L s u s i n g the T L a n d L I as m e d i a t i n g tools to learn the T L ? A t y p i c a l argument is that students o f Japanese as a foreign language ( J F L ) i n N o r t h A m e r i c a d o not have the same opportunities outside o f the language c l a s s r o o m to access Japanese, as d o learners o f Japanese i n Japan, for e x a m p l e . F o r this reason, J F L learners' m a i n source o f language is the language teacher, materials a n d other students. A s P o l i o a n d D u f f (1994) e x p l a i n , " w h a t transpires i n the c l a s s r o o m i s , arguably, e v e n m o r e c r i t i c a l for F L students because the c l a s s r o o m is often the students' sole source o f F L i n p u t " (p. 313).  In other w o r d s , for foreign language students, the target language  ( T L ) is not as e a s i l y accessible as it m a y be for students w h o are l e a r n i n g the same language i n a s e c o n d language e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e r e f o r e , these students r e q u i r e m o r e opportunities to r e c e i v e this k i n d o f language input.  1  A c c e s s to large quantities o f T L c a n help facilitate the process o f l e a r n i n g a second language ( L 2 ) ; h o w e v e r , one cannot disregard the necessity t o address the issue o f quality, as w e l l . R e c e n t research a n d practice support the v i e w that purposeful i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the L I c a n increase the quality o f T L input and, thus, a c c o m m o d a t e s language intake ( A n t o n & D i C a m i l l a , 1999; B r o o k s & D o n a t o , 1994; C o o k , 2 0 0 1 a , 2 0 0 1 b ; D a n h u a , 1 9 9 5 ; D u f f & L i , 2 0 0 4 ; D u f f & P o l i o , 1990; F r a n k l i n , 1990; K i m , 2 0 0 5 ; M a c a r o , 1997; N g u y e n , S h i n , & K r a s h e n , 2 0 0 1 ; N o o r , 1994; O h t a , 2 0 0 1 ; P o l i o & D u f f , 1994; R o l i n - I a n z i t i & B r o w n l i e , 2 0 0 2 ; Scheers, 1999; T a r o n e & S w a i n , 1 9 9 5 ; T u r n b u l l , 2 0 0 1 ; T u r n b u l l & Arnett, 2 0 0 2 ; W e l l s , 1999). A s L e v i n e ( 2 0 0 5 ) argues, " a m u l t i l i n g u a l rather than a m o n o l i n g u a l approach to instruction i s necessary because it c a n b o t h m a x i m i z e s e c o n d language use and p r o m o t e learner a u t o n o m y a n d c r i t i c a l awareness" (p. 110). H o w e v e r , there has been little research done that has quantified actual T L a n d L I use b y instructors i n F L settings. D u f f and P o l i o (1990) investigated levels o f T L use i n F L classes, i n c l u d i n g Japanese, and found that teachers used the T L f r o m 1 0 % to 1 0 0 % o f the time. I n R o l i n - I a n z i t i and B r o w n l i e ' s (2002) study o f four F L teachers o f F r e n c h , teachers' use o f native language ( N L ) d u r i n g the l i s t e n i n g a c t i v i t y v a r i e d f r o m 0 % 1 8 . 1 5 % . Teacher 1, w h o used n o L I d u r i n g the l i s t e n i n g a c t i v i t y ended u p u s i n g 5 5 . 5 1 % o f L I d u r i n g the g r a m m a r activities. In a d d i t i o n , D i c k s o n (1996), w h o investigated teacher perceptions o f the amount o f T L use, found that teacher-talk i n the T L characterized between h a l f to three-quarters o f their c l a s s r o o m talk. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , this questionnaire study o n l y i n c l u d e d F L teachers o f F r e n c h , G e r m a n , S p a n i s h , U r d u , Italian and R u s s i a n .  2  S e c o n d l y , there have few e m p i r i c a l studies that have investigated the benefits o f the use o f students' s p e c i f i c F L contexts ( A n t o n & D i C a m i l l a , 1999; B r o o k s & D o n a t o , 1994; F r a n k l i n , 1990; P o l i o & Duff, 1994; R o l i n - I a n z i t i & B r o w n l i e , 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e o n l y studies that e x a m i n e language use and language l e a r n i n g i n a J F L context are f r o m O h t a ( 1 9 9 5 , 2 0 0 0 , 2 0 0 1 ) . In these studies, O h t a focuses o n peer-peer interaction and assisted performance i n the z o n e o f p r o x i m a l d e v e l o p m e n t ( Z P D ) . H e r studies revealed that c o l l a b o r a t i v e peer interaction, i n c l u d i n g the use o f the L I , a l l o w e d students to learn Japanese i n each other's Z P D . F i n a l l y , there have been no studies to m y k n o w l e d g e that address these issues i n J F L classrooms, in a N o r t h A m e r i c a n context, i n w h i c h the majority o f learners are C h i n e s e native speakers l e a r n i n g J F L t h r o u g h their s e c o n d o r t h i r d language, E n g l i s h . A s T u r n b u l l and A r n e t t (2002) explains future research must determine w h a t this [i.e. m a x i m u m use o f the L I ] really means i n terms o f the quantity and qualities o f T L and L I use and i n terms o f w h e n it is acceptable and/or effective for teachers to d r a w o n the students' L I . M o r e research is also needed to understand w h a t factors . . . p r o m p t S L and F L teachers to speak the students' L I . (p. 2 1 1 ) 1.2  T h e P u r p o s e o f the S t u d y T h e present study e x a m i n e d the use o f Japanese, E n g l i s h and other languages  used b y instructors and their students d u r i n g intermediate-level J F L classes. T h e study focused o n w h a t languages they accessed, as w e l l as h o w and w h y they used the language(s) to facilitate Japanese learning. T h e m a i n objective o f the study w a s to investigate language c h o i c e and use b y the instructors; h o w e v e r , student o p i n i o n s , perceptions, and language use were necessary to c o m p l e m e n t the m u l t i f a c e t e d nature o f J F L classes. In other w o r d s , the purpose o f this study was to e x a m i n e w h a t and h o w  3  m u c h language (Japanese, E n g l i s h and other languages) w a s b e i n g used b y instructors and their students, the purposes for u s i n g these v a r i o u s languages and its effects, and, to e x p l o r e h o w instructors use language to a c c o m m o d a t e their students' p r i o r language l e a r n i n g experience.  1.3 The Questions Guiding the Research F o r e i g n language c l a s s r o o m s create a c h a l l e n g i n g t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t for instructors and students. B a l a n c i n g the use o f Japanese and E n g l i s h i n less than ideal situations is a daunting task. T h i s study investigates s o m e o f the m o r e prevalent issues c o n c e r n i n g J F L c l a s s r o o m s and the role o f the T L (Japanese) and L I ( n o r m a l l y E n g l i s h ) . T h e research questions that guide the present study are as f o l l o w s : 1.  (a) W h a t is the ratio o f Japanese use to E n g l i s h use b y instructors i n u n i v e r s i t y Japanese as a foreign language ( J F L ) c l a s s r o o m s ? (b) W h a t are the instructors' o w n perceptions about the ratio o f Japanese use to E n g l i s h use? (c) W h a t is the relative ratio o f Japanese, E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e use b y students i n J F L classrooms?  2.  (a)  F o r w h a t purposes are Japanese and E n g l i s h used b y instructors?  (b) F o r w h a t purposes are Japanese, E n g l i s h and other languages used b y students? 3.  H o w do J F L instructors adapt and adjust their language use to a c c o m m o d a t e the language l e a r n i n g experiences o f the students i n their classes?  1.4  The Significance of the Study It is h o p e d that the present study w i l l m a k e several significant c o n t r i b u t i o n s to  f o r e i g n language l e a r n i n g , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h respect to the role o f the L I (and L 2 a n d L 3 ) i n  4  the f i e l d o f less c o m m o n l y taught foreign languages such as Japanese.  I n a broader  sense, this study attempts to add to the g r o w i n g literature and research o n the r o l e o f L I i n L 2 , i m m e r s i o n , and F L classrooms. A s C o o k (2001b) argues, " b r i n g i n g the L I b a c k f r o m e x i l e m a y lead not o n l y to the i m p r o v e m e n t o f e x i s t i n g t e a c h i n g m e t h o d s but also to i n n o v a t i o n s i n m e t h o d o l o g y " (p. 419). H o w e v e r , there still r e m a i n s the c h a l l e n g e o f d e t e r m i n i n g the most appropriate and effective w a y s for language teachers t o b a l a n c e the use o f T L and L I ( L i u et a l . , 2 0 0 4 ; T u r n b u l l , 2 0 0 1 ) , both quantitatively and q u a l i t a t i v e l y , and to evaluate h o w L I use d u r i n g c o d e - s w i t c h i n g scaffolds L 2 l e a r n i n g and the reasons b e h i n d the teachers' c h o i c e to do so ( L e v i n e , 2003). A s a result, this study m a y p r o v i d e insights into the need t o "establish some p r i n c i p l e s for c o d e - s w i t c h i n g i n F L c l a s s r o o m s b y u n d e r s t a n d i n g its functions and consequences" ( M a c a r o , 2 0 0 1 , p. 545). F u r t h e r m o r e , from a s o c i o c u l t u r a l and s o c i o c o g n i t i v e perspective and w i t h respect to L 2 learners, I hope to m a k e a c o n t r i b u t i o n b y e x a m i n i n g the r o l e o f T L and L I d u r i n g peer-peer interactions. W i t h multicompetent language learners i n their ( C o o k , 1999), F L c l a s s r o o m s " s h o u l d e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e a situation o f d i g l o s s i a " ( T a r o n e & S w a i n , 1995, p. 174). A s S t o r c h and W i g g l e s w o r t h (2002) state: "student[s] a l w a y s a p p r o a c h l e a r n i n g a L 2 w i t h expertise i n their L I , and this expertise remains a s o m e w h a t u n d e r e x p l o r e d resource" (p. 768). B y u s i n g a qualitative case study approach, the study further investigates the role o f L I as a v a l u a b l e tool for s c a f f o l d i n g L 2 l e a r n i n g . B y d o i n g so, the study w i l l offer f i n d i n g s that assist i n the understanding o f h o w m u c h T L , L I , and other languages such as M a n d a r i n and Cantonese are b e i n g used, as w e l l as the purposes for w h i c h these languages are used.  5  A t h i r d c o n t r i b u t i o n is that the study offers a learner's perspective o f their i n s t r u c t o r s ' use o f the T L and L I . F e w studies (e.g., D u f f & P o l i o , 1990; L i u et a l . , 2 0 0 4 ; M a c a r o , 1997) have i n c l u d e d learners' o p i n i o n s about their teacher's use o f T L and L I use. I n order to fully understand the effectiveness o f a teacher's balance o f the T L and L I , w e need to take into consideration the effects that language use has o n the T L p r o c e s s i n g o f L 2 learners and the most effective w a y to do this is to directly ascertain the o p i n i o n s o f the learners. T h e study p r o v i d e s insights o n h o w learners feel about the ratio o f their teachers' use o f the T L and L I and their use o f the T L and L I for v a r i o u s purposes. I n a d d i t i o n , it w i l l also e x a m i n e learners' perspectives about their use o f T L and L I for L 2 l e a r n i n g , and the purposes for w h i c h they feel the L I (or a d d i t i o n a l languages) is useful. 1.5  O v e r v i e w o f the Thesis T h i s thesis consists o f six chapters. C h a p t e r 1 provides an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the  thesis b y g i v i n g the b a c k g r o u n d to the present study, i d e n t i f y i n g the p r o b l e m and the rationale, o u t l i n i n g the questions that w i l l be investigated, as w e l l as stating the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the study to current research i n second language learning. C h a p t e r 2 p r o v i d e s the theoretical f r a m e w o r k to this study b y r e v i e w i n g relevant literature and e m p i r i c a l studies related to second language l e a r n i n g . T h e first section o f this chapter explores current issues i n foreign and second language c l a s s r o o m and the role o f the target language and the first language in such l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t s . T h e next section w i l l d i s c u s s language use f r o m a s o c i o c u l t u r a l perspective and w i l l r e v i e w literature o n the z o n e o f p r o x i m a l d e v e l o p m e n t , group w o r k and c o l l a b o r a t i v e l e a r n i n g .  6  C h a p t e r 3 w i l l describe the qualitative approach used i n the present study, as w e l l as the m e t h o d o l o g y , and the data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis procedures used for the c l a s s r o o m observations, a u d i o recordings o f the lectures and p a i r w o r k , and the participant i n t e r v i e w s . It w i l l also p r o v i d e a detailed d e s c r i p t i o n o f the participants (focal teachers, other teachers, and students) and the context o f the study i n c l u d i n g the details o f the research site. C h a p t e r 4 presents a detailed account o f the major f i n d i n g s o f the present study and then a d i s c u s s i o n o f the findings. In this chapter, the ratio o f Japanese and E n g l i s h use b y instructors w i l l be described, as w e l l as their perceived amounts o f language use i n their classes. T h e ratio o f Japanese, E n g l i s h and other languages used b y students w i l l also be presented and discussed. A t the end, the purposes for w h i c h teachers and students u s i n g these v a r i o u s languages w i l l be e x a m i n e d , f o l l o w e d b y adaptations and adjustments the instructors i m p l e m e n t e d to a c c o m m o d a t e student learning. F i n a l l y i n C h a p t e r 5 , the major areas o f the f i n d i n g s and their i m p l i c a t i o n s w i l l be e x p l o r e d . T h i s w i l l be f o l l o w e d b y a d i s c u s s i o n o f the l i m i t a t i o n s o f this study and suggestions for future research.  7  Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1  Introduction T h i s chapter w i l l r e v i e w the literature w h i c h p r o v i d e s the context a n d b a c k g r o u n d  for this research study b y p r o v i d i n g an o v e r v i e w o f the k n o w l e d g e and ideas have been established c o n c e r n i n g this t o p i c . It w i l l p r o v i d e a s u m m a r y o f the k e y d e v e l o p m e n t s and describe the past and current areas o f debate o n the issue o f L I and T L use i n the L 2 / F L classroom.  M o r e o v e r , the articles and e m p i r i c a l studies w i l l be r e v i e w e d and  major themes o f i m p o r t a n c e w i l l be presented to illustrate and situate the r e l e v a n c e o f m y study.  I w i l l b e g i n b y e x a m i n i n g the literature related to L I and T L use i n s e c o n d  language c l a s s r o o m s f o l l o w e d b y a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f four approaches to t e a c h i n g L 2 w i t h respect to language use. N e x t , language use w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f r o m a s o c i o c u l t u r a l perspective to s h o w h o w T L and L I can enhance F L input as it mediates language l e a r n i n g through assisted performance (i.e., teacher-student and student-student interaction) and c o l l a b o r a t i v e d i a l o g u e (i.e., student-student interaction) i n the z o n e o f proximal development.  2.2  Issues in LI and TL Use in the Language Classroom T h e r e has been an a s s u m p t i o n for the past several decades a m o n g s e c o n d  language t e a c h i n g m e t h o d o l o g i s t s and researchers that the use o f the L I i n the c l a s s r o o m s h o u l d be d i s c o u r a g e d , a n d as a result the use o f the L 2 has been seen as p o s i t i v e a n d the L I as negative ( C o o k , 2 0 0 1 b ) . H o w e v e r , m o r e recent research and practice illustrate s o m e benefits o f u s i n g both languages i n F L c l a s s r o o m s , r e s u l t i n g i n an i n c r e a s e d interest i n this issue ( A n t o n & D i C a m i l l a , 1999; C o o k , 2 0 0 1 a , 2 0 0 1 b ; D a n h u a , 1 9 9 5 ; D u f f & L i ,  8  n d . ; D u f f & P o l i o , 1990; F r a n k l i n , 1990; M a c a r o , 1997; N g u y e n , S h i n , & K r a s h e n , 2 0 0 1 ; N o o r , 1994; O h t a , 2 0 0 1 ; P o l i o & Duff, 1994; R o l i n - I a n z i t i & B r o w n l i e , 2 0 0 2 ; Scheers, 1999; T a r o n e & S w a i n , 1 9 9 5 ; T u r n b u l l , 2 0 0 1 ; T u r n b u l l & A r n e t t , 2 0 0 2 ; W e l l s , 1999).  W h i l e s o m e researchers are interested i n the quantity o f language use b y  instructors (e.g., D i c k s o n , P . , 1996; D u f f & P o l i o , 1990; M a c a r o , 2 0 0 1 ; P o l i o & D u f f , 1994; R o l i n - I a n z i t i & B r o w n l i e , 2 0 0 2 ; M e i r i n g & N o r m a n , 2 0 0 2 ) , others are m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the quality o f different amounts o f L I versus L 2 use (e.g., A n t o n & D i C a m i l l a , 1999; C h a v e z , 2 0 0 3 ; D u f f & P o l i o , 1990; O h t a , 2 0 0 1 ) and the functions o f L I i n s c a f f o l d i n g L 2 d e v e l o p m e n t and use, specifically. B e c a u s e access t o the T L , i n terms o f quantity a n d also quality, can be m o r e c h a l l e n g i n g i n foreign language c l a s s r o o m s w h e r e access and e x p o s u r e to native speakers o r h i g h l y p r o f i c i e n t non-native speakers are m o r e l i m i t e d , m o r e so than i n i m m e r s i o n and second language c l a s s r o o m s , language use b y b o t h instructors and students is an aspect o f t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g that needs further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A s P o l i o and D u f f (1994) e x p l a i n , " w h a t transpires i n the c l a s s r o o m i s , arguably, e v e n m o r e critical for F L learners because the c l a s s r o o m i s often the learners' sole source o f F L i n p u t " (p. 313). 2.3  T h e Role of L I and T L T h e role o f the T L and L I c a n be b r o a d l y separated into several theoretical  categories: M a c a r o (2001) suggested three: the V i r t u a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n , M a x i m a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n a n d O p t i m a l [ L 2 ] U s e P o s i t i o n , but one additional category c o u l d be added: M a x i m u m L I U s e P o s i t i o n . F i g u r e 2.0 illustrates an L l / T L c o n t i n u u m representing the four approaches T h e M a x i m u m L I U s e p o s i t i o n holds that the m e t h o d used s h o u l d take m a x i m a l advantage o f teachers' and students' L I to focus o n explanations o f L 2 g r a m m a r ,  9  v o c a b u l a r y and so on. It is perhaps most aligned w i t h a traditional g r a m m a r - t r a n s l a t i o n  Figure 2.1  Ll/TL Use Continuum  Maximum  Optimal  Maximal  L2  L2  Virtual L2  I  L l / T L USE  approach.  T h e V i r t u a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n , o n the other hand, states that the c l a s s r o o m  e n v i r o n m e n t s h o u l d replicate the target culture by c o m p l e t e l y e l i m i n a t i n g the use o f the LI.  Therefore, it is b e l i e v e d , a s k i l l f u l F L teacher is able to teach i n the T L and does not  need to use the L I to teach the L 2 . T h e M a x i m a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n , a l t h o u g h also supporting the c l a i m that there is little p e d a g o g i c a l benefit i n u s i n g the L I i n t e a c h i n g , takes a m o r e realistic perspective: s i m u l a t i n g the ideal target language e n v i r o n m e n t w o u l d be i m p o s s i b l e and teachers w i l l u l t i m a t e l y incorporate the usage o f L I into their lesson for a variety o f purposes. F i n a l l y , the O p t i m a l [ L 2 ] U s e P o s i t i o n is e v e n m o r e tempered but adds a theoretical rationale for L I use, a r g u i n g that there is an important role for the L I i n L 2 i n s t r u c t i o n to assist learners i n l e a r n i n g the L 2 . E a c h o f these w i l l be discussed i n turn below.  2.3.1  Maximum LI Use Position T h e M a x i m u m L I U s e P o s i t i o n promotes the l e a r n i n g o f the T L t h r o u g h the use  o f lots o f practice b y means o f the L I . T h i s p o s i t i o n is characterized b y t e a c h i n g  10  techniques i n w h i c h there is a h e a v y emphasis o n translation and l i n g u i s t i c analyses o f T L . T h e traditional grammar-translation m e t h o d , c o g n i t i v e code, and l i n g u i s t i c s courses fall u n d e r this category since they m a x i m i z e L I use b y u s i n g the L I to e x p l a i n and a n a l y z e the T L as an object (not m e d i u m ) o f study. Students learn the language (i.e., its g r a m m a r ) u s i n g a deductive approach b y l e a r n i n g the g r a m m a r rules and a c q u i r e the T L t h r o u g h m e m o r i z a t i o n , repetition and/or analysis. B y a n a l y z i n g and translating n u m e r o u s T L texts f r o m the T L into the L I , and v i c e versa, it is c l a i m e d that students g a i n a b a s i c f o u n d a t i o n o f T L k n o w l e d g e . T h e grammar-translation m e t h o d e x p l i c i t l y teaches g r a m m a r rules; h o w e v e r , it does not focus o n h o w to use the language i n c o m m u n i c a t i v e contexts i n c o m p a r i s o n to the f o l l o w i n g methods. 2.3.2  T h e V i r t u a l [L2] and M a x i m a l [L2] Position T h e V i r t u a l [ L 2 ] and the M a x i m a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n both advocate for a target language-  o n l y p o l i c y . T h e V i r t u a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n is i d e a l i s t i c and is representative o f a language use p r i n c i p l e w h i l e the M a x i m a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n is m o r e characteristics o f a realistic language use m e t h o d o l o g y . Support for the V i r t u a l P o s i t i o n and M a x i m a l [ L 2 ] P o s i t i o n is illustrated t h r o u g h the N a t u r a l A p p r o a c h and the earlier D i r e c t M e t h o d (e.g., as used i n B e r l i t z language s c h o o l s and i n t e x t b o o k s b y H . D . B r o w n (2000, 2001)).  A c c o r d i n g to  K r a s h e n and T e r r e l l (1983), language learners " a c q u i r e " the T L b y means o f the N a t u r a l A p p r o a c h , w h i c h simulates a T L setting, and it is t h r o u g h an i m m e r s i o n i n the language, particular types o f activities and an affectively supportive social context that c o m p e t e n c y in a language is a c h i e v e d . T h i s competence is gained from language acquisition,  an  u n c o n s c i o u s process, and not t h r o u g h language l e a r n i n g , a c o n s c i o u s process, it is claimed.  M o r e o v e r , this a c q u i s i t i o n happens b y means o f the L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n  11  D e v i c e ( L A D ) ( i n t r o d u c e d through the w o r k o f C h o m s k y ) , an internal language processor, w h i c h receives input f r o m o n e ' s interlocutors. H o w e v e r , not a l l the input r e c e i v e d b y the learner can be acquired. A s K r a s h e n (1985) e x p l a i n s i n his Input H y p o t h e s i s , the learner w i l l be able to acquire those structures that are at his o r her next 'stage'. T h i s next 'stage' is predetermined b y the N a t u r a l O r d e r H y p o t h e s i s , w h i c h c l a i m s that a learner w i l l acquire language i n a predictable order. T h e /' represents the present c o m p e t e n c e level o f the learner, and / + 1 is the next language rule that c a n be a c q u i r e d a c c o r d i n g to the natural order. I f the teacher p r o v i d e s this ' c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t ' (i.e., / + 1) i n L 2 and a suitable affective context, then the learner w i l l be able t o acquire the next language structure.  Therefore, e x c l u s i v e use o f the L 2 is necessary t o  generate as m u c h ' c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t ' as possible. T h e use o f the L I is detrimental; it deprives language learners o f the ' c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t ' that is v i t a l for s e c o n d language acquisition. C h a m b e r s (1991) e x p l a i n s h o w the L 2 can be used in most t e a c h i n g circumstances, in k e e p i n g w i t h the N a t u r a l A p p r o a c h .  W i t h respect to teacher talk for m a n a g e r i a l  purposes (organizational instruction, a c t i v i t y instructions, e v a l u a t i o n and c o r r e c t i o n o f p u p i l ' s F L performance, and d i s c i p l i n a r y interventions), m u c h thought and effort need to be g i v e n to selecting the L 2 w o r d s and phrases used in the class. F u r t h e r m o r e , these w o r d s and phrases must be recorded i n a l o g b o o k and used r e g u l a r l y and e x p l o i t e d l i n g u i s t i c a l l y : l i m i t e d , i n i t i a l l y , and then g r a d u a l l y i n c r e a s i n g i n numbers as learners learn and use the acquired language.  T h e learners w i l l also have to be able to  c o m m u n i c a t e i n the L 2 and w i l l need to be taught structures to express t h e m s e l v e s effectively i n the c l a s s r o o m environment. T h e language functions that need to be  12  c o v e r e d are requests, a s k i n g for help, a p o l o g i e s and evaluation. T h e learners must be e n c o u r a g e d to use these phrases since teachers w i l l pretend not to understand t h e m i f they use their L I . L a s t l y , C h a m b e r s e x p l a i n s the i m p o r t a n c e o f materials and a c t i v i t y s e l e c t i o n i n T L - o n l y classrooms. Teachers need to take advantage o f materials, i n particular, t e x t b o o k s and tests that e x p l o i t the F L and d o not overuse the students' L I . A c c o r d i n g l y , since the teacher is the k e y source to accessing the T L , it is the duty o f the teacher to m a k e a l l ' c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t ' available to the learners. A s H a l l i w e l l and Jones (1992) advocate, it is c r u c i a l for learners to be e x p o s e d to the T L b e i n g used as a means o f real c o m m u n i c a t i o n for all aspects o f language learning. R e a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n c l u d e s all social interaction i n c l u d i n g p r a i s i n g , c l a s s r o o m management and e v e n r a p p o r t - b u i l d i n g chitchat unrelated to the language lesson.  This  w a y " i t reinforces the n o t i o n that... not the F L [not the L I ] , is the language for g e n u i n e c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n the c l a s s r o o m " ( P o l i o & Duff, 1994, p. 322) so that learners s u b c o n s c i o u s l y d o not separate the ' p e d a g o g i c a l ' functions f r o m the ' r e a l ' functions o f language ( H a n c o c k , 1997). D u f f and P o l i o (1990), suggest a number o f techniques to i n c r e a s i n g ' c o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t ' . S o m e o f these are: 1.  U s e v e r b a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s b y repeating utterances used i n class, m o d i f y i n g input b y s p e a k i n g at a s l o w e r pace, paraphrasing, s i m p l i f y i n g the syntax and v o c a b u l a r y , and m a k i n g a habit o f frequently u s i n g useful phrases and expressions.  2.  U s e n o n v e r b a l cues such as v i s u a l s and gestures that help c o n t e x t u a l i z e the oral input.  13  3.  Insist o n an L 2 - o n l y p o l i c y f r o m the start.  4.  T e a c h g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y i n the L 2 f r o m the outset and use it frequently.  5.  L e t students speak E n g l i s h w h e n necessary.  6.  Stress that a l l language need not be c o m p r e h e n d e d .  7.  E x p l i c i t l y teach and then use g r a m m a t i c a l terms i n the L 2 .  8.  P r o v i d e supplementary g r a m m a t i c a l texts in E n g l i s h , (pp. 162-163) H a l l i w e l l and Jones also stress the importance o f the L 2 for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f  the learners' o w n language l e a r n i n g as they process the L 2 i n their m i n d s .  Furthermore,  b y a l l o w i n g students to experience the language as real c o m m u n i c a t i o n the students w i l l be g i v e n e x p o s u r e to the T L w h i c h is m o r e representative o f the u n p r e d i c t a b l e language use u t i l i z e d b y T L c o m m u n i t i e s . A l s o , in T a r o n e and S w a i n ' s ( 1 9 9 5 ) study o f F r e n c h i m m e r s i o n elementary s c h o o l - a g e d c h i l d r e n , it was argued that i m m e r s i o n c h i l d r e n rarely get any L 2 input i n n o n - a c a d e m i c language styles and that efforts to do so do not seem to have been v e r y successful. language  reserved  for  Therefore, unfortunately, the L 2 b e c o m e s l a b e l e d as the  peer-peer  and  teacher-student  interactions  in 'institutional'  d o m a i n s o n l y . T h e y report that: "In the i m m e r s i o n speech c o m m u n i t y , the L 2 p r o v i d e s a superordinate language style, but the older c h i l d r e n need a vernacular for peer-peer s o c i a l functions that are essential to their social e x i s t e n c e " (p. 169).  A s a result, the learners  end up u s i n g their native language v e r n a c u l a r for peer-peer interactions s i n c e they d o not have access to the necessary L 2 vernacular.  T h u s , students not o n l y need m a x i m u m L 2  input and practice, but also opportunities for interaction across a range o f language genres, registers, and interlocutors (i.e. m a x i m u m s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c variation).  14  2.3.3  T h e O p t i m a l [L2] Use Position T h e O p t i m a l U s e P o s i t i o n c l a i m s that the L I can be used as a t o o l to enhance the  l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e o f F L learners. L e a r n e r s o f foreign languages are multicompetent language users a c c o r d i n g t o C o o k ( 1 9 9 1 , 1999, 2001a, 2 0 0 1 b ) and a l w a y s have access to their L I a n d " i n the m i n d , the L I is not insulated from the L 2 " ( C o o k , 1999, p. 193). C o o k ( 2 0 0 1 b ) argues that " t r y i n g to put languages i n separate compartments i n the m i n d is d o o m e d to failure since the compartments are connected i n m a n y w a y s " (p. 407). F o r instance, the t w o languages are i n t e r w o v e n i n the L 2 user's m i n d i n v o c a b u l a r y ( B e a u v i l l a i n & G r a i n g e r , 1987), i n syntax ( C o o k , 1994), i n p h o n o l o g y ( O b l e r , 1982), and i n pragmatics ( L o c a s t r o , 1987). L 2 users are m o r e flexible  i n their w a y s o f t h i n k i n g and are less g o v e r n e d b y c u l t u r a l  stereotypes ( C o o k , 1997). T h e L 2 meanings d o not exist separately f r o m the L I m e a n i n g s i n the learner's m i n d , regardless o f whether they are part o f the same v o c a b u l a r y store o r parts o f different stores m e d i a t e d b y a single c o n c e p t u a l system ( C o o k , 1997). ( C o o k , 2001b, p. 4 0 7 ) S i n c e F L learners are still l e a r n i n g the L 2 and their interlanguage m a y not a l l o w t h e m to p e r f o r m certain functions i n the L 2 , it is o n l y natural f o r these learners t o c o d e s w i t c h i n order to p r o v i d e the necessary s c a f f o l d i n g i n the l e a r n i n g process a n d t o express their understanding o f a task before p r o c e e d i n g w i t h it, for example. Therefore, learners and teachers s h o u l d treat the L I as a crucial resource that can be e x p l o i t e d to enhance the l e a r n i n g experiences o f L 2 learners. O n e function o f the L I i n supporting students' performance i n L 2 l e a r n i n g is as a c o g n i t i v e t o o l ( B r o o k s & D o n a t o , 1994; T u r n b u l l & A r n e t t , 2 0 0 2 ; W i g g l e s w o r t h , 2 0 0 2 ). A s S t o r c h and W i g g l e s w o r t h (2002) argue, "the use o f the L I m a y p r o v i d e learners w i t h a d d i t i o n a l c o g n i t i v e support that a l l o w s them to analyse language and w o r k at a higher l e v e l than w o u l d be p o s s i b l e were they restricted to sole use o f their L 2 " (p. 7 6 0 ) .  15  F u r t h e r m o r e , the L I can also have social or interpersonal functions. T h e L I p r o v i d e s learners opportunities for intersubjectivity ( A n t o n & D i C a m i l l a , 1999), w h i c h a l l o w s learners t o create a social space i n w h i c h they can feel c o m f o r t a b l e to p e r f o r m a c h a l l e n g i n g task together. E s p e c i a l l y for l o w e r l e v e l F L learners, the L I use can foster a favourable, cooperative atmosphere that facilitates peer c o l l a b o r a t i o n as they w o r k t h r o u g h a task. M o r e o v e r , the learners may use the L I for j o k e s and other off-task s o c i a l i z i n g functions, w h i c h can help b u i l t rapport and create p o s i t i v e c l a s s r o o m relationships ( H a n c o c k , 1997; S w a i n & L a p k i n , 2000). A s noted i n the p r e v i o u s section, w i t h i n an a c a d e m i c language l e a r n i n g context, characterized b y institutional teacher talk and educational materials, learners often have l i m i t e d access to vernacular language, w h i c h is necessary for peer-peer social functions ( T a r o n e & S w a i n , 1995). I f learners are forced to use the L 2 for such interactions, it is l i k e l y that this m a y n e g a t i v e l y affect the learner's attitude and m o t i v a t i o n t o w a r d s any L 2 l e a r n i n g experience since "the need to p e r f o r m the social functions is far greater to the [learner's] social i d e n t i t y than the need to stay i n the L 2 (and l o o k l i k e a dweeb) w h e n they have and share the L I style they need" (p. 169).  A s C h a v e z (2003) argues, " w e are pretending w h e n w e tell o u r students that a  m o n o l i n g u a l [ T L ] e n v i r o n m e n t f i l l e d w i t h m o n o l i n g u a l [ L I ] speakers is authentic, a c c o r d i n g to any real life norms. O u r students see through this pretence and b e h a v e a c c o r d i n g l y " (p. 194).  O n the other hand, as P o l i o and D u f f (1994), i n their M a x i m a l  U s e P o s i t i o n , argued that i f students aren't g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y to d e v e l o p social language use, they w i l l r e m a i n unable to use the L 2 for those purposes later. A l s o , i f teachers are not g i v e n p r i n c i p l e s for m a x i m a l L 2 use, they w i l l lapse into frequent uses o f the L I .  16  Investigations o f teachers' use o f L I i n foreign and second language classes ( D u f f & P o l i o , 1990; F r a n k l i n , 1990; H a r b o r d , 1992; P o l i o & D u f f , 1994) reveal that there are m a n y reasons for teachers' use o f the L I i n the L 2 c l a s s r o o m and their u s e o f the L I c a n b e m o t i v a t e d b y a variety o f factors.  A c c o r d i n g to C o o k (2001a), there are  four factors f o r w h i c h the L I c a n be used as a p o s i t i v e tool: efficiency, naturalness a n d external relevance.  learning,  I f an aspect o f the L 2 c a n be learned m o r e  effectively a n d efficiently t h r o u g h the use o f the L I , then teachers m a y c h o o s e t o use the L I t o assist their students w i t h their performance.  A l s o , L 2 teachers w h o i n c o r p o r a t e the  L I can p r o v i d e necessary o r additional s c a f f o l d i n g for a variety o f l e a r n i n g purposes such as c h e c k i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n , e x p l a i n i n g c o m p l e x g r a m m a r concepts, and p r o v i d i n g supplemental b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n (e.g., historical or cultural b a c k g r o u n d ) f o r L 2 lesson topics. F u r t h e r m o r e , learners w h o feel m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e (i.e., a f e e l i n g o f naturalness) e x e c u t i n g particular c l a s s r o o m functions o r d i s c u s s i n g certain t o p i c s i n the L I , m a y benefit f r o m the teacher's creation o f an atmosphere i n w h i c h the L I c a n be accessed as necessary. L a s t l y , teachers w h o encourage the use o f b o t h the L I a n d L 2 , i n c l u d i n g c o d e - s w i t c h i n g techniques, and a c k n o w l e d g e their potential benefits f o r future, r e a l - w o r l d situations c a n equip learners w i t h the tools to be better L 2 users.  Ultimately,  these students are L 2 learners and users and w i l l p r o b a b l y not attain n a t i v e - l i k e p r o f i c i e n c y status. Therefore, "language t e a c h i n g should place m o r e emphasis o n the student as a potential and actual L 2 user and be less concerned w i t h the m o n o l i n g u a l native speaker" ( C o o k , 1999, p. 196). A s L e v i n e (2005) argues, " a m u l t i l i n g u a l rather than a m o n o l i n g u a l approach to instruction is necessary because it c a n both m a x i m i z e second language ( L 2 ) use and p r o m o t e learner a u t o n o m y a n d critical awareness" (p. 110).  17  2.3.3.1  T h e L e a r n e r s ' Use of T L and L I : E m p i r i c a l Evidence  In V i l l a m i l and de G u e r r e r o ' s (1996) research i n v o l v i n g 54 adult, native S p a n i s h speakers i n an E S L course, the L I assisted the learners i n a v a r i e t y o f w a y s . T h e L I w a s used to g a i n c o n t r o l o f the task b y " m a k i n g m e a n i n g o f the text, r e t r i e v i n g language f r o m m e m o r y , e x p l o r i n g and e x p a n d i n g content, g u i d i n g their a c t i o n t h o u g h the task, and m a i n t a i n i n g d i a l o g u e " (p. 60). F o r e x a m p l e , learners translated texts into S p a n i s h to c h e c k the m e a n i n g o f the E n g l i s h sentences and they w o u l d t h i n k t h r o u g h w o r d s i n S p a n i s h , t h r o u g h " p r i v a t e speech" (self-directed speech), before u s i n g t h e m i n E n g l i s h . In S w a i n and L a p k i n ' s (2000) study o f 22 pairs o f grade 8 F r e n c h i m m e r s i o n , learners kept the task m o v i n g f o r w a r d by u s i n g E n g l i s h to determine what steps to take to successfully p e r f o r m the task, retrieve semantic i n f o r m a t i o n , and to manage the task. In a d d i t i o n , the L I was used w h e n learners w a n t e d to d r a w attention to their search for specific v o c a b u l a r y items, f o c u s i n g o n f o r m and p e r f o r m i n g explanations. It w a s also used to "frame" utterances or segments i n F r e n c h that were g r a m m a t i c a l l y i n c o r r e c t and to retrieve g r a m m a t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n necessary to c o m p l e t e the task. H e r e is an e x a m p l e o f students u s i n g E n g l i s h to focus attention o n their search for a F r e n c h v o c a b u l a r y i t e m J l : Et elle est tickelee. H o w do y o u say ' t i c k l e d ' ?  J2: Jl:  Chatouilee. O K . Chatouilee. Chatouilee.  J2: Le pied. J l : A h , Chatouilee lespieds.  H o w do y o u say ' f o o t ' ?  (p. 2 5 9 )  A l s o , A n t o n and D i C a m i l l a ' s (1999) data from five dyads o f E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g adult learners o f S p a n i s h as a second language s h o w e d h o w the L I acts as a critical p s y c h o l o g i c a l tool that enables learners to effective  c o l l a b o r a t i v e d i a l o g u e i n the  completion o f  language tasks by p e r f o r m i n g three important functions: ' The students were talking about tickling someone's foot. 18  construct  meaning-based construction o f  1  scaffolded  help, establishment o f intersubjectivity, and use o f p r i v a t e  speech, (p. 245) E n g l i s h w a s used for s c a f f o l d i n g b y u s i n g it for m a n a g i n g the task, e n c o u r a g i n g each other to m a i n t a i n interest i n the task, k e e p i n g their focus o n the g o a l o f the task, and t a l k i n g each other through any p r o b l e m s encountered d u r i n g the t a s k - e s p e c i a l l y t h r o u g h parts o f the task w h e r e each member, o n their o w n , c o u l d not have been successful, yet as a d y a d w e r e able t o c o l l e c t i v e l y be successful. T a k e for e x a m p l e , the f o l l o w i n g d i a l o g u e in w h i c h t w o n o v i c e learners are u s i n g the L I to p r o v i d e scaffolded help t o a p r o b l e m w i t h a c c e s s i n g the S p a n i s h equivalent o f "to arrive". R : D o w e just start w r i t i n g ? W e w r i t e the exact same t h i n g ? A l l r i g h t . . . i m a g i n e w e ' r e g o i n g o n a trip to M e x i c o . T e l l m e what y o u p l a n t o do o n this trip . . . a l l r i g h t . . . start it o f f . . . I ' m h o r r i b l e at starting things o f f . . . . T : L e t ' s say, h o w do y o u say, u m . . . w e ' r e gonna, w e ' l l a r r i v e there? R : U m , arrivar, I d o n ' t k n o w , uh, w h y d o n ' t w e say . . . . T : ' C a u s e w e c o u l d say w e ' r e g o n n a be, w e ' r e g o n n a get there at, and w e can put it i n , y o u k n o w , the date, and the time, and . . . . R : A l l right, a l l right, all r i g h t . . . to arrive is. I think, i t ' s l i k e ,  arrivar?  T : O r h o w about leave, leave? R : T h a t despues, leave . . . is, u m . T : W h y d o w e have to have the recorder on? R : ' C a u s e she wants to r e c o r d e v e r y t h i n g w e say, so w a t c h it. T:  Okay.  R : S o w e c o u l d say, w h y d o n ' t w e say, l i k e , uh, T . . . . T : W e just learned, w e just learned the w o r d to go, u m .  R:  Vamosl  T: N o , t h e ' s ' word. R : U h , salgo . . . Salir . . . Y e a h . T : T o g o . . . . okay. R : O k a y , y o u ' r e right, u m . . . . (p. 238) M o r e o v e r , the L I helps g u i d e t h e m t h r o u g h their o w n t h i n k i n g processes d u r i n g c o m p l e x L 2 tasks. B e l o w , E n g l i s h helps then d e c i d e what it is they w a n t to say about M e x i c o City.  19  S: U m . . . en la ciudad. . . u m . . . y o u want to say M e x i c o C i t y is a b i g c i t y w i t h lots o f people? Hay muchas personas? D : Okay. S: O r i n M e x i c o C i t y . . . let's j u s t say M e x i c o C i t y is a b i g c i t y w i t h a lot o f D:  people, is that o k a y ? Yeah.  S: I d o n ' t w a n t to tell y o u w h a t to say, I just thought (laugh). D : N o , I d o n ' t k n o w w h a t else to say . . . there's m o r e I w a n t to say, I j u s t can't, w e h a v e n ' t learned i t . . . la cuidad de Mexico. . . es or estd? Es . . . . S: Y o u c o u l d say ' h a y ' there are a lot o f people . . . . D : I w a s g o i n g to say es muy grande . . . . S: T h a t ' s , that's great. D:  Yhay... muchospersonas . . . here, h o w about this? H a y . . . hay mas personas, w a i t , no, en la ciudad de Mexico, estdn mas personas que Indianapolis . . . is that right?  S: D: S: D: S:  I d o n ' t . . . say it again . . . . U n , en la ciudad de Mexico, estdn mas personas uh, que . . . I n d i a n a p o l i s . Y o u w a n t to say there are a lot o f people from I n d i a n a p o l i s ? T h e r e are m o r e people i n M e x i c o C i t y that I n d i a n a p o l i s . . . . S o y o u w o u l d say . . . hay mas personas . . en la cuidad de Mexico que Indianapolis?  D : T h a t ' s w h a t I thought S: Is that, o k a y . . . . D : Hay mas personas . . . okay, en la ciudad de Mexico . . . que Indianapolis w h a t else? D o e s ciudad have an accent? S: It p r o b a b l y does, but I d o n ' t k n o w w h e r e (laugh). D : O k a y , w h a t else? (p. 2 3 9 )  ...  L a s t l y , the L I can act as private speech. E v e n i f meant for oneself, p r i v a t e speech c o u l d be o v e r h e a r d b y other g r o u p m e m b e r s and therefore " s p e e c h intended p r i m a r i l y for s e l f c a n also function to i n f o r m o r direct a co-participant and this play(s) a significant role i n h o w the interaction proceeds" ( W e l l s , 1999, p. 251). T h r o u g h s u c h c o l l a b o r a t i v e L I interactions, A n t o n and D i C a m i l l a ' s (1999) c o n c l u d e that "the L I is b e n e f i c i a l for [second] language l e a r n i n g , since it acts as a critical p s y c h o l o g i c a l t o o l that enables learners to construct effective c o l l a b o r a t i v e d i a l o g u e s " (p. 245).  20  2.3.3.2  The Teachers' Use of T L and L I : E m p i r i c a l Evidence E m p i r i c a l studies s h o w that teachers do use the L I w i t h i n their language  c l a s s r o o m s regardless o f p o l i c i e s or preferences to the contrary. R o l i n - I a n z i t i a n d B r o w n l i e ( 2 0 0 2 ) studied four teachers o f b e g i n n e r ' s F r e n c h and f o u n d that the range o f native language (i.e., E n g l i s h ) use d u r i n g the l i s t e n i n g a c t i v i t y ranged f r o m 0 % to 1 8 . 5 % , w i t h a cross-teacher average o f 8.80%. H o w e v e r , Teacher 1, w h o used no E n g l i s h i n the l i s t e n i n g a c t i v i t y , ended up u s i n g 5 5 . 5 1 % E n g l i s h d u r i n g the g r a m m a r a c t i v i t y w h e n rules for the possessive w e r e b e i n g e x p l a i n e d . Teachers i n this study used E n g l i s h for a v a r i e t y o f purposes.  These i n c l u d e u s i n g the L I for translation o f v o c a b u l a r y items, g i v i n g  instructions, c o m m e n t i n g , and m o t i v a t i n g learners to speak i n the F L .  T h e researchers  also c o n c l u d e d that this study c o n f i r m e d that c o d e - s w i t c h i n g (together w i t h other adjustments) m o d i f i e s input for F L l e a r n i n g i n a desirable w a y (p. 423). T h e research o f D u f f and P o l i o (1990) and P o l i o and D u f f (1994), w h i c h investigated the amount o f T L used i n v a r i o u s u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l F L c l a s s r o o m s , revealed that F L teacher talk ranged f r o m 10 to 1 0 0 % percent.  E x a m p l e s o f situations i n w h i c h  teachers s w i t c h e d to u s i n g the L I i n c l u d e instances w h e n they w e r e m a n a g i n g the c l a s s r o o m , g i v i n g instructions o n grammar, p r o v i d i n g translations for u n k n o w n T L v o c a b u l a r y , d e a l i n g w i t h learners' apparent lack o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n , and u s i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e v o c a b u l a r y items. F r a n k l i n ' s (1990) study l o o k i n g at T L use in Scottish s e c o n d a r y - l e v e l F r e n c h language c l a s s r o o m s describes the challenges o f teaching i n the T L . T h e highest r a n k i n g tasks (i.e. tasks that w e r e easily c o n d u c t e d i n E n g l i s h rather than i n F r e n c h ) w e r e c l a s s r o o m management tasks, e x p l a i n i n g g r a m m a r , d i s c u s s i n g language objectives,  21  t e a c h i n g b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n , and c o r r e c t i n g w r i t t e n w o r k . A c t i v i t i e s that w e r e easier to c o n d u c t u s i n g F r e n c h rather than E n g l i s h were those related to c l a s s r o o m o r g a n i z a t i o n , e x p l a n a t i o n o f activities, and i n f o r m a l chats w i t h students. O v e r a l l , the study found that that the reason w h y 95 percent o f the teachers ( N = 2 0 1 ) resorted to not u s i n g the L I w a s student d i s c i p l i n e . In D i c k s o n ' s ( 1 9 9 6 ) survey o f 508 F L teachers o n the issue o f s p o k e n language, the data s h o w that E n g l i s h p l a y s a k e y role i n classrooms, even for those teachers w h o are native speakers o f the F L b e i n g taught. Teachers i n this study m e n t i o n e d that factors such as d i s o r d e r l y b e h a v i o u r and l o w achievement o f learners w e r e the m a i n factors that contributed i n c r e a s i n g use o f the L I , w h i l e factors such as departmental p o l i c y and teacher's o w n c o n f i d e n c e in their F L use w e r e the least l i k e l y to influence L I use.  Many  teachers felt that the T L alienated l o w achievers since it affected their c o m p r e h e n s i o n , increased a n x i e t y and was d e m o t i v a t i n g . W i t h respect to issues s p e c i f i c a l l y related to t e a c h i n g i n the T L language, 4 2 % o f the teachers found it v e r y easy to ask questions i n the T L . H o w e v e r , 4 4 % c l a i m e d that explanations o f m e a n i n g w e r e quite difficult and 5 5 % felt that teaching g r a m m a r i n the T L was v e r y difficult.  It appears that any t e a c h i n g  functions that entail the use o f language that is above that o f w h a t the learners already k n o w w i l l m a k e u s i n g the T L difficult because " i t is practical and a realistic a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f t i m e constraints ... and s w i t c h i n g to E n g l i s h is thus, i n one sense, a w a y o f e n r i c h i n g the content o f language lessons" (p. 16). 2.4  A Sociocultural Perspective A c c o r d i n g to S o c i o c u l t u r a l T h e o r y , d e v e l o p e d by V y g o t s k y and his colleagues,  " h u m a n consciousness is fundamentally mediated mental a c t i v i t y " and " p s y c h o l o g i c a l  22  processes have t o be e x p l a i n e d as part o f active p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the e v e r y d a y w o r l d , a n d not i n the w o r l d o f the e x p e r i m e n t a l laboratory" ( L a n t o l f & A p p e l , 1994, p.7). H u m a n s , use t o o l s — b o t h p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l — and i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h other people, as m e d i a t o r s t o influence and change the w o r l d around us. L a n g u a g e (whether L I o r L 2 ) , a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t o o l , is a k e y m e d i a t o r f o r the mental a c t i v i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l s . 2.4.1  The Zone ofProximal Development U n l i k e , K r a s h e n ' s N a t u r a l A p p r o a c h and the L A D ( D u n n & L a n t o l f , 2 0 0 0 ;  K i n g i n g e r , 2 0 0 1 ) , S o c i o c u l t u r a l T h e o r y argues that " h u m a n p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes d o not preexist i n s i d e the head w a i t i n g t o emerge at just the right maturational m o m e n t " (Lantolf, 2 0 0 0 , p. 14).  M e n t a l actions are first experienced as external, m a t e r i a l l y based,  social actions that are i n i t i a l l y i n t r o d u c e d to a person t h r o u g h social interaction. F o r e x a m p l e , an adult o r an expert w i l l assist the c h i l d o r n o v i c e t o execute a specific action. T h i s a c t i o n w i l l be mediated b y a t o o l : language. A t first the c h i l d o r n o v i c e i s dependant o n the adult o r expert and c a n o n l y p e r f o r m the action w i t h assistance. E v e n t u a l l y the a c t i o n w i l l be performed w i t h o u t any external assistance a n d n o w any mediated support has been internalized and c a n be self-regulated. T h e zone of proximal development ( Z P D ) is the name g i v e n to this difference between what the c h i l d o r n o v i c e c o u l d not d o alone, yet c o u l d p e r f o r m w i t h the assistance o f the adult o r expert. T h e Z P D is "the distance between the actual d e v e l o p m e n t level as determined b y independent p r o b l e m s o l v i n g a n d the level o f potential d e v e l o p m e n t as determined t h r o u g h p r o b l e m s o l v i n g under adult g u i d a n c e o r i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h m o r e capable peers" ( V y g o t s k y , 1978,  p. 86). V y g o t s k y ' s Z P D is important to language l e a r n i n g f o r several reasons. F i r s t o f  23  a l l , l i k e the c h i l d and adult interaction d i s p l a y e d i n the assisted performance, the F L c l a s s r o o m also has experts, the teacher o r m o r e proficient L 2 learners, and the n o v i c e , a less p r o f i c i e n t L 2 learner.  S e c o n d l y , language l e a r n i n g o c c u r s o n a s o c i a l plane: a  c l a s s r o o m e n v i r o n m e n t i n v o l v i n g teacher-student o r student-student interaction. L a n g u a g e , whether it is i n the T L or the L I , can be used as a m e d i a t i o n a l t o o l to facilitate language l e a r n i n g b y p r o v i d i n g s c a f f o l d i n g i n the Z P D . " I n s o c i a l interaction a k n o w l e d g e a b l e participant can create [scaffolding], by means o f speech, supportive c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h the n o v i c e can participate i n , and extend, current s k i l l s and k n o w l e d g e to her l e v e l s o f c o m p e t e n c e " ( D o n a t o , 1994). A c c o r d i n g to W o o d , B r u n e r and R o s s (cited i n D o n a t o , 1994), scaffolding has these characteristics: 1.  recruiting  interest i n the task;  2.  simplifying  3.  maintaining  4.  marking critical features and discrepancies between w h a t has b e e n p r o d u c e d and the ideal s o l u t i o n ;  5.  controlling  6.  demonstrating an i d e a l i z e d v e r s i o n o f the act to be performed, (p. 41)  the task; pursuit o f the g o a l ;  frustration d u r i n g p r o b l e m s o l v i n g , and  There are a g r o w i n g n u m b e r o f studies that illustrate h o w learners use language as a means o f p r o v i d i n g s c a f f o l d i n g i n L 2 c l a s s r o o m s (e.g., A n t o n & D i C a m i l l a , 1999; M a c a r o , 2 0 0 1 ; O h t a , 2 0 0 0 ; S w a i n , & L a p k i n , 2 0 0 0 ; T a r o n e & S w a i n , 1995; V i l l a m i l & de G u e r r e r o , 1996). M a n y support the c l a i m that the students' L I can be an advantageous resource that promotes and enhances the L 2 language l e a r n i n g opportunities ( B r o o k s & D o n a t o , 1994; T u r n b u l l , 2 0 0 1 ; T u r n b u l l & A r n e t t , 2 0 0 2 ;  24  W i g g l e s w o r t h , 2002). F o r e x a m p l e , A n t o n ' s (1999) report o n observations o f first-year u n i v e r s i t y F r e n c h and Italian classes p r o v i d e s evidence for the fact that teachers, " t h r o u g h dialogue, can lead learners to b e c o m e h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n the negotiation o f m e a n i n g , (and) l i n g u i s t i c f o r m " (p. 314) and through this negotiation s c a f f o l d i n g is s u p p l i e d for c o m m u n i c a t i v e m o v e s such as directives, assisting questions, repetition, and n o n v e r b a l devices such as pauses and gesturing. In S t o r c h and W i g g l e s w o r t h ' s (2003) study o f 24 u n i v e r s i t y E S L students, s c a f f o l d i n g between peers had a n u m b e r o f functions. T h e pairs used their L I for task m a n a g e m e n t and task c l a r i f i c a t i o n . F o r example, P a i r 6 used their L I , C h i n e s e , for the d i v i s i o n o f labour, c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f v o c a b u l a r y items and issues o f m e a n i n g , and the d i s c u s s i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l structures. L a s t l y , i n L i u et al.'s (2004) study o f S o u t h K o r e a n h i g h s c h o o l students s t u d y i n g E F L , 13 h i g h s c h o o l teachers participated i n one 5 0 - m i n u t e audio-taped session each r e v e a l i n g that the teachers used c o d e - s w i t c h i n g as a s c a f f o l d i n g technique for several specific functions. F i r s t l y , the teachers used K o r e a n (the L I ) i n c r e a s i n g l y m o r e w h e n the lesson i n v o l v e d the e x p l a n a t i o n o f v o c a b u l a r y , g r a m m a r and b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s s w i t c h i n language use seemed most often to be triggered w h e n learners appeared to be s t r u g g l i n g to c o m p r e h e n d the lesson content. S e c o n d l y , all the teachers used the m e t h o d o f frequently translating their E n g l i s h utterances into K o r e a n right after they said it i n E n g l i s h . T h e researchers suggest that perhaps the teachers may have preferred this strategy as b e i n g m o r e effective rather than e m p l o y i n g some m o d i f i e d L 2 input.  25  Thirdly,  the teacher s w i t c h e d to u s i n g K o r e a n w h e n they felt the need to h i g h l i g h t important i n f o r m a t i o n i n order to d r a w learners' attention to that F L input. A l t h o u g h there is i n c r e a s i n g l y m o r e research b e i n g done i n L 2 and F L settings, there is little research that examines F L l e a r n i n g o f less c o m m o n l y taught languages ( D u f f & P o l i o , 1990; K u b o t a , 1998) - e s p e c i a l l y that o f Japanese as a f o r e i g n language ( J F L ) . O n e researcher w h o has c o n d u c t e d studies i n J F L c l a s s r o o m s is O h t a (2001). She a n a l y z e d the language l e a r n i n g processes o f u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l J F L students b y s t u d y i n g the interactions d u r i n g peer task w o r k .  O n average, first year students had 2 3 . 6 0 % o f  transcript lines that contained E n g l i s h and second year students averaged 4 0 . 8 5 % . W h e n l o o k i n g at the t w o numbers, h o w e v e r , O h t a warns readers not to c o m p a r e the first year percentage w i t h the second year percentage because each g r o u p e x p e r i e n c e d different language tasks that w e r e i m p l e m e n t e d i n a different manner. W h a t is m o r e useful is to l o o k at the o v e r a l l functions for w h i c h the students used E n g l i s h to scaffold their F L learning. W i t h b o t h the first ( 5 9 . 6 2 % ) and second year ( 8 1 . 8 2 % ) learners, task m a n a g e m e n t p r o v e d to be the function that students used the most E n g l i s h . A f t e r that, language questions ( 1 year= 4 8 . 0 8 ; 2 s t  n d  y e a r - 6 9 . 7 % ) and translation ( 1 year= 4 0 . 3 8 ; 2 s t  year=60.61%) f o l l o w e d , i n decreasing order o f E n g l i s h use. E v e n t h o u g h this g i v e s us a g l i m p s e o f language use i n J F L c l a s s r o o m s , there needs to be m u c h m o r e research to fully understand the c o m p l e x nature o f t e a c h i n g the Japanese language i n f o r e i g n language settings. F u t u r e research needs to i n c l u d e e x a m i n a t i o n o f the roles o f Japanese and L I (and even L 2 , L 3 ) use i n J F L c l a s s r o o m s i n order to better c o m p r e h e n d and evaluate the c l a s s r o o m d y n a m i c s that are u n i q u e to J F L t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g i n a variety o f contexts.  26  n d  2.5  G r o u p W o r k , Collaborative L e a r n i n g , and L 1 / L 2 Use A s argues earlier, peer m e d i a t i o n through c o l l a b o r a t i v e d i a l o g u e d u r i n g L 2 tasks  can mediate L 2 l e a r n i n g ( A n t o n , & D i C a m i l l a , 1999; B r o o k s & D o n a t o , 1994; K o b a y a s h i , 2 0 0 4 , 2 0 0 3 ; O h t a , 1995, 2 0 0 0 , 2 0 0 1 ; S w a i n & L a p k i n , 1998, 2 0 0 0 ; S w a i n , B r o o k s , & T o c a l l i - B e l l e r , 2 0 0 2 ; V i l l a m i l & de G u e r r e r o , 1996). A s L o n g and P o r t e r ( 1 9 8 5 ) outline, there are f i v e p e d a g o g i c a l arguments for u s i n g g r o u p w o r k i n L 2 classrooms. F i r s t , they c l a i m that g r o u p w o r k increases the opportunities for language practice. N o t o n l y is it i m p o r t a n t to create situation for input but it is c r u c i a l for learner to practice output for successful language l e a r n i n g ( S w a i n , 1993, 1995, 2000). L e a r n e r s need t i m e a l l o c a t e d to not o n l y l i s t e n i n g and reading i n the T L but for p r o d u c i n g language t h r o u g h w r i t i n g and, i n particular, t h r o u g h oral means. S e c o n d , group w o r k i m p r o v e s the q u a l i t y o f student talk. L e a r n e r - c e n t r e d tasks, as o p p o s e d to teacher-fronted lessons, can p r o m o t e face-toface c o m m u n i c a t i o n w h i c h enables learners to take on different roles and p o s i t i o n s that a l l o w practice o f a variety o f language functions such as m a k i n g suggestions, m a k i n g inferences, h y p o t h e s i z i n g , g e n e r a l i z i n g , and m a n a g i n g the conversation. N e x t , g r o u p w o r k helps i n d i v i d u a l i z e instruction b y a l l o c a t i n g tasks to suit i n d i v i d u a l learner's needs. T h e fourth argument for group w o r k is that is p r o m o t e s a p o s i t i v e affective atmosphere.  A s m a l l g r o u p atmosphere can cater to shy o r insecure  learners w h o are i n t i m i d a t e d b y large class discussions; the g r o u p w o r k can help r e l i e v e this tension and facilitate learner i n v o l v e m e n t and interaction. In addition, s m a l l peer g r o u p s help a v o i d the stress o f the teacher j u d g i n g o n e ' s responses i n front o f classmates and c a n foster m o r e risk t a k i n g . L a s t l y , g r o u p w o r k motivates learners because it permits  27  greater quantity and q u a l i t y o f language practice in a m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e and p o s i t i v e atmosphere. K o b a y a s h i ' s (2004) study o f Japanese undergraduate students e n r o l l e d i n a u n i v e r s i t y - l e v e l E S L p r o g r a m demonstrated h o w one g r o u p ( N a n a , K i k u , and S h i n g o ) w o r k e d together to support each other d u r i n g their oral presentation assignments.  Firstly,  the g r o u p m e m b e r s w e r e able to assist each other i n negotiating the task d e f i n i t i o n a n d the t e a c h e r ' s expectations for the presentation. T h i s i n v o l v e d attempts to negotiate the content (done m o s t l y i n the L I ) i n order to meet the c r i t e r i a o f the task ( w r i t t e n i n the L 2 ) . S e c o n d l y , the students c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y w o r k e d through the d e v e l o p m e n t o f their P o w e r P o i n t d o c u m e n t t h r o u g h d i a l o g u e ( i n L I ) o f the E n g l i s h w o r d s and phrases they w e r e t r y i n g to choose for the w r i t t e n text document. D u r i n g this part o f the task, n e g o t i a t i o n t o o k the f o r m o f negotiating m e a n i n g , m a k i n g suggestions, and e v a l u a t i n g the appropriateness o f l e x i c a l items w i t h respect to their audience. F i n a l l y , the g r o u p interaction i n v o l v e d rehearsing and p e r f o r m a n c e - c o a c h i n g for the presentation. A s other m e m b e r s p r a c t i c e d their scripts, K i k u acted as a peer-coach. T h e friendly atmosphere created w i t h i n the g r o u p even facilitated a h u m o u r o u s i m i t a t i o n o f their teacher's v o i c e by K i k u c a u s i n g N a n a and h e r s e l f to break out i n laughter. O v e r a l l , the g r o u p benefited f r o m the c o l l a b o r a t i v e efforts o f its m e m b e r s b y interacting and n e g o t i a t i n g the content i n the L 2 u s i n g their L I , and m a n a g i n g the task i n order to p r o d u c e a h i g h q u a l i t y presentation (students r e c e i v e d an ' A ' grade, one o f the highest marks). F u r t h e r m o r e , K i m ' s (2005) study o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e interaction b e t w e e n K o r e a n E S L learners and their interlocutors d u r i n g oral and w r i t t e n critiques o f newspaper editorials and their partner's o p i n i o n s found that the E S L learners benefited f r o m  28  p l a n n i n g f o r and p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e d i a l o g u e . T h e E S L participants reported that the c o l l a b o r a t i v e sessions made them " w o r k harder to c o n c e p t u a l i z e and f o r m u l a t e their ideas i n preparation for their interaction" (p. 199) and " w e r e pushed to use the L 2 b r o a d l y and process it deeply i n an actual and potential w a y " (p. 200). T h e i n d i v i d u a l peers attempted to p r o v i d e s c a f f o l d i n g to each other, b y means o f the L I , d u r i n g l e x i c a l and r h e t o r i c a l gaps t h r o u g h a variety o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n strategies: c o d e - s w i t c h i n g , m e a n i n g replacement, and w o r d coinage. A s a result, they " e x p e r i e n c e d the p o w e r f u l role that c o l l a b o r a t i v e d i a l o g u e c a n p l a y i n h e l p i n g them to notice and w o r k t o w a r d c o r r e c t i n g their L 2 s h o r t c o m i n g s and i m p r o v i n g their L 2 p r o d u c t s " (p. 205). F r o m a s o c i o c u l t u r a l perspective, c o l l a b o r a t i v e interaction is important because " d i a l o g u e a m o n g learners can be as effective as instructional conversations b e t w e e n teachers and learners" since "learners are capable o f s c a f f o l d i n g each other t h r o u g h the use o f strategies that parallel those relied u p o n b y experts" ( L a n t o l f , 2 0 0 2 , p. 106). A s L a n t o l f and P a v l e n k o (1995) e x p l a i n , "the construction o f a Z P D does not require the presence o f expertise. I n d i v i d u a l s , none o f w h o m qualifies as an expert, can often c o m e together i n a c o l l a b o r a t i v e posture and j o i n t l y construct a Z P D i n w h i c h each p e r s o n contributes s o m e t h i n g to, and takes something a w a y f r o m , the i n t e r a c t i o n " (p. 116). In o r d e r to increase the chances for social interaction and interlanguage talk, and therefore a c t i v i t y i n the Z P D , teachers s h o u l d i n c l u d e and increase opportunities for c o l l a b o r a t i v e efforts d u r i n g L 2 tasks. G r o u p and pair w o r k p r o v i d e learners  the o p p o r t u n i t y to engage i n  m e a n i n g f u l interaction, and to l i k e L 2 meanings to social contexts as they are g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y to create w i t h language i n g i v e n contexts. U n l i k e native speaker - non-native speaker interaction i n w h i c h there is a clear expert, the roles o f n o v i c e and expert are fluid and c h a n g i n g i n learner-  29  learner interaction as the learners contribute their i n d i v i d u a l differences i n matured and m a t u r i n g s k i l l s .  A d d i t i o n a l l y , the learners' potential for  a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s b e y o n d their i n d i v i d u a l a b i l i t i e s increases w h e n their strengths are c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y j o i n e d . ( O h t a , 1995, p. 97) In D o n a t o ' s (1994) study o n c o l l e c t i v e s c a f f o l d i n g , students w e r e g i v e n an o p e n ended L 2 task and w o r k e d c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y to co-construct and mediate their L 2 l e a r n i n g experiences. T h r e e u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l F r e n c h as a foreign language students w o r k i n g together illustrated h o w the learners w e r e able to guide and support each other's l e a r n i n g b y p r o v i d i n g c o l l e c t i v e s c a f f o l d i n g . D u r i n g the task, all learners t o o k o n the role o f n o v i c e and expert r e s u l t i n g i n an increase i n the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the i n d i v i d u a l ' s L 2 k n o w l e d g e w h i l e also c o n t r i b u t i n g to the l i n g u i s t i c d e v e l o p m e n t o f their peers. In O h t a ' s ( 1 9 9 5 ) study, assistance between learners, t w o "non-experts", w a s s h o w n to result i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e l e a r n i n g i n the Z P D . In her analysis o f B e c k y (a learner w i t h h i g h e r L 2 p r o f i c i e n c y ) and M a r k (a learner o f w e a k e r a b i l i t y ) , b o t h learners w e r e able to learn w i t h i n their Z P D and p e r f o r m at a higher l e v e l than they w o u l d have been able to a c h i e v e i f they had each w o r k e d o n their o w n . M a r k and B e c k y scaffolded each others' l e a r n i n g t h r o u g h a variety o f functions i n c l u d i n g a c t i v e l y testing hypothesis t h r o u g h language p l a y ; c o n v e r s i n g i n Japanese about the here-and-now; e x p e r i m e n t i n g w i t h l e x i c a l c h o i c e ; u s i n g Japanese for conversational management i n c l u d i n g the m o d u l a t i o n o f the pace i f the interaction, repair, and role negotiation; m a n a g i n g the task; and, h a v i n g a l e a r n i n g experience that a l l o w s each learner to w o r k o n their o w n tasks i n the L 2 w h i l e engaged i n m e a n i n g f u l interaction (p. 116). W h a t w a s interesting i n this study w a s h o w m u c h o f the s c a f f o l d i n g was done u s i n g the T L , although there w e r e some instances o f L I use as w e l l .  30  A l t h o u g h these studies s h o w the benefits o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e l e a r n i n g d u r i n g g r o u p w o r k , it s h o u l d also be noted that in order for the c o l l a b o r a t i v e effort to be effective, learners need to be able to k n o w w h e n and h o w to p r o v i d e d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y appropriate assistance i n the Z P D d u r i n g c o l l a b o r a t i v e tasks: "the p r o v i s i o n o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y appropriate assistance is not o n l y dependent u p o n attention to what the peer i n t e r l o c u t o r is able to do, but also u p o n the sensitivity to the partner's readiness for help, w h i c h is c o m m u n i c a t e d t h r o u g h subtle interactional cues" ( 2 0 0 1 , p.53). These interactional cues are described as bids for help and are most evident w h e n the their i n t e r l o c u t o r s h o w s signs o f not c o n t i n u i n g (e.g., r i s i n g intonation, e l o n g a t i n g the final s y l l a b l e o f the last w o r d uttered, and s l o w e d rate o f speech). W h e n students request o r are r e s p o n d i n g to b i d s o f assistance, their partner c o m m u n i c a t e this through either, o r a c o m b i n a t i o n of, the T L , E n g l i s h , o r additional languages.  A s the studies and the literature indicate, c o d e -  s w i t c h i n g can be an effective strategy for p r o v i d i n g s c a f f o l d i n g and e v e n students, c o n s i d e r e d "non-experts", are able to use language to enhance L 2 l e a r n i n g . 2.7  Summary of Chapter T h e literature illustrates that the debate o n T L and L I use i n the L 2 / F L c l a s s r o o m  remains an issue o f c o n c e r n as instructors struggle to balance their T L use p r i n c i p l e w i t h the reality o f their classrooms. C u r r e n t l y , the debate is centered m o r e on the L I and i f it s h o u l d be used i n the L 2 / F L l a n g u a g e c l a s s r o o m . . T h o s e that support a M a x i m a l U s e P o s i t i o n w o u l d argue that u s i n g the L I w o u l d deprives the students o f T L input, w h i l e those w h o f a v o u r the O p t i m a l U s e P o s i t i o n c l a i m that the L I c a n be u s e d strategically t o support and enhance T L input and therefore act as an effective T L l e a r n i n g t o o l . F r o m a s o c i o c u l t u r a l perspective, the L I can be used through c o d e - s w i t c h i n g techniques that can  31  u l t i m a t e l y take advantage o f a student's z o n e o f p r o x i m a l d e v e l o p m e n t so that interaction b e t w e e n interlocutors can lead to T L input. T h i s interaction c a n take place b e t w e e n teachers and students, as w e l l as between students themselves. T h i s r e v i e w o f the literature p r o v i d e s a b a c k d r o p for this study. T h e study w i l l investigate the role o f the T L and L I (as w e l l as L 2 and L 3 ) and h o w language is used i n the F L c l a s s r o o m . It w i l l e x a m i n e h o w m u c h and the purposes for w h i c h T L and T L are used and h o w this affects the F L c l a s s r o o m . F u r t h e r m o r e , it w i l l a i m to identify w a y s i n w h i c h the instructors adapt and adjust their language use to a c c o m m o d a t e their students' needs.  32  Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1  Introduction T h i s chapter w i l l e x p l a i n h o w I approached the study o f L I a n d T L use i n the J F L  c l a s s r o o m . In order to achieve a deeper understanding o f the issues, a m u l t i p l e case study approach was selected so that I c o u l d take full advantage o f s t u d y i n g the participants i n their natural e n v i r o n m e n t . A s o p p o s e d to a c o n t r o l l e d , unnatural setting, the teachers and students i n the J F L classes p r o v i d e d a real-life, real-context to study the issues that were d i r e c t l y related to the research questions. I n order to present results a n d interpretations that were r e l i a b l e for p o r t r a y i n g the teaching a n d l e a r n i n g experiences o f the participants, data was gathered through m u l t i p l e procedures. T h i s i n c l u d e d observations and a u d i o r e c o r d i n g s o f c l a s s r o o m lectures a n d student p a i r w o r k . T o c o m p l e m e n t the data f r o m the c l a s s r o o m , i n t e r v i e w s were c o n d u c t e d to corroborate the c l a s s r o o m data. T h e s e data c o l l e c t i o n procedures h e l p e d w i t h triangulation so that the f i n d i n g s f r o m the data analysis were presented and interpreted as accurately as p o s s i b l e . D a t a analysis f o l l o w e d an e m p i r i c a l g r o u n d e d approach. T h e m e s that e m e r g e d were c o d e d and a n a l y z e d and the major f i n d i n g s w i l l be reported and d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 4 as they pertained to the research questions.  3.2  A Qualitative Approach: Multiple Case Studies T h e d e s c r i p t i v e and explanatory nature o f the present study c a l l e d for a qualitative  approach to i n v e s t i g a t i n g the d y n a m i c and m u l t i f a c e t e d e n v i r o n m e n t o f the J F L l e a r n i n g and teaching c l a s s r o o m . A qualitative research d e s i g n was m o r e c o n d u c i v e to this type o f study where, as Stake (1995) describes, "research questions (are) t y p i c a l l y oriented to  33  cases o r p h e n o m e n a , seeking patterns o f unanticipated as w e l l as expected r e l a t i o n s h i p s " as o p p o s e d t o quantitative research questions that "(seek) out relationships b e t w e e n a s m a l l n u m b e r o f v a r i a b l e s " (p. 4 1 ) and "represent happenings w i t h scales a n d measurements (i.e., n u m b e r s ) " (p. 4 0 ) .  F u r t h e r m o r e , because this study requires the  researcher to investigate each case (the class) w i t h i n its real-life ( s o c i o c u l t u r a l ) context, a m u l t i p l e case study research strategy w a s e m p l o y e d ( M e r r i a m , 1998) so that an in-depth e x a m i n a t i o n o f each o f the t w o classes o f intermediate J F L c o u l d be c o n d u c t e d . C a s e studies are preferred w h e n the researcher has little c o n t r o l o v e r the events and w h e n the study e n v i r o n m e n t i n c l u d e s some real life context r e q u i r i n g the m a i n methods o f data c o l l e c t i o n t o consist o f asking (e.g., i n t e r v i e w i n g ) and watching (e.g., o b s e r v i n g ) ( E r i c k s o n , 1981, cited i n v a n L i e r , 1988). I n particular, this study f o l l o w e d t w o central p r i n c i p l e s : the e m i c a n d etic p r i n c i p l e . T h e e m i c p r i n c i p l e is that the research strategy used w i l l be that o f an i n s i d e r ' s perspective ( v a n L i e r , 1988). B y c o l l e c t i n g data d i r e c t l y f r o m the instructors and students, the researcher d e v e l o p s a clearer and m o r e accurate understanding o f the experiences o f participants. T h e etic p r i n c i p l e i n v o l v e s the researcher as a focal participant i n the selection o f the issue(s) and the interpretation o f the data c o l l e c t e d , thus t a k i n g o n an outsider's perspective. B y relating the e m i c t o the etic issues, a greater understanding o f the case w i l l result. T h i s study f o l l o w s the h o l i s t i c p r i n c i p l e , w h i c h proposes that the study be done b y e x a m i n i n g the p h e n o m e n o n i n relation to the entire system to w h i c h it belongs.  T h u s , the researcher c a n c o m e t o a n  understanding o f not o n l y the instructors and students, i n d i v i d u a l l y , but h o w they i n f l u e n c e each other and are i n f l u e n c e d b y other variables and, i n d o i n g so, i n c r e a s i n g the understanding o f the case i n its greater context. F u r t h e r m o r e , the e m i c a n d h o l i s t i c n o t i o n  34  are characterized b y a n a l y s i s that entail " d e v e l o p i n g categories and concepts that m a k e sense and have functional relevance to the participants i n the setting. These categories and concepts ( w i l l b e ) — d e v e l o p e d i n d u c t i v e l y , i n context, and f r o m the g r o u n d u p " ( J o h n s o n , p. 148) t h r o u g h t h i c k description. T h e m u l t i p l e case study research m e t h o d helped i l l u m i n a t e the d y n a m i c , m u l t i f a c e t e d nature o f the t w o Japanese as a foreign language ( J F L ) classes. T h e study y i e l d e d insights w i t h i n the J F L field as w e l l as for other language instructors b y p r o v i d i n g naturalistic generalizations (Stake, 1995) that helped to generalize to other cases b y b e c o m i n g part o f a n e w g r o u p or b y i n v i t i n g the prospect to m o d i f y e x i s t i n g generalizations. T h e challenges e x p e r i e n c e d b y J F L instructors and h o w they adapted and adjusted lessons to o v e r c o m e such language use challenges, c o u l d be u s e d b y other f o r e i g n and second language instructors to enhance their o w n t e a c h i n g practices. I n a d d i t i o n , future instructors c o u l d benefit from this i n f o r m a t i o n to understand and be sensitive to such issues i n u n i v e r s i t y language classrooms. 3.4  Research Questions A s a heritage language learner ( H L L ) o f Japanese and a former student o f J F L  classes myself, it w a s m y intention to e x p l o r e the t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g the Japanese language i n a foreign language e n v i r o n m e n t to better understand the processes i n v o l v e d and also to focus o n the role o f language use i n J F L classes i n w h i c h the instructors and students both have diverse cultural and language b a c k g r o u n d s . A n A n g l o p h o n e u n i v e r s i t y w h e r e the J F L instructors and students are non-native speakers o f E n g l i s h and w h e r e they d o not necessarily share the same L I , p r o v i d e s an interesting e n v i r o n m e n t for a case study i n v e s t i g a t i n g the d y n a m i c s and c o m p l e x i t y o f F L classes such as the one  35  m e n t i o n e d . I w a n t e d to e x a m i n e h o w instructors facilitated l e a r n i n g i n a J F L e n v i r o n m e n t , i n particular, w i t h respect to language use i n teacher-student interactions and student-student interactions. A t W e s t e r n C a n a d i a n U n i v e r s i t y ( W C U ) , where the study t o o k place, it is not u n c o m m o n f o r b o t h the J F L instructors and the students to have a b a c k g r o u n d i n m o r e than t w o languages.  T h e J F L classes at W C U  are c o m p o s e d o f students w h o are  m u l t i c u l t u r a l and k n o w l e d g e a b l e about m u l t i p l e languages and are, therefore, able to interact u s i n g their L I , L 2 and/or L 3 . F o r m a n y students, E n g l i s h is their t h i r d language and Japanese their fourth language. I n fact, a unique feature o f the W C U J F L classes is that the majority o f the students w h o enrol have C h i n e s e ethnic b a c k g r o u n d s and speak either M a n d a r i n or Cantonese, or both. T h e o v e r w h e l m i n g C h i n e s e d e m o g r a p h i c presented an interesting J F L context for m y research. W i t h these objectives, three research questions emerged. T h e first addresses the issue o f the ratio o f Japanese and E n g l i s h use b y instructors and students, i n c l u d i n g the i n s t r u c t o r s ' p e r c e i v e d ratio as w e l l . T h e second seeks to investigate the purposes for p a r t i c u l a r language use by instructors and students.  T h e third question e x a m i n e s h o w  instructors use language to facilitate the l e a r n i n g o f their students. T h e research questions are: 1.  (a) W h a t is the ratio o f Japanese use to E n g l i s h use b y instructors i n u n i v e r s i t y Japanese as a foreign language ( J F L ) c l a s s r o o m s ? (b) W h a t are the instructors' o w n perceptions about the ratio o f Japanese use to E n g l i s h use?  36  (c) W h a t is the relative ratio o f Japanese, E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e use b y students i n J F L classrooms? 2.  (a)  F o r what purposes are Japanese and E n g l i s h used b y instructors?  (b) F o r w h a t purposes are Japanese, E n g l i s h and other languages u s e d b y students? 3.  H o w do J F L instructors adapt and adjust their language use to a c c o m m o d a t e the language l e a r n i n g experiences o f the students i n their classes?  3.4  Participants and Context of Exploration  3.4.1  Participants T w o m a i n g r o u p s o f participants w e r e targeted for this study. T h e first g r o u p  c o n s i s t e d o f instructors o f intermediate (200-level or 2  n d  year) J F L classes at W C U .  This  g r o u p o f participants w a s further d i v i d e d into t w o groups: focal instructors and regular instructors. T h e focal instructors were both teaching an intermediate l e v e l J F L class at WCU.  These t w o instructors w e r e both native Japanese speakers and s p o k e E n g l i s h as  their second language. M s . Inoue (a p s e u d o n y m ) had been t e a c h i n g at W C U for one year and M s . Y a b u n o (a p s e u d o n y m ) had been t e a c h i n g at W C U for t w o years. T h e f o c a l instructors gave p e r m i s s i o n to have their c l a s s r o o m lectures observed, audio-taped, and to participate i n a semi-structured i n t e r v i e w .  In a d d i t i o n to the t w o focal instructors, other  J F L instructors, currently t e a c h i n g j u n i o r (beginners and intermediate) l e v e l J F L at W C U w e r e asked to participate i n an i n t e r v i e w about their teaching experience.  In total, six  other instructors participated. These six o n l y participated i n the semi-structured i n t e r v i e w s . O f these six, four were, at the time, t e a c h i n g intermediate level J F L classes at WCU.  T h e last t w o i n c l u d e d a J F L instructor at another l o c a l h i g h e r educational  37  Table 3.1  Participant Profiles: Instructors  2  Instructor  Role  Inoue  focal instructor  Japanese  focal  Japanese  Yabuno  First Second Language Language(s)  English  English  instructor  Higher Education Training  MA. Language Education  JFL courses taught at WCU 1 2  n d  2  n d  1  st  1  st  2  n d  2  n d  MA. Japanese  1  st  st  Years teaching at WCU  & year  1  &  2  year  Linguistics Murakami  regular  Japanese  English  instructor Chen Young  Kitamura Sasaki Tanaka  M.A. Linguistics  regular instructor  Chinese  English  regular instructor  Tagalog Chinese  English Japanese  M.A. Japanese as a Second Language  regular instructor  Japanese  English  M.A.  regular instructor  Japanese  regular  Japanese  Japanese  Ph.D. Linguistics  Sociology English  B.A.  to 3 year  r d  9  to 4 year  t h  14  1  1  st  & year  1  st  & year  3  none*  none*  Linguistics English  Buddhism**  none** none** instructor *has been teaching 1 & 2' JFL courses at another local higher education institution for five years **2-year college Japanese degree; lias been teaching JSL in Asia in private institutions for the about 10 years st  institution; and another w h o was a J S L instructor w i t h about ten years t e a c h i n g experience. T a b l e 3.1 g i v e s a detailed profile o f these participants (all names are pseudonyms). T h e second g r o u p o f participants w e r e the intermediate-level J F L students e n r o l l e d i n each o f the t w o focal instructors' intermediate level J F L course. T w e n t y - t w o students w e r e taught b y M s . Inoue, and another 23 students w e r e taught b y M s . Y a b u n o . O f these 45 students, 4 0 w e r e o f C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d , 2 were o f K o r e a n b a c k g r o u n d , 1  Some aspects of the instructor's backgrounds not directly relevant to the L1-L2 issue have been altered to protect their identity. 2  38  w a s o f Japanese heritage b a c k g r o u n d , and 3 were o f A n g l o p h o n e , n o n - A s i a n ethnic backgrounds. A l l 4 5 students consented to participating i n the audio-taped c l a s s r o o m lectures. A l l but five students i n M s . I n o u e ' s course granted p e r m i s s i o n to have their pair w o r k a u d i o - r e c o r d e d . I n M s . Y a b u n o ' s class, o n l y o n e student refused t o participate i n pair w o r k a u d i o - r e c o r d i n g s . F u r t h e r m o r e , o f these 45 students, a total o f 21 students participated i n a semi-structured i n t e r v i e w about their Japanese language l e a r n i n g experience. W i t h i n this g r o u p , 8 were from M s . I n o u e ' s class a n d 13 w e r e f r o m M s . Y a b u n o ' s class. In a d d i t i o n , a T A . w a s assigned to each focal instructor and b o t h T. A . s gave p e r m i s s i o n t o be observed and audio-recorded d u r i n g c l a s s r o o m lectures a n d pair w o r k activities. T a b l e 3.2 g i v e s a detailed p r o f i l e o f the participants i n t e r v i e w e d ( a l l names are p s e u d o n y m s ) . 3.4.2  Setting T h i s study t o o k place at a major A n g l o p h o n e N o r t h A m e r i c a n u n i v e r s i t y c a l l e d  WCU.  A s i n d i c a t e d earlier. T h i s u n i v e r s i t y has an e t h n i c a l l y diverse c a m p u s and is 3  situated i n a c i t y a m o n g a m i x o f cultures and languages.  W C U is currently e x p e r i e n c i n g  an i n f l u x o f students f r o m P a c i f i c R i m countries, e s p e c i a l l y f r o m A s i a .  4  S i n c e the focus  o f m y study w a s o n the language use i n J F L classes, the l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t o f this u n i v e r s i t y p r o v e d t o be an ideal setting as it w o u l d p r o v i d e an a m p l e n u m b e r o f students w h o are non-native speakers o f E n g l i s h and speakers o f m u l t i p l e languages.  Furthermore,  WCU's 2004 fact guide states that 20.7% off all students enrolled in the 2003-2004 school year were nonCanadians (i.e., have citizenship of another nationality covering the following continents: Central & South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia) with 34.8% of these non-Canadians holding citizenship from mainland China, Taiwan or Hong Kong. 11.6% of WCU's students are of International Student status and 25.8% of these are from China, Taiwan or Hong Kong. This information was taken from WCU's Faculty of Arts webpage.  3  4  39  T a b l e 3.2  P a r t i c i p a n t Profiles: F o c a l Students  Name  U  L2,L3  Age group  Migration to this country  Brad  Cantonese Cantonese  late teens to 20s late teens to 20s  4 years old  Gabriella  Mandarin English English  Major and/or minor Chinese language Finance & International Business  Gr.ll  Cassie  Mandarin  English  late teens to 20s  Gr.9  Diana  Cantonese English  late teens to 20s late teens to 20s  Gr.9  Justin  Mandarin English none  born here  Biology; Japanese minor* Japanese* M.A. Sc. Biochemistry  First JFL experience •  100 level  •  personal interest  •  •  • • •  took classes outside of school in Hong Kong as young teen 100 level' Gr. 10 100 level  • •  language requirement for LB. student exchange** language and student exchange requirement and for personal interest personal interest travelling  •  100 level  •  personal interest  •  100 level  • • • •  Phil  Mandarin  English  late teens to 20s  7 years ago  Engineering  »  100 level  Sean  Mandarin  English  4 years ago  100 level  Mandarin  English  10 years ago  Animal Biology Marketing  •  Johnny Isabella  Korean  English  late teens to 20s late teens to 20s late teens to 20s  6'/ years ago  English or Linguistics*  • • •  Gr. 9-12 100 level 100 level  Anna  Mandarin  English  6 years ago  Biology  •  Gr. 9  late teens to 20s  2  Purpose for taking Japanese  •  " • • • • • • • • •  didn't like French; culture is really interesting** peer influence; Arts credits travelling Living in R (dormitory with Japanese exchange students) personal interest for Arts credits personal interest personal interest need for electives career personal interest language requirement peer influence in Taiwan culturally similar to Taiwan  Table 3.2 Name  Participant Profiles: Focal Students (Continued) LI  L2,L3  Age group  Migration to this country  Major  Purpose for taking Japanese  minor  Kelly  Cantonese  English  late teens to 20s  7 years ago  Biochemistry; Japanese minor*  Michelle  Mandarin  English  late teens to 20s  7 years ago  Nursing  Todd  Mandarin  English  late teens to 20s  11 years old  Yuan  Mandarin English  none  late teens to 20s  2 years ago  Miho  Japanese English  none  late teens to 20s  born here  Political Science & Economics; German minor International Business & Finance International Relations; Japanese minor*  Kwan  Korean  English  late teens to 20s  Alexis  Mandarin  English  Darren  Cantonese English  none  late teens to 20s late teens to 20s  1 year exchange student from Korea unknown 5 years old  First JFL experience  and/or  Japanese & Japanese Literature  •  • • •  •  • •  •  • •  tutoring outside of school during high school 100 level Gr. 10-11 last year of high school was spend learning outside of school Japanese classes outside school for 1 month, then quit 100 level 100 level  attended Japanese language Saturday school until around Gr. 7 started at 200 level at Korean university and private institute  Psychology  •  100 level  Statistics; Japanese minor*  •  attended classes at a community center before Gr. 9 Gr. 9-12  •  •  personal interest  • •  grandfather's influence wants to formally learn language  • • • • • •  peer influence continue language learning usefulness of language worked in Japan for 1-15 years personal interest peer influence  • • •  communicate with parents future career may relocate to Japan  •  necessary for diplomat test  • * •  best friend is Japanese personal interest personal interest  Table 3.2  Participant Profiles: Focal Students (Continued)  Student  LI  Ifll§ll  Age group  Migration to this country  Veronica  Mandarin  English  late teens to 20s  Major and/or minor  Gr. 5  Japanese  •  Gr. 9  Wendi  Cantonese  English  late teens to 20s  Gr. 9  •  Gr. 10  Krista  English  none  late teens to 20s  born here  General Arts (Economics*; Japanese minor*) Asian Studies or Japanese*  •undeclared o r unsure as ct  it  "purposes for taking Japanese specifically for pre-university period  First JFL experience  • Gr.9  Purpose for taking Japanese • • * • •  personal interest continue language learning grandparents know Japanese language requirement* continue language learning  • •  personal interest** lived in Japan for 1 year  because there w a s no official department w i d e language use p o l i c y w i t h respect to its J F L p r o g r a m s , W C U J F L classes w o u l d facilitate a l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h instructors and students c o u l d v o l u n t a r i l y c o m m u n i c a t e i n the language(s) w h i c h they felt most comfortable. H o w e v e r , it s h o u l d be noted that both focal instructors m e n t i o n e d that all intermediate l e v e l c o n v e r s a t i o n course instructors met before the start o f the a c a d e m i c year and d e c i d e d to use as m u c h Japanese language as p o s s i b l e for the i n t e r m e d i a t e - l e v e l J F L c o n v e r s a t i o n classes. In c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the selection o f the J F L classes for this study, it w a s v i t a l that the classes sought w o u l d be p r o v i d i n g o p t i m a l opportunities, for b o t h the instructors and students, for a variety o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , preferably oral language use, w i t h respect to the language input, output and language c h o i c e .  T h e classes for the cases w e r e selected  a c c o r d i n g to these pre-determined criteria: (a) opportunities for teacher talk; (b) opportunities for teacher - student interaction; (c) opportunities for student - student interactions; (d) a focus o n oral output i n L I , L 2 or L 3 . U s i n g these criteria, it w a s d e c i d e d that an intermediate-level course w i t h an emphasis o n c o n v e r s a t i o n w o u l d be the preferred e n v i r o n m e n t for the data c o l l e c t i o n . A l t h o u g h four i n d i v i d u a l sections o f this course w e r e p l a n n e d to be offered i n T e r m 1 o f the 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 a c a d e m i c year, t w o sections w e r e targeted p r i m a r i l y due to practicality issues: one section met four times a w e e k i n the m o r n i n g , and, the other section met four times a w e e k i n the afternoon. F u r t h e r m o r e , the instructors o f these t w o intermediate J F L courses w i l l i n g l y v o l u n t e e r e d to participate i n this study.  43  3.5  Data Collection Procedures A l l the data w e r e gathered d u r i n g an intensive three-month p e r i o d (from O c t o b e r  to D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) d u r i n g the first term o f the 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 a c a d e m i c year at W C U . B e f o r e the a c a d e m i c term, I met w i t h b o t h focal instructors. B o t h instructors w e r e g i v e n a b r i e f w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n o f the research study and the details discussed. A n y changes affecting the data c o l l e c t i o n w e r e w o r k e d out beforehand and p l e n t y o f t i m e w a s g i v e n for negotiating m y i n v o l v e m e n t i n their classrooms. F o r these t w o sections o f intermediate Japanese language class, I attended every class ( w h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e ) for a t w o m o n t h p e r i o d d u r i n g September to N o v e m b e r . E a c h class met four t i m e s a w e e k for thirteen w e e k s per semester.  E a c h session was 50 minutes i n length and, u n l i k e the first  year b e g i n n e r level J F L courses i n w h i c h the sessions were c l e a r l y d i v i d e d into w e e k l y lecture and laboratory sessions, a l l intermediate level courses h e l d 4 lecture classes that i n c o r p o r a t e d lecture and oral practice as one. T h e intermediate level classes, d u r i n g the semester, c o v e r e d Chapters 1 to 5 i n their t e x t b o o k b y M i u r a and M c G l o i n ' s ( 1 9 9 4 ) An  Integrated Approach to Intermediate Japanese. A l l sections o f this course had an i d e n t i c a l s y l l a b u s , taught the same l e s s o n content and gave the same tests and handouts across a l l sections. A l s o , about once a w e e k a T e a c h i n g A s s i s t a n t (T. A . ) , a Japanese native speaker, came and taught the kanji C h i n e s e character lesson. F o r the first t w o months, 1 attended the t w o sections ( t w e l v e classes per instructor); h o w e v e r , no data were o f f i c i a l l y c o l l e c t e d . A s Stake (1995) states, it is important to take the opportunity to b e c o m e acquainted w i t h the people, spaces, schedules and p r o b l e m s o f the cases in study. Therefore, as arranged b y the focal instructors, O c t o b e r was used s o l e l y for the purpose o f b u i l d i n g a rapport w i t h the  44  instructors and, most i m p o r t a n t l y , w i t h the students i n preparation for the data c o l l e c t i o n i n the f o l l o w i n g months. A t this point, I w a s s i m p l y i n t r o d u c e d to the students as a Japanese language v o l u n t e e r and t o o k o n the role as in i n f o r m a l participant observer. D u r i n g this t w o - m o n t h p e r i o d , I a c t i v e l y participated i n assisting the students w i t h their c l a s s r o o m activities. T o w a r d s the end o f O c t o b e r , the focal instructors and I met o n c e m o r e and it w a s d e c i d e d that they felt c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h a l l aspects o f m y data c o l l e c t i o n and that I w o u l d o f f i c i a l l y b e g i n m y data c o l l e c t i o n . C l a s s r o o m observations w e r e c o n d u c t e d , fieldnotes taken, and c l a s s r o o m a u d i o r e c o r d i n g s w e r e gathered for a one m o n t h p e r i o d f r o m the end o f O c t o b e r to the end o f N o v e m b e r (fourteen classes per instructor). D u r i n g this time, I was no l o n g e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the class activities and m y role was redefined as a passive observerresearcher.  P a i r and g r o u p w o r k audio-recordings and student i n t e r v i e w s w e r e c o l l e c t e d  d u r i n g three w e e k s i n N o v e m b e r . Instructor interviews, i n c l u d i n g b o t h the focal instructors and other instructors, w e r e c o n d u c t e d d u r i n g N o v e m b e r and D e c e m b e r . T h e s e m u l t i p l e methods o f data c o l l e c t i o n w e r e u t i l i z e d as a f o r m o f t r i a n g u l a t i o n i n order to increase c o n f i d e n c e i n m y interpretation o f the cases b y p r o v i d i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t o f "uncontestable d e s c r i p t i o n " (Stake, 1995). 3.5.1  Observations and Fieldnotes In o r d e r to g a i n a better understanding o f the d y n a m i c s o f the J F L classes,  observations o f the lectures were conducted. A s Y i n (1994) describes, direct o b s e r v a t i o n is a source o f e v i d e n c e e s p e c i a l l y w h e n the object o f the study is not purely h i s t o r i c a l and, therefore, "relevant b e h a v i o u r s or e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s w i l l be a v a i l a b l e for o b s e r v a t i o n ... and is often useful i n p r o v i d i n g additional i n f o r m a t i o n about the t o p i c  45  b e i n g s t u d i e d " (pp. 86-87).  Information c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h c l a s s r o o m observations c a n  help corroborate, o r even contradict, the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y teachers and students t h r o u g h their i n t e r v i e w s . B e c a u s e the c l a s s r o o m s w e r e s m a l l i n size, I was able to sit and observe the teacher and students i n close p r o x i m i t y w h e r e I c o u l d see and hear the m a j o r i t y o f the c l a s s r o o m interactions. D u r i n g these observations, I quietly w a t c h e d and listened as the teacher and students interacted w i t h each other. M o r e o v e r , I t o o k w r i t t e n r e c o r d o f this descriptive i n f o r m a t i o n so that it w o u l d assist in the process o f better understanding and interpreting the cases.  S i n c e both instructors preferred a u d i o - t a p i n g the class lectures as  o p p o s e d to v i d e o - t a p i n g , the fieldnotes w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y helpful for details related to d e s c r i b i n g events i n the c l a s s r o o m that the a u d i o - r e c o r d i n g d i d not o r c o u l d not p r o v i d e . These i n c l u d e d items such as any w r i t i n g done o n the b o a r d o r the overhead projector, the content o f transparencies used d u r i n g lessons, any v i s u a l aids used to enhance the lesson (e.g., flash cards, d r a w i n g s and gestures).  In a d d i t i o n , the fieldnotes w e r e helpful i n  m a k i n g notes o f particular participants' utterances so that these quotes c o u l d be e x a m i n e d further after the classes. T h e fieldnotes w e r e vital for capturing the c o m p l e x i t y o f the context i n w h i c h this t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g o c c u r r e d ; the observations w e r e one step i n p r o v i d i n g m u l t i p l e realities for each i n d i v i d u a l case. S i n c e a l l participants p e r m i t t e d m e to observe them, there was not any i n f o r m a t i o n that had to be e x c l u d e d f r o m b e i n g reported as part o f m y study. 3.5.2  Classroom Lectures A u d i o - r e c o r d i n g the c l a s s r o o m lectures was c r u c i a l since the focal p o i n t o f this  study w a s to evaluate h o w m u c h language was b e i n g used d u r i n g the lessons. T h e  46  recordings w e r e necessary to not o n l y understand what language w a s b e i n g used but also to e x a m i n e the role o f language c h o i c e i n d a i l y c l a s s r o o m interactions.  In a d d i t i o n , the  c l a s s r o o m r e c o r d i n g s w e r e necessary for c a l c u l a t i n g and c o m m e n t i n g o n the ratio o f the languages used b y instructors and students. E v e r y class lecture that was attended d u r i n g N o v e m b e r w a s audio-taped.  Because  the p h y s i c a l size o f the c l a s s r o o m s and the n u m b e r o f students w e r e s m a l l , one professional-type cassette recorder w a s used to a u d i o - r e c o r d the lessons. T h e cassette recorder w a s p l a c e d t o w a r d s the front o f the c l a s s r o o m , i n b e t w e e n the instructor and the students, so that the instructors' and students' v o i c e s c o u l d be caught b y the recorder. E v e r y class w a s taped f r o m b e g i n n i n g o f class to the end o f class regardless o f the activity. A g a i n , both instructors, their T . A . s , and their students granted me p e r m i s s i o n to a u d i o - r e c o r d their interactions d u r i n g the class and so I was able to access all the r e c o r d e d data. A f t e r each class, I r e v i e w e d each a u d i o - r e c o r d i n g . A t the same t i m e , I used this t i m e to check o v e r m y fieldnotes from the observations and made any a d d i t i o n a l notes and necessary changes alongside m y fieldnotes. 3.5.3  Student P a i r W o r k B e c a u s e students were not assigned specific seats i n the c l a s s r o o m and since b o t h  sections o f the J F L classes d i d not have the same c l a s s r o o m for every class d u r i n g the w e e k , the students d i d not a l w a y s sit w i t h the same partner.  F u r t h e r m o r e , since one  student i n M s . Y a b u n o ' s class and five students i n M s . I n o u e ' s class said that they d i d not want to participate i n the pair w o r k recordings, it was not a l w a y s p o s s i b l e to a u d i o - r e c o r d the same pairs.  W h e n possible, I tried to a u d i o - r e c o r d the same pairs.  47  S i x i n d i v i d u a l cassette recorders w e r e used for student pair w o r k a u d i o - r e c o r d i n g s . B e f o r e the c o l l e c t i o n o f any data began, students were g i v e n a short e x p l a n a t i o n o f h o w to set-up and use the cassette recorders. A t the b e g i n n i n g o f e v e r y class, s i x p a i r s w e r e g i v e n a cassette recorder and asked to a u d i o - r e c o r d any a c t i v i t y that i n v o l v e d p a i r w o r k . T h e students w e r e instructed to place the cassette recorder o n top o f their desk so that it w a s at an equal distance f r o m the both o f them and to keep the tape r u n n i n g f r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f the a c t i v i t y until the v e r y end, regardless o f whether the students had f i n i s h e d the task early or were off-task. 3.5.4  Instructor Interviews T h e i n t e r v i e w s were a crucial part o f m y data c o l l e c t i o n methods since each  instructor w a s expected to share his or her o w n d i s t i n c t i v e thoughts and experiences; each i n t e r v i e w e e p r o v i d e d an i n v a l u a b l e i n s i d e r ' s v i e w that neither the students nor I c o u l d g a i n access. " K e y informants ... not o n l y p r o v i d e the case study i n v e s t i g a t o r w i t h insights into a matter but also can suggest sources o f corroboratory e v i d e n c e — and initiate access to such sources" ( Y i n , 1994, p. 84). T h e i n t e r v i e w s c o n d u c t e d for this study were semi-structured around open-ended questions (see A p p e n d i x D for a list o f sample i n t e r v i e w questions for instructors). E v e r y j u n i o r - l e v e l (beginner and intermediate) J F L instructor at W C U was requested an i n t e r v i e w . B e s i d e s the i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the t w o focal instructors, five other W C U J F L instructors volunteered to participate i n a 4 5 - m i n u t e audio-recorded, semi-structured i n t e r v i e w about their J F L t e a c h i n g experiences. In a d d i t i o n , t w o other instructors participated i n the i n t e r v i e w . O n e was, at the time, a j u n i o r - l e v e l J F L instructor at another l o c a l higher educational institution. T h e other was a J S L instructor w h o has  48  experience t e a c h i n g international adult students i n private institutions throughout A s i a . A l l i n t e r v i e w s w e r e c o n d u c t e d i n either the instructor's office or i n a p r i v a t e r o o m i n the library. A l s o , since these i n t e r v i e w s w e r e a u d i o - r e c o r d e d , o n l y m i n o r notes w e r e taken so that I c o u l d attend to the d i r e c t i o n o f the i n t e r v i e w b y f o r m u l a t i n g a n y related questions and concentrating o n any p r o b i n g that was necessary. 3.5.5  Student Interviews T h e students acted as informants, too, and c o u l d p r o v i d e v e r y useful data to add to  the e v i d e n c e c o l l e c t e d f r o m the direct observation and the instructor i n t e r v i e w s . I n order to get a m o r e descriptive and accurate portrayal o f J F L classes, students f r o m the t w o classes w e r e asked to participate i n a 3 0 - m i n u t e semi-structured i n t e r v i e w o f an o p e n ended nature (see A p p e n d i x E for a list o f sample i n t e r v i e w questions for students).  A  total o f t w e n t y - o n e students participated i n a semi-structured i n t e r v i e w about their Japanese language l e a r n i n g experience. W i t h i n this group, eight w e r e f r o m M s . I n o u e ' s class and thirteen w e r e f r o m M s . Y a b u n o ' s class.  E x c e p t for the difference i n the  i n t e r v i e w questions, all student i n t e r v i e w s were conducted i n the same manner as the instructor i n t e r v i e w s . A l l students were i n t e r v i e w e d one-on-one, except for one pair o f students w h o preferred to have the i n t e r v i e w c o n d u c t e d as a pair, i n a private r o o m i n the l i b r a r y o r an e m p t y c l a s s r o o m . 3.5.6  Course Materials: Written Documents W r i t t e n d o c u m e n t s c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g this p e r i o d i n c l u d e d the course textbook,  handouts, quizzes and tests. These d o c u m e n t s were gathered p r i m a r i l y to e x a m i n e the amount o f Japanese and E n g l i s h the students were able to access. O f particular interest w e r e the handouts, q u i z z e s and tests since the intermediate J F L instructors, either o n their  49  o w n or c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y , created these b y themselves for their students.  These d o c u m e n t s  c o u l d be a n a l y z e d for some o f the k e y language use issues and challenges faced b y teachers and students i n the J F L courses.  3.6  Transcription Procedures and Conventions M u c h o f m y data w a s audio-recorded, i n c l u d i n g the c l a s s r o o m lectures, student  pair w o r k , and instructor and teacher interviews. A p p e n d i x F p r o v i d e s a detailed a c c o u n t o f the transcription c o n v e n t i o n s used i n this study.  3.7  Data Analysis Q u a l i t a t i v e research o f this nature requires an e m p i r i c a l approach.  "The  p h e n o m e n o n studied cannot be deduced but require e m p i r i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n " and therefore there is the "need to r e m a i n open to elements that cannot be c o d i f i e d at the t i m e o f the study" since the results w i l l be g r o u n d e d i n the data ( B a s z a n g e r & D o d i e r , 1997, p. 10). T h e process o f e x p l o r i n g the p h e n o m e n o n and d e s c r i b i n g it makes it necessary to i n c l u d e as m a n y v a r i a b l e s as p o s s i b l e so that the interactions can be t h o r o u g h l y represented and interpreted because " p r e v i o u s l y u n k n o w n relationships and v a r i a b l e s c a n be e x p e c t e d to emerge f r o m case studies" (Stake, 1981, p. 4 7 ) . Stake ( 1 9 8 1 ) suggests a m e t h o d o f c o d i n g to classify w h o l e episodes, i n t e r v i e w s o r d o c u m e n t s so that the data are m o r e easily a c c e s s i b l e d u r i n g a n a l y s i s . T h e d a t a w e r e r e v i e w e d and salient themes that o c c u r r e d m o r e b r o a d l y were identified for the c l a s s r o o m lectures, p a i r w o r k interactions, and the interviews. T h i s w a s f o l l o w e d b y again e x a m i n i n g each o f these methods for k e y themes, in w h i c h c o d i n g categories w e r e d e v e l o p e d as they emerged t h r o u g h the data. E v e r y c l a s s r o o m d i a l o g u e excerpt,  50  p a i r w o r k interaction excerpt and i n t e r v i e w selection was separated into one o f the categories, and w h e n necessary, w e r e assigned to t w o or m o r e relevant categories. T h e data and themes were r e - e x a m i n e d again, and o r g a n i z e d into salient themes that w e r e then arranged in such a w a y to d e v e l o p an argument for this s t u d y ' s f i n d i n g s . E x a m p l e quotes f r o m i n t e r v i e w s , excerpts from c l a s s r o o m and p a i r w o r k d i a l o g u e , and support from the course documents w i l l be i n c l u d e d throughout the report to i l l u m i n a t e the d i s c u s s i o n o f the s t u d y ' s findings. T h r o u g h these means o f analyses, the report w i l l shed l i g h t o n the c o m p l e x , d y n a m i c nature o f language use i n J F L c l a s s r o o m s and w i l l help g i v e a v o i c e to the teachers and learners i n v o l v e d in this L 2 l e a r n i n g p h e n o m e n o n . 3.8  Chapter Summary T h e methods used to c o l l e c t and a n a l y z e data w e r e chosen t o address the three  sets o f research questions. T h e observation, recordings and i n t e r v i e w s w e r e instrumental in i l l u m i n a t i n g the context under study and representative e x a m p l e s f r o m the data c o u l d be a n a l y z e d and y i e l d the findings presented in the next chapter o n T L and L I use i n the J F L c l a s s r o o m . A p p r o a c h i n g this study f r o m a m u l t i p l e case study research m e t h o d y i e l d e d for r i c h , d e s c r i p t i v e data representative o f the c o m p l e x yet unique l e a r n i n g context o f J F L i n v o l v i n g J F L students w i t h diverse language b a c k g r o u n d s .  51  Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1  Introduction T h e chapter w i l l present and discuss o f the research f i n d i n g s o f the study. T h e  findings w i l l f o l l o w the o r i g i n a l order o f the research questions. S e c t i o n s 4.1-4.3 w i l l c o v e r R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s # l a - l c o n the ratio o f Japanese a n d E n g l i s h use b y instructors, as w e l l as their p e r c e i v e d ratio o f use. T h e s e sections w i l l also present the results o n the ratio o f language use b y the J F L students. N e x t , the f i n d i n g s for R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s #2a a n d 2b w i l l be reported. Q u e s t i o n #2a and 2b are c o n c e r n e d w i t h the purposes for w h i c h instructors and students use Japanese, E n g l i s h and other languages. T h e last section covers R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n #3. H e r e I w i l l offer the f i n d i n g s o n h o w J F L instructors have adapted and adjusted their language teaching i n order to enhance the language l e a r n i n g experiences o f their students. T h i s part w i l l also address the u n i q u e situation o f h a v i n g a Japanese p r o g r a m w i t h m a n y C h i n e s e N L students, as w e l l as the l e a r n i n g experiences o f a heritage language learner. T h e f i n d i n g s throughout this chapter w i l l be d i s c u s s e d at the e n d o f each section (except for S e c t i o n 4.1-4.3 w h i c h w i l l be d i s c u s s e d together at the e n d o f S e c t i o n 4.3) to illustrate h o w the f i n d i n g s connect w i t h past research and current literature o n L 2 l e a r n i n g . Sub-sections i n S e c t i o n 4.6 w i l l have a d i s c u s s i o n o f each strategy at the e n d o f its o w n section.  4.2  Ratio of Japanese and English Use by Instructors U s i n g the fieldnotes taken f r o m the c l a s s r o o m observations, four c l a s s r o o m  lectures (i.e., four i n d i v i d u a l lessons) f r o m each f o c a l instructor were selected to be transcribed v e r b a t i m u s i n g a w o r d processor. T h e c r i t e r i o n u s e d to select the four  52  lectures w a s that the lecture had to c o v e r a variety o f activities so that they represented a w i d e range o f language use samples. T h e lectures chosen to be transcribed for M s . I n o u e ' s class w e r e the dates o f N o v e m b e r 4, 12, 19, and 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 . T h e lectures c h o s e n for M s . Y a b u n o were, c o i n c i d e n t a l l y , for the exact same dates. A f t e r the lectures w e r e transcribed, a l l utterances w e r e c a t e g o r i z e d b y language: Japanese (J), E n g l i s h ( E ) o r a m i x o f Japanese and E n g l i s h ( M ) . A m i x e d utterance i n c l u d e d m o r e than o n e w o r d f r o m b o t h languages. W h e n the utterance w a s c o m p o s e d T a b l e 4.1  Categories of Utterances  Type of Utterance Japanese o r L 2 , L 3  Examples •  Hai, koutai shite renshvv shite kudasai. { O k a y , please change (partners) and practice.}  •  Iroiro na courses wo totte imasu. {(She) is t a k i n g v a r i o u s courses}  English  • •  W h a t does henri mean? { W h a t does c o n v e n i e n t mean?}  Mixed  •  Dakara, kono ga wa i n noun m o d i f i c a t i o n s o m e t i m e s y o u c a n change this ga and use no instead. { A n d so, this ( ( n o m i n a t i v e case m a r k e r ga)) i n noun m o d i f i c a t i o n s o m e t i m e s y o u c a n change this ga ( n o m i n a t i v e case marker) and use no (genitive case marker)  •  De, another e x a m p l e y o u have i n the t e x t b o o k is shukudai wo wasureta koto ni ki ga tsnku. {to notice that (you) forgot ( y o u r ) homework}  •  P a r t i c l e desu. {It's a particle}  C o u l d be shorter that one page?  o f one Japanese w o r d and one E n g l i s h w o r d , it w a s categorized as a m i x e d utterance, as w e l l . O t h e r w i s e , i f an utterance consisted o f m o r e than t w o w o r d s i n Japanese and n o m o r e than o n e w o r d i n E n g l i s h , the utterance w a s counted as a Japanese utterance. S i m i l a r l y , an utterance c o n s i s t i n g o f m o r e than t w o w o r d s i n E n g l i s h a n d n o m o r e than one w o r d i n Japanese c o n s i d e r e d an E n g l i s h utterance.  T h i s m e t h o d o f utterance  categorization w a s adopted after referring to D u f f and P o l i o ' s (1990) c o d i n g i n w h i c h single w o r d citations o f another language were, at first, g i v e n their o w n separate category  53  but were, i n the end, c o l l a p s e d together w i t h the category w i t h o u t 1-word citations.  After  all the utterances w e r e categorized, the sum for each language utterance w a s c a l c u l a t e d for the i n d i v i d u a l dates, the i n d i v i d u a l focal instructors, and for both instructors and dates combined. T o p r o v i d e an idea o f the length o f each type o f utterance (i.e., Japanese, E n g l i s h o r m i x e d ) a w o r d count was conducted. Illustrating the length o f each utterance (i.e., the n u m b e r o f w o r d s i n an utterance) is important because, whereas it is clear w h e r e a w o r d begins and ends i n E n g l i s h , i n Japanese the unit o f the w o r d is not so clear due to its a g g l u t i n a t i v e nature. T h e w o r d count w a s done b y s a m p l i n g five pages o f c l a s s r o o m lecture transcripts f r o m each o f the four lesson dates for each focal instructor. T h e f i v e page samples w e r e chosen b y selecting the five pages w h i c h had the most v a r i a t i o n i n language usage and h i g h numbers i n utterances per language category type. T o d i s t i n g u i s h a standard for establishing the w o r d unit in Japanese, K a i s e r et al.'s (2001) book,  Japanese: A Comprehensive Grammar, was consulted. (See A p p e n d i x H . ) A f t e r  the w o r d count w a s achieved, the average utterance length was quantified for each focal instructor. T h e averages were then p o o l e d to g i v e an average for both focal instructors c o m b i n e d . T h e w o r d count data w a s c o m p i l e d to help e x p l a i n any differences that m i g h t emerge i n the length o f the utterance for i n d i v i d u a l utterance types. W h a t f o l l o w s is the results and d i s c u s s i o n for Research Q u e s t i o n # l a :  W h a t is the  ratio o f Japanese use to E n g l i s h use b y instructors in Japanese as a f o r e i g n language ( J F L ) c l a s s r o o m s ? T h e data s h o w that the ratio o f Japanese, E n g l i s h and m i x e d (i.e., Japanese and E n g l i s h intra-utterance c o d e - s w i t c h i n g ) utterances used b y M s . Inoue (see T a b l e 4.2) for the four sessions c o m b i n e d are: Japanese ( 8 0 . 6 % ) , E n g l i s h ( 1 4 . 7 % ) , m i x e d  54  ( 4 . 8 % ) . S i m i l a r l y , M s . Y a b u n o ' s data (see T a b l e 4.2) for the same dates s h o w the averages o f Japanese ( 7 9 . 4 % ) , E n g l i s h ( 1 5 . 9 % ) and m i x e d ( 4 . 6 % ) . Interestingly,  Table 4.2  Language Use Summary for Ms. Inoue Japanese  English  Mixed  80.6%  14.7%  4.8%  6.3  6.6  11.4  ALL FOUR SESSIONS T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f words per utterance  NOVEMBER 4  th  L e s s o n content: Test outline; I n t e r v i e w session i n f o & sign-up; H o m e w o r k check; C h . 4 Kaiwa5 #1 lesson, G r a m m a r point: AwaB ni nite iru; betsu ni + negative T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f words per utterance  84.0%  11.9%  4.2%  7.0  7.8  14.3  NOVEMBER 12  th  L e s s o n content: W a r m up: teacher lead Q & A session; R e v i s e d course schedule; Pairwork: Find  hanashi kotoba & change to kaki kotoba u s i n g C h . 5 Kaiwa #3 ; C h . 5  Kaiwa #3 lesson; R e t u r n Test C h . 3 & 4 & r e v i e w answers T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f words per utterance  81.1%  14.0%  4.9%  5.9  5.8  11.9  NOVEMBER 19  th  L e s s o n content:  C o l l e c t s intei"view tapes; c o l l e c t h o m e w o r k ; kanji lesson; I n t e r v i e w reflection d i s c u s s i o n ; P a i r w o r c: Interview R e f l e c t i o n C o m p o s i t i o n T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f words  76.3%  20.4%  3.3%  7.1  7.2  9.8  per utterance  NOVEMBER 26  th  L e s s o n content: D i r e c t i o n s t o b u i l d i n g for i n t e r v i e w a c t i v i t y ; F i n a l E x a m o u t l i n e ; kanji q u i z ; v o c a b q u i z ; C h . 5 Kaiwa #2 lesson, G r a m m a r practice: 'x' ni wa ikanai; Adobaisu wo ataeru6 handout d i s c u s s i o n T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f words  78.4%  15.2%  6.3%  5.9  6.5  9.7  per utterance  5  Kaiwa sections have dialogues. There are three or four dialogues in each chapter.  6  Adobaisu wo ataeru = Giving advice 55  b o t h instructors have average percentages that are v e r y s i m i l a r i n a l l three language use categories. T h e c o m b i n e d average (see T a b l e 4.3) for b o t h instructors w i t h regard to the ratio o f language use is: Japanese ( 8 0 . 0 % ) , E n g l i s h ( 1 5 . 3 % ) , and m i x e d ( 4 . 7 % ) . W i t h respect to w o r d count for M s . I n o u e ' s lectures (see T a b l e 4.2), the average Japanese utterance consisted o f 6.3 w o r d s , the average E n g l i s h utterance consisted o f 6.6 w o r d s , and the average m i x e d utterance w a s 11.6 w o r d s . A s illustrated i n the e x a m p l e s in T a b l e 4 . 1 , m i x e d utterances, c o m p a r e d to utterances i n o n l y one language, w e r e u s u a l l y used for explanations i n v o l v i n g c o m p l e x g r a m m a r structures or u n k n o w n v o c a b u l a r y and for negotiating the text and therefore, on average, resulted i n l o n g e r utterances.  M s . Y a b u n o ' s c o m b i n e d average o f these sessions is: Japanese ( 8 0 % ) ,  E n g l i s h ( 1 6 % ) , m i x e d ( 5 % ) , and the average w o r d count for a Japanese utterance is 4.3 w o r d s , an E n g l i s h utterance is 5.9 w o r d s , and a m i x e d utterance is 11.4 w o r d s . (See T a b l e 4.3.). T h e c o m b i n e d w o r d count average (see T a b l e 4.3) for each type o f utterance w a s 4.2 w o r d s for Japanese, 6.0 w o r d s for E n g l i s h , and 11.3 w o r d s for m i x e d . In M s . I n o u e ' s language use s u m m a r y , sessions that have m o r e g r a m m a r and test content related lessons (i.e., N o v e m b e r 12, 2 0 0 2 class) had m u c h m o r e E n g l i s h language use ( 2 5 . 6 % E n g l i s h use) c o m p a r e d to other dates i n w h i c h this d i d not o c c u r (i.e., N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 2 w i t h 3 . 8 % E n g l i s h use). T h e average percentage o f each language type used o v e r the four sessions illustrates that M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o used almost the exact same ratio o f Japanese, E n g l i s h , and, m i x e d utterances i n both their classes. T h i s is interesting i n that, despite the fact that the Japanese language p r o g r a m at W C U has no official departmental language p o l i c y , b o t h instructors used a h i g h ratio o f Japanese ( c o m p a r a b l e to that reported b y  56  T a b l e 4.3  Language Use S u m m a r y for M s . Y a b u n o Japanese  English  Mixed  A L L F O U R SESSIONS T o t a l % o f utterances  79.4%  15.9%  4.6%  4.3  5.9  11.4  Average number o f words per utterance  NOVEMBER 4 L e s s o n content: Kanji Q u i z ; test announcement; P a i r w o r k : role-play , talk about w e e k e n d u s i n g aizuchi ); Kaiwa #1 listening, oral vs written speech le sson, g r a m m a r point: bestu ni 'x' arimasen, C u l t u r e N o t e s d i s c u s s i o n o n r e s p o n d i n g to c o m p l i m e n t s t h  7  T o t a l % o f utterances  86.3%  9.3%  4.4%  4.3  3.7  12.0  Average number o f words per utterance  N O V E M B E R 12 L e s s o n content: return & go over kanji q u i z w i t h T . A . ; A d m i n re: t e r m schedule; C h . 5 Kaiwa #1 lesson, g r a m m a r point: 'x' ni ki ga tsuku; R e t u r n Test C h . 3 & 4 & r e v i e w answers t h  T o t a l % o f utterances  68.4%  25.6%  5.9%  4.3  6.6  11.2  Average number o f words per utterance N O V E M B E R 19  t h  L e s s o n content: D i s c u s s i o n : i n t e r v i e w reflections, p a i r w o r k : i n t e r v i e w reflection c o m p o s i t i o n , c o m p o s i t i o n test outline T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f words  95.4%  3.9%  0.7%  4.4  3.8  13.0  per utterance N O V E M B E R 26 L e s s o n content:  t h  G r a m m a r les son:  'x'niwaikancii. L e c t u r e : C h . 5 Kaiwa #2 lesson;  Adobaisu wo ataeru handout <discussion, P a i r w o r k : O r a l : practice A d v i c e handout questions; O r a l e x a m schedu i n g details; P a i r w o r c O r a l e x a m practice session T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f words  75.5%  18.8%  5.7%  4.0  6.4  10.9  per utterance P o l i o and D u f f (1994) for Japanese classes); the J F L instructors are free to use as m u c h o r as less T L as they, i n d i v i d u a l l y , choose to use and yet both instructors' use o f language w a s v e r y s i m i l a r . E v e n t h o u g h the intermediate J F L instructors had met before the 7  Back-channeling cue (e.g., Oh really? Is that right? Oh! Wow! Uhuh). 57  a c a d e m i c year began and agreed to use as m u c h Japanese language as p o s s i b l e , this agreement was quite i n f o r m a l and each instructor was left to interpret a n d act u p o n this d e c i s i o n as they wanted. [For] 2 0 0 l e v e l , w e h a d a m e e t i n g at the b e g i n n i n g and ah w e d e c i d e d that w e s h o u l d use Japanese as m u c h as p o s s i b l e . A l l o f us. ... It's ah s e c o n d year students. T h e y k n o w the basic g r a m m a r and ah they d o n ' t have m u c h exposure to Japanese other than the c l a s s r o o m . T h a t ' s the basic reason. (Yabuno, Interview, November, 2002). 8  T h i s p r i n c i p l e is also e c h o e d b y M s . Inoue, w h o c o m m e n t e d that, for the 2 0 0 l e v e l s , " I t a l k e d w i t h other teachers w h o are also teaching the same course and w e d e c i d e d to speak as m u c h as Japanese i n class, so i n that sense w e are t r y i n g to speak Japanese i n t e n t i o n a l l y i n c l a s s . " (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) . In a d d i t i o n , both instructors used E n g l i s h and c o d e - s w i t c h i n g i n their t e a c h i n g o f Japanese language. E v e n f r o m before the term began, it was clear that the instructors were aware that t e a c h i n g intermediate l e v e l Japanese w o u l d i n v o l v e the use o f E n g l i s h . O f course w e k n e w that s o m e students w i l l be r e a l l y u n c o m f o r t a b l e just, y o u k n o w , b e i n g e x p o s e d to Japanese because  most o f the  students  f i n i s h e d their 100 l e v e l i n here, and for the 100 l e v e l courses, teachers, w e k n o w that teachers, any teachers, are u s i n g m o r e E n g l i s h than Japanese... . S o , so w e t a l k e d about this but w e h o p e d that e v e n the students w h o are not confident i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n or l i s t e n i n g . . . a b i l i t y , they c o u l d , w e k n e w that they w o u l d feel u n c o m f o r t a b l e at the b e g i n n i n g but they w o u l d be, they w o u l d get used to a l l this environment.... S o , u m , I a n y w a y I and m a n y other teacher, too, try to m a k e t h e m feel c o m f o r t a b l e first o f a l l , and then w e hope that they c o u l d get u s e d to l i s t e n i n g to o n l y Japanese a n d then also to f i n d out solutions, what they c o u l d do i f they d o n ' t understand, or they c o u l d guess what w e are s a y i n g , and I also t o l d t h e m  some  important things I w o u l d say i n E n g l i s h not i n Japanese so that they can feel  a little bit m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e p r o b a b l y .  ( M s . Inoue,  Interview,  November, 2002) F r o m c o m m e n t s such as this, it was apparent that language c h o i c e was i n f l u e n c e d b y m a n y variables such as student confidence, c l a s s r o o m atmosphere, and t e a c h i n g methods All instructor and student interviews were conducted in English.  58  at b e g i n n e r levels.  W h e n asked about their thoughts on Japanese-only p o l i c y i n a f o r e i g n  language setting, M s . Inoue c o m m e n t e d about the challenges o f t e a c h i n g i n Japanese o n l y : I d o n ' t r e a l l y l i k e Japanese-only p o l i c y because, as I said, [for]  some  i m p o r t a n t announcement I d o n ' t t h i n k that w e should speak i n Japanese, or, s o m e g r a m m a r p r o b a b l y , because they, students have to  comprehend.  A n d for the c o m p r e h e n s i o n they need language [that] they k n o w . S o , still for the 2 0 0 l e v e l , they are still i n the stage o f l i k e a really i m p r o v i n g f r o m first  l e v e l t o [a] m o r e advanced l e v e l . S o , some students are not r e a l l y  strong i n terms o f s p e a k i n g and l i s t e n i n g e s p e c i a l l y [because] they are o n l y i n C a n a d a ; they d o n ' t really have friends to practice their Japanese. (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) F r o m the students' l e a r n i n g perspective, M s . Y a b u n o explains: I t h i n k i n m y class it doesn't have to be Japanese only. A n d if, first o f a l l i f it takes a l o n g , l o n g t i m e for students to c o m m u n i c a t e i n Japanese t o each other and i f there's some k i n d o f misunderstanding, w e l l it is g o o d i f they c a n o v e r c o m e that and they c a n use some strategies and then c o m m u n i c a t e , that's great, but i f that's ((i.e., c o m m u n i c a t i n g i n Japanese)) the purpose o f the class then I think it's great to use Japanese but for t r y i n g to y o u k n o w to teach them certain f u n c t i o n and stuff. S o , to m a k e it m o r e effective I t h i n k i t ' s g o o d to use E n g l i s h s o m e t i m e s w h e n i t ' s necessary.... B e t w e e n the students. (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) F r o m these c o m m e n t s , it seems that M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o f a v o u r e d the O p t i m a l U s e p o s i t i o n , w h i c h states that their preferred teaching m e t h o d incorporates as m u c h T L as p o s s i b l e w h i l e also a c k n o w l e d g i n g the benefits o f the L I i n l e a r n i n g the F L . T h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h a m o u n t o f T L m a y have been i n f l u e n c e d b y several factors. First, because b o t h instructors are native speakers o f Japanese and have studied E n g l i s h as their second language, this m a y have i n f l u e n c e d the c h o i c e o f language, r e s u l t i n g i n a l o w e r use o f E n g l i s h and h i g h e r use o f Japanese, although this inference cannot be c o n f i r m e d b y the present data.  F u r t h e r m o r e , m y p h y s i c a l presence i n the c l a s s r o o m s and the  influence o f the tape-recorded sessions m a y have affected the language use ratio. S i n c e b o t h instructors c o m m e n t e d about t r y i n g to use as m u c h Japanese as p o s s i b l e , it w o u l d  59  not be s u r p r i s i n g i f the instructors tried to use m o r e o f the T L than they w o u l d r e g u l a r l y . L a s t l y , since b o t h teachers w e r e aware o f the purpose o f the study a n d are b o t h recent graduates f r o m c o u r s e w o r k i n the field o f second language t e a c h i n g , it w o u l d not be surprising i f they c o n s c i o u s l y m a d e efforts to speak m o r e Japanese than u s u a l . H o w e v e r , f r o m m y p e r s o n a l c o m p a r i s o n o f the t w e l v e classes (per instructor) o f observations p r e v i o u s to any data c o l l e c t i o n , and the fourteen classes (per instructor) that audio r e c o r d i n g a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s o f classes were done, there w a s n o apparent difference i n lesson d e l i v e r y .  Table 4.4  Language Use Averages for All Four Sessions: Focal Instructors Japanese  English  Mixed  80.0%  15.3%  4.7%  4.2  6.0  11.3  80.6%  14.7%  4.8%  6.3  6.6  11.4  79.4%  15.9%  4.6%  4.3  5.9  11.4  Ms. Inoue and Ms. Yabuno T o t a l % o f utterances A v e r a g e n u m b e r o f w o r d s per utterance  Ms. Inoue T o t a l % o f utterances A v e r a g e n u m b e r o f w o r d s per utterance  Ms. Yabuno T o t a l % o f utterances A v e r a g e n u m b e r o f w o r d s per utterance W i t h respect to the w o r d count, a l t h o u g h it appears that the Japanese utterances tended to be shorter, it needs to be m e n t i o n e d that due to the nature o f the Japanese b e i n g a n agglutinative language, utterances that have l o w e r or i d e n t i c a l w o r d counts m a y i n fact be longer or shorter than its E n g l i s h equivalent w h e n translated into E n g l i s h . E x a m i n e the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s i n T a b l e 4 . 5 . T h e length and quantity o f the utterances has also been i n f l u e n c e d b y t e x t b o o k or handout texts since, for e x a m p l e , teachers' repetition o f textbook d i a l o g u e excerpts a n d handout questions, m o s t l y i n Japanese, has also been  60  i n c l u d e d i n the total n u m b e r o f utterances and w o r d counts. D e s p i t e the v a r i o u s influences o n T L and E n g l i s h output, there w a s still access to a great quantity o f T L input for students.  Table 4.5  Comparison of Japanese Utterance and its Equivalent in English Number of Japanese words  Japanese utterance Motto muzukashii bun ni shite kudasai.  English Translation  Number of English words  Please m a k e it into a 6  m o r e difficult  2  It is a Japanese person.  8  sentence.  Nihonjin desu.  5  T h e m i x e d category o f utterances o f b o t h instructors revealed that utterances u s i n g c o d e - s w i t c h i n g w e r e t w i c e to t w o - a n d - a - h a l f times as l o n g as the E n g l i s h and Japanese utterances.  T h i s w o u l d help e x p l a i n the f u n c t i o n o f intra-utterance c o d e -  s w i t c h i n g ; it w a s used for the most part for e x p l a i n i n g c o m p l e x concepts o r for functions that w o u l d require use o f language w h i c h the students d i d not k n o w i n the T L . (See T a b l e 4.1.) E x p l a n a t i o n s o f g r a m m a r and sentence structure o r for c o n d u c t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e duties s u c h as e x a m o u t l i n e and announcements w e r e the most c o m m o n purposes for w h i c h these c o d e - s w i t c h i n g techniques w e r e used.  4.3  Instructors' Perceptions of Japanese and English Use T h e a m o u n t o f T L and E n g l i s h use a c t u a l l y used in the c l a s s r o o m often d i d not  reflect the a m o u n t o f language the teachers thought they w e r e u s i n g o r w e r e i d e a l l y t r y i n g to use. A l t h o u g h a l l the teachers w h o w e r e i n t e r v i e w e d found it most favourable to use as m u c h Japanese as possible, the teachers also mentioned that, for a v a r i e t y o f reasons, it w a s not r e a l i s t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e to conduct the entire lesson i n o n l y the T L .  61  S e c t i o n 4.3 w i l l  address R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n # l b : W h a t are the instructors' o w n perceptions about the ratio o f Japanese use to E n g l i s h use? 4.3.1  Instructors' Perceptions O n average (see T a b l e 4.4), the eight instructors p e r c e i v e d t h e m s e l v e s to be u s i n g  about 6 1 % Japanese and 3 9 % E n g l i s h i n their intermediate level J F L classes (except for instructor T a n a k a w h o taught J S L i n Japan) although the p e r c e i v e d Japanese and E n g l i s h language use responses ranged f r o m 2 0 - 8 0 % . M s . M u r a k a m i , w h o w a s the o n l y instructor to report u s i n g less than 5 0 % Japanese and m o r e than 5 0 % E n g l i s h e v e n t h o u g h she f a v o u r e d the O p t i m a l U s e P o s i t i o n , c o m m e n t e d that the nature o f the c o u r s e forced her to use a lot o f E n g l i s h . W i t h the schedule w e have [and] as m a n y chapters w e have to cover, ah the lecture i t s e l f is m o s t l y geared for g r a m m a r e x p l a n a t i o n . A n d that's about eighty per cent time. A n d the twenty per cent, I ' d l i k e to squeeze into activities: p a i r w o r k . So they can at least use Japanese to each other... . W i t h the schedule w e have, yes, it's v e r y difficult. Y e a h . N o matter h o w g o o d the t e x t b o o k is the students want some e x p l a n a t i o n w h y w e ' r e u s i n g this f o r m instead o f that form... . [So, I use] a lot o f E n g l i s h , unfortunately. ( M u r a k a m i , Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2002) O f these eight, one instructor m e n t i o n e d that she w o u l d prefer to have a Japaneseo n l y language p o l i c y at W C U .  Instructor Y o u n g , w h o has (and is the o n l y one to have) a  graduate degree i n t e a c h i n g J S L , c l a i m e d that, g i v e n the chance, she w o u l d c h o o s e the D i r e c t M e t h o d . H o w e v e r , since students' attitudes reflected the t h i n k i n g that, "We 're in  Canada anyways, so what's the use?" and " W h y d o w e have to speak all Japanese? W e ' r e i n C a n a d a . " (italics s h o w instructor emphasis), M s . Y o u n g had d e c i d e d to not use the D i r e c t M e t h o d at W C U even t h o u g h she thought (and w a s the o n l y one to t h i n k so) it w a s p o s s i b l e to teach the intermediate J F L classes all i n Japanese.  62  M o r e o v e r , instructor M u r a k a m i e x p l a i n e d that the D i r e c t M e t h o d m i g h t have been p o s s i b l e i f the n u m b e r o f students w e r e decreased to an ideal n u m b e r o f t w e l v e because w i t h a class o f thirty, it w o u l d be difficult to interact w i t h each i n d i v i d u a l student to ensure that the entire class understood the language lesson. N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n her o p i n i o n , w i t h the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the classes as they w e r e and w i t h the majority o f the students c o m i n g f r o m A s i a , the D i r e c t M e t h o d m i g h t not have been s u c h a g o o d i d e a since her e x p e r i e n c e t o l d her that A s i a n students seemed to be afraid to raise their hands to ask for help w h e n they d i d not understand. F o r b o t h these instructors, the t e a c h i n g o f g r a m m a r seemed the most c h a l l e n g i n g aspect o f teaching i n Japanese.  Table 4.6 Instructor Inoue  Perceived Use of TL and English by Instructors for Intermediate JFL Classes Role focal instructor  Japanese  English  (%)  (%)  Apparent Philosophy On LI Use  80  20  Optimal Use  9  Yabuno  focal instructor  60  40  Optimal Use  Murakami  other instructor  20  80  Maximal Use  Chen  other instructor  60  40  Optimal U s e  Young  other instructor  60  40  Maximal Use  Kitamura  other instructor  70  30  Optimal Use  Sasaki  other instructor  60  40  Optimal Use  Tanaka  other instructor  80  20  Maximal Use  70  30  58 61  42 39  Average of two focal instructors Average of other instructors Average of all instructors  O v e r a l l , a m o n g these instructors the d e c i s i o n to use Japanese o r E n g l i s h seemed to be m o s t l y affected b y w h a t w a s b e i n g c o m m u n i c a t e d to the students and, therefore, the p r e v a i l i n g reason for resorting to E n g l i s h had to do w i t h (1) concerns about the  This represents what I felt was their preferred personal philospohy on LI use as interpreted from their interviews. Although Ms. Murakami and Ms. Young seemed to support the Maximal Use Position, in the context of teaching JFL at WCU, they felt that the most effective approach was the Optimal Use Position (despite the fact the Ms. Murakami's self-reported use of the TL was only 20%) 9  63  effectiveness o f the lesson i n terms o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n b y students ( e s p e c i a l l y o f g r a m m a t i c a l concepts) and (2) the restrictive t i m e allocated to the course. (See S e c t i o n 4.4.1.) A s M s . C h e n e x p l a i n e d , her use o f E n g l i s h w a s i n f l u e n c e d b y : t i m e constraints, that's a practical reason, and in order to teach f o r m . A h , it's u s e f u l . . . . It's actually m o r e efficient and effective [to use] E n g l i s h to teach l i k e g r a m m a r . . . [and I] need to e x p l a i n . . . m o r e c o m p l e x structures: relative clauses, subordinate clauses, and so o n . Student[s] w i l l understand v e r y easily, and q u i c k l y i f y o u can e x p l a i n to t h e m i n E n g l i s h and then [we can] m o v e o n to do some activities i n Japanese. S o i t ' s not w o r t h w a s t i n g , y o u k n o w , . . . too m u c h t i m e i n e x p l a i n i n g g r a m m a r o r t r y i n g t o use the target language [to teach it]. (Interview, D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) S i m i l a r l y , M s . Y o u n g c o m m e n t e d that I s p e c i f i c a l l y w a n t [to use] . . . E n g l i s h i n g i v i n g important g r a m m a r points, yeah, because w h e n I use e v e r y t h i n g i n Japanese there's this tendency [for students] to misunderstand what I ' m s a y i n g , e s p e c i a l l y [ w i t h respect to] language, y o u k n o w , so b a s i c a l l y that's the o n l y t h i n g [that] I w a n t to use E n g l i s h . O t h e r than that I want to use  everything i n Japanese. (Interview,  November, 2002) L a t e r i n the chapter, reasons b e h i n d instructors' language c h o i c e and use w i l l be e x a m i n e d i n further detail in order to p r o v i d e a more t h o r o u g h understanding o f the m u l t i f a c e t e d nature o f language use in the J F L c l a s s r o o m . 4.3.2  Focal Instructors' Perceptions M s . Inoue p e r c e i v e d her L 1 - L 2 balance to be 8 0 % Japanese and 2 0 % E n g l i s h .  T h i s is a l m o s t identical to the results from the c l a s s r o o m lectures that revealed that M s . Inoue d i d a c t u a l l y use 8 1 % Japanese and 1 5 % E n g l i s h . A s for M s . Y a b u n o , she thought she w a s u s i n g 6 0 % Japanese and 4 0 % E n g l i s h w h e n in fact she used about 7 9 % Japanese and 1 6 % E n g l i s h . T h e d i s c r e p a n c y between what teachers t h i n k they are d o i n g versus what is a c t u a l l y o c c u r r i n g in the c l a s s r o o m is representative o f w h a t other studies have reported (e.g., L i u et a l . , 2 0 0 4 ) . H o w e v e r , instead o f o v e r - e s t i m a t i n g the use o f the T L as  64  in m o s t studies, the teachers i n the present study under-estimated their use o f the T L . A s m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , m a n y factors m a y account for the h i g h percentage o f T L use. T h e most o b v i o u s i n f l u e n c e o f an increase i n T L ratio w o u l d be the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f Japanese utterances read and repeated directly f r o m textbook, handouts, o r overhead transparencies. S i n c e most o f the intermediate-level instructors admitted to u s i n g a lot m o r e E n g l i s h at the b e g i n n e r level, it w o u l d o n l y be natural for some E n g l i s h to still be part o f the J F L l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t and this is reflected in the c o m m e n t s made b y b o t h focal instructors. A t the pre-semester informal m e e t i n g between intermediate l e v e l J F L teachers, the teachers discussed the issue o f T L and E n g l i s h use. T h i s p r o b a b l y b e c a m e an issue because, as m a n y teachers mentioned i n their interviews, a h i g h ratio o f E n g l i s h w a s b e i n g used to teach Japanese at the beginner level.  T h e o v e r a l l consensus w a s that  they w o u l d m a k e a c o m m i t m e n t to use as m u c h T L as possible. T h i s i m p l i e s that there w o u l d be some use o f E n g l i s h , although preference w o u l d be g i v e n to the use o f T L i n most cases as w a s suggested at this informal pre-semester meeting. A s M s . Y a b u n o explained: w h e n I e x p l a i n g r a m m a r o r some c o m p l i c a t e d things [at the intermediate level] ah the students have to understand; then, I use E n g l i s h so that they will  understand  for  sure.  A n d , also  some  announcements],  i f it's  c o m p l i c a t e d then it has to be read i n E n g l i s h . . . . W h e n t i m e is pressing, I have to s w i t c h to E n g l i s h so that t h e y ' l l just understand w h e n I say s o m e t h i n g j u s t once. (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) S i n c e b o t h teachers a c k n o w l e d g e d the use o f E n g l i s h i n their J F L classes, it w a s interesting to learn that the actual ratio o f languages used i n the class d i d not greatly differ f r o m the self-reported L 1 / L 2 ratio in both M s . I n o u e ' s and M s . Y a b u n o ' s classes.  65  4.3.3  Perceptions of Focal Instructors'  Students  F o r the t w o classes i n w h i c h data w e r e specifically c o l l e c t e d , the students o f the t w o focal instructors w h o volunteered to be i n t e r v i e w e d also c o m m e n t e d o n their o w n p e r c e p t i o n o f the balance o f E n g l i s h and Japanese used i n their classes. T h e range o f p e r c e i v e d Japanese and E n g l i s h language use for M s . Inoue was from 5 - 5 0 % and 5 0 - 9 2 % , respectively. T h e averages a m o n g these eight students w e r e 3 0 % for E n g l i s h , and 7 0 % for Japanese use.  T h e responses f r o m the 13 students i n t e r v i e w e d f r o m M s . Y a b u n o ' s  class ranged from 1 5 - 3 0 % for E n g l i s h language use and 7 0 - 8 5 % for Japanese language use. T h e averages are 2 8 % for E n g l i s h and 7 2 % for Japanese use. T h e total average for students o f b o t h classes is E n g l i s h ( 2 9 % ) and Japanese ( 7 1 % ) . T h e students i n M s . Inoue's class, o n average, p e r c e i v e d the Japanese ratio to be 1 0 % less than what w a s reported b y M s . Inoue: M s Inoue p e r c e i v e d her Japanese use w a s 8 0 % w h i l e her students thought it w a s closer to 7 0 % . H o w e v e r , the students i n M s . Y a b u n o ' s class p e r c e i v e d the Japanese ratio to be 10% m o r e than what their teacher thought. Interestingly, students i n both classes p e r c e i v e d the ratio to be quite s i m i l a r , despite b e i n g taught b y different teachers w h o , i n d i v i d u a l l y , reported either 1 0 % less or 1 0 % m o r e than w h a t their students c l a i m e d . M o s t students made p o s i t i v e c o m m e n t s  1 0  w h e n asked to c o m m e n t and reflect o n  the balance o f language use b y their instructors. S o m e e x a m p l e s i n c l u d e : Brad:  " T w e n t y [%] E n g l i s h , w h i c h I think is fine. I t h i n k it help me.  It  i m p r o v e m y l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s because she said she speaks a lot o f Japanese. Y e a h , so I think it h e l p s . "  Many students were not native English speakers and their English has not been edited for grammaticality below and elsewhere in the thesis. 1 0  66  Diana:  " I w o u l d say, w e l l , she speaks a lot o f Japanese but at the same t i m e she k n o w s w h e n to l i k e e x p l a i n things in E n g l i s h . " "It w o u l d be better i f + i f u m she c o u l d i f there w e r e m o r e time, o k a y , for the class a n d it w o u l d be better i f she speaks m o r e Japanese.  Justin:  " I ' d say i t ' s (the ratio) p r o b a b l y about right for me. . . . She k n o w s , y o u k n o w , sort o f w h e r e to g o w i t h it. A n d I can see that a lot o f p e o p l e i n the class have no p r o b l e m . T h e y f o l l o w her most o f the times. . . . A lot o f t h e m can answer her questions, y o u k n o w . "  Table 4.7  Perceived Use of TL and English of Instructors by Students  Instructor: Ms. Yabuno Student Name Japanese Language Use (%) Gabriella Diana Justin Phil Sean Isabella Kelly Miho Kwan Alexis Darren Veronica Krista  AVERAGE  15  70  30  65  35  70  30  75  25  80  20  80  20  70  30  70  30  71  29  60  40  80  20  60  40  72  28  Instructor: Ms. Inoue Student Name Japanese Language Use (%) Brad Cassie Johnny Anna Michelle Todd Yuan Wendi  AVERAGE  English Language Use (%)  85  English Language Use (%)  80  20  70  30  70  30  75  25  95  5  50  50  60  40  60  40  70  30  Combined Average for Both Instructors Japanese Language Use (%) AVERAGE 71  67  English Language Use (%) 29  Isabella: " I  think she tries to speak m o r e Japanese as m u c h as p o s s i b l e unless w e  d o n ' t understand."  " I ' m fine [ w i t h this b a l a n c e ] . "  O f the 21 students w h o w e r e i n t e r v i e w e d , o n l y one student had s o m e t h i n g negative to say:  Phil:  " I w i s h she c o u l d speak m o r e E n g l i s h so w e can understand better. S o m e t i m e she speakfs] a lot; too fast. I really have a hard t i m e . "  F r o m the student responses, the balance o f Japanese and E n g l i s h used b y M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o seems to be satisfactory and although the ratio o f the languages still seemed t o be at a c h a l l e n g i n g l e v e l , students d i d not appear to be d i s c o u r a g e d b y this. T h e instructors w e r e able to respond to student needs by adjusting the amount o f T L use w h e n students felt u n c o m f o r t a b l e or c o u l d not understand.  Other intermediate-level J F L  instructors w h o w e r e u s i n g m u c h l o w e r levels o f the T L or d i d not want to o r c o u l d not use h i g h l e v e l s o f the T L m i g h t find these student c o m m e n t s e n c o u r a g i n g . O n the other hand, P h i l ' s c o m m e n t revealed that teachers w e r e perhaps not m o d i f y i n g their T L use sufficiently t o facilitate students' c o m p r e h e n s i o n and that is an area that deserves m o r e attention as w e l l .  4.4  Ratio of Japanese, English and Use of Other Languages by Students T h i s section w i l l c o v e r R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n #1 c: W h a t is the relative ratio o f  Japanese, E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e use b y students i n J F L c l a s s r o o m s ? A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, W C U ' s Japanese p r o g r a m had no official language use p o l i c y . T h e teachers w e r e able t o interpret and i m p l e m e n t their unofficial d e c i s i o n to use "as m u c h Japanese as p o s s i b l e . " T h i s attitude w a s also evident i n the language use by students, as they w e r e never e x p l i c i t l y t o l d to use Japanese o n l y o r to a v o i d u s i n g E n g l i s h or any other first, second or t h i r d languages such as M a n d a r i n , C a n t o n e s e or K o r e a n . D u r i n g m y t w o - m o n t h  68  c l a s s r o o m observations, I never heard the instructor force o r even encourage students to use the T L although it w a s an i m p l i e d expectation w h e n the task i n v o l v e d direct practice o f the T L , e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g oral practice tasks. Since oral tasks tended to be short (between 2 to 7 minutes) and structured (e.g., u s i n g the t e x t b o o k o r handout as a guide), students w e r e able to stay on-task b y u s i n g the T L the majority o f the time. H o w e v e r , tasks i n v o l v i n g w r i t i n g , i n particular c o m p o s i t i o n - w r i t i n g tasks, i n v o l v e d an increase i n language use other than the T L . T h e data reveals that the ratio o f language used d u r i n g pair w o r k tasks w e r e as f o l l o w s : Japanese ( 4 2 % ) , L I ( E n g l i s h o r C h i n e s e ) ( 5 0 % ) , and m i x e d (a c o m b i n a t i o n o f E n g l i s h , Japanese and/or C h i n e s e ) ( 7 % ) . H o w e v e r , d u r i n g o r a l tasks, the T L ratio w a s clearly higher: Japanese ( 7 0 % ) , L I ( 2 8 % ) , and m i x e d ( 2 % ) . T h e data support the o b s e r v a t i o n that w r i t i n g tasks increased the amount o f c o l l a b o r a t i v e d i a l o g u e i n v o l v i n g L I and m i x e d utterances w h i l e decreasing the a m o u n t o f T L use, whereas oral tasks had the opposite effect. H e r e are t w o t y p i c a l e x a m p l e s excerpts o f student p a i r w o r k tasks. T h e task for E x c e r p t 4.1 i n v o l v e d w r i t i n g a reflective c o m p o s i t i o n after c o n d u c t i n g i n t e r v i e w s w i t h Japanese international e x c h a n g e students. T h e task for E x c e r p t 4.2 w a s to practice the function o f p r a i s i n g w h i l e h a v i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n about f a m i l y members. Translations f o l l o w utterances i n c u r l y brackets. T h e native languages o f the students are p r o v i d e d at the end o f excerpt titles.  Excerpt 4.1  Interview reflection composition task (Miho: HLL, Sheri: Chinese)  1.  Sheri:  W e have to w r i t e l i k e three paragraphs,  ((laughs))  2.  Miho:  W e c a n w r i t e this class is everyday o r something. W e can j u s t w r i t e ++. ((laughs))  3.  Sheri:  I d o n ' t k n o w . I think she said about l i k e she t a k i n g s o m e t h i n g about cultural + l i k e the o n l y class that's a l l i n E n g l i s h is cultural=  69  4.  Miho:  = O h yeah, i t ' s u m + i t ' s A r t s I think i t ' s c a l l e d A r t s Studies but i t ' s l i k e u m + A s i a i t ' s l i k e + i t ' s l i k e C a n a d i a n A s i a n + I t h i n k c u l t u r a l I t h i n k +.  5.  Sheri:  Is it business and + ( x x x ) .  6.  Miho:  O k a y . U m + ((laughs u n c o m f o r t a b l y ) ) U m . ( ( m u m b l e s something))  7.  Sheri:  8.  Miho:  (xx). H o w about l i k e the hardest class she is t a k i n g is + that because it i s a l l i n E n g l i s h ? D o e s that m a k e l i k e =  9.  Sheri:  ((laughs)) K i n d o f l i k e I w r o t e k i n d o f l i k e i n a n o t h e r + + .  10. M i h o :  T h a t ' s okay. It means the same t h i n g , right?  11. Sheri:  ( ( m u m b l e s as she reads what they have w r i t t e n thus far)) +++  12. M i h o :  O k a y , yeah so. Y e a h so w e can w r i t e l i k e  Kanako-san no ichiban  muzukashii ka-, kamoku is l i k e course? { K a n a k o ' s m o s t difficult sub-, 13. Sheri:  'kamoku' is like ' c o u r s e ' ? ] U m , subject.  14. M i h o :  Subject.  Kamoku wa. {Subject is} + I think i t ' s c a l l e d y e a h u m d i d she  say what i t ' s c a l l e d ? I t h i n k i t ' s A r t Studies. 15. M i h o : 16. Sheri:  She said s o m e t h i n g cultural. Yeah. ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 2 )  Excerpt 4.2  Role-play: Talk about weekend and practice using aizuchi (Isabella: Korean; Gabriella: Cantonese)  1. Isabella:  [ O k a y , ((laughs)) A h + senshuu no doyoubi ni watashi wa tomodachi to ah KFC ni + it-te hirugohan wo tabe-ta ato de kankoku no eiga wo mimashita. {Ah + this past S a t u r d a y , I with my friends a h w e we-nt to a h K F C a n d after w e a-te lunch w e w a t c h e d a K o r e a n movie.}  2. G a b r i e l l a : O h , sou desu ka. { O h , is that s o ? } 3.  Isabella:  Hal Eiga wa tottemo ah + omoshirokatta desu. { Y u p . T h e m o v i e w a s v e r y a h + it w a s very entertaining.}  70  4.  G a b r i e l l a : +++ Sou  desu ka. ((both laugh)) {Is that, right?}  5.  Isabella:  6.  G a b r i e l l a : +++ O h .  7.  Isabella:  A h + nichiyoubi ni wa + tomodachi ni ((particle c h o i c e error; s h o u l d be to)) TWUni itte shukudai wo shimashita. { A h + o n S u n d a y + friend ((dative marker)) w e n t to T W U a n d did h o m e w o r k . ]  Sou nan desu ka. {Oh. Is that so?}  Tomodachi ga atarashii hito wo watashi ni shoukai wo shite kuremashita. {My friend i n t r o d u c e d a n e w p e r s o n to me.}  8.  Gabriella:  Sou desu ka. {Is that right?}  9.  Isabella:  + A h ++ A h + ( x x x ) . Atode + tomodachi to karaoke ni itte + ah + uchi ni ++ ah uchi ni += {After that + I w e n t to k a r a o k e with my friends + a h + h o m e ++ a h h o m e ((dative marker))+=}  10. G a b r i e l l a : =Sore wayokkata desu ((rising intonation)). {=That w a s great.} ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 )  A s evident f r o m these t y p i c a l excerpts, c o m p o s i t i o n w r i t i n g tasks i n v o l v e d m o r e negotiation o f the content and the language structures and, therefore, resulted i n m o r e use o f E n g l i s h , whereas the oral conversation tasks i n v o l v e d m o r e interaction i n the T L and less negotiation o f content and language w a s necessary because students u s u a l l y used a m o d e l text to guide t h e m t h r o u g h these type o f tasks.  In the both J F L classes, the teacher d i d not discourage the use o f other languages by students, and students used other languages w i t h o u t m u c h hesitation. B o t h M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o k n e w that their students were u s i n g other languages, such as E n g l i s h , M a n d a r i n , C a n t o n e s e and K o r e a n . M s . I n o u e ' s c o m m e n t reflects o f the teachers' attitude t o w a r d s students' L I , L 2 and, even, L 3 use:  I d o n ' t m i n d t h e y ' r e s p e a k i n g whatever languages they l i k e , i n C h i n e s e , o r E n g l i s h , o f course, Japanese, I d o n ' t m i n d , and I k i n d a notice that . . . some stronger students prefer o r tend to speak o r t r y to speak Japanese, but  71  p r o b a b l y other students d o n ' t really w a n t to speak i n Japanese because t h e y ' r e not really confident and o r they d o n ' t k n o w h o w to express so they tend to speak b a c k i n E n g l i s h [ @ ] o r C h i n e s e . . . . I d o n ' t m i n d . ... F o r smaller g r o u p w o r k s , the most important t h i n g is a n y w a y they share their o p i n i o n and they brainstorm. (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 )  4.4.1  Classroom Lectures D u r i n g c l a s s r o o m lectures, w h i c h w e r e teacher-fronted, there w a s v e r y little  student-teacher interaction. Student-talk c o m p r i s e d o n l y 1 2 . 6 % o f all utterances o v e r the four sessions i n w h i c h data w a s a n a l y z e d , w h i l e teacher-talk d o m i n a t e d : 8 7 . 4 % . T h e majority o f the student-talk consisted o f Japanese use ( 7 3 . 7 % ) w i t h s o m e E n g l i s h use ( 2 5 . 8 % ) . In a d d i t i o n , almost no use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the lecture sessions.  Table 4.8  Language Use by Students during Classroom Lectures (All Four Sessions)  T o t a l # o f utterances b y students (total for session « = 5 6 0 2 ) A v e r a g e n u m b e r o f w o r d s per  Japanese  English  Mixed  520 (9.3%)  182 (3.2%)  4 (0.0%)  8.9  4.1  8.3  73.7%  25.8%  0.6%  9.3%  3.2%  0.0%  utterance ratio o f utterances b y students as percentage ratio o f utterances b y students as percentage o f total  4.4.1.1 Japanese Language Use A l t h o u g h there seemed to be a h i g h ratio o f Japanese language use b y the students, m u c h o f this d i d not i n v o l v e any creative u s e  11  o f the language. T h e Japanese uttered b y  students consisted m a i n l y o f repetition o f teacher utterances (see E x c e r p t 4.3), r e s p o n d i n g  '' "Creative language use involves the recombination of familiar elements (words, structures, and prefabricated patterns) in new ways to produce utterances that have never been produced before by that particular individual (for that individual. They are therefore unique)." O^unan, 1999, p. 77) 72  to teacher l e d question-and-answer tasks (see E x c e r p t 4.4), and referring to i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t l y f r o m the textbook, handouts (e.g., re-enactment o f a r o l e - p l a y scenario) (see E x c e r p t 4.5) and kanji flashcards (see E x c e r p t 4.6). F u r t h e r m o r e , the majority o f studenttalk w a s i n i t i a t e d b y the teacher and, therefore, the language c h o i c e for responses w a s i n large part under the c o n t r o l o f the instructor. A s M s . Y a b u n o points out, " I t h i n k w h e n I w a n t m y students t o t a l k b a c k i n Japanese I t h i n k I s h o u l d t a l k t o t h e m i n Japanese. I t ' s m o r e natural. I f I ask them i n E n g l i s h and i f I expect them to speak b a c k i n Japanese i t ' s k i n d o f strange" (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) . A s a result, since the instructors used the T L about 8 0 % o f the t i m e d u r i n g the lectures, it is not surprising that student utterances w o u l d also result i n h i g h frequencies o f Japanese.  E x c e r p t 4.3  R e p e t i t i o n of teacher  utterances  1. Y a b u n o :  'Totemo', desu ne. Hanasu toki ni wa emphasis ne. "Tottemo kawaii wa" 'Tottemo' tte iimasune. Kaku tokiwa 'totemo'. + Chotto iimashyou ka. Hanashi kotoba arimasu ka kara ne. Saisho kaki kotoba no hou itte kudasai. Motte iru. {It's 'totemo' isn't it? W h e n o n e talks, it's (for) e m p h a s i s , o k a y . "Very cute!" W e s a y 'tottemo', right? W h e n w e write, it's 'totemo'. + W h y don't w e s a y it? A r e there s p e e c h w o r d s - there a r e o k a y . w o r d s . 'Motte iru'.}  A t first, p l e a s e s a y the written  2.  Students:  Motte iru. {To h a v e ( ( s p e e c h style)).}  3.  Yabuno:  Motte ru. {To h a v e ((written style)).}  4.  Students:  Motte ru. {To h a v e ((written style)).}  5.  Yabuno:  Kore wa ii desu ne. Chotto wa chotto desu ne. Nimai arimasu keredomo. {This is g o o d . 'Chotto' is 'chotto', isn't it? 'Nimai arimasu keredomo')  6.  Students:  Nimai arimasu keredomo. { H o w e v e r ((written style)), there a r e t w o sheets.}  7.  Yabuno:  Nimai arimasu ga. { H o w e v e r ( ( s p e e c h style)), there are two sheets.}  73  8.  Students:  Nimai arimasu ga. sheets.}  { H o w e v e r ( ( s p e e c h style)), there a r e two  9.  Yabuno:  Nimai arimasu kedo. { H o w e v e r ( ( s p e e c h style)), there are two sheets.}  10. Students:  Nimai arimasu kedo. { H o w e v e r ( ( s p e e c h style)), there are two sheets.}  11. Y a b u n o :  Ee, 'ne'waii desune. Nani wo shite irassharu no. { U m , 'ne' is fine, isn't it? ' N a n i w o shite irrasharu no".}  12. Students:  Nani wo shite irassharu no. {What are y o u d o i n g ((written style; honorific form))?} ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , Y a b u n o , N o v e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 )  E x c e r p t 4.4  1. Inoue:  R e s p o n d i n g to t e a c h e r l e d Q u e s t i o n - a n d - A n s w e r t a s k  Ja, kazoku nan desu keredomo, Jaison no kazoku dare ga imasu ka. Otoo-san, okaa-san= {Okay, a b o u t their family, w h o ' s part of J a s o n ' s family?=}  2. Students: =Onii-san. {=Older brother.} 3.  Inoue:  Onii-san. { O l d e r brother.}  4.  Students:  Imouto. { Y o u n g e r sister.}  5.  Inoue:  Imouto-san + desu ne. Sore to Jaison. Dakara, gonin kazoku desu ne. Jaa, m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n Sukoshizut.su diiteeru kikimasu keredomo. Otoo-san wa donna hito desu ka. { Y o u n g e r sister, + right? A n d J a s o n . A n d so, it's a family of five, isn't it? O k a y , m o r e information. I'm g o i n g to a s k y o u details little by little. W h a t kind of p e r s o n is his father?}  6.  Yuan:  Se ga takai. {Tall.}  7.  Inoue:  Se ga takai? Hai. Hoka ni wa. { T a l l ? O k a y . W h a t e l s e ? }  8.  Ron:  Daigaku= {University=}  9.  Inoue:  =Daigaku + de [oshiete iru. { = T e a c h e s [at + a university.}  10. R o n :  [Oshiete imasu. {[is t e a c h i n g at.}  74  11. Inoue:  Un, daigaku  de oshiete imasu ne. Nani wo oshiete ru n desu ka.  {Mhm,  is teaching at a university, right? What is (he) teaching?} 12. Students: Amerikashi. 13. Inoue:  {U.S. history.}  Amerika no rekishi. Amerikashi desu ne. {U.S. history. The history of the United States. American history, right?}  Amerikashi.  ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , Inoue, N o v e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 )  Excerpt 4.5  Referring to information from a 'Responding to Praise' handout  1. Y a b u n o :  Aa, kawaii ojyou-san  2.  lie, tomdemonai.  {No way!}  Ma, sugoi kooto.  Takakatta  Students:  3. Y a b u n o :  no koto.  {Oh, what a cutie ((i.e., to a girl))!}  deshou.  {Wow, what a fabulous coat!  Expensive, wasn't it?} 4.  Students:  lie, honno yasui mono yo ho ho ho. ((laughs))  {No, it's quite a  cheap thing, you know, ha ha ha.} 5.  Yabuno:  Ho ho ho te (x). ((Students laugh)) Kore ano otoko no hito wa tsukawanai  desu yo ne. (xx) dakara ne. Onna no hito no  desu ne. Hal + E ga ojyouzu desu ne.  speechi  {'Ho ho ho'is (x). This um  men don't use (this), do they? It's because of (xx), right? It's female speech, isn't it? Okay. + (You're) such a good painter!} {No, not really.}  6.  Students:  lie, sore hodo demo:  7.  Yabuno:  Sore hodo demo.  {Not really.}  8.  Students:  Sore hodo demo.  {Not really.}  9.  Yabuno:  / / oheya desu ne.  {What a nice place!}  10. Students:  lie, tonde mo arimasen.  {No, no way!}  11. Y a b u n o :  Tonde mo arimasen.  {Noway!}  12. Students:  Tonde mo arimasen.  {No way!} ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , Y a b u n o , N o v e m b e r 4, 2002)  75  E x c e r p t 4.6  R e f e r r i n g to I n f o r m a t i o n f r o m Kanji F l a s h c a r d s  1.  T.A.:  Kore wa nan deshou. {What is this?}  2.  Students:  Soudan. {Consult.}  3.  T.A.:  Imiwa. {Definition?}  4.  Randy:  Consult.  5.  Lana:  Consult.  6.  T.A.:  Sou desu ne. + De, chotto + kyou jikan ga nai n de eeto hyaku ni peeji wo akete kudasai. De, eeto itsumo douri issho ni yomimashou. Konkai wa juurokuhan made. Jimuin. {That's right. Consult.  + A n d , + w e don't really h a v e time t o d a y a n d s o p l e a s e o p e n to p a g e 102. O k a y , let's r e a d together like a l w a y s . T h i s time (we'll do) until #16. Office.} 7.  Students:  Jimuin. {Office.}  8.  T.A.:  Tate mono. {Building.}  9.  Students:  Tate mono. {Building.}  10.  T.A.:  Genkan. {Foyer.}  11. 12. 13.  Students: T.A.: Students:  Genkan. {Foyer.}  Hah garni. {Poster.} Hah garni. {Poster.} ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , Inoue, N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 2 )  T h e s e excerpts e x e m p l i f y the three k e y points. F i r s t , they s h o w h o w the teacher d o m i n a t e s the interaction and h o w her questions lead the students to answer i n Japanese. A l t h o u g h the students c o u l d answer i n E n g l i s h , it w o u l d seem inappropriate and unnatural; there is an i m p l i e d expectation that the students w i l l respond i n Japanese and that they are b e i n g s o c i a l i z e d into such practices. S e c o n d l y , the responses e l i c i t e d b y the teacher do not require the student to use Japanese creatively.  76  T h e y s i m p l y need to access  the required Japanese w o r d s and phrases and reproduce o r repeat this i n f o r m a t i o n for the instructor.  W h e n students attempt to m a k e any creative use o f Japanese, the utterances  tend to be short and the exchanges do not last m o r e than a few lines. E x c e r p t 4.7 presents one e x a m p l e .  It i n v o l v e s T o d d , w h o s e past experience w i t h Japanese i n c l u d e s w o r k i n g a  c o u p l e o f years i n Japan.  T o d d ' s answers are atypical ( L i n e s 2, 4 and 10) because o f  their creativity or u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y (double underlines w e r e added to e m p h a s i z e the areas o f creative use o f language) yet the content o f the responses all i n v o l v e items learned at an intermediate l e v e l and resembles genuine, meaningful c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  'x' ni nite iru ('to r e s e m b l e ' x " )  E x c e r p t 4.7  G r a m m a r lesson:  1.  Ja, Todd-san wa + onii-san ga iru n desu tie, iru n desu tte. { T h e n ,  Inoue:  T o d d + (you) s a i d y o u ' v e a n older brother, (you) s a i d y o u h a v e (one)?} 2.  Todd:  Onii-san to- aniki to otouto. { A n older brother a n d , o l d e r brother a n d a y o u n g e r brother.}  3.  Inoue:  Ja, Todd-san wa onii-san ni nite imasu ka. { A n d so, T o d d , d o y o u r e s e m b l e your o l d e r brother?}  4.  Todd:  Zenzen nite imasen. {I don't r e s e m b l e (him), not at all.}  5.  Inoue:  Zenzen nite imasen. Sou desu ka. Ja, otouto-san wa Todd-san ni nite imasu ka. {Don't r e s e m b l e at all. Is that, right? S o , d o e s y o u r y o u n g e r brother r e s e m b l e y o u , T o d d ? }  6.  Todd:  (x).  7.  Inoue:  Docchi ni mo nite imasen. Sou desu ka. Yokkata desu ka. ((laughs)) { D o e s n ' t r e s e m b l e either. Is that s o . T h a t ' s g o o d , is it?}  8. T o d d :  Aaaa. {Oh!}  9.  Aaaa. {Oh!.}  Inoue:  10. T o d d :  Betsu ni. {Not particularly.}  77  11. Inoue:  A, betsu ni "Betsu nf.}  a ii desu ne. Betsu ni. { O h , "betsu nf'\ o h that's g o o d .  ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 )  T h i r d l y , opportunities for genuine student-teacher interaction are v e r y l i m i t e d .  Students  s e l d o m are initiators o f interactions and teachers appear to leave little r o o m for studentinitiated d i s c u s s i o n s o r questions. F o r the most part, student p a r t i c i p a t i o n is restricted to r e s p o n d i n g to requests made and c o m m a n d s g i v e n b y their instructors. Therefore, this, again, l i m i t s the amount o f Japanese and E n g l i s h students c o u l d have p o t e n t i a l l y accessed or used d u r i n g the lectures. O v e r a l l , student-talk, as revealed b y the data, w a s characterized b y 1) a h i g h ratio o f T L use; 2) non-creative talk; and, 3) m i n i m a l studentinitiated interaction.  4.4.1.2 E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e U s e W i t h respect to E n g l i s h language use, the data from the c l a s s r o o m lecture s h o w that the students' use o f E n g l i s h w a s also to a great extent determined b y the teacher.  For  e x a m p l e , students tended to use E n g l i s h to reply to requests for translations and w h e n instructors posed questions i n E n g l i s h . T h e f o l l o w i n g t w o excerpts help illustrate this point. T h e first excerpt is f r o m M s . Y a b u n o ' s N o v e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 class ( u n d e r l i n i n g w a s added to d r a w attention to k e y sections). D u r i n g this part o f the lecture, the instructor w a s r e v i e w i n g parts o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n text from the textbook u s i n g an overhead transparency and a s k i n g for translation o f certain t e r m i n o l o g y .  E x c e r p t 4.8  G r a m m a r l e s s o n : bestu ni 'x' not ( ' n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y ' )  1. Y a b u n o :  Sou desu yo ne. {That's right, isn't it?} ((laughs)) Negatibu desu yone. {It's negative, right?} ((Ss laugh)) Kono goro { A r o u n d now} w i t h o u t this + "betsu ni" ga N o t right.  nakattara {if there w a s no 'betsu ni'} i t ' s not there + reason  78  ne. It's not special reason. + Desuyo ne. {Right?} 'Betsu ni' Translation \ ^  request  + has a m e a n i n g o f nani? (what?}  /  English \ 2 . Students:  N o t particularly.  translation  3. Y a b u n o :  arimasen desu ne. De wa, kondo wa mou ichido teepu wo kikimasu. Kondo wa hanashi no naiyou + hanashi no naiyou kangaenagara teepu wo kiite kudasai. Naivou tie  Translation  request  wakaru. {It is not particularly u n u s u a l . ++ A n d this is + u s e d with negative. It's not particularly u n u s u a l , is it? ++ T h a t ' s g o o d , o k a y ? U n u s u a l , it a n /-adjective. It's not particularly unusual, is it? T h e n , next (we're) will listen to the t a p e o n c e more. N o w , the content of the story + while thinking a b o u t the content of the story, listen to the t a p e please.} 4 . Students:  Translation  request  N o t particularly. Sou desu yone. {That's right, isn't it?} S o this is an adverb. B e t s u n i m e z u r a s h i k u arimasen. ++. De kore wa + used w i t h negative. Mezurashiku arimasen. ++. Ii desu ne. Mezurashii, i-adjective desu. Mezurashiku  \5.YabwiO:  English \ 6 . Sarah: translatio 7.Yabuno:  ((no response))  Naiyou. Nan desu ka. {Content. W h a t is it?} Content. Content.  Sou desu ne. {That's right, isn't it?} ( C l a s s r o o m lecture, N o v e m b e r 4, 2002)  In this next excerpt, the students respond to the instructor's request that is m a d e i n English. E x c e r p t 4.9  1.  Lesson: Chapter 5  Yabuno:  Kaiwa  #1  Nihyakuhachi gou shitsu desu yo. Genkan no doaa no soba ni hari garni ga shiteatta deshou. { R o o m 2 0 8 , right? T h e r e w a s a p o s t e r n e a r the e n t r a n c e , w a s n ' t t h e e ? } D i d y o u notice that she ((i.e., o n cassette tape)) u s e d r i s i n g  English question  intonation here? ++. Hari garni ga shiteatta deshou. {There w a s a poster, w a s n ' t there?} ++. T h i s r i s i n g intonation indicates? 2.  Students:  ++.  3.  Yabuno:  Shite atta deshou. { W a s there, w a s n ' t it?} 79  Intonation? Marie? Is it a i n f o r m a t i o n ? Information? W h a t k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n ? English \ 8 . answer 9.  Gabriella:  S o she's t e l l i n g her there's i n f o r m a t i o n ( x x ) .  Yabuno:  Mou chotto ookii hoe de itte kudasai. louder voice.}  English \ l u . G a b r i e l l a : answer English N y question English N^ answer  English answer  English answer  12  L  Yabuno:  { P l e a s e s a y it in a  S h e ' s t e l l i n g S u s a n that there's s o m e i n f o r m a t i o n that she can follow? txxx^ can follow. A a , then w h y d o n ' t just use hah garni %a shite arimasu  vo.  {There is a poster up.} G  a  b  r  i  e  l  l  a  :  M o r e polite?  13. Y a b u n o :  ( x x x ) . Dou desu ka. Atta deshou. there, w a s n ' t it?}  14. Students:  ++.  15. Y a b u n o :  Hah garni ga shite arimasuyo.  16. W i l l :  I wonder?  17. Y a b u n o :  Aa, naruhodo What else?}  18. K e r r i :  Isn't it?  19. Y a b u n o :  Sou desu ne. {That's right, isn't it?} T h i s is c o n f i r m a t i o n .  ne. Mm.  { H o w about it? W a s  {There is a poster up.}  Hokaniwa.  {Oh, okay. M m .  I i . T h e r e is a p o s t i n g , w a s n ' t it? ( C l a s s r o o m lecture, N o v e m b e r 12, 2 0 0 2 )  D u r i n g this part o f the lesson, M s . Y a b u n o asked the students to e x p l a i n w h y there was r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n at the end o f this sentence: Genkan  no doaa no soba ni hah garni ga  shite atta deshou { T h e r e w a s a poster near the entrance door, w a s n ' t there?}. S i n c e M s .  80  Y a b u n o asked the q u e s t i o n u s i n g E n g l i s h , it i n v i t e d students to r e s p o n d , m o s t naturally, i n E n g l i s h . A s G a b r i e l l a starts to guess i n E n g l i s h , it sets a n atmosphere for E n g l i s h language use. E v e n w h e n the instructor s w i t c h e d to u s i n g Japanese part w a y t h r o u g h this part o f the d i s c u s s i o n , the students c o n t i n u e d to answer i n E n g l i s h u n t i l this aspect o f the d i s c u s s i o n c a m e to a c l o s e . T h i s w a s also f o u n d to be true i n P o l i o a n d D u f f s (1994) study w h e r e teachers' use o f E n g l i s h set the stage for students to use E n g l i s h , too.  A t h i r d , c o m m o n w a y that students used E n g l i s h w a s d u r i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e tasks. In these situations, the instructor u s u a l l y began the interaction i n E n g l i s h because these discussions often i n v o l v e d m o r e c o m p l e x t e r m i n o l o g y a n d seemed to be v a l u e d as important interactions a n d , therefore, the instructors appeared to change their language use for effectiveness a n d e f f i c i e n c y .  In the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e i n M s . I n o u e ' s class, the  instructor is addressing the oral e x a m . A l t h o u g h M s . Inoue b e g a n addressing the t o p i c o f the oral e x a m i n Japanese, she q u i c k l y s w i t c h e d to E n g l i s h (see L i n e 1). T h i s set a precedent for E n g l i s h language use for this particular t o p i c .  E x c e r p t 4.10  1  O r a l exam announcement  Inoue:  H a i , chotto ii desu ka minasan. Ooraru eguzamu no + ororaru eguzamu no firstpaato wa I w i l l tell y o u . It's not j u s t y o u p i c k the t o p i c . I w i l l ask y o u to talk about, " O k a y , please talk about t h i s . " { O k a y , e v e r y o n e . T h e oral e x a m ' s + oral e x a m ' s first part I will tell you.}  2.  Students:  OH.  3.  Inoue:  O k a y , that's the first part. A n d then y o u say, based o n the i n f o r m a t i o n y o u got f r o m the ah i n t e r v i e w e e , o k a y ? A n d then the second part, is I ask y o u m o r e specific questions and then y o u answer.  4.  Lana:  ++.  A r e the t o p i c s s i m i l a r to the  sakubun/tesuto no topikku?  {topic of the composition/test?}  81  5.  Inoue:  A h , ah, ah I d o n ' t k n o w . ((Ss laugh)) I cannot say yes o r no.  Y o u can, y o u can have this paper, y o u can have this  sheet w i t h y o u . 6.  Lana:  Seriously?  7.  Inoue:  Mhm.  8.  Lana:  Oh, really?  9.  Inoue:  Yup.  10.  Lana:  (xxx) memorize (xx).  11.  Inoue:  N o . N o . N o . Sorry, no. I ' m sorry, no. Y o u cannot. Y o u cannot have this sheet [but y o u can take a l o o k at this + ' t i l the last minute, o k a y , entering the r o o m .  12.  Students:  [Aw.  13.  Inoue:  I w i l l ask other teachers again a n d then i f y o u ' r e a l l o w e d t o have this sheet I w i l l let y o u k n o w , o k a y ? S o y o u can this sheet but please study. D o not l o o k at the sheet w h e n y o u ' r e d o i n g the e x a m . + ' T i l the last m i n u t e y o u c a n have take a l o o k . ++.  ++.  ((laughs))  ( C l a s s r o o m lecture, N o v e m b e r 26, 2 0 0 2 )  T h e s e excerpts from the c l a s s r o o m lectures reveal that the instructor w a s a k e y factor w i t h respect to the type o f language uttered by the students. M o r e often than not, it w a s the teacher i n f l u e n c i n g the students' use o f E n g l i s h rather than v i c e versa. T h i s is p r o b a b l y so because both M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o are native speakers o f Japanese a n d feel m u c h m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e and natural s p e a k i n g Japanese rather than u s i n g E n g l i s h , a l t h o u g h w h e n they felt it w a s necessary (e.g., tasks that are m o r e l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d e m a n d i n g o r o f h i g h i m p o r t a n c e such as g r a m m a r lessons o r e x a m a n n o u n c e m e n t ) they code-switched.  82  In s u m m a r y , the data s h o w that students used Japanese w h e n the task i n v o l v e s repetition o f teacher utterances, a n s w e r i n g teacher led question and answer tasks, and referring to i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t l y f r o m textbook, handouts, and flashcards. M o r e o v e r , E n g l i s h w a s often used b y students d u r i n g requests for translations, a n s w e r i n g questions o r r e s p o n d i n g to d i s c u s s i o n started i n E n g l i s h b y the teacher, and for a d m i n i s t r a t i v e task related interactions.  4.4.2  Pairwork Tasks P a i r s selected for analysis w e r e chosen to represent a variety o f language pairs:  E n g l i s h native speakers (Justin & K r i s t a ) , heritage language learner & partner ( M i h o & v a r i o u s partners), K o r e a n native speaker & C h i n e s e native speaker (Isabella & v a r i o u s C h i n e s e native partners), M a n d a r i n native speakers ( P h i l & v a r i o u s partners; J o h n n y & A n n a ; B e l i n d a & Joanna), and Cantonese native speakers ( C y n t h i a & M a d e l e i n e ) .  Table 4.9  Pairwork Groupings Pairs  LI type  Justin or K r i s t a , and  E n g l i s h native speaker  their v a r i o u s partners  & n o n - E n g l i s h native  Total number of sessions recorded  Total number of minutes recorded  5  43  speaker M i h o & v a r i o u s partners  H e r i t a g e language speaker & non-heritage speaker  4  57  Isabella & v a r i o u s  K o r e a n native speaker  8  83  partners  & n o n - K o r e a n native 10  94  3  39  speaker P h i l & v a r i o u s partners  M a n d a r i n native  Johnny & A n n a  speakers  B e l i n d a & Joanna Cynthia & Madeleine  Cantonese native speakers  83  D a t a from the pair w o r k were o r i g i n a l l y transcribed v e r b a t i m u s i n g a w o r d p r o c e s s o r and the c o u n t i n g o f utterances was done in the same w a y as w i t h the c l a s s r o o m lecture transcripts except that the language categories increased to seven'to also i n c l u d e : C h i n e s e ( C ) , Japanese and C h i n e s e ( J & M ) , E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e ( E & C ) , and, Japanese, E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e ( J & E & C ) . A f t e r a l l the utterances w e r e categorized, the s u m for each language utterance was calculated for the i n d i v i d u a l dates, the i n d i v i d u a l p a i r groups, and for both pair g r o u p s and dates c o m b i n e d . T h i s resulted i n the ratio o f E n g l i s h , Japanese and other languages used b y the students.  T h e w o r d count for the pair w o r k  w a s the same as w i t h the c l a s s r o o m lecture transcripts.  Student-talk d u r i n g the p a i r w o r k tasks ( i n c l u d i n g g r o u p s o f t w o to five students) s h o w e d a drastic difference w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h the ratio o f language use d u r i n g the c l a s s r o o m lectures. Japanese use ( 7 3 . 7 % ) d u r i n g lectures consisted o f a large p o r t i o n o f all the utterances s p o k e n b y students.  H o w e v e r , this decreased d r a m a t i c a l l y d u r i n g the  p a i r w o r k sessions. O v e r a l l , Japanese use d r o p p e d to 4 7 % , whereas the ratio o f E n g l i s h ( 3 9 % ) and m i x e d ( 4 % ) utterances increased. S i m i l a r results w e r e found i n L e v i n e ' s ( 2 0 0 3 ) study w h e r e a questionnaire based study, based on student beliefs (and not actual observations), revealed that the T L was used less by students than instructors. T h i s w a s a l w a y s the case except for w h e n students interacted w i t h instructors; w h e n the interaction w a s between a student and their instructor, T L use increased. P a i r s i n w h i c h the c o m m o n L I was E n g l i s h used m o r e E n g l i s h ( 5 2 % ) than the T L ( 4 3 % ) . A s for C h i n e s e students w h o w e r e able to access b o t h E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e (e.g., M a n d a r i n o r Cantonese), these t w o languages c o m b i n e d were used o n average about 3 8 % o f the t i m e . Students w h o had access to C h i n e s e used v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s o f m i x e d  84  utterances o f C h i n e s e (Japanese and C h i n e s e ; E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e ; a n d Japanese, E n g l i s h and C h i n e s e ) m o r e than m i x e d utterances o f Japanese a n d E n g l i s h . O v e r a l l , pairs w h o shared C h i n e s e as a c o m m o n language used m o r e c o d e - s w i t c h i n g (8%) than those w h o o n l y shared E n g l i s h ( 5 % ) . T h e f o l l o w i n g excerpt illustrates the c o m p l e x i t y i n language use b y students d u r i n g a c o m p o s i t i o n task.  Excerpt 4.11 English  Japanese & Mandarin  Writing task on topic of "My Country" (Phil, Joanna, Vivian, Joanna: Mandarin, Krista: English)  1.  Amelia:  T h e most important is t o u r i s m . U h u h .  2.  Phil:  Tourism?  ((laughs))  kankou. {Tourism [is 'kankou'.}  3. Joanna:  T o u r i s m [is  4. P h i l :  Y o u c a n say famous + instead o f important (x). +  5.  Gaaden machi  Joanna:  12  ichiban taisetsu na, + ni xiang yao Jiang  ma? Na jiu, jia jingqu jiu hao le ba!  { G a r d e n City's m o s t important + y o u w a n t to s a y t h a t ? T h e n just a d d it then!}  Japanese \ 6 .  Phil  De yome ((mispronounces yuumei)) desu. Yuumei desu. De. {Is (err). Is f a m o u s . ((Particle de)).} De= {((Particle de))=} = N o , no, no. N o , I ' v e got=  Qianmian shi, yinggai shi + (x). Qianmian shi + (x). Bu shi, qianmian shi (xx) {In the b e g i n n i n g , it s h o u l d be + (x). N o , in the beginning (xx)}  1 2  is famous for w h a t ?  11. K r i s t a :  Gaaden machi wa +. { G a r d e n City ((topic m a r k e r wa))+.}  12. P h i l :  (x).  13. V i v i a n :  H o w about the grammar, the g r a m m a r p o i n t ?  Name of city had been replaced with pseudonym.  85  14. P h i l :  Y e a h , wa de= {((topic m a r k e r wa)) ((particle cfe))=}  15. V i v i a n : GaadenMachiwa + ((particle de))=} Japanese  \  + de.  { G a r d e n C i t y ((topic m a r k e r wa))  16. P h i l : Gaaden Machi wa { G a r d e n City is} ++ ' k a y , w h a t y o u w a n n a say?  & English /  F a m o u s for + f i s h i n g ?  17. V i v i a n : tourism.  0r=  W e c a n say V a n c o u v e r has a lot o f s a l m o n so + and  ( G r o u p w o r k , N o v e m b e r 5, 2002) A n o t h e r interesting p o i n t is that the average Japanese utterance b y students decreased f r o m 8.9 w o r d s d u r i n g the lectures to 3.2 w o r d s d u r i n g p a i r w o r k sessions. E n g l i s h utterances s t i l l were about 4 w o r d s i n length and m i x e d utterances about 8 w o r d s . Whereas d u r i n g the lectures, the students often o n l y repeated or read o f f sentences f r o m textbooks and handouts, p a i r w o r k interaction was m o r e diverse a n d less structured. A s a result, utterances d i d not a l w a y s consist o f entire sentences but c o n s i s t e d o f just a f e w w o r d s or short phrases instead. S i n c e E n g l i s h and m i x e d utterances were less predictable, the average length o f the p a i r w o r k utterances seemed to have c h a n g e d v e r y little f r o m those uttered d u r i n g the lectures. T h e f o l l o w i n g excerpts illustrate t y p i c a l interactions between student pairs. T h e first s h o w s students interacting d u r i n g a n i n t e r v i e w preparation task w h i l e the s e c o n d excerpt is d u r i n g a c o m p o s i t i o n task. T h e t h i r d e x a m p l e w i l l illustrate language use d u r i n g an o r a l practice task.  Excerpt 4.12  Interview reflection composition task (Amelia: Mandarin, Krista: English)  1.  Senkouwa  Amelia:  13  nan desu ka. + {What is (your) major?  +}  In pairs, students conducted an interview with a Japanese International Exchange Student. These Japanese exchange students were part of a special program at W C U . After the interview, the students had to reflect on their interviews and write a composition about the interviewee. 13  86  2. K r i s t a :  A n d dou-? W h y ?  Dou shite + kono senkou wa= { A n d w h - ? W h y ?  W h y + this major ((topic m a r k e r 3. A m e l i a :  = C h o s e ? ((laughs))  4.  Era-, erabe- = {Cho-, choo-=}  Krista:  wa))=}  5. A m e l i a :  =Erabeta. {=Able to c h o o s e . }  6.  Krista:  Erabeta? {=Able to c h o o s e ? }  7.  Amelia:  T o chose? +++ Doushite += {To c h o s e ? +++ W h y +=}  8. K r i s t a :  =Doushite. {=Why?}  9. A m e l i a :  Kono senkou wo= {This major ((accusative m a r k e r wo))=}  10. K r i s t a :  W o u l d it be because=}  11. A m e l i a :  =Sono. {=That.}  12. K r i s t a :  Sono. {That.}  13. A m e l i a :  [Senkou wa +++. {[Major ((topic m a r k e r wa)) +++.}  14. K r i s t a :  Senkou wa +++ dou shite era-, erabi- (x)ta ka. {[Major ((topic  kono or sono because= { W o u l d it b e this or that  m a r k e r wa)) +++ w h y d i d (you) c h o - , c h o o - (x)?]  15. A m e l i a :  Era-, eramasen. Era-= { C h o - , ((err)). Cho-=}  16. K r i s t a :  =Erabu. {=To c h o o s e . }  17. A m e l i a :  Erabu. {To c h o o s e . }  18. K r i s t a :  Erabimasu ka. {Do (you) c h o o s e ? }  19. A m e l i a :  E-ra-bi-ma-su-ka. {D-o (y-o-u) c-h-o-o-s-e?} ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 15, 2002)  Excerpt 4.13  1.  Johnny:  Interview reflection composition task (Johnny & Anna: Mandarin) Okay.  Ranhoujiu.  {Then.}  87  2.  Anna:  Nihon de wa, + right? {In Japan}  3.  Johnny:  U h u h . Nihon de wa na jiu shi (x) nihon de wa (x) lots o f q u i z . {In  Japan that is (x) in Japan (x) lots of quiz.} 4.  Anna:  M m . + Oh!  5.  Johnny:  Marketings  6.  Anna:  = O r w e c a n talk about l i k e + nihon de wa ichinenjuu {in Japan all year long} l i k e semester, t w o semester and she needs l i k e some credits so she takes + this m a n y courses.  7.  Johnny:  U m . +++  8.  Anna:  (xxx) jiu mei de xie. {(xxx) nothing to write.}  9.  Johnny:  Mm. So  10. A n n a :  Shi ah (xx) first year. Zheme rongyi a. n i c e . {Yes (xx) first year. So easy ah.}  P e r semester,  O n l y eighteen. ++  (xx) eh. Name tamen bi women duo a. {(xx) eh.  Then they have more than us ah.} 11. J o h n n y :  P e r semester?  12. A n n a :  Yeah.  13. J o h n n y :  Liang ge semester. Women ye shi Iiang ge semester. {Two semesters. We also have two semesters.} Name mei ge term shiwu ge credits. Eh, shi ba? [San, san wu yishiwu. {Then every term fifteen credits. Eh, right? [Three, three time five is fifteen.}  14. A n n a :  15. J o h n n y :  [Uh, bi women duo. Bi women duo. {[Uh, more than us. More than us.}  16. A n n a :  W e l l depends o n (xx) course l i k e four credits (x).  17. J o h n n y :  O h y e a h . A c t u a l l y , yeah. ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  88  E x c e r p t 4.14 O r a l t a s k : T a l k u s i n g p r a i s e a n d aizuchi ( M a n d i : C h i n e s e , J u s t i n : English)  1 Justin:  Watashi no otouto wa N a t h a n desu.  { M y y o u n g e r brother is Nathan.}  2. M a n d i :  Sou desu ka. ((laughs)) {Is that, s o ? }  3. Justin:  N a t h a n wa + totemo seikakufx) te (x) ga arimasu. (x) (x) personality.}  4. M a n d i :  Sou na n desu ka. ((laughs)) {Is that, right?}  5. Justin:  Sore kara N a t h a n wa nijuuisai ( ( m i s p r o n o u n c e s nijuuissai)) desu.  { N a t h a n h a s a very  ((rising intonation)) { A n d a l s o , N a t h a n is twenty-one} 6. M a n d i :  Ee, sou desu ka. { O h really?}  7. Justin:  Demo + N a t h a n wa daigakusei ja arimasen. university student.}  8.Mandi:  Sou na n desu ka. Sugoi desu ne. ((laughs)) Kawaii otouto desu ne.  [But + N a t h a n isn't a  ((J laughs)) {Is that, s o ? W o w . W h a t a cute y o u n g e r brother.} 9.Justin:  lie. Tondemonai ((mispronounces tondemonai)).  { N o . Not really.}  ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 5, 2 0 0 2 ) A s these excerpts illustrates, students can access a variety o f languages and language c o m b i n a t i o n s d u r i n g their pair w o r k tasks. S i n c e students w e r e not d i s c o u r a g e d f r o m u s i n g their L I , L 2 o r L 3 a l o n g w i t h the T L , they w e r e free t o use whatever language they felt most comfortable w i t h interacting w i t h their classmates:  neither focal instructor t o l d  their students to "speak Japanese" w h e n c o m m u n i c a t i n g i n other languages.  T h e findings  support the o b s e r v a t i o n that students d i d use languages other than the T L d u r i n g most o f their tasks but, as m e n t i o n e d before, oral practice tasks made use o f m o r e Japanese w h i l e w r i t i n g tasks, i n w h i c h students needed to negotiate m e a n i n g as they c o m p o s e d essays, saw a d r o p i n T L use and a rise i n L I , L 2 o r L 3 use and c o d e - s w i t c h i n g .  89  4.4.3  Discussion  In this study thus far, the findings have revealed that teachers at W C U are o v e r w h e l m i n g l y i n f a v o u r o f supporting the O p t i m a l U s e P o s i t i o n . S i n c e Japanese is b e i n g taught i n a F L setting, w h e r e m a n y students e n r o l l i n g i n Japanese classes are not native speakers o f E n g l i s h a n y w a y , it m a y be most effective to adopt a t e a c h i n g a p p r o a c h that embraces m a x i m i z i n g T L use, w h i l e u s i n g E n g l i s h w h e n necessary.  The  i n t e r m e d i a t e - l e v e l J F L teachers w h o w e r e i n t e r v i e w e d c l a i m e d that they used a n y w h e r e f r o m 6 0 - 8 0 % Japanese and about 2 0 - 4 0 % E n g l i s h . Interestingly, M s . M u r a k a m i w a s the o n l y teacher to report u s i n g more E n g l i s h than Japanese although she is h i g h l y k n o w l e d g e a b l e i n current L 2 t e a c h i n g m e t h o d o l o g y and c l a i m e d to f a v o u r an O p t i m a l Use Position.  B o t h focal instructors, on average, c l a i m e d to be u s i n g around 7 0 % Japanese and in fact there actual use o f the T L was even higher. M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o seem to be successfully p r a c t i c i n g u s i n g the O p t i m a l U s e P o s i t i o n . S i n c e b o t h instructors c l a i m e d to adjust their language use relative to the needs o f their students, it w o u l d appear that, i n general, students w e r e able to keep up w h i l e r e c e i v i n g a fair a m o u n t o f T L input. T h i s w a s c o n f i r m e d t h r o u g h the student i n t e r v i e w s w h e n most learners reported that the b a l a n c e o f Japanese and E n g l i s h use b y instructors was to their satisfaction.  A n o t h e r k e y f i n d i n g is that students spoke very little d u r i n g teacher-led a c t i v i t i e s a l t h o u g h their output was high i n T L w h e n they d i d speak. T h e reverse w a s found to be true d u r i n g c o l l a b o r a t i v e peer tasks. D u r i n g peer tasks, students used m o r e E n g l i s h o r their N L for c o m m u n i c a t i n g and m a n a g i n g what they w a n t e d to say or write. B e c a u s e  90  Table 4.10: Language Use Averages for Student Pairwork Japanese  English  Mixed  Chinese  Japanese & Chinese  2238  1852  199  384  53  47%  39%  4%  8%  3.7  7.2  1261  1540  43% 6.3  English & Chinese  Japanese, English & Chinese  TOTAL  20  11  4757  1%  0.4%  0.2%  100%*  5.8  9.2  7.1  9.5  n/a  146  n/a  n/a  n/a  n/a  2947  52%  5%  n/a  n/a  n/a  n/a  6.6  100%  11.4  n/a  n/a  n/a  n/a  n/a  977  312  53  384  53  20  11  1810  54%  17%  3%  21%  3%  3.1  1%  3.7  1%  100%  7.5  5.8  9.2  7.1  9.5  n/a  All language pairs Total number o f utterances T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f w o r d s p e r utterance  Non-Chinese language pairs Total number o f utterances T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f w o r d s per utterance  Chinese language pairs Total number o f utterances T o t a l % o f utterances Average number o f w o r d s per utterance  *The nercenraaes  fnr p*rh  lan  .  students w e r e still o n l y at an intermediate l e v e l , they m i g h t have felt that they d i d not have the necessary v o c a b u l a r y and language structures to negotiate w i t h each other. E v e n t h o u g h the instructors have m o d e l l e d w a y s to do this t h r o u g h their o w n t e a c h i n g , the students had little experience d o i n g so and, as a result, they resorted to u s i n g E n g l i s h or their N L instead since it feels m o r e natural to them. I f students are expected to use m o r e T L d u r i n g peer tasks then they need to be taught h o w to do this before their teachers c a n expect students to c o m p l e t e the task w i t h a h i g h ratio o f T L use.  4.5  Purposes for Japanese and English Use by Instructors T h i s section w i l l address the R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n #2a: F o r what purposes are  Japanese and E n g l i s h used b y instructors? First, c o m m e n t s f r o m the instructor i n t e r v i e w s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d , f o l l o w e d b y c o m m e n t s from the focal instructors' students.  A t the end,  I w i l l d i s c u s s the purposes for w h i c h Japanese and E n g l i s h use w e r e observed d u r i n g the c l a s s r o o m lectures o f M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o .  4.5.1  Instructors' and Focal Instructors' Comments The major themes that emerged f r o m the instructor i n t e r v i e w s are: 1) c o m m e n t s  related to the " i d e a l " t e a c h i n g e n v i r o n m e n t and v i e w s o n a T L - o n l y t e a c h i n g approach, 2) purposes for Japanese language use, 3) purposes for E n g l i s h language use, and 4) factors affecting language c h o i c e and challenges regarding the balance o f Japanese and E n g l i s h use, i n c l u d i n g issues related to student m o t i v a t i o n , confidence, c l a s s r o o m atmosphere and student-teacher relationships.  4.5.1.1 The "Ideal" Teaching Environment and Japanese-Only Policy T h e o v e r a l l consensus was that all instructors wanted to use as m u c h Japanese as p o s s i b l e i n their teaching. In the ideal situation, M s . C h e n e x p l a i n e d that she w o u l d l i k e  92  to a l w a y s use the T L and take the t i m e to teach the students u s i n g Japanese.  Moreover,  a c c o r d i n g to M s . M u r a k a m i , a realistic language class w o u l d consist o f lessons t o t a l l i n g 10 hours per w e e k and w o u l d i d e a l l y have a class size o f t w e l v e students instead o f thirty. A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, M s . Y o u n g , i f g i v e n the chance, w o u l d c h o o s e the D i r e c t M e t h o d o f t e a c h i n g Japanese:  M o s t o f m y students ninety, n i n e t y - f i v e percent are a l l C h i n e s e a n d there's a p r o b l e m i n v o l v e d i n that.... C h i n e s e speakers, the w a y the b r a i n w o r k s for t h e m , E n g l i s h is not their first language; C h i n e s e is their first language. I d o n ' t k n o w h o w they translate it. Speak w i t h them i n E n g l i s h and they w i l l p r o b a b l y t h i n k i n C h i n e s e and then the output w i l l be i n Japanese. S o it w o r k s i n three different languages. (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 )  A l t h o u g h the ideal scenario w o u l d be to use Japanese o n l y o r p r i m a r i l y Japanese, the l e a r n i n g situation at W C U is less than ideal. W h e n asked about their o p i n i o n s i n terms o f a Japanese-only p o l i c y , all instructors w e r e reluctant to have s u c h a p o l i c y i n a context such as the one at W C U .  A c c o r d i n g to M s . C h e n ,  the present Japanese L a n g u a g e C o o r d i n a t o r , f o l l o w i n g one specific p o l i c y w o u l d not be the most effective.  [The]  use o f language a l l depends o n w h a t y o u are d o i n g i n the class. In  s o m e class i f y o u ' r e d e a l i n g w i t h , y o u k n o w , just as I m e n t i o n e d before, t e a c h i n g f o r m s then y o u need to use E n g l i s h . do o n specific day.  S o , it depends o n w h a t y o u  A n d also depends o n the context so w e have to be  v e r y f l e x i b l e , I think. T h e r e ' s no one single m o d e l to f o l l o w .  (Interview,  December, 2002) M s . Inoue's reply was similar: I d o n ' t really l i k e Japanese-only p o l i c y because . . . [for] some i m p o r t a n t a n n o u n c e m e n t I d o n ' t t h i n k that w e should speak i n Japanese, or, some g r a m m a r p r o b a b l y , because they, students, have to c o m p r e h e n d . A n d for the c o m p r e h e n s i o n they need l a n g u a g e . . . S t i l l , for the 2 0 0 l e v e l they are still i n the stage o f l i k e a really i m p r o v i n g f r o m  first  l e v e l to  more  a d v a n c e d level so some students are not really strong i n terms o f s p e a k i n g  93  and l i s t e n i n g e s p e c i a l l y [since] they are o n l y i n C a n a d a ; they d o n ' t r e a l l y have friends to practice their Japanese.  (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 )  T h e u n i q u e context o f the J F L classes at W C U m a k e s language c h o i c e and language use a c o m p l e x issue. A t W C U , a l l intermediate level instructors and the majority o f their students are t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g Japanese through their second o r t h i r d language: E n g l i s h . F o r some instructors, Japanese is their second language and E n g l i s h their t h i r d language. A s a result, instructors are teaching and the students are l e a r n i n g Japanese (besides u s i n g the T L ) t h r o u g h a c o m m o n language w h i c h is not their native language; they are interacting t h r o u g h E n g l i s h as their s e c o n d (or third) language.  4.5.1.2 P u r p o s e s f o r J a p a n e s e L a n g u a g e U s e T h e J F L instructors c l a i m e d that the T L was used for one m a i n reason: to p r o v i d e T L input and interaction w h i l e l e a r n i n g the Japanese language. Japanese w a s used for g i v i n g instructions o r c o m m a n d s , r e v i e w i n g and p r a c t i c i n g Japanese, e x p l a i n i n g and g i v i n g e x a m p l e s for c h a l l e n g i n g lesson content, a s k i n g questions or h a v i n g d i s c u s s i o n s to elicit T L responses, and r e s p o n d i n g to students w h o ask questions i n the T L . F i r s t o f all, four o f the instructors m e n t i o n e d that w h e n g i v i n g instructions, Japanese w a s used. F o r instance, M s . Y o u n g said that she used Japanese for s i m p l e instructions and announcements for such things as exams dates and a n y t h i n g that i n v o l v e d c l a s s r o o m management.  A s for M s . M u r a k a m i , s i m p l e c o m m a n d s such as " c l o s e the w i n d o w " o r  " c l o s e the d o o r " w e r e also g i v e n i n the T L and assignment instructions w e r e w r i t t e n o n the b o a r d i n Japanese as w e l l . F u r t h e r m o r e , M s . Sasaki e x p l a i n e d that instructions and s i m p l e questions, e s p e c i a l l y those that i n v o l v e set phrases that w e r e c o m m o n l y used i n the c l a s s r o o m , w e r e a l w a y s i n Japanese:  for example,  94  pea ni natte kudasai (please get  into pairs), kiite kudasai (please listen), wakarimasu  ka (do y o u understand?) , and  shitsumon arimasu ka (do y o u have any questions?).  S e c o n d l y , Japanese w a s used for r e v i e w i n g and p r a c t i c i n g Japanese content, i n particular for o r a l a n d aural practice. M s . M u r a k a m i c l a i m e d that she deliberately reserved the first ten m i n u t e s o f class for r e v i e w i n g p r e v i o u s l y taught structures and that Japanese use for this part o f the lesson was strictly enforced. She used this t i m e to interact w i t h students a n d to have t h e m practice u s i n g the sentence patterns or structures that were p r e v i o u s l y taught.  She w a n t e d to create a s i m u l a t i o n o f real life situations b y  encouraging students to interact i n the T L (and not o n l y to listen to tapes or C D s for authentic input). D u r i n g this first ten minutes, she never r e s p o n d e d i n E n g l i s h and, thus, encouraged students to speak i n the T L and n o t i c e d that " u s u a l l y after a m o n t h or so, [the students tried] to r e s p o n d i n Japanese as m u c h as p o s s i b l e " . L i k e M s . M u r a k a m i , M s . K i t a m u r a set aside the b e g i n n i n g part o f her lessons for T L s p e a k i n g and l i s t e n i n g practice. " A t the b e g i n n i n g o f the [class], students seem sleepy; then, I c a n talk about what I d i d d u r i n g the w e e k e n d i n Japanese.  A n d they, i f they m i s s some w o r d s it doesn't  matter. N o t h i n g to do w i t h the q u i z , but just [to] enjoy." T h r o u g h m y observations o f M s . Inoue's class, it w a s evident that M s . Inoue p r a c t i c e d a s i m i l a r routine, e s p e c i a l l y after the w e e k e n d or w i t h respect to a s p e c i a l event o f h o l i d a y .  A n o t h e r use o f Japanese was w h e n instructors gave e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x a m p l e s o f lesson content. A l t h o u g h a l l instructors m e n t i o n e d the challenges o f e x p l a i n i n g the content i n the T L , m a n y instructors still made attempts to incorporate Japanese into their lessons before resorting to E n g l i s h . F o r instance, M s . S a s a k i and M s . O d e m e n t i o n e d that w h e n their students struggled to understand they gave alternate e x p l a n a t i o n s and  95  e x a m p l e s u s i n g s i m p l e Japanese before they resorted to u s i n g E n g l i s h . M s . O d e had the f o l l o w i n g to say:  I have to  e x p l a i n m o r e u s i n g different  S o m e t i m e s I d o n ' t m i n d d o i n g that.  phrases,  different  words.  ...  E s p e c i a l l y [for] e x p l a i n i n g . . . the  m e a n i n g o f one sentence i n Japanese, . . . I try to use a different phrase o r sentence i n Japanese, pretty s i m i l a r one.  S o m e t i m e s I d o that because  translating the m e a n i n g into E n g l i s h . . . sometimes doesn't m a k e r e a l l y m a k e sense. S o [in] that case, I try to use Japanese more, and even t h o u g h I k n o w its m o r e time c o n s u m i n g I d o n ' t m i n d d o i n g that.  (Interview,  November, 2002)  W h e n M s . S a s a k i g i v e s g r a m m a t i c a l explanations, she stated that she w o u l d first try to g i v e s o m e e x a m p l e s u s i n g Japanese sentences e s p e c i a l l y w i t h particles that do not exist i n the E n g l i s h or C h i n e s e languages (although C h i n e s e has other k i n d s o f particles). In this e x a m p l e , M s . S a s a k i e x p l a i n e d h o w she w o u l d teach the difference b e t w e e n t w o particles that m a r k l o c a t i o n , or the difference between several types o f c o n d i t i o n a l structures:  F o r e x a m p l e , what is the difference between ni and del l o c a t i o n s but the usage is different. example.  A n d then  explanation. [there are]  They both mark  T h e usage is different.  . . . i f they d o n ' t understand  So, I give  I give them  English  F o r e x a m p l e i f I e x p l a i n . . . c o n d i t i o n a l s , l i k e i n Japanese  tara, nam, reba ... [and] ba. I g i v e a lot o f examples.  L i k e these instructors, all other instructors used this method and resorted to u s i n g E n g l i s h o n l y w h e n students d i d not c o m p r e h e n d the Japanese e x p l a n a t i o n and n o other strategy w a s useful.  F i n a l l y , Japanese w a s used w h e n instructors wanted to ask questions o r have d i s c u s s i o n s i n order to deliberately elicit T L responses.  A s M s . Y a b u n o explained, "I  t h i n k [that] w h e n I want m y students to talk back i n Japanese I t h i n k [that] I s h o u l d talk  96  to t h e m i n Japanese.  It's m o r e natural. I f I ask them i n E n g l i s h and i f I expect t h e m to  speak b a c k i n Japanese i t ' s k i n d o f strange."  T h e y also reported that they tended to  r e s p o n d i n Japanese to students w h o ask questions in the T L . F o r e x a m p l e , w h e n students tried so hard to use Japanese M s . M u r a k a m i a l w a y s tried to answer i n the T L , and i f students ask questions i n Japanese, M s . Sasaki c l a i m e d that she never a n s w e r e d students i n E n g l i s h . E v e n w h e n students asked questions i n E n g l i s h , instructors still preferred to reply i n Japanese w h e n possible. In these situations, instructors such as M s . C h e n tended to answer u s i n g s i m p l e Japanese.  4.5.1.3 P u r p o s e s f o r E n g l i s h L a n g u a g e U s e T h e J F L instructors revealed that their use o f E n g l i s h for t w o m a i n purposes. These are 1) efficiency and effectiveness i n t i m e management; and 2) e f f i c i e n c y and effectiveness i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n . E n g l i s h w a s used for e x p l a i n i n g g r a m m a r , t e a c h i n g v o c a b u l a r y , rephrasing or repeating instructions for tasks, p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i v e o r supplemental materials, d i s c u s s i n g c o m p a r i s o n s between Japanese and other languages, and e x p l a i n i n g and a n n o u n c i n g important items such as exams.  T h e most c o m m o n reason g i v e n for the use o f E n g l i s h was for the t e a c h i n g and e x p l a i n i n g o f g r a m m a r . A l l instructors mentioned that the t e a c h i n g o f g r a m m a r greatly affected their language use because u s i n g E n g l i s h was a more efficient and effective m e t h o d than u s i n g the T L .  It's  actually m o r e  A s M s . Chen explained,  efficient  and  effective  [to  use]  English  to  teach  g r a m m a r . ... [F]or example, y o u need to e x p l a i n some structures to the students  like  more  clauses, and so o n .  c o m p l e x structures:  relative clauses,  subordinate  Student[s] w i l l understand v e r y easily and q u i c k l y i f  y o u can e x p l a i n to them ... i n E n g l i s h and then [ y o u can] m o v e o n to do s o m e a c t i v i t i e s i n Japanese.  So it's not w o r t h w a s t i n g , y o u k n o w , u s i n g  97  too m u c h t i m e i n e x p l a i n i n g g r a m m a r or t r y i n g to use the target language. (Interview, D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) F u r t h e r m o r e , M s . Y o u n g and M s . Y a b u n o c l a i m e d that they used E n g l i s h w h e n t e a c h i n g i m p o r t a n t g r a m m a r points because there w a s a tendency to m i s u n d e r s t a n d w h e n they e x p l a i n e d e v e r y t h i n g i n Japanese; they w a n t e d to ensure that students had c l e a r l y understood. M s . M u r a k a m i , w h o s e self-reported ratio o f E n g l i s h use w a s 8 0 % , c o m m e n t e d that e x p l a i n i n g g r a m m a r i n Japanese was i m p o s s i b l e and, therefore, she used a lot o f E n g l i s h i n his classes. She u s u a l l y answered g r a m m a r related questions i n E n g l i s h because it was e c o n o m i c a l and t i m e was a b i g issue for her.  In a d d i t i o n , M s .  C h e n c o m m e n t e d that hearing E n g l i s h explanations helped students feel m o r e secure, e s p e c i a l l y for the m o r e " c o g n i t i v e " learners, i n particular the C h i n e s e students, w h o needed to understand structures. T w o J F L instructors also said that they used E n g l i s h for t e a c h i n g v o c a b u l a r y . S p e n d i n g a lot o f t i m e to e x p l a i n one v o c a b u l a r y i t e m u s i n g Japanese w o u l d not be an effective use o f t i m e even t h o u g h students r e c e i v e d a lot m o r e T L input f r o m a teacher's effort to e x p l a i n the v o c a b u l a r y i t e m i n Japanese.  M s . K i t a m u r a recalls her o w n  experience l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a second language:  W h e n I c a m e here, ... the instructor was e x p l a i n i n g i n E n g l i s h . ... " [ W ] h y [do] they have to use E n g l i s h ? ... [To] understand one concept w h y d o I have to struggle?" A n d I visited [an]other class to observe and the teacher is t a l k i n g about [the w o r d ] basement and the students c o u l d n ' t understand [the w o r d ] basement.  It's a lengthy t i m e [that] the teacher spent, just to  talk about basement.  T h e n , " W h y d o n ' t y o u [say] basement i n another  language?"  T h e n ... the instructor can spend m o r e t i m e to let  students] practice or [do] other m o r e important things? c a n l o o k at the d i c t i o n a r y . (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 )  98  [the  L i k e v o c a b , they  S i n c e M s . K i t a m u r a ' s had p e r s o n a l l y e x p e r i e n c e d this type o f struggle w i t h the l e a r n i n g o f v o c a b u l a r y items, she d e c i d e d that it w a s not w o r t h the t i m e and effort to e x p l a i n a v o c a b u l a r y item that c o u l d be e a s i l y c o m m u n i c a t e d b y the use o f one equivalent E n g l i s h w o r d .  In order to ensure c o m p r e h e n s i o n , J F L instructors stated that they used E n g l i s h to rephrase o r repeat what they had uttered i n Japanese.  In most cases, the strategy used  w a s intra-utterance c o d e - s w i t c h i n g . M s . Sasaki reported that she used this strategy w h e n m a k i n g announcements about a test o r s o m e t h i n g important so that she c o u l d b e sure that the students had c o m p r e h e n d e d her message. T h i s is s i m i l a r to what M s . C h e n d i d : s i m p l e instructions, for e x a m p l e e x a m dates, w e r e g i v e n i n Japanese but rephrased i n E n g l i s h to ensure that students had understood.  B e c a u s e l e a r n i n g a language consists o f an appreciation o f the h i s t o r i c a l and cultural b a c k g r o u n d o f the society associated w i t h the T L , instructors at W C U also said that they u s e d supplementary materials to enhance their students' language l e a r n i n g experiences. In most cases, these materials w e r e related to cultural aspects o r p r o v i d e d h i s t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d to c o m p l e m e n t topics b e i n g c o v e r e d i n the c u r r i c u l u m . It s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d here that the textbook used at W C U ,  An Integrated Approach to  Intermediate Japanese ( M i u r a & M c G l o i n , 1994), incorporates culture and language t h r o u g h o u t its lessons and that there is a specific section for cultural notes. T h e s e c u l t u r a l notes are g i v e n i n E n g l i s h . A c c o r d i n g to M s . K i t a m u r a , students cannot be expected to understand an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l analysis i n Japanese because this w o u l d be too difficult. S o m e t i m e s , instructors must e x p l a i n w h y a sentence may be g r a m m a t i c a l l y correct but c u l t u r a l l y unacceptable.  99  F o r instance, the first years students learn kudasai (please). ... It is [or c a n be a] request and [a] c o m m a n d . use  14  d o n ' t use kudasai i n Japan. " B U Y THIS!" We  B u t i n certain situations w e s h o u l d n o t  kudasai: kudasai i n upper s t a t u s , and also o n c o m m e r c i a l [ s ] they  have  A n d here [ i n N o r t h A m e r i c a ] , y o u c a n use  W e c a n ' t use [it i n this manner i n Japanese s o c i e t y ] . ...  t o e x p l a i n this because  once they  learn  certain  grammar  structures, i t ' s g r a m m a t i c a l l y correct but c u l t u r a l l y , n o r m a t i v e l y , [it's] n o t acceptable r e g a r d i n g [such]  ... s i t u a t i o n ^ ] . ( M s . K i t a m u r a ,  Interview,  November, 2002)  A n o t h e r use for E n g l i s h f o r discussions i n v o l v i n g c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n Japanese and other languages. Instructors w h o shared a c o m m o n first language b a c k g r o u n d w i t h their students, o r had studied other languages offered discussions i n E n g l i s h to d r a w attention to specific cultural o r g r a m m a t i c a l structures between the t w o languages. instructors, such as M s . Y o u n g , c o m p a r e d kanji and C h i n e s e characters.  Some  Others, l i k e M s .  K i t a m u r a , h a d often d i d general language c o m p a r i s o n s between E n g l i s h a n d Japanese, C h i n e s e a n d Japanese, and K o r e a n and Japanese. In order to e x p l a i n the s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d differences, E n g l i s h had t o be used. F u r t h e r m o r e , M s . K i t a m u r a used their c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d a n d kanji to i m p r o v e understanding. F o r example, she c o m p a r e d Japanese N e w Y e a r ' s w i t h n e w y e a r ' s traditions i n other cultures. I n a d d i t i o n , w o r d s that d o n ' t transfer o v e r s o c i o c u l t u r a l l y , such as " g r a n n y " , i n E n g l i s h , a n d obaa-san (granny), i n Japanese, needed t o be e x p l a i n e d i n E n g l i s h since such specific e x p l a n a t i o n s w e r e not p r o v i d e d i n the c u l t u r a l notes i n the textbook; it seemed m o r e effective to have teachers explain them in English.  L a s t l y , E n g l i s h w a s c o m m o n l y used for e x p l a i n i n g and a n n o u n c i n g i m p o r t a n t items such as e x a m dates, test content, i n t e r v i e w a c t i v i t y s c h e d u l i n g . W r i t t e n  This refers to the informal register used between the well-acquainted; it is considered rude and impolite when used for commands and requests especially with strangers and people of higher social status (e.g., elders, teachers, etc.) 1 4  100  assignments (see F i g u r e s 4.1) and tests (see F i g u r e s 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. and 4.5), w r i t t e n o n the overhead transparency, used E n g l i s h to ensure that the instructions are clear.  T h e d o c u m e n t s c o l l e c t e d f r o m the classes I observed support the c l a i m that important items s u c h as q u i z z e s , test instructions, and o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n assignment handouts w e r e w r i t t e n i n E n g l i s h , whereas practice handouts and h o m e w o r k sheets tended to be i n Japanese. M s . Y a b u n o e x p l a i n e d that some students w h o s e L I w a s not E n g l i s h c o u l d n ' t even understand the E n g l i s h instructions o n exams and tests and so J F L instructors at W C U had to use s i m p l e r , easier v o c a b u l a r y so that their students c o u l d a n s w e r i n g questions.  Composition Task Outline  F i g u r e 4.1  :  intra - N body I organization conclusion J  utrj:  (Inoue, C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 )  mm  F i g u r e 4.2  Test T o p i c s ' O u t l i n e  Chapter 3 & 4 o  Grammar  o  Textbook,  o  Functions o  Request  o  Permission  o  C u l t u r a l aspects  o  handouts (Inoue, C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 )  101 /  Composition Test Outline  Figure 4.3  15  o 1 1 J! 2 2 0  ( & ® B)  o h M°y?  ? > f ^ - l f a '  : ?  Evaluation Content 2 Accuracy 5 Coherence 3 G e n k o o y o o s h i 2 Complexity 3 =  (Yabuno, Classroom Lecture, =  N o v e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 2 )  15 &  Figure 4.4 Final Examination Outline V o c a b kanji Listening Grammar Short w r i t i n g Complete a dialogue C u l t u r a l aspects  Figure 4.5 1. 2.  (Inoue, C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 )  Composition Test Outline  Intro Body  3.  Conclusion o  I n t e r v i e w e e ' s opinions/thoughts  o  Y o u r opinions/thoughts  Dictionary:  (IH^)  b$&\ iz~$' s  E n g -Japa Japan-Eng  (-  OK  Both  (Inoue, Classroom Lecture, N o v e m b e r 21, 2002)  Genkouyooshi is a standard composition writing sheet. It looks like a grid paper and lias 400 boxes (i.e., one letter/punctuation per box). 15  102  4.5.1.4 F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g L a n g u a g e C h o i c e T h e k e y factors that affect language c h o i c e and, as a result, d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e language use i n c l u d e p r a c t i c a l i t y , L I o f students, and creating a c o m f o r t a b l e l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t for the learners. In terms o f practicality, instructors w e r e p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h issues o f time. U n l i k e most N o r t h A m e r i c a n u n i v e r s i t y p r o g r a m s , W C U ' s a c a d e m i c year is shorter b y about one m o n t h , o n l y o f f e r i n g about 110 hours o f i n s t r u c t i o n for an entire a c a d e m i c year. Instructors felt the pressure o f c o v e r i n g the c u r r i c u l u m and t r y i n g to c r a m the content into all their lessons because o f the t e x t b o o k c u r r i c u l u m . T h i s tight schedule definitely had its effects o n language c h o i c e . A s three teachers e x p l a i n e d ,  w e have a v e r y hectic schedule ... [and so] w e have to c o m p r o m i s e a little b i t . . . i n order to save time. ... W e m a y want to just e x p l a i n s o m e t h i n g i n E n g l i s h and get it o v e r w i t h i n t w o minutes rather than s p e n d i n g l i k e ten, fifteen m i n u t e s o n that." ( C h e n , Interview, D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 )  F i f t y m i n u t e s [per class] is not l o n g enough. ... W h e n the t i m e is pressing, I have to s w i t c h to E n g l i s h so that [the students] w i l l just understand w h e n I say s o m e t h i n g just once and [then] w e can m o v e onto the a c t i v i t y . ( Y a b u n o , Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 )  I ' d l i k e to [explain] ... e v e r y t h i n g about g r a m m a r w i t h o u t u s i n g E n g l i s h and i t ' s c h a l l e n g i n g ... but I can't do it here. ... I prefer not to because m y students w i l l n o t . . . understand it and I [ w i l l ] have to repeat it again right f r o m the start. So, it's a waste o f time. ( Y o u n g , Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2002)  E x p l a i n i n g g r a m m a r tended to be a c o m m o n c u l p r i t o f resorting to E n g l i s h i n order to save t i m e : " I f i t ' s a g r a m m a r related questions, [I] u s u a l l y answer i n E n g l i s h : m u c h faster; e c o n o m i c a l . [ E x p l a i n i n g i n Japanese] wastes t i m e . ... T i m e  103  is a b i g i s s u e " ( M u r a k a m i , Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) . B e s i d e s g r a m m a r , instructors had t o cut d o w n o n w a i t t i m e w h e n t r y i n g to elicit responses f r o m students. M s . Inoue thought that her C h i n e s e student l e a r n i n g attitudes often resulted i n m i n i m u m p a r t i c i p a t i o n d u r i n g teacher-fronted activities. W h e n t r y i n g to interact w i t h her students, she tried to be patient until someone said s o m e t h i n g i n response but often found that she d i d n ' t have t i m e to wait, and that she h a d t o g i v e u p a n d say s o m e t h i n g first.  L a n g u a g e use w a s also affected b y the students' L I . B e c a u s e the majority o f students w h o e n r o l l e d i n Japanese classes at W C U were native speakers o f C h i n e s e , teachers f o u n d it somewhat c h a l l e n g i n g to teach to students w h o w e r e E S L learners. A s m e n t i o n e d earlier b y M s . Y o u n g , about ninety to ninety-five percent w e r e C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d students and i n her o p i n i o n the students had d i f f i c u l t y w h e n it related t o i n s t r u c t i o n o f g r a m m a r points i n E n g l i s h . F u r t h e r m o r e , teaching C h i n e s e native speakers required a m i x o f E n g l i s h and Japanese because Japanese language structures are v e r y different f r o m C h i n e s e . A s experienced b y M s . Inoue, E n g l i s h used o n tests also needed careful c o n s i d e r a t i o n because m a n y E S L students d i d not understand instructions that native speakers found quite easy and clear.  A l t h o u g h h a v i n g m a n y C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d students p r o v e d c h a l l e n g i n g , there w e r e also some benefits. W i t h respect to e x p l a i n i n g v o c a b u l a r y o r teaching kanji, students w e r e able t o grasp the idea o f a w o r d b y s i m p l y l o o k i n g at the kanji a n d u s i n g their C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d to p r o v i d e s o m e scaffolding. I n a d d i t i o n , instructors d i d not have t o spend t i m e e x p l a i n i n g h o w to w r i t e the kanji. Therefore, the focus o n kanji t e a c h i n g t i m e decreased and w i t h that the use o f E n g l i s h , o v e r a l l , also decreased.  104  M o r e o v e r , instructors w h o , themselves, have a C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d were able to use C h i n e s e to assist student l e a r n i n g . F o r e x a m p l e , M s . T a n a k a , w h o h a d recently taught Japanese as a s e c o n d language i n Japan w i t h ninety-eight percent o f her students c o m i n g f r o m a C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d , f o u n d that she tended to speak i n C h i n e s e since it was m u c h easier to e x p l a i n Japanese through the use o f C h i n e s e , rather than i n Japanese or E n g l i s h . A t W C U , M s . C h e n , w h o c o u l d speak both M a n d a r i n and Cantonese, used C h i n e s e to h e l p her students but o n l y i f it was outside o f class t i m e . T h i s was to be fair to a l l students w h o attended her classes and to not isolate those w h o d i d not k n o w C h i n e s e . " I t h i n k i t ' s o k a y to teach t h e m i n C h i n e s e i f it helps ... because E n g l i s h ... for m a n y o f t h e m is not [their] native language." I f students preferred o r felt m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e to ask questions i n C h i n e s e , then she responded i n C h i n e s e , too.  T h e t h i r d factor affecting language use was the g o a l to create a c o m f o r t a b l e l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t f o r the learners. S e v e r a l instructors m e n t i o n e d that E n g l i s h h e l p e d to m o t i v a t e their students and to create a c l a s s r o o m atmosphere that was m o r e c o n d u c i v e to language l e a r n i n g . F o r e x a m p l e , a former student o f M s . K i t a m u r a h a d r e v e a l e d to her that i n her p r e v i o u s Japanese l e a r n i n g experience the instructor used o n l y Japanese and that she c o u l d n ' t understand the lessons. In her o p i n i o n , she d e s c r i b e d the p r e v i o u s experience as v e r y b a d a n d she felt that she c o u l d o n l y retain about thirty percent o f the lesson content. A s a result, M s . K i t a m u r a c o m m e n t e d that u s i n g E n g l i s h made her students feel safe and secure, a l l o w i n g t h e m to learn Japanese w i t h o u t f e e l i n g threatened. S i m i l a r l y , M s . Y a b u n o c l a i m e d that some students felt u n c o m f o r t a b l e b e i n g e x p o s e d to a lot o f Japanese.  S h e m e n t i o n e d that she was c o n c e r n e d about their p s y c h o l o g i c a l and  e m o t i o n a l state because she r e a l l y w a n t e d her students to enjoy what they d i d i n class.  105  F i n a l l y , M s . T a n a k a thought that u s i n g o n l y Japanese w o u l d offend her students and w o u l d upset the balance o f languages i n the c l a s s r o o m needed to create an atmosphere i n w h i c h the students w o u l d felt comfortable to speak Japanese.  4.5.2  Student Comments T h i s section w i l l discuss the use o f Japanese and E n g l i s h f r o m the students'  perspective. Students offered their v i e w s o n Japanese o n l y p o l i c y , and e x p l a i n e d the purposes for w h i c h they had e x p e r i e n c e d Japanese and E n g l i s h b e i n g used b y their instructors ( M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o ) , and gave their o p i n i o n s o n w h y they t h i n k teachers chose to use the language that they d i d w h e n teaching intermediate J F L .  4.5.2.1 Thoughts on Japanese-Only Policy O v e r a l l , students were not i n favour o f a Japanese-only p o l i c y . T h e students' m a i n c o n c e r n was that they w o u l d have d i f f i c u l t y understanding what the instructor was s a y i n g and w o r r i e d about m i s s i n g important i n f o r m a t i o n . C o m m e n t s r e v e a l e d b y Justin were t y p i c a l : If she teaches e v e r y t h i n g Japanese ... w e ' d be a lot confused, y o u k n o w . ... If she was u s i n g s i m p l e Japanese I ' m sure w e c o u l d a l l f o l l o w it but, y o u k n o w , that's not necessarily effective. couldn't explain properly.  A n d some o f the concepts,  she  L i k e w e w o u l d n ' t understand the Japanese i n  order to be able to use them. ... I c a n p r o b a b l y c a n figure [it] out faster [in E n g l i s h rather] than i f she was u s i n g Japanese.  (Interview, N o v e m b e r ,  2002) A n d as Isabella states, a Japanese-only m e t h o d w o u l d affect a l l areas o f l e a r n i n g such as instructions for activities and h o m e w o r k , explanations o f c u l t u r a l points, lessons involving  kanji, understanding v o c a b u l a r y and g r a m m a r points. If the classes were  taught a l l i n Japanese, students w o u l d "be v e r y t i r e d , " their l e a r n i n g experiences w o u l d be "frustrating" and they w o u l d "feel u n c o m f o r t a b l e u s i n g E n g l i s h " to ask for help: the  106  " c o m f o r t l e v e l dissipates". Students felt that they w o u l d v i s i t the instructor's office h o u r m o r e often since they c o u l d not understand the l e s s o n and w o u l d feel i n t i m i d a t e d to ask for h e l p i n class. S o m e benefits that the students offered for i n the use o f Japanese-only w e r e that it w o u l d g i v e t h e m m o r e exposure to the T L and that there w o u l d be m o r e interaction w i t h the T L . M o r e o v e r , students m i g h t learn n e w v o c a b u l a r y d u r i n g explanations that were a l l i n Japanese.  A l s o , since students w o u l d get to listen to an entire h o u r o f Japanese,  students w o u l d greatly benefit f r o m the m o d e l l i n g o f teacher talk i n order to learn and listen to increased quantities o f real Japanese s p e a k i n g style. A l t h o u g h T L o n l y has its benefits, there are some o b v i o u s trade-offs such as less understanding and m o r e c o n f u s i o n . A s c o m m e n t b y Isabella illustrates the d i l e m m a : " i f w e have f o r e v e r , . . . then w e c o u l d d o e v e r y t h i n g i n Japanese. T h a t w o u l d be great. B u t , y o u k n o w , w e d o n ' t have forever."  4.5.2.2 Purposes for Japanese Language Use A c c o r d i n g to the data f r o m the student i n t e r v i e w s , the consensus is that the instructor seemed to use a lot o f Japanese except for w h e n students m a y not or have not understood. W h e n students were a s k e d to describe the purposes for w h i c h their instructors used Japanese, most students r e p l i e d b y stating that the instructor used E n g l i s h w h e n students were c o n f u s e d or d i d not understand. T h i s i m p l i e s that instructors most l i k e l y used Japanese for m u l t i p l e purposes and s w i t c h e d to E n g l i s h w h e n student reaction t o l d them that they d i d not c o m p r e h e n d the Japanese. T h i s is illustrated i n D i a n a ' s comments: I w o u l d say, w e l l , [that] she speaks a lot o f Japanese but at the same t i m e she k n o w s w h e n to l i k e e x p l a i n things i n E n g l i s h and w h e n to e x p l a i n  107  things i n Japanese. A n d , u m w e l l I d o n ' t k n o w about other p e o p l e but ... [I] d o n ' t carry a b l a n k face l i k e 9 0 % o f the [time] ... [and] u s u a l l y she k n o w s that w e d o n ' t understand. Japanese u n t i l w e understand  A n d she w o u l d e x p l a i n it again i n  or, y o u k n o w , i n E n g l i s h .  (Interview,  N o v e m b e r , 2002) A practice m e n t i o n e d b y students was that the instructor tended to c o n t i n u e w i t h their attempts to e x p l a i n b y means o f u s i n g other o r s i m p l e r Japanese before c h a n g i n g to E n g l i s h . A l t h o u g h most students d i d not m e n t i o n any functions i n particular, the few things that were m e n t i o n e d i n c l u d e the use o f Japanese for instructions a n d for the textbook d i a l o g u e lessons. O n e student even m e n t i o n e d that she thought M s . Inoue taught g r a m m a r m o s t l y i n Japanese. 4.5.2.3 Purposes for English Language Use T h e students w h o were i n t e r v i e w e d c l a i m e d that, i n general, the instructors appeared to s w i t c h to E n g l i s h after r e a d i n g the f a c i a l expressions o f their students or w h e n students d i d not r e s p o n d w h e n asked questions. F o r instance, J o h n n y c o m m e n t e d that " w h e n s h e ' s g o i n g through g r a m m a r and u m w h e n the class d o e s n ' t r e s p o n d to s o m e t h i n g , y o u k n o w , m a y b e that means that w e d o n ' t understand this [and] so then s h e ' l l e x p l a i n it again i n E n g l i s h . " A l s o , T o d d m e n t i o n e d that, " I ' v e n o t i c e d at first she was t r y i n g to e x p l a i n it i n Japanese. W h e n people . . . [have a] . . . , " I T m m ? " face and they were l i k e ((makes a c o n f u s e d facial expression)) and s h e ' l l go o n i n E n g l i s h . "  The  teachers were able to r e c o g n i z e w h e n students d i d not or c o u l d not f o l l o w what was b e i n g s a i d i n Japanese. T h i s seemed to have been a successful strategy because w h e n a s k e d to c o m m e n t o n the balance o f T L and E n g l i s h use b y their instructors, none o f the students c o m p l a i n e d that they w o u l d have w a n t e d their teacher to speak m o r e E n g l i s h ; i n fact, a l l  108  students m e n t i o n e d that they were either fine w i t h the balance o f Japanese a n d E n g l i s h o r h a d w a n t e d even m o r e Japanese. T h e m a j o r i t y o f the students thought that the teachers' use o f E n g l i s h was for the purposes o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n a n d c l a r i f i c a t i o n . T h e c l a s s r o o m functions f o r w h i c h students o b s e r v e d teachers u s i n g E n g l i s h i n this m a n n e r is for explanations about h o m e w o r k a n d tests, teaching g r a m m a r , m a k i n g announcements, t a l k i n g about assignments, g i v i n g instructions, a n d e x p l a i n i n g c o m p l e x v o c a b u l a r y . F u r t h e r m o r e , one student n o t i c e d that his teacher u s e d E n g l i s h for teaching c u l t u r a l content since c u l t u r a l explanations i n v o l v e d g r a m m a r a n d v o c a b u l a r y that has yet to be taught. F o r h i m , the teacher d i d this for the purpose o f e f f i c i e n c y since it got the p o i n t across to the students faster than u s i n g Japanese. A n o t h e r w a y that teachers used E n g l i s h was for the purpose o f p r o v i d i n g the b a c k g r o u n d a n d context to set phrases so that students w o u l d k n o w the appropriate contexts for their usage. A s K r i s t a e x p l a i n e d , "after i t ' s e x p l a i n e d to m e i n E n g l i s h I feel o k a y . ' S o , here's the three reasons [for u s i n g this particular set phrase]' . . . [and] I k n o w that I can definitely use this w o r d . " A s , m e n t i o n e d earlier i n this chapter b y M s . K i t a m u r a , students cannot be expected to understand a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s i n Japanese because this w o u l d be too difficult. E v e n the c u l t u r a l notes section i n the t e x t b o o k is written i n E n g l i s h . F i n a l l y , another student thought that E n g l i s h was used to teach g r a m m a r because the textbook explanations happened to be i n E n g l i s h . T h e use o f E n g l i s h b y teachers d u r i n g g r a m m a r lessons, she thought, was perhaps i n f l u e n c e d b y the fact that the g r a m m a r e x p l a n a t i o n for each n e w g r a m m a r p o i n t w a s p r o v i d e d i n E n g l i s h .  109  E v e n though this was an interesting point, this was one f u n c t i o n for w h i c h none o f the i n t e r v i e w e d teachers m e n t i o n e d as a reason for u s i n g E n g l i s h d u r i n g g r a m m a r lessons.  4.5.2.4 Reflections on Instructors' Language Use O v e r a l l , the m a j o r i t y o f the students n o t e d that they were satisfied w i t h the amount o f Japanese and E n g l i s h b e i n g used b y their teachers. N o n e o f the students i n t e r v i e w e d felt the n e e d to have their teacher use m o r e E n g l i s h a n d several students s a i d that they w o u l d not m i n d i f their instructors u s e d m o r e Japanese. E v e n though M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o used Japanese 8 0 % o f the t i m e , a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h percentage c o m p a r e d to other studies o f T L use (e.g., D u f f & P o l i o , 1990; L i u et a l . , 2 0 0 4 ) , the students d i d not feel that the instructors u s e d too m u c h or too less Japanese. M o r e o v e r , this is consistent w i t h results f r o m D u f f a n d P o l i o ' s (1990) study i n w h i c h the m a j o r i t y o f the students reported that they were satisfied w i t h the ratio o f T L and L I b e i n g used b y their instructors.  A s D i a n a and Isabella c o m m e n t e d , M s . Y a b u n o u s e d a lot o f Japanese but she also regulated her use o f the T L b y a c c e s s i n g the E n g l i s h language w h e n she felt necessary. F r o m the i n t e r v i e w s , it appeared that the students were satisfied w i t h the balance o f T L and E n g l i s h use and that this was i n huge part a result o f the students k n o w i n g that their teachers were u s i n g E n g l i s h as an a d d i t i o n a l t o o l to scaffold their l e a r n i n g experiences.  F u r t h e r m o r e , because the students were s e l d o m t o l d to or felt  direct pressure to use the T L e x c l u s i v e l y , the atmosphere o f the class a l l o w e d students to use their L I : because the students o b s e r v e d that their teachers used E n g l i s h w h e n t e a c h i n g Japanese, the students felt safe to do the same.  110  T h e m a j o r i t y o f the students stated that, f r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w as learners, their teachers' use o f E n g l i s h was useful and necessary. T h e f u n c t i o n for w h i c h students felt it m o s t necessary was d u r i n g their g r a m m a r lessons. A s Jason s a i d :  I think when we're  g o i n g o v e r the  grammar  points  ... [ E n g l i s h ] is  important because y o u n e e d to understand, y o u k n o w , w h y t h e y ' r e u s i n g the forms [that] t h e y ' r e u s i n g . A s m u c h as p e o p l e say [it], the translation i s n ' t a l w a y s accurate. I t h i n k it is important, sometimes, to a c t u a l l y , y o u k n o w , i f y o u get the m e a n i n g o f the sentence i n one language then y o u c a n sort o f l o o k at that sentence i n another language and get a feel for it. A n d , so yeah I t h i n k the g r a m m a r points and the e x a m p l e s they use there are important, [to be] i n E n g l i s h . ... If she was u s i n g s i m p l e Japanese I ' m sure w e c o u l d a l l f o l l o w it but, y o u k n o w , that's not n e c e s s a r i l y effective. A n d some o f the concepts, she c o u l d n ' t e x p l a i n p r o p e r l y .  L i k e we wouldn't  understand the Japanese i n order to be able to use them. ... T h a t w o u l d n ' t be v e r y effective, right? ... I can p r o b a b l y c a n figure that out faster than i f she was u s i n g Japanese.  (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2002)  Students not o n l y f o u n d that E n g l i s h use d u r i n g the g r a m m a r explanations were efficient a n d effective, but they also felt, as the teachers d e f i n i t e l y r e v e a l e d i n their i n t e r v i e w s , that t i m e was an important factor i n terms o f the c u r r i c u l u m and the t i m e p e r i o d that teachers h a d to c o v e r the r e q u i r e d course materials. I f m o r e t i m e was a v a i l a b l e for the course, students w o u l d want the teacher to use m o r e Japanese since there w o u l d be t i m e to try and c o m p r e h e n d the explanations i n Japanese.  A s Diana commented,  i f there were m o r e t i m e ... for the class ... it w o u l d be better i f she speaks m o r e Japanese.  L i k e , I d o n ' t m i n d her repeating the same t h i n g o v e r and  o v e r again u n t i l I r e a l l y understand the w h o l e t h i n g i n Japanese. w e o n l y have an h o u r or fifty  minutes  B u t since  so w e c a n ' t r e a l l y do that.  (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) . S o m e students m e n t i o n e d that they preferred to have instructions e x p l a i n e d i n E n g l i s h . M s . I n o u e ' s student, J o h n n y , stated that students d i d n ' t necessarily ask for c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f instructions w h e n they were not sure and sometimes they have even a s s u m e d that they have understood. A l s o , P h i l m e n t i o n e d that sometimes the teacher  111  spoke a lot o f Japanese a n d spoke it v e r y fast. H e r e a l l y h a d a h a r d t i m e a n d h o p e d that she w o u l d speak m o r e E n g l i s h so that he c o u l d understand her explanations. O n the other h a n d , several students stated that they enjoyed the h i g h frequency o f Japanese s p o k e n i n class. T h e y felt that they were b e i n g f o r c e d to listen to Japanese and that this h e l p e d t h e m d e v e l o p and i m p r o v e their o v e r a l l language s k i l l s . E v e n though this p r o v e d to be c h a l l e n g i n g , students m e n t i o n e d that they preferred to hear their teacher use s i m p l e Japanese before resorting to E n g l i s h use. A s T o d d e x p l a i n e d : I t h i n k i t ' s important to i m m e r s e y o u r s e l f i n the e n v i r o n m e n t [so] that get c o m f o r t a b l e i n the language because w e have, w e ' r e expose[d] to so little Japanese outside o f s c h o o l . . . . [F]our hours [a] w e e k is a l l w e have.  So,  l i k e the m o r e Japanese w e listen to, that w e practice, yeah. T h e m o r e w e w r i t e the better w e get: the m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e w e get w i t h the language. (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2002) F o r the most part students appeared to have adjusted w e l l to their teachers' balance o f Japanese and E n g l i s h use i n the c l a s s r o o m . E s p e c i a l l y w i t h n e w v o c a b u l a r y items, students n o t i c e d that teachers used Japanese first and then a u t o m a t i c a l l y , after a short pause, s a i d the E n g l i s h translation. T h i s w a y , students were able to hear the Japanese and then hear its equivalent i n E n g l i s h . A n n a d e s c r i b e d her experience w i t h such practice as f o l l o w s : S o , [the] first t h i n g , she says that i n Japanese once; [she] just want[s] to see i f p e o p l e understand.  A n d also, I t h i n k i t ' s a g o o d practice for us  because [the] first t i m e w e can listen to a Japanese part and then [we can] see h o w m u c h w e understand and then c o m p a r e to the E n g l i s h part to see i f that part w e got ... [it] correct. L. I f I d o n ' t understand, yeah, ((laughs)) I w i l l be w a i t i n g for the E n g l i s h part. (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) W h e n students h a d trouble understanding, they were able to f i n d other methods to assist themselves such as searching for the E n g l i s h explanations i n the textbook, a s k i n g a f e l l o w classmate, and referring;back to the texts (e.g., instructions on handout or pictures  112  on the o v e r h e a d projector). In general, the students i n both classes appeared to be satisfied w i t h their instructors' use o f language i n the c l a s s r o o m . T h i s w o u l d p r o b a b l y not have been the case i f E n g l i s h was not a part o f their lessons. T h e instructors used a variety o f strategies u s i n g language to scaffold their students l e a r n i n g . (See S e c t i o n 4.6.) F u r t h e r m o r e , as w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the next section o f this chapter, students were able to p r o v i d e strategies to assist each other as w e l l .  4.5.3  Classroom Data A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, it was f o u n d that M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o u s e d an  average o f 8 0 % o f Japanese i n their c l a s s r o o m s . A s m e n t i o n e d b y their students, their teachers used a lot o f Japanese f o r a variety o f functions. B e c a u s e the T L d o m i n a t e d a l m o s t a l l aspects o f their teaching, the focus here w i l l be to get an understanding o f the purposes i n w h i c h the instructors s w i t c h e d to u s i n g E n g l i s h .  F r o m the four sessions  selected for data a n a l y s i s , E n g l i s h and m i x e d utterances c o m p r i s e d 2 0 % o f a l l s p o k e n language i n class.  113  T a b l e 4.11  T o p Five Purposes for English Use (English & M i x e d Utterances)  M s . Inoue  rank Purpose  #of  Ms. Yabuno  %  Purpose  #of  %  utterances  utterances  #1  administrative  168  37  #2  r e v i e w test  47  10  grammar  178  42  draw  44  10  43  10  students'  answers  attention  #3  important/key  47  10  translations  words  #4  b a c k to b a c k  40  9  ease o f use; efficiency  31  7  32  7  r e v i e w test  19  4  translations #5  d r a w students' attention  b a c k to b a c k  answers  O v e r a l l , it was f o u n d that the instructors' m a i n purposes for E n g l i s h language use and m i x e d utterances v a r i e d quite s i g n i f i c a n t l y . M s . Inoue had a strong preference for u s i n g E n g l i s h and m i x e d utterance for administrative tasks (168 utterances), whereas M s . Y a b u n o o n l y h a d a total o f 17 utterances for ' a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes.'  M s . Y a b u n o used  E n g l i s h and m i x e d utterances m o s t frequently for g r a m m a r related tasks (178 utterances), w h i l e M s . Inoue u s e d o n l y 30 times. T h e top use o f each instructor d i d not e v e n m a k e it as one o f the top five purposes o f the other instructor.  I w i l l illustrate h o w the instructors  used E n g l i s h and m i x e d utterances for five o f these purposes: e x p l a i n i n g g r a m m a r , addressing a d m i n i s t r a t i v e issues, g i v i n g b a c k to back translations, d r a w i n g students' attention, and r e v i e w i n g test answers.  T h e data r e v e a l e d that M s . Y a b u n o , w h o used E n g l i s h and m i x e d utterances the most for g r a m m a r related tasks, and M s . Inoue, w h o used it m u c h less, u s e d E n g l i s h to  114  supplement the g r a m m a r (or m e t a l i n g u i s t i c ) lessons because s o m e structures 1) c a r r y nuances or were c o m p l e x a n d best e x p l a i n e d i n E n g l i s h , 2) use k e y g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y , a n d 3) u t i l i z e the same t e r m i n o l o g y but serve different g r a m m a t i c a l functions (i.e., c o m p a r a t i v e analysis). In the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e , a student a s k e d i f t w o phrases h a d i d e n t i c a l m e a n i n g s :  Ikanai wake ni wa ikanai a n d ikanakute wa ikemasen a n d  M s . Inoue h e l p e d e x p l a i n the slight difference i n m e a n i n g that each w o r d carries.  Excerpt 4.15 1. Inoue:  Grammar Lesson: 'x' wake ni wa ikanai ('cannot do 'x") Ikanakute wa ikemasen. Onaji imi desu ne. Imi wa onaji. {I h a v e to go. It's the s a m e m e a n i n g . M e a n i n g is t h e same.} T h e same m e a n i n g . A l m o s t the same m e a n i n g but the phrase i s different. S o i n this case gakusei B {student B} feels k i n d o f o b l i g a t i o n because sensei's c o m i n g . I must g o . ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , Inoue, N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 ) .  In this e x a m p l e , M s . Inoue uses E n g l i s h to describe a slight difference i n the t w o structures. E v e n though they both m e a n T have to g o , ' feeling o f obligation while  ikanai wake ni wa ikanai has a  ikanakute wa ikemasen does not.  Instructors also used E n g l i s h w h e n they used g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y d u r i n g their g r a m m a r lessons. I n the f o l l o w i n g , M s . Y a b u n o uses the E n g l i s h terms f o r  ' h o n o r i f i c f o r m ' a n d ' h u m b l e f o r m ' instead o f u s i n g its Japanese equivalents.  Excerpt 4.16  Lesson: Chapter 5 Kaiwa #1  1. Y a b u n o :  Ukagaitai n desu ga. Ukagau. { M a y (I) a s k (you a q u e s t i o n ) ? T o a s k (humble form)} Honorific f o r m or h u m b l e f o r m ?  2.  Students:  Humble.  3.  Yabuno:  Jya moto no doushi wa nan desu ka. {Okay, what is it's original verb?} H u m b l e f o r m o f what?  115  4. P a u l :  Kiki. Kiku. {To ask. T o ask.} ( C l a s s L e c t u r e , Y a b u n o , N o v e m b e r 12, 2002)  In this next excerpt, M s . Y a b u n o begins to e x p l a i n h o w the n o u n m o d i f i c a t i o n o f  kata  and hito, both m e a n i n g ' p e r s o n ' , c a n change w h e n m o d i f i e d b y se ga takai (tall). W h e n she describes the n o u n m o d i f i c a t i o n she used the t e r m i n o l o g y ' m o d i f y ' , ' n o u n ' , ' n o u n modification' and 'noun modifying clause'.  Excerpt 4.17  Lesson: Chapter 4 Kaiwa #1  1.  T h i s w h o l e t h i n g : se ga takai {tall} + o r se no takai {tall} m o d i f y  Yabuno:  this n o u n  kata {person} or hito, ne {person, o k a y ? } . Dakara, kono  ga wa {And s o , this ((nominative c a s e m a r k e r ga)) is} i n n o u n m o d i f i c a t i o n sometimes y o u c a n change this ga {((nominative c a s e m a r k e r ga))} a n d use no {((genitive case m a r k e r no))} instead. B u t w h e n y o u r n o u n m o d i f y i n g clause i s v e r y l o n g , y o u d o n ' t use no y o u use  ga {((nominative c a s e m a r k e r ga))}. B u t i f i t ' s v e r y short ga))}.  y o u c a n use n o instead o f ga {((nominative c a s e m a r k e r  ( C l a s s L e c t u r e , Y a b u n o , N o v e m b e r 4 , 2002) O t h e r g r a m m a t i c a l terms u s e d were: particle, structure, past tense, negative, adverb, adjective, n o u n phrase, te-form, irregular h u m b l e f o r m , p l a i n f o r m , causative f o r m . T h i r d l y , E n g l i s h w a s u s e d to help c o m p a r e t w o different uses f o r the same t e r m i n o l o g y . In the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e , M s . Y a b u n o describes the difference i n usage o f the term saki. H e r e , M s . Y a b u n o e x p l a i n s the difference between t w o usages o f the w o r d  'saki'. T o m a k e her e x p l a n a t i o n clear, she not o n l y p r o v i d e s an e x a m p l e o f where students have heard the w o r d  'saki' p r e v i o u s to this lesson, but she also e x p l a i n s the  difference i n E n g l i s h .  Excerpt 4.18  Lesson: Chapter 5 Kaiwa #1  1.  De kono saki to iu ji desu yo ne. Osaki ni shitsurei shimasutte iu no wa l e a v i n g before someone ne. Sono saki desu yo ne. { O k a y  Yabuno:  116  a n d this w o r d  'saki'.  shimasutte'is  'leaving before s o m e o n e , " alright?} B e f o r e . Demo  T h e m e a n i n g of  'osaki ni  shitsurei  kore wa {But this} refers to destination. T h e end. T h e other e n d where you g o . . . . W h e r e you're studying + university you're s t u d y i n g at. Ryuugaku saki.  {Study a b r o a d destination.} ( C l a s s L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 12, 2002)  T h e s e c o n d use o f E n g l i s h was for administrative tasks, w h i c h i n c l u d e items related s p e c i f i c a l l y to a n n o u n c i n g tests, d i s c u s s i n g schedule changes and such. D u r i n g the m o n t h o f N o v e m b e r , the students were i n v o l v e d w i t h p r e p a r i n g to i n t e r v i e w native Japanese s p e a k i n g international students s t u d y i n g E n g l i s h at W C U .  In this next excerpt,  M s . Inoue t r i e d to e x p l a i n to her students about the s c h e d u l i n g o f the actual i n t e r v i e w s . A t first she began to e x p l a i n things i n Japanese but as the content o f her message got m o r e difficult to express, not due to language d i f f i c u l t y but d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the s c h e d u l i n g process, she s w i t c h e d to E n g l i s h . It w o u l d seem that M s . Inoue used E n g l i s h so that what she w a n t e d to express c o u l d be c o m m u n i c a t e d c l e a r l y and q u i c k l y . E x c e r p t 4.19  Interview scheduling announcement  1. Inoue:  Kono aida kikimashita keredomo san-ji, yo-ji sono jikantai de daijoubu desu ka, mina-san. Juuichi-gatsu juuhachi-nichi no sanji, yo-ji. De, dochira demo ii n desu. Mou muzukashii no de {[(I) a s k e d y o u the other time three o'clock, four o ' c l o c k is it o k a y a r o u n d that time, c l a s s ? T h r e e o ' c l o c k , four o ' c l o c k of N o v e m b e r 1 8 . A n d either o n e is fine. B e c a u s e it's too difficult} t h  ( C l a s s L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 4, 2002) T h e t h i r d purpose for E n g l i s h was for translating f r o m Japanese to E n g l i s h or v i c e versa w i t h i n the same utterance or b y means o f sentences one after another. A s students m e n t i o n e d i n their i n t e r v i e w s , this is one strategy the teachers used to help students w i t h Japanese phrases and v o c a b u l a r y . M o s t times, the teacher w o u l d say the Japanese w o r d or phrase and then i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w it w i t h its translation. T h i s strategy assisted  117  students b y p r o v i d i n g the m e a n i n g o f the w o r d or phrase so that students c o u l d understand the m e a n i n g right a w a y without h a v i n g a break i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; the teacher c o u l d prevent students b e i n g confused and the lesson d i d not need to be interrupted s i m p l y to c l a r i f y the d e f i n i t i o n o f the w o r d or phrase. A l s o , as A n n a m e n t i o n e d , it c o u l d help students q u i c k l y c h e c k i f they had understood what the teacher h a d just said.  Excerpt 4.20  Lesson: Chapter 5 Kaiwa #3  1.  Inoue:  Dou desu ka. { H o w a b o u t it?}  2.  Ernie:  Sangyoume. {The third line.}  3.  Inoue:  Sangyoume. T h e t h i r d l i n e . {The third line.} ( C l a s s L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 12, 2002)  Excerpt 4.21 1. Inoue:  Interview reflection composition task T a k e out y o u r o w n sheet jibun no ruusuriifu s h e e t your o w n loose-leaf is fine.}  de ii desu. {Your o w n  ( C l a s s L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 2 )  Excerpt 4.22 1. Y a b u n o :  Lesson: Chapter 5 Kaiwa #3 Sou desu yone. Sono toki ni kimetara dou. {That's right. H o w a b o u t d e c i d i n g at that time?} H o w 'bout ++. d e c i d i n g it + that t i m e , ne. {Okay?} Sono toki ni kimetara dou. {How a b o u t d e c i d i n g at that time?} ( C l a s s L e c t u r e , Inoue, N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  A s these e x a m p l e s illustrate, b y i m m e d i a t e l y g i v i n g students the E n g l i s h equivalent the students understood the w o r d or phrase and the lesson c o n t i n u e d w i t h o u t b e i n g interrupted.  A l s o , students' thought processes as they listened d i d not need to be  interrupted either. T h e s e s m a l l and short instances o f assistance seemed to be a useful strategy as it p r o v i d e d s c a f f o l d i n g to students w h o m e n t i o n e d that they u s u a l l y h a d difficulty with vocabulary.  118  E n g l i s h w a s also used to draw students' attention to certain w o r d s a n d phrases and f o r emphasis. F o r e x a m p l e , towards the e n d o f a q u i z M s . Inoue a n n o u n c e d "thirty seconds!" to alert students as to h o w m u c h t i m e w a s left. A l s o , w h e n she read f r o m a handout o n g i v i n g a d v i c e that l i s t e d the i n d i v i d u a l expressions a l o n g w i t h their c o r r e s p o n d i n g degrees o f politeness, she drew the students' attention b y a n n o u n c i n g i n E n g l i s h "the difference i s " before she began h e r e x p l a n a t i o n o f the v a r i o u s degrees o f politeness that each e x p r e s s i o n represented.  M s . Y a b u n o used E n g l i s h i n the same w a y .  T h i s f o l l o w i n g excerpt illustrates a situation w h e n M s . Y a b u n o w a s t r y i n g to have students identify the m i s s i n g (i.e., i m p l i e d ) particle o f a sentence f r o m the d i a l o g u e i n the textbook. W h e n students d i d n ' t answer, she tried u s i n g E n g l i s h t w o separate times ( L i n e 3 a n d 5) i n order to e m p h a s i z e the element that the students s h o u l d be e x a m i n i n g . T h e text that the students were t r y i n g to analyze has been d o u b l e u n d e r l i n e d .  E x c e r p t 4 . 2 3 L e s s o n : C h a p t e r 4 Kaiwa #1  1. Students:  2. Y a b u n o :  ++. ( x ) .  'Nado'l  'Nado'dake de Un desu ka. {'Etcetera'? Y o u ' r e fine with Josei no beneoshi + mada  'etcetera'?} + L o o k at the structure. +  ookunai. Jyoshi irimasen ka. { F e m a l e lawyers + not m a n y yet. Don't (you) n e e d a particle?} 3.  Students:  4. Y a b u n o :  ((no response))  Joshi wa. ++ Josei no bengoshi + mada ookunai no yo. { T h e particle? ++ F e m a l e l a w y e r s + there aren't m a n y yet, y o u know.} P a r t i c l e . ++ Nan ga hitsuyou desu ka. {What is n e c e s s a r y ? }  5.  Students:  ++. ( x ) .  6. Y a b u n o :  Nani. {What?}  7.  Wa. {Topic m a r k e r wa.)  Shelley:  8. Y a b u n o :  Wa. Sou desu yo ne. {Topic m a r k e r wa. T h a t ' s right, isn't it?}  119  ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 12, 2 0 0 2 )  L a s t l y , the E n g l i s h w a s u s e d w h e n answers to the test were r e v i e w e d . E v e n though Japanese was used, for the most part, d u r i n g the lessons that i n v o l v e d these test items, it seemed that the task o f r e v i e w i n g test answers s i g n a l l e d a s w i t c h i n t o E n g l i s h . T h e r e are t w o reasons that c a n h e l p e x p l a i n this. F i r s t o f a l l , it is a r e v i e w o f the answers and, therefore, the teachers w a n t e d to m a k e test c o m m e n t s c l e a r to a l l students e s p e c i a l l y to those students w h o m i g h t have answered the q u e s t i o n i n c o r r e c t l y . S e c o n d l y , since it was a r e v i e w session, i n order to save t i m e instructors used E n g l i s h i n order to be t i m e efficient. A t h i r d e x p l a n a t i o n c o u l d be because they w e r e not t r y i n g to save t i m e , but because they w e r e r u n n i n g out o f class t i m e . T h i s was the case w i t h M s . Inoue, w h o left the test a n s w e r r e v i e w session u n t i l the v e r y e n d o f class w i t h o n l y a f e w minutes left to go o v e r the answers. H o w e v e r , both instructors used an i n c r e a s e d amount o f E n g l i s h d u r i n g these times. W h a t f o l l o w s is M s . Inoue's r e v i e w o f section four o n the test. E x c e r p t 4.24  Test a n s w e r s ' review session  1.  S e c t i o n four, the next section.  Inoue:  inappropriate.  + W h y the u n d e r l i n e d part is  Y o u r explanation i n English.  I want (x) y o u to write  s o m e t h i n g + t a l k i n g about p r a i s i n g i f s o m e b o d y praises + y o u r family members.  I f y o u say, i f y o u w r i t e Japanese people d o not  agree w i t h that k i n d o f c o m m e n t . enough explanation.  If y o u r a n s w e r is that + not  O k a y ? L o t s o f p e o p l e say Japanese p e o p l e do  not agree.  Japanese p e o p l e do not praise + ah y o u r o w n f a m i l y  members.  T h a t ' s not e n o u g h , o k a y ? I w a n t e d y o u to w r i t e it is  i m p o l i t e or it is rude to say s o m e t h i n g g o o d about y o u r f a m i l y members.  T h a t ' s important part.  Japanese people are h u m b l e .  It is rude.  It is i m p o l i t e .  T h e y d o n ' t want to s h o w off.  Or, Okay?  T h a t k i n d o f + w o r d s I w a s l o o k i n g for. ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 12, 2 0 0 2 )  120  In this excerpt, M s . Inoue d i d not use Japanese at a l l , e v e n t h o u g h she used Japanese d u r i n g her actual language lessons. I n E x c e r p t 4 . 2 5 , M s . Y a b u n o is r e v i e w i n g the answers f r o m s e c t i o n t w o o n the exact same test:  E x c e r p t 4.25  Test a n s w e r s ' r e v i e w session  1.  De, eeto niban mite kudasai «e.{And, un p l e a s e look at n u m b e r two, o k a y ? } Y o u ' r e t a l k i n g to y o u r close friend, + v e r y close friend, T h a t means y o u need to use casual f o r m , casual speech, S o i f y o u use v e r y f o r m a l speech l i k e temo ii desu ka {can I?} for n u m b e r t w o , [the] f o r m a l i t y is w r o n g , ++. Sore kara + eeto. { A n d then, um.} In a w a y , a p o l i t e Japanese speaker w o u l d . Y o u h a v e to say n o i n a w a y a p o l i t e Japanese speaker w o u l d say 'sore wa chotto' {but}. + It is p o l i t e but i t ' s not p o l i t e enough. I f y o u ' r e p o l i t e y o u w o u l d p r o v i d e some k i n d o f reason. Watashi mo ima tsukatte iru no de + tsukatte irukara. {I a m u s i n g it right n o w a l s o + b e c a u s e (I'm) u s i n g (it).} + A lot o f y o u used no de {because} for reason, to s h o w the reason, but i n c a s u a l speech + it s h o u l d be kara {because}. + D i d n ' t take any p o i n t for that but it s h o u l d be kara {because}. A n d instead o f sumimasen {sorry} it s h o u l d be gomen {sorry}.  Yabuno:  r ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 12, 2002)  A l t h o u g h , o v e r a l l , M s . Y a b u n o used m u c h less E n g l i s h d u r i n g her test answer r e v i e w sessions, it was one o f b o t h teacher's top five purposes for the use o f E n g l i s h . T h e five most c o m m o n uses o f the E n g l i s h language for each instructor is s u m m a r i z e d i n T a b l e 4.11.  4.5.4  Discussion T h e instructors seemed to agree that they favoured the O p t i m a l U s e P o s i t i o n , and  c o n s c i o u s l y made efforts to use as m u c h T L as p o s s i b l e , w h i l e r e c o g n i z i n g that codes w i t c h i n g w o u l d be the m o s t effective m e t h o d for teaching J F L at W C U . T h e language o f instruction, besides the T L , was E n g l i s h and since m a n y students and e v e n teachers  121  were E S L , e v e r y o n e was w e l l aware o f the r o l e that L I p l a y e d i n p r o v i d i n g s c a f f o l d i n g to students. Others that have f o u n d the use o f L I b e n e f i c i a l i n c l u d e A n t o n and D i C a m i l l a (1999), V i l l a m i l and de G u e r r e r o (1996), and S w a i n and L a p k i n (2000).  T h e target language was used for a variety o f purposes. It was used for instructions, c o m m a n d s , r e v i e w i n g and p r a c t i c i n g T L content, and, e x p l a i n i n g and g i v i n g e x a m p l e s for c h a l l e n g i n g lesson content. F u r t h e r m o r e , the T L was u s e d to ask questions or have d i s c u s s i o n s to e l i c i t T L responses, and for r e s p o n d i n g to students w h o p o s e d questions i n the T L . A c c o r d i n g to the students, the instructor used E n g l i s h w h e n they felt that Japanese m i g h t h i n d e r the c o m p r e h e n s i o n or n e g a t i v e l y affect the c l a r i t y o f the lesson content. T h e students m e n t i o n e d that the teachers' were sensitive to their needs and were able to interpret their reactions (e.g., b l a n k or c o n f u s e d facial expressions or getting no response) and adjust their T L / L 1 use a c c o r d i n g l y .  T h e students appreciated  their teachers' use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g and preferred it o v e r a target l a n g u a g e - o n l y type o f l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t . S i n c e M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o were able to use h i g h frequencies o f the T L and yet still satisfy their students' needs, it appears that a h i g h ratio o f T L use does not necessarily result i n insecure and a n x i o u s students. T h i s is consistent w i t h L e v i n e ' s (2003) study that e x a m i n e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between language use and anxiety.  4.6  Purposes for Japanese, English a n d O t h e r Languages' Use by Students  F r o m the i n t e r v i e w s o f both the instructors and the students, as w e l l as m y o w n observations d u r i n g class lectures and p a i r w o r k the students spoke other languages other than E n g l i s h . A l t h o u g h the c o m m o n language between a l l m e m b e r s o f the c l a s s r o o m c o m m u n i t y was E n g l i s h , for m a n y E n g l i s h was not their L I . F o r m a n y , their native  122  language ( N L ) was C h i n e s e (either M a n d a r i n or Cantonese). T h i s meant that the C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d students were l e a r n i n g Japanese through their L 2 , E n g l i s h , or e v e n sometimes E n g l i s h was their L 3 . T h i s section w i l l l o o k at issues that r e v o l v e a r o u n d such questions as: W h e n d i d students use their N L ? F o r what purposes d i d they feel the needed to use their L I or E n g l i s h ? H o w d i d students use language to enhance their learning experience?  4.6.1  Instructors' and Focal Instructors' Comments A c c o r d i n g to a l l the J F L instructors, it was quite noticeable that most students  e n r o l l e d i n the J F L classes h a d C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d . M s . M u r a k a m i e v e n c l a i m e d that 9 9 % were C h i n e s e . M s . Y o u n g e x p l a i n e d what she observed: "95 per cent are C h i n e s e : m a i n l y f r o m H o n g K o n g , and then T a i w a n , a n d then M a i n l a n d C h i n a . A h , [there are] v e r y f e w C a u c a s i a n s l i k e u m three, yeah three or f o u r C a u c a s i a n s . " In fact M s . C h e n e x p l a i n e d that perhaps C a u c a s i a n studentfs] are i n t i m i d a t e d : m a n y o f t h e m . A n d m a y b e that's w h y w e e n d u p h a v i n g such large numbers o f C h i n e s e s p e a k i n g students i n class w i t h v e r y few C a u c a s i a n students, although w e are i n an E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g university."  D e s p i t e h a v i n g m a n y C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d students, most teachers, i n general, d i d not feel its effects d u r i n g the c l a s s r o o m lectures. H o w e v e r , the students' L I and/or E n g l i s h seeped i n d u r i n g s m a l l group and p a i r w o r k sessions: m o s t students interacted i n their L I and/or E n g l i s h and not Japanese. W h e n this happened i n M s . Y o u n g ' s class she a l w a y s t o l d t h e m to "try not to speak any other language except Japanese." A l s o , as M s . S a s a k i w a l k e d a r o u n d her c l a s s r o o m , she t o l d students "Japanese o n l y . " A s for M s . M u r a k a m i , w h e n students kept t a l k i n g i n their L I and/or  123  E n g l i s h and they were off-task, she w o u l d approach t h e m as say, de!" ("In Japanese! In Japanese!").  "Nihongo de! Nihongo  Interestingly, M s . Y a b u n o and M s . Inoue d i d not  m a k e any such c o m m e n t s d u r i n g their i n t e r v i e w s and n o such practice was o b s e r v e d or a u d i o - r e c o r d e d i n either o f their classes.  T h e m a j o r i t y o f the instructors saw the benefits o f L I use and n o teacher tried to ban its use f r o m their classes. F o r e x a m p l e , teachers such as M s . M u r a k a m i and M s . Inoue reported that students used their N L because they m a y be insecure a n d not confident i n their T L a b i l i t y and b e i n g able to use their L I m a d e t h e m feel m o r e comfortable. A n o t h e r purpose for u s i n g other language besides the T L is that it is m u c h easier to c o m m u n i c a t e a n d discuss their ideas. A s M s . Inoue c o m m e n t e d , "the most important this is ... [that] they share their o p i n i o n a n d b r a i n s t o r m " , and, furthermore, as M s . C h e n added, students m a y require E n g l i s h or C h i n e s e to "get i n s p i r e d . " T h i r d l y , the L I was used to h e l p students e x p l a i n g r a m m a r structures to each other. In M s . Y a b u n o ' s o p i n i o n , this was a v e r y g o o d m e t h o d : •  ' C a u s e i f one  student, w e l l ,  i f when  they're  working  together  p a i r w o r k or s o m e t h i n g , i f one o f t h e m ah does not understand  like  what's  g o i n g o n o n certain g r a m m a r or s o m e t h i n g , [and so] i f the other person can h e l p , and [also] I t h i n k i t ' s g o i n g to be v e r y tough to h e l p i n Japanese, right?  S o they can h e l p i n E n g l i s h or C h i n e s e o f K o r e a n I t h i n k that's  g o o d . (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2002) T h e other purpose o f students use o f L I or E n g l i s h m e n t i o n e d i n the instructor i n t e r v i e w s was for the purpose o f c o m p r e h e n s i o n c h e c k s . M s . T a n a k a o b s e r v e d that students used their L I to c o n f i r m w i t h each other b y a s k i n g , " M a y b e this is what the teacher s a i d ? " In general, instructors a l l o w e d students to use their L I and/or E n g l i s h d u r i n g peer-peer interaction. I f the purpose o f the task was to practice their s p e a k i n g s k i l l s then teachers tended to r e m i n d students to speak Japanese and for the most part the data  124  revealed that the students d i d use Japanese for o r a l practice tasks. H o w e v e r , d u r i n g tasks i n w h i c h students n e e d e d to discuss their ideas i n order to p r o d u c e a p r o d u c t i n the T L (e.g., w r i t i n g a c o m p o s i t i o n , creating a list o f i n t e r v i e w questions, p r e p a r i n g materials for the oral e x a m ) then teachers a c k n o w l e d g e d the benefits o f the L I and/or E n g l i s h to v e r b a l i z e their t h i n k i n g processes and discuss the content o f the task.  A s M s . Tanaka  said, i t ' s "just natural b e h a v i o u r " to c o m m u n i c a t e i n the L I and/or E n g l i s h . 4.6.2  Students' Comments  T h e student i n t e r v i e w s revealed that most students d i d not use the Japanese except w h e n referring to o r c r e a t i n g the required content o f the task. It seemed that some students d i d not feel confident i n their s p e a k i n g a b i l i t y a n d hesitated to use Japanese as illustrated i n S e a n ' s c o m m e n t : " I d o n ' t w a n n a try and embarrass m y s e l f u s i n g Japanese." T h i s w a s also supported i n the c l a s s r o o m data. A s they w e r e s t i l l at an intermediate l e v e l , it still t o o k some t i m e before Japanese utterances w o u l d c o m e out m o r e spontaneously and easily. W h a t P h i l ' s a i d is t y p i c a l o f some o f the student response: "It's hard. It's hard for m e to ask q u e s t i o n i n Japanese. I also have to t h i n k to o r g a n i z e [what I w a n t to say] first." W h e n P h i l v i s i t e d M s . Y a b u n o d u r i n g her office hours, he a l w a y s prepared h i s i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n beforehand e v e n t h o u g h "after w h e n she keep[s] a s k i n g m e question[s] back [ i n Japanese] then I w i l l j u s t [think], " O h , m a n . " [and say] " M o w  ichido" {Please  repeat once a g a i n } . " A s for G a b r i e l l a , she c o m m e n t e d that she w o u l d use Japanese i f " i t ' s s i m p l e l i k e just a s k i n g s o m e t h i n g , ' W h a t is i t ? ' ... but [if] i t ' s too difficult to answer a q u e s t i o n then u s u a l l y [I] use E n g l i s h . " A n n a , a student I w o u l d describe as quite confident, m e n t i o n e d that, "I d o n ' t t h i n k i t ' s g o o d to j u s t use y o u r o w n language [for] the w h o l e class. T h e n  125  there's no p o i n t o f l e a r n i n g that n e w language [that] y o u ' r e l e a r n i n g . " She c o n t i n u e d b y s a y i n g that she t h i n k s it w o u l d be g o o d to use Japanese w h e n m a k i n g s m a l l talk w i t h classmates. S o m e o f the expressions, but not sentences she e m p h a s i z e d , that she l i k e d to use and m a k e s a n effort to use w e r e o f luck}, and  taihen desu ne {Isn't it h a r d w o r k ? } , ganbatte {best  sayou nara { g o o d b y e } .  W i t h respect to L I a n d E n g l i s h use, the students c o m m e n t e d that they preferred to use L I o r E n g l i s h because it felt natural, w a s m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e , w a s easier to understand than Japanese for e x p l a n a t i o n s , a n d created a better l e a r n i n g atmosphere. F i r s t o f a l l , i f the student h a d not been here for a l o n g t i m e and d i d not speak E n g l i s h fluently, then it felt unnatural to c o m m u n i c a t e i n any other language other than the L I and/or E n g l i s h w h e n both partners spoke the same language. Isabella, a K o r e a n native speaker, said h o w she felt a w k w a r d h a v i n g to speak Japanese w i t h another K o r e a n speaker: " I feel k i n d a u m w e i r d s p e a k i n g Japanese w i t h K o r e a n 'cause I ' m , h o w I ' m s u p p o s e d to say, a h I ' m k i n d a afraid o f w h a t he m i g h t t h i n k o f m e s p e a k i n g . I t h i n k t h e y ' r e g o n n a t h i n k l i k e . ' W h y is she s p e a k i n g Japanese a n d stuff?' 'Is she s h o w i n g o f f ? ' " T h i s w a s also a sentiment m e n t i o n e d b y K o r e a n native pairs i n K i m ' s study (2005).  I s a b e l l a also shared  her story about her experience last year: W e h a d to do ah oral presentation ... w i t h a partner. S o w h e n w e have to w r i t e a ah w r i t e out a short p l a y I h a d a K o r e a n partner a n d it w a s m u c h easier 'cause w e b o t h understand what w e ' r e t r y i n g to say. (Interview, November, 2002). Therefore, u s i n g the L I and/or E n g l i s h w i t h a f e l l o w classmate seemed m o r e natural and created m o r e a m i c a b l e l e a r n i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p ; students d i d not have to feel threatened or defensive.  126  S i m i l a r l y , students felt m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e u s i n g their L I or E n g l i s h relative to s p e a k i n g Japanese. S i n c e not everyone was yet fluent i n the T L , u s i n g the L I or E n g l i s h w o u l d feel m u c h m o r e comfortable than t a k i n g r i s k s b y u s i n g Japanese. B r a d , a C h i n e s e speaker w h o had l i v e d here since he was four years o l d and was, therefore, fluent i n E n g l i s h , c o m m e n t e d that e v e n though he k n e w Cantonese he felt m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e c o m m u n i c a t i n g i n E n g l i s h because he was i n C a n a d a . K e l l y , shared her thought o n L I / E n g l i s h language use: W h e n y o u try to learn a s e c o n d language u m y o u ' r e not c o m f o r t a b l e ... u s i n g it. S o , m a y b e y o u have to use l i k e spend l i k e ah f e w minutes to put those [Japanese] things i n y o u r head before y o u c a n a c t u a l l y say it out.  So  b y the t i m e y o u want to say i t i t ' s already r e a l l y late. S o , I guess ... [if you] w a n n a get first h a n d answers [and] ... y o u w a n n a instant and stuff ... I ' l l use m y first language or E n g l i s h .  response  (Interview, N o v e m b e r ,  2002) F r o m these e x a m p l e s , it is evident that, as a result, c o m m u n i c a t i n g i n the N L or E n g l i s h made students feel m o r e comfortable i n class. I f a F L student started r e s p o n d i n g i n Japanese, the person at the other end, as m e n t i o n e d b y Isabella and S e a n , w o u l d l i k e l y think that "they're r e a l l y c o c k y " , thus m a k i n g the l e a r n i n g partnership a w k w a r d . T h i r d , the N L or E n g l i s h , the students felt, gave t h e m a c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o o l that a l l o w e d t h e m to talk about the language (i.e., Japanese) to enhance their understanding o f Japanese, m u c h m o r e than they c o u l d achieve i f u s i n g o n l y Japanese. G a b r i e l l a preferred E n g l i s h because she c o u l d use E n g l i s h w i t h her partners to ask questions a n d hear answers i n E n g l i s h , too. T h i s , she said, was better and easier to understand because w h e n she was alone, she d i d n ' t feel that she c o u l d ask for help. S i m i l a r l y , S e a n and W e n d i m e n t i o n e d that they felt E n g l i s h was useful since he c o u l d use it to understand what was  127  g o i n g o n d u r i n g the classes b y a s k i n g his friends for help. F o r S e a n , he felt that this was m o r e effective than i f he were to try to use Japanese. L a s t l y , the students m e n t i o n e d that b e i n g able to access their L I a n d E n g l i s h h e l p e d create a better l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t i n the F L c l a s s r o o m . A l l o w i n g the students to use their N L o r E n g l i s h created an l e a r n i n g atmosphere that was m o r e c o n d u c i v e to l e a r n i n g . F o r e x a m p l e , i n B r a d ' s i n t e r v i e w he m e n t i o n e d that " i f she d i d say ... y o u c a n o n l y speak Japanese, then people m i g h t not e v e n , they w i l l participate less i n class because t h e y ' r e shy about u s i n g Japanese." In a d d i t i o n , b e i n g p a i r e d w i t h a n d sharing the same L I h e l p e d b u i l d friendship a n d a rapport that was c o n n e c t e d w i t h language and culture. A n n a w h o s a i d h o w , b y sharing the N L , she w a s able to get k n o w m o r e people faster because they h a d s i m i l a r b a c k g r o u n d s . 4.6.3  Classroom Data T h e data c o m p a r i n g student language use a c t i v i t y d u r i n g c l a s s r o o m lectures  c o m p a r e d to p a i r w o r k tasks r e v e a l e d that student use o f Japanese decreased w h i l e N L o r E n g l i s h language use increased. W h y w e r e student u s i n g m o r e N L o r E n g l i s h a n d c o d e s w i t c h i n g d u r i n g peer task? W h a t purposes necessitated the use o f N L or E n g l i s h use a n d code-switching? T h e data f r o m the c l a s s r o o m were gathered f r o m three distinct activities. T h e s e tasks were c h o s e n because they represented a range o f a c t i v i t y types w h i c h h a d the most amount o f peer group a u d i o - r e c o r d i n g s . T h e three tasks were: 1) o r a l practice u s i n g praise a n d b a c k - c h a n n e l l i n g cues (4 peer groups), 2) an oral e x a m i n a t i o n preparation session (5 peer groups), a n d 3) a c o m p o s i t i o n w r i t i n g task (4 peer groups). E a c h utterance was c o d e d into categories as they e m e r g e d f r o m the data. S i n c e the pairs that  128  shared C h i n e s e as their L I h a d m o r e v a r i a t i o n i n m i x e d utterances (than those w h o s e c o m m o n language w a s o n l y E n g l i s h ) , i n the end, a l l m i x e d c o m b i n a t i o n s o f utterances were l u m p e d into one language group c a l l e d ' m i x e d ' . S i m i l a r l y , a l l ' c o m m o n l a n g u a g e ' ( C L ) utterances (either E n g l i s h , M a n d a r i n o r Cantonese) w e r e c o m b i n e d i n t o one larger language group l a b e l l e d as ' C L " . A s a result, the utterances w e r e separated as either T L , C L Or m i x e d . U s i n g these three class activities, the utterances w e r e c o d e d a n d categories for the purposes for language use emerged. It was f o u n d that d u r i n g peer-peer interactive tasks, the most frequent uses o f the L I ( E n g l i s h , M a n d a r i n and/or Cantonese) a n d m i x e d utterances w a s for task management, off-task interaction, m e t a l i n g u i s t i c talk, a n d metatask task.  Others that w e r e less frequent were translations for N L use, a n d , for m i x e d  language use, the N L for e x p r e s s i n g the actual N L e q u i v a l e n t o f a w o r d o r phrase that students w a n t e d to w r i t e o r say i n the T L . T a b l e 4 . 1 2 a n d T a b l e 4.13 p r o v i d e s an outline and g i v e s the frequency o f N L a n d m i x e d use, r e s p e c t i v e l y , d u r i n g the three peer tasks.  Table 4.12 Top Five Purposes for CL Use during Pair Tasks Purpose  Frequency (%)  #1  task management  47  #2  off-task interaction  20  #3  m e t a l i n g u i s t i c talk  19  #4  meta-task talk  16  #5  translations  4  Table 4.13 Top Five Purposes for Mixed Language Use during Pair Tasks Purpose  Frequency (%)  #1  m e t a l i n g u i s t i c talk  52  #2  task management  35  #3  off-task interaction  6  #4  N L for actual content  4  #5  translations  2  129  T a s k management was b y far the purpose for w h i c h the C L was u s e d the most. T a s k management i n c l u d e s utterances that i n v o l v e m a n a g i n g h o w to d o p r o c e e d and c a r r y o n the task, negotiating the content o f the task, d i s c u s s i n g h o w to structure the actual text (oral or written) (e.g., h o w to o r g a n i z e what they write) and f o r m a i n t a i n i n g and r e g u l a t i n g the f l o w o f the interaction. Off-task a n d side c o m m e n t s also u t i l i z e d the C L . T h i s category i n c l u d e s conversations that are not d i r e c t l y related to the task or any c o m m e n t s made on the side that is not d i r e c t l y related to task content. F o r e x a m p l e , students d i s c u s s e d their other classes, their plans for w i n t e r h o l i d a y s , made j o k e s and such. T h e C L was used for m e t a l i n g u i s t i c purposes. M e t a l i n g u i s t i c talk c o n s i s t e d o f peer interactions a r o u n d the Japanese language itself. F o r e x a m p l e , this c o u l d i n c l u d e t a l k i n g about language c h o i c e a n d structures and also to discuss language p r o b l e m s . O n the other h a n d , students used the C L to talk about the actual task c r i t e r i a or task instructions (meta-task). In a d d i t i o n , w h e n requesting and r e p l y i n g to requests for translations, student d i d so b y u s i n g the C L . T h i s also i n c l u d e d u n s o l i c i t e d translations.  Lastly,  students i n c o r p o r a t e d the N L w h e n they s a i d the N L equivalent o f a Japanese phrase or sentence i n order to let the other group m e m b e r k n o w what it was that they w i s h e d to say or w r i t e i n the T L . F o r a variety o f reasons, e s p e c i a l l y those m e n t i o n e d b y the students i n S e c t i o n 4.5.2, students f o u n d it effective to use the C L for task management, off-task interaction, m e t a l i n g u i s t i c talk, meta-task talk, and the g i v i n g and requesting o f translations. In E x c e r p t 4.6, d u r i n g their c o m p o s i t i o n task, M i h o and S h e r i try to r e c a l l the name o f the course that their i n t e r v i e w e e t o o k so that they c o u l d figure out what to w r i t e i n their i n t e r v i e w reflection c o m p o s i t i o n .  130  E x c e r p t 4.26  Interview reflection composition task ( M i h o : H L L ; S h e r i : Chinese)  1.  Miho:  I t h i n k i t ' s c a l l e d y e a h u m d i d she say w h a t i t ' s c a l l e d ? I t h i n k i t ' s A r t Studies.  2.  Sheri:  She s a i d ' s o m e t h i n g c u l t u r a l ' .  3.  Miho:  Yeah.  4.  Sheri:  That's why. + I didn't know.  5.  Miho:  W e can write l i k e + I ' m pretty sure i t ' s A r t Studies 'cause m y friends are t a k i n g (x). B u t w e can say i n A r t Studies they learn c u l t u r a l stuff. + S o then + Ichiban muzukashii kamoku wa {the most difficult subject is} or is this [under] another t o p i c ? A r e w e a l l o w e d to talk about it?  6.  Sheri:  O r m a y b e w e c a n j u s t say the o n l y + j u s t l i k e the o n l y u m subject she's t a k i n g that's a l l i n E n g l i s h is culture.  7.  Miho:  Okay.  8.  Sheri:  Um.++  9.  Miho:  10. S h e r i :  H o w do I, h o w do I say that ( x x ) ? Kazuko-san eigo {English}, no I d o n ' t k n o w h o w to say it.  wa {Kazuko is} ++ (x)  Kazuko-san wa ++ totte iru kamoku no naka de um + ei- zenbu eigo de  + oshite= {Kazuko ++ among the subjects she's taking + en- in all English + teaching= 11. M i h o :  -Zenbu eigo + zenbu ++ eigo tsukatte ru no wa. {All English + all ++ the (one) using English.} I t h i n k eigo {English} yeah. +++ Wo totte iru Kazuko-san, totte- Kazuko-san ga totte iru. ++ {Kazuko who is taking,  take- that Kazuko is taking} 12. S h e r i :  To-tte iru. {Is taking.} ( ( w r i t i n g d o w n ) ) Totte iru. {Is taking.}  13. M i h o :  Totte iru. {Is taking.}  14. S h e r i :  Kamoku. {Subject.}  15. M i h o :  Kamoku. Totte iru kamoku no naka de. {Subject. Among the subjects  (that she's) taking} 16. S h e r i :  Ka-mo-ku. +Totte=  {Subject. Take.}  .131  17. M i h o :  =Naka de + zenbu, zenbu eigo + zenbu eigo +++. { A m o n g a l l , all E n g l i s h all English} Is i t eigo de benkyou shite iru no wa {studying in E n g l i s h is} o r i s i t a l l she's t a k i n g ? L i k e =  18. Sheri:  -Benkyou shite iru no wa. {Studying is}  19. M i h o :  No wa. {((genitive c a s e m a r k e r no)) ((topic m a r k e r wa))} ++ S h o u l d w e just w r i t e A r t s Studies 'cause I t h i n k that's the course name.  20. S h e r i :  ++ W e have to k n o w ( x x ) .  21. M i h o :  A r t s Studies? M m . O r , c u l t u r a l studies?  22. S h e r i :  I ' m not sure, ((laughs)) '  23. M i h o :  *Karu- *karucharal + to kankei ga aru. { C u l - cultural + } Karuchaani yotte o r karuchaa ni yotte { a c c o r d i n g to culture o r related  ((laughs))  }6  Yeah.  to culture} + o r s o m e t h i n g ? ++ 24. S h e r i :  *Karucha. {culture}  25. M i h o :  Karuchaa ni-  26. S h e r i :  =Ni?  27. M i h o :  Karuchaa no kankei {related to culture} o r s o m e t h i n g . + O r , karukaruchaa ni yo:tte + kamoku desu o r s o m e t h i n g . { A c c o r d i n g to c u l -  {culture ((dative marker))}  culture + subject} 28. S h e r i :  Karuchaa no. {culture ((genitive c a s e marker))}  29. M i h o :  Kurachaa. ++ {culture}  30. S h e r i :  Ni yotte. W h a t is that ni yotte"? { A c c o r d i n g to}  31. M i h o :  It's l i k e +=  32. S h e r i :  =1 t h i n k i t ' s d e p e n d i n g o n .  33. M i h o :  Y e a h . A c c o r d i n g to. +  34. S h e r i :  Karuchaa. +++ {Culture.}  l  Miho and Sheri decide to use the English word for culture and to use it directly into Japanese by changing it to sound as if it is a katakana word . The word for culture in Japanese is bunka and although we say karuchaa in Japanese, it is evident that they were using the English word since they tried to use it for the word 'cultural'. "KarucharaV is not Japanese. See Section 4.6.3.2 for more information on this. 1 6  132  35. M i h o :  (xx)ni kankei {related to} ++ ga aru. {has}  36. S h e r i :  Hm?  37. M i h o :  Karuchaa {culture} u m + to kankei ga aru. {is related to}  38. S h e r i :  Okay.  39. M i h o :  Kan- + to kankei +++ kan- de aru or something. ++  40. S h e r i :  (xxx).  41. M i h o :  O k a y . + S h o o t what t i m e is it? ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  In this e x c e r p t , the m a i n a c t i v i t y was content management.  T h r o u g h o u t m o s t o f this  excerpt M i h o and S h e r i t r i e d to figure out what to w r i t e and h o w to w r i t e it i n Japanese. In L i n e s 1-5, they t r i e d to figure out the name o f the course that K a z u k o , the interviewee, was t a k i n g . S i n c e they c o u l d n ' t r e c a l l the exact name, M i h o t o l d S h e r i (a C h i n e s e student) that she w o u l d c o m p r o m i s e b y d e c i d i n g to incorporate b o t h ' A r t S t u d i e s ' and ' c u l t u r e ' i n the sentence that they p l a n n e d to c o m p o s e . T o w a r d s the end o f L i n e 5, M i h o was not sure about the p l a c e m e n t o f this sentence and'asked i f they s h o u l d m o v e it to another s e c t i o n o f the c o m p o s i t i o n . T h e dialogue e x c h a n g e d u p to this p o i n t o c c u r r e d a l l i n E n g l i s h . F r o m L i n e s 9-19 and L i n e s 2 3 - 2 9 , they b o t h w o r k e d together to try to construct a m e a n i n g f u l sentence i n Japanese. A s they negotiated t h r o u g h this process, they c o d e - s w i t c h e d b e t w e e n Japanese and E n g l i s h as M i h o and S h e r i b o t h attempted to construct the sentence. T h e n i n L i n e 30, S h e r i s w i t c h e d to E n g l i s h to ask for a translation and i n the three lines that f o l l o w e d the t w o partners discussed the translation i n E n g l i s h . F r o m L i n e s 34 to 3 9 , they c o n t i n u e d to construct their sentence, u n t i l L i n e 41 w h e n M i h o suddenly, w o r r i e d about the t i m e , blurted out, " S h o o t what t i m e is i t ? " as a side c o m m e n t  133  to d r a w attention to the fact that perhaps they n e e d to m o v e o n m o r e q u i c k l y . D u r i n g this part o f the task, M i h o and S h e r i used E n g l i s h for task management, s i d e - c o m m e n t s and translation purposes. In E x c e r p t 4 . 2 7 , Isabella ( K o r e a n speaker) wrote the incorrect kanji and G a b r i e l l a ( C h i n e s e native speaker) q u i c k l y c a m e to the assistance o f Isabella to correct this error i n kanji selection. In L i n e 5, G a b r i e l l a t o l d Isabella to w r i t e the kanji for the w o r d 'yesterday' (i.e., E£3). Isabella wrote the left side part o f it i n c o r r e c t l y and i n L i n e 7, G a b r i e l l a e x p l a i n s to her that the kanji is incorrect. T h e rest o f the excerpt focuses o n the c o r r e c t i o n o f this kanji and is done m o s t l y i n E n g l i s h . In the end, it s e e m e d that G a b r i e l l a h a d to w r i t e it d o w n o n b e h a l f o f Isabella w h o c o u l d hot understand G a b r i e l l a ' s explanations for m a k i n g the appropriate corrections e v e n t h o u g h most o f the interaction i n v o l v e d E n g l i s h , their c o m m o n language. T h e d i s c u s s i o n o v e r c o r r e c t i n g the w r o n g kanji is an e x a m p l e o f m e t a l i n g u i s t i c interaction. F u r t h e r m o r e , L i n e 1 g i v e s an e x a m p l e o f h o w students used E n g l i s h to illustrate the phrase that they w a n t e d translated into the T L : " Y e s t e r d a y w e i n t e r v i e w e d " Y u r i and A k i .  Excerpt 4.27 Interview reflection composition task (Isabella: Korean; Gabriella: Cantonese) l.  G a b r i e l l a : A h , what d i d w e w r i t e ? Y e s t e r d a y w e i n t e r v i e w e d it w i t h b l a h , b l a h , blah.  2.  Isabella:  3.  G a b r i e l l a : Kinou= {Yesterday}  4.  Isabella:  5.  G a b r i e l l a : Just write konou. {err}  6.  Isabella:  Okay.  =Kinou {Yesterday} ((both laugh)).  W r i t e konoul {err}  134  7.  G a b r i e l l a : E h ? N o , n o , n o . T h e kanji i s w r o n g . T h e first o n e ' s kanji w r o n g .  8.  Isabella:  9.  G a b r i e l l a : It's supposed to be + nichi= {{{kanjifor 'day'))}  10. Isabella:  N o ? W h a t is it?  =Huh?  11. G a b r i e l l a : A n d then the other part. ( x x ) . ++ ((helps correct  kanji)) ++ S a m e f o r  this one. B e s i d e . + Y o u understand what I m e a n ? 12. Isabella:  Y o u have to have=  13. G a b r i e l l a : = T h i s (x) ++ ((writing)). 14. Isabella:  O h , o h , o h , ah.  15. G a b r i e l l a : Instead o f that one. 16. Isabella:  Okay. Okay.  17. Y a b u n o :  Kanji sonna shinpai shinai yo, tada kaite kudasai. {(You) don't h a v e to worry about kanji s o m u c h , p l e a s e just write} ((I laughs))  18. G a b r i e l l a :  [Kinou, + here, here, here. {Yesterday}  19. Isabella:  [Kinou +. {Yesterday}  20. G a b r i e l l a : U m ,  Yuri-son to Aki-san + ni + intaabyuu wo shimasu-, [shimashita.  {(We) interview, interviewed Y u r i a n d Aki} 21. Isabella:  [ U m . ++ O k a y , y o u want m e to w r i t e i t ? ( ( G laughs)) ( P a i r w o r k : C o m p o s i t i o n , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  In this next e x a m p l e , the students used E n g l i s h to discuss G a b r i e l l a ' s c o n f u s i o n o v e r the use o f t w o particles: topic m a r k e r wa a n d n o m i n a t i v e case m a r k e r ga. T h i s excerpt also illustrates m e t a l i n g u i s t i c uses o f E n g l i s h and c o d e - s w i t c h i n g .  Excerpt 4.28 1.  Oral exam practice session (Isabella: Korean; Gabriella: Cantonese)  G a b r i e l l a : B u t I d o n ' t understand w h y y o u use wa {((topic m a r k e r wa))} instead o f ga {((nominative c a s e m a r k e r ga))}. + Yomi mono ga ++= {readings ((nominative c a s e m a r k e r ga))}  135  2.  Isabella:  =Because  yomi mono {readings} + is not subject. ' T h e y ' i s , 'they' is  the subject, right? T h e y d o n ' t have to. 3.  G a b r i e l l a : ++ T h i s o n e ' s  4.  Isabella:  wa {((topic marker wa))} is w h a t ? W h a t m a r k e r again?  It's a subject m a r k e r but + i t ' s different. + It's not the m a i n subject, .  right?  5.  Gabriella:  ++  6.  Isabella:  I f y o u w a n n a say i n E n g l i s h they d o n ' t have to r e a d it, right? T h e y ' r e not, they d o n ' t have to d o the reading.  So=  7.  G a b r i e l l a : = T h e y is the subject,  8.  Isabella:  Y u p . S o , i t ' s [omitted here.  9.  Gabriella:  [Ga. {((nominative case marker ga))} + S o , i t ' s p r o b a b l y =  10. Isabella:  right?  =Daigakusei +. {university student}  11. G a b r i e l l a : Ga {((nominative case marker ga))} +++. ((laughs)) 12. Isabella:  daigakusei wa yomi mono wo shinakute mo ii {university students don't have to do readings}, but, + 1 think it's  I f y o u w a n n a say  w r o n g here. It's= 13. G a b r i e l l a : =1 still d o n ' t understand l i k e h o w w h e n to use ah w h e n to use ga  {((nominative case marker ga))} and when to use wa {((topic marker wa))}. 14. Isabella:  Okay,  jugyou wa ichijikan= {classes last for one hour}  15. G a b r i e l l a : =See this one. Mainichi shukudai ga nai.  homework.} 16. Isabella:  Mm.  17. Gabriella: Shukudai wa nai. {Have no homework.} 18. Isabella:  Y o u can say  19. G a b r i e l l a : +++ 20. Isabella:  wa {((topic marker wa))} here.  ((laughs; confused))  H e r e i t ' s interchangeable.  136  {Everyday (we) have no  ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2002) In L i n e 1, G a b r i e l l a stated her c o n f u s i o n w i t h these t w o particles. F r o m L i n e 2 to 12 Isabella t r i e d to help e x p l a i n the difference to G a b r i e l l a . D u r i n g this d i s c u s s i o n , there was extensive use o f E n g l i s h as G a b r i e l l a t r i e d to understand what her partner was e x p l a i n i n g to her. Y e t , i n L i n e 13 she was still confused and a s k e d for h e l p again u s i n g E n g l i s h : " I s t i l l d o n ' t understand l i k e h o w w h e n to use ah w h e n to use ga and w h e n to use w a . " F o r the rest o f the c o n v e r s a t i o n , they both c o n t i n u e d to interact u s i n g codes w i t c h i n g as G a b r i e l l a tried to grasp the difference i n usage between the t w o particles. Students also u s e d E n g l i s h for d i s c u s s i n g particular aspects o f the task itself. T h i s meta-task talk was almost a l w a y s done i n E n g l i s h . W h e n K r i s t a and A m e l i a prepared for their o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n , they began to w o n d e r about the procedures o f the e x a m i n a t i o n and started to chat. T h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n is presented i n E x c e r p t 4.29.  Excerpt 4.29  1.  Oral exam practice session Amelia: Mandarin; Krista: English)  A m e l i a : S o m a y b e i n the i n t e r v i e w + o n the test she w i l l have a sheet a n d say "talk about the particular part". T a l k about other side. T a l k about, yeah.  2.  Krista:  S o b a s i c a l l y i f y o u m e m o r i z e some o f these sentences=  3.  A m e l i a : = B u t c a n w e l o o k at it?  4.  Krista:  5.  A m e l i a : S o h o w about w h i l e w e l o o k at it. B e c a u s e she w i l l g i v e us l i k e one  W e cannot l o o k at it w h i l e the test is happening. W e can b r i n g it w i t h us, l o o k at it before the e x a m , and then w e have to g i v e it to her i n the e x a m .  m i n u t e to l o o k at the sheet. 6.  Krista:  Y e a h , w e ' l l have time to l o o k at it so.  7.  A m e l i a : W e c a n b r i n g this right?  8.  Krista:  I ' m g o n n a b r i n g this. I ' m g o n n a b r i n g this. T h e report, r i g h t ?  137  +++  9.  A m e l i a : W e have to answer questions. W h a t k i n d o f questions?  10. K r i s t a :  I d o n ' t k n o w . W h a t k i n d o f questions are o n the e x a m ? Yasashii  shitsumon. { E a s y questions} ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2002) A s illustrated here, since meta-task talk d i d n ' t a l w a y s require the n e g o t i a t i o n o f T L language content, students u s e d their C L as o p p o s e d to the T L for s u c h interactions. B e s i d e s meta-task d i s c u s s i o n s , off-task type o f conversations were i n large part conducted i n the same manner. In this next e x a m p l e , J o h n n y and A n n a , t w o M a n d a r i n native speakers, w e r e d i s c u s s i n g their i n t e r v i e w e e ' s hobbies for their r e f l e c t i o n c o m p o s i t i o n . I n E x c e r p t 4.30, J o h n n y m e n t i o n e d the singer K y l i e M i n o g u e since they were t a l k i n g about their i n t e r v i e w e e e n j o y i n g m u s i c . S i n c e A n n a w a s not f a m i l i a r w i t h this singer, she s w i t c h e d into M a n d a r i n ( L i n e 4) to f i n d out w h o he w a s t a l k i n g about. F o r J o h n n y ' s e x p l a n a t i o n , he u s e d M a n d a r i n , too ( L i n e 5 and 7). N o w that they were engaged i n this interesting off-task t o p i c , A n n a tried to continue the c o n v e r s a t i o n b y a s k i n g J o h n n y about the m o v i e , W e d d i n g Planner i n L i n e 8.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the teacher  began to m a k e an announcement, s i g n a l l i n g an end to their f r i e n d l y chat about m u s i c and movies. E x c e r p t 4.30  Interview reflection composition task ( J o h n n y & A n n a : Mandarin)  1. J o h n n y : [Shumi wa: eiga, kai mono, ongaku. { H o b b i e s are m o v i e s , s h o p p i n g , music} 2.  Anna:  [Shumi + eiga, kai mono, ongaku. { H o b b i e s + m o v i e s , s h o p p i n g , music}  3.  Johnny:  Kairi Minogu. {Kylie M i n o g u e } Kairi Minogu. {Kylie M i n o g u e }  4.  Anna:  S h i s h e i y a ? { W h o ' s that?}  5.  J o h n n y : S h i g e s h o u a. { S h e ' s a s i n g e r } ((starts s i n g i n g tune o f song)) M e i t i n g g u o ? { N e v e r h e a r d of it?}  138  6.  Anna:  Haoxiang ting guo.  7.  Johnny:  Neige/Z jingchang zai bo. +  { Y e a h , it s o u n d s familiar} {That, Z ((radio station)) a l w a y s p l a y s that  song} 8.  Anna:  Kairi Minogu. {Kylie M i n o g u e } Weddingu Plannaa. { W e d d i n g Planner}  Ni xihuan. 9.  { D o y o u l i k e ? } W e d d i n g P l a n n e r , ah. W e d d i n g P l a n n e r ?  Johnny: M m . ( P a i r w o r k : C o m p o s i t i o n , N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 2 ) E x c e r p t 4.31 illustrates another e x a m p l e o f t w o students w h o got o f f task. A t the  e n d o f their o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n practice task, B e t h a n d J u l i e (Cantonese native speakers) started getting o f f task. T h r o u g h o u t L i n e s 1 to 9, they t a l k e d about the e n d to the term. T h e y chatted about h o w it w a s the last w e e k o f classes a n d that they w e r e scared because f i n a l e x a m i n a t i o n w e e k w a s fast a p p r o a c h i n g . T h e y c o n t i n u e d to discuss other issues i n M a n d a r i n such as h a v i n g to v i s i t M s . Y a b u n o f o r Japanese assistance ( L i n e 4 ) , their w i n t e r v a c a t i o n plans ( L i n e s 1 0 - 1 4 ) , s h o p p i n g ( L i n e 15) a n d s k i i n g ( L i n e 17-19). T h i s entire c o n v e r s a t i o n , except f o r a c o u p l e o f E n g l i s h w o r d s (i.e., L i n e s 4 a n d 7) w a s i n Mandarin.  Excerpt 4.31 1.  Beth:  Oral exam practice session (Julie & Beth: Mandarin)  Zhe libai yinggai shi zuihou yige libai le.  {This w e e k s h o u l d b e the  last week} 2.  Julie:  Ou, hao kongbu oh!  3.  Beth:  Wo hao pa oh! {I a m scared!}  4.  Julie:  Jintian yao qu office  {Oh, it's scary!}  hour,  ranhou laoshi jiao wo du zhong yin.  {Today I'll g o to her office hour, then the t e a c h e r will t e a c h m e s t r e s s e d syllables} 5.  Beth:  Hao nan nei!  {It is s o difficult!}  6.  Julie:  Wo dou ting bu dong.  {I don't u n d e r s t a n d at all}  139  {Have you hired a tutor to teach you?}  7.  Beth:  Ni qing tutor jiao ni le ma?  8.  Julie:  Meiyou ah. +++ Hao taoyan oh!  9.  Beth:  (xxx) Wo wangji le. {I forget it}  10. J u l i e :  {No, I haven't. It's really annoying!}  Na winter na? Winter ni yao zuo sheme? {How about winter? What are you going to do in winter?}  11. B e t h :  (xxx). Ni yao dai zai zheli ma? {Are you going to stay here?}  12. J u l i e :  Jiu shi deng ba.  13. B e t h :  Jiu shi deng qian lai! Zhe jiu shi zui xingfen de. Dajia yi da zao jiu qu pai dui. {Just wait for the money to come! This is most exciting! Everybody gets up early in the morning and wait in the line} ((laughs))  14. J u l i e :  Mei cuo! {That's right!} (xxx). Qian yige week jiu hen duo. {The money, it's a lot for a week}  15. B e t h :  (xxx) Jiu shi you xie dian jiu bao man, you xie dian jiu shi na zhong hen gui de nei zhong. Ni zhidao ma? {It's like some stores will be full of customers, like those expensive stores, you know?}  16. Julie:  Mei you. {No, I have no idea}  17. B e t h :  Na ni yao qu ski trip ma? {Then, are you going on a ski trip?}  18. J u l i e :  Wo genben meiyou qu guo. Conglai meiyou hua guo. {I have never  {Just wait}  been. Never been skiing yet} 19. B e t h :  Zhe hen kepa de la. {It's scary} ( P a i r w o r k : O r a l E x a m Practice, N o v e m b e r 26, 2 0 0 2 )  F i n a l l y , this last e x a m p l e illustrates h o w students used their native language (Cantonese) as they f o o l e d around. In E x c e r p t 4.32, C a s s i e began to laugh and m a k e fun o f the w o r d ' C a n a d a ' after M i n d y p r o n o u n c e d it i n c o r r e c t l y u s i n g an E n g l i s h accent.  Excerpt 4.32 1.  Cassie:  Interview reflection composition task (Cassie & Mindy: Cantonese) =Kanada no. {Canada's}  140  2.  Mindy:  Kanada no sensei= ( ( C laughs)) { C a n a d a ' s t e a c h e r s }  3.  Cassie:  =Kaneda. ((mispronounced))  4.  Mindy:  Ah!  5.  Cassie:  Y i n g a h . {Cool}  6.  Mindy:  K a n e d a . ((says i n E n g l i s h accent)) ((both laugh)) [Canada no sensei ++ hou ga + yuukou-. { C a n a d a ' s t e a c h e r s are (more) friend-} Y i h g a h j a u { N o w \t's} yau houte ta to + shi {((error))} a i y a . {hey!} ((makes c o r r e c t i o n o n paper)).  7.  Cassie:  [Canada no sensei no hou ga + yuukouteki da. { C a n a d a ' s t e a c h e r s  {Kaneda.}  are (more) + friendly}  8. M i n d y :  Shi+te i+ma+su. {Am doing}  9.  K a n a d a y a u y u t w u a n g g e h . ((laughs)) { C a n a d a h a s a w h o l e row}  Cassie:  10. M i n d y :  [ H y w o h , j o m u t g w i e a h ? { O h y e a h , w h a t ' s g o i n g on?}  11. C a s s i e :  [ x x g i y w h a k . {The plan is spoiled} K a n o d a .  12. M i n d y :  Kanada.  13. C a s s i e :  K a m e d a . ((laughs)) K a n o d a .  14. M i n d y :  J a u gum yeung.  15. C a s s i e :  B e c a u s e she t h i n k s that the teacher i n C a n a d a is m o r e f r i e n d l y , she  ((laughs))  ((laughs))  {It's like that}  likes Canada more. 16. M i n d y :  D o o d u k w h o , d a h n h i y y i u b o f a h n nee dee. {That w o r k s , let's a d d (it)} ( P a i r w o r k : C o m p o s i t i o n , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  In L i n e 2, C a s s i e f o u n d s o m e t h i n g h u m o r o u s about the w o r d ' C a n a d a ' and began to p l a y around w i t h its p r o n u n c i a t i o n i n L i n e 3. In L i n e 6, M i n d y j o i n e d i n b y m i s p r o n o u n c i n g C a n a d a again. T h e y c o n t i n u e d w o r k i n g o n their c o m p o s i t i o n u s i n g Japanese and E n g l i s h ; h o w e v e r , the c o n v e r s a t i o n o f m i s p r o n o u n c i n g ' C a n a d a ' c o n t i n u e d i n Cantonese ( L i n e s 9-14). M e a n w h i l e , task management portions o f the e x c h a n g e s t i l l used their  141  native language and, interestingly, the translation o f their c o m p l e t e d sentence was read out l o u d i n E n g l i s h . 4.6.4  Discussion T h e f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d that students made frequent use o f other languages besides  the T L .  In M s . Inoue a n d M s . Y a b u n o ' s classes, these languages i n c l u d e d E n g l i s h ,  M a n d a r i n and Cantonese. W h e n peers shared the same L I , they t o o k advantage o f their L I to assist t h e m through the process p o r t i o n o f the task. I f they d i d not share the same L I , then the students chose to use E n g l i s h as their language m e d i u m for c o m p l e t i n g the task. Students almost never used the T L to manage the task, discuss the task itself, talk about m e t a l i n g u i s t i c s or m a k e talk off-task or side c o m m e n t s . In fact, m u c h o f their c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n v o l v e d their L I and/or E n g l i s h . E v e n though students were not d i s c o u r a g e d f r o m u s i n g their L l / E n g l i s h , they r e m a i n e d o n task for the most part and u s e d their access to other languages i n a w a y that h e l p e d t h e m c o m p l e t e the task successfully. T h e y were able to c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h each so that they c o u l d m a k e d e c i s i o n s and w o r k through the a c t i v i t y m o r e s m o o t h l y and e f f e c t i v e l y than they c o u l d have b y u s i n g o n l y the T L . T h e f i n d i n g s f r o m the p a i r w o r k are consistent w i t h most o f the present literature on this t o p i c .  F o r e x a m p l e , V i l l a m i l and de G u e r r e r o (1996) f o u n d that the use o f the L I was an important strategy e m p l o y e d b y student d u r i n g peer r e v i s i o n tasks for purposes o f g a i n i n g c o n t r o l o f the task. L i k e the students i n M s . Inoue and M s . Y a b u n o ' s classes, the S p a n i s h E S L students i n V i l l a m i l and de G u e r r e r o ' s study f o u n d that the L I p r o v i d e d the " v e r b a l m a t r i x for i n t e r a c t i o n " a n d that the T L was " u s e d m a i n l y to refer to s p e c i f i c parts o f the text or d u r i n g r e a d i n g , c o p y i n g , and c o m p o s i n g " (p. 60). S w a i n a n d L a p k i n ' s (2000)  142  study o f F r e n c h i m m e r s i o n students f o u n d that students used the E n g l i s h to m o v e the task a l o n g ( i n c l u d i n g task management), f o c u s i n g attention (e.g., s e a r c h i n g for v o c a b u l a r y , f o c u s i n g o n f o r m , r e t r i e v i n g g r a m m a t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n ) , and for interpersonal interaction (e.g., o f f task and disagreement). T h e m a j o r i t y o f the students i n m y present study had s i m i l a r L I use experiences. In fact, T a r o n e and S w a i n ' s (1995) research o n F r e n c h i m m e r s i o n grade s c h o o l learners r e v e a l e d h o w students u s e d the T L as the institutional language o f a c a d e m i c discourse yet s w i t c h e d to the L I for peer-peer interactions o f a n o n - a c a d e m i c nature. T h i s was also true o f students i n W C U ' s J F L classes. W h e n they w e r e t a l k i n g off-task or d i s c u s s i n g items that w e r e n ' t related to the language task or once they were c o m p l e t e d the task, students s w i t c h e d to their N L or E n g l i s h since they needed and preferred the L I v e r n a c u l a r for authentic, natural c o m m u n i c a t i o n purposes. A s m a n y students and teachers m e n t i o n e d i n their i n t e r v i e w s , it felt m o r e c o m f o r t a b l e a n d natural to do so.  D e s p i t e the fact that students enjoyed their J F L l e a r n i n g experiences, the student interviews r e v e a l e d that v e r y f e w students a c t i v e l y pursued opportunities to use their Japanese language s k i l l s . T h e in-class interactions were c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a l a c k o f spontaneous and creative uses o f the language.  E v e n o n c a m p u s , w h e r e there were m a n y  overseas Japanese students and w i t h i n the G a r d e n C i t y c o m m u n i t y w h e r e there were m a n y opportunities to practice Japanese w i t h residents, i m m i g r a n t s , v i s i t o r s , as w e l l as w i t h w o r k i n g v i s a a n d student v i s a i n d i v i d u a l s , the students d i d v e r y little to a c t i v e l y practice Japanese. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the o n l y "authentic" c o m m u n i c a t i o n they h a d w i t h T L speakers was the one i n t e r v i e w that the students h a d w i t h the one Japanese international exchange student. I f students are g o i n g to b e c o m e c o m f o r t a b l e a n d confident i n u s i n g  143  and i n c r e a s i n g their quantity and q u a l i t y o f the T L , the students w i l l n e e d m o r e opportunities for genuine c o m m u n i c a t i o n practice. A s M i h o m e n t i o n e d i n a f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w , she h a d h o p e d that her teachers w o u l d have  encouraged the students to use the  T L i n class, e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g peer interaction: "the professor d i d n ' t encourage us to speak [Japanese]" ( F o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w , s y n c h r o n o u s o n l i n e chat, A p r i l 2 0 0 5 ) ,  4.7  Instructors' Language Use: Adaptations and Adjustments to Accommodate Student Language Learning Experiences Instructors used a variety o f language use strategies to a c c o m m o d a t e the language  l e a r n i n g experiences o f their J F L students. T h e r e were four s p e c i f i c w a y s that instructors d i d so. T h e first strategy used was c o d e - s w i t c h i n g . T h e m a i n w a y that c o d e - s w i t c h i n g benefited students is that it increased c o m p r e h e n s i o n b y d r a w i n g on their k n o w l e d g e o f other languages (i.e., i n this case, E n g l i s h ) . F r o m the teacher's perspective, c o d e s w i t c h i n g also f u n c t i o n e d as a t i m e saver so that students h a d m o r e t i m e allotted to c o v e r i n g the c u r r i c u l u m content and p r a c t i c i n g T L a c t i v i t i e s . In a d d i t i o n , the teachers' adjustment i n the use o f E n g l i s h and the use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g d u r i n g their lessons, h e l p e d m o d e l language l e a r n i n g and teaching, and, as a result, students c o p i e d their teachers' use o f L l / E n g l i s h and c o d e - s w i t c h i n g throughout their o w n interactive peer tasks w h i c h h e l p e d p r o v i d e s c a f f o l d i n g and enhance T L input w h e n w o r k i n g c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y o n a task.  S e c o n d , and s o m e w h a t related to the first point, instructors  assisted students b y means o f  "katakanization" o f important w o r d s . "Katakanization"  refers to teachers p r o n o u n c i n g E n g l i s h w o r d s i n a Japanese accent such that it was t e m p o r a r i l y adopted as a  katakana  17  w o r d although that particular w o r d does not  Katakana is the Japanese syllabary system for writing loan words from other languages. Some examples are Kanada (Canada), koohii (coffee), suupaa (supermarket) and kasutera (castella cake). 17  144  c o m m o n l y exist i n Japanese or c l e a r l y has a Japanese equivalent that they c o u l d have easily used.  Students also c o p i e d the teacher's use o f this strategy w h e n they were  unsure o f the Japanese w o r d for a s p e c i f i c t e r m i n o l o g y . N e x t , instructors adjusted their language use b y a c k n o w l e d g i n g the needs o f J F L learners as E S L .  T h i s was particularly  relevant to testing situations. A fourth strategy instructors used w a s b y u s i n g the language b a c k g r o u n d o f C h i n e s e speakers w h e n addressing issues related to  kanji. Kanji  differences, most often w i t h w r i t i n g , were s p e c i f i c a l l y targeted towards C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d students i n order to d r a w attention to certain details to reduce error and d e v e l o p an awareness o f subtle but significant differences b e t w e e n the t w o languages.  A  d i s c u s s i o n o f each o f the four strategies w i l l be p r o v i d e d at the e n d o f each section. Furthermore, at the e n d o f this section, issues regarding heritage language ( H L ) learners w i l l be discussed b y e x a m i n e h o w M i h o , a H L learner i n M s . Y a b u n o ' s class, c o p e d w i t h learning Japanese.  4.7.1  Code-switching C o d e - s w i t c h i n g was used throughout the class. B y c o d e - s w i t c h i n g , I m e a n the  alteration or c o - o c c u r r e n c e o f t w o languages w i t h i n the same excerpt or speech event. It facilitated J F L language l e a r n i n g b y h e l p i n g students d r a w o n their k n o w l e d g e o f E n g l i s h to c o m p r e h e n d T L v o c a b u l a r y and more c o m p l e x features o f T L i n s t r u c t i o n . A s discussed i n S e c t i o n 4.4, b o t h teachers and students reported that c o d e - s w i t c h i n g h e l p e d w i t h c o m p r e h e n s i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f T L lesson content.  145  4.7.1.1 Code-switching by Instructors C o d e - s w i t c h i n g b y instructors was most evident d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n s o n f o r m a n d d u r i n g administrative tasks where focus o n c o m p r e h e n s i o n w a s v e r y important.  In  E x c e r p t 4 . 3 3 , M s . Inoue o r g a n i z e d her students f o r the i n t e r v i e w a c t i v i t y .  Excerpt 4.33 Interview activity announcement 1.  Inoue:  Anna-san, Johnny-san wa issho no peaa de ii desu yo ne. Sore kara Eugenia-san, Holly-san mo issho no peaa de ii desu ne. { A n n a a n d J o h n n y y o u ' r e fine a s a pair, right? A n d then E u g e n i a , Holly y o u ' r e a l s o fine a s a pair, right?} Michelle-san, Lynette-san, JoAnna-san {Michelle, Lynette, J o A n n a } y o u c a n decide w h o y o u want to w o r k w i t h , o k a y . Y o u have to be i n a p a i r though. ++. De, ++. ia kono hitotachi wa {And, t h e s e people} the people +_inJlvjs^ejisions y o u have to g o to A - c e n t e r at three o ' c l o c k next M o n d a y f o r the i n t e r v i e w a c t i v i t y , o k a y ? A n d then these three pairs y o u have to g o to A - c e n t e r again at four o ' c l o c k . + Ii desu ne. {Okay?} De, kore igai no hito + wa + {And, the other people} first o f a l l y o u have to f i n d a partner f r o m this class, o k a y ? A n d then, f i n d a Japanese person. + O k a y ? A n d these t w o people kono hito wa Tdaigaku no gakusei desu. Taro A-san, sore kara Masami S-san. {this p e r s o n is a student from T-university. T a r o , a n d M a s a m i . } T h e y are, they are, they said they are a v a i l a b l e for five to s i x ( o ' c l o c k ) . + A c t u a l l y w e are not h a v i n g five to six ( o ' c l o c k ) session so m a y b e y o u can contact them to arrange y o u r o w n i n t e r v i e w , o k a y ? ++. To iu koto desu ga ++. daiioubu deshou ka. {This is w h a t ' s g o i n g o n . E v e r y t h i n g okay?} A n y confusion.? ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 12, 2002)  W h a t w e n o t i c e d here i s that M s . Inoue used c o d e - s w i t c h i n g to instruct her students about p a i r groupings and e x p l a i n where and w h e n the i n t e r v i e w s w o u l d take place. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w a s v e r y c r u c i a l to the success o f the a c t i v i t y a n d so M s . Inoue ensured that she was clear b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g E n g l i s h into h e r e x p l a n a t i o n to the extent that the E S L students understood it. A n o t h e r strategy seen was w h e n the teacher uttered a Japanese phrase a n d then i m m e d i a t e l y gave its E n g l i s h equivalent. In E x c e r p t 4.33 there are t w o instances o f The name of the university has been replaced with "T-university"  146  such use. T h e T L utterance has been d o u b l e u n d e r l i n e d and the E n g l i s h translation h a d been dotted u n d e r l i n e d . In fact, M s . Y a b u n o and M s . Inoue d i d this quite often as illustrated i n E x c e r p t s 4 . 3 4 to 4 . 3 6 . T h e first t w o f u n c t i o n as translations.  Excerpt 4.34 Lesson: Chapter 5 Kaiwa #3 1.  Inoue:  Kore wa onna kotoba desu ne. Onna kotoba. {This is f e m a l e s p e e c h , right? F e m a l e s p e e c h } . F e m a l e speech. Haitta no yo. {(I) went in, y o u know.} Femaje speech^ ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 12, 2 0 0 2 )  Excerpt 4.35 Lesson: Chapter 4 Kaiwa #1 1.  Yabuno:  Kore wa nukete masu vo. {This h a s b e e n omitted.} O p i i t t e d ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 2 )  Excerpt 4.36 Final exam discussion 2.  Inoue:  Ne, shukudai de takusan kakimashita ne. {Okay, w e wrote m a n y for homework} + Sore wo mou ichido fukushuu r e v i e w , o k a y ? {review that o n c e more} R e v i e w those w r i t i n g . Fukujhim^fute_piiekudqsai. { P l e a s e review} (Classroom Lecture, N o v e m b e r 26, 2002)  In E x c e r p t 4 . 3 6 , M s . Inoue c o d e - s w i t c h e d to e m p h a s i z e to the students that they h a d to r e v i e w f o r the f i n a l e x a m i n a t i o n . S h e d i d this b u y s a y i n g the k e y w o r d ' r e v i e w ' first i n Japanese, then t w i c e i n E n g l i s h and then again i n Japanese. N o t o n l y d i d c o d e - s w i t c h i n g h e l p w i t h the c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f teacher-talk but it also acted as emphasis i n order to d r a w students' attention to important i n f o r m a t i o n . In this last excerpt, E x c e r p t 4 . 3 7 , M s . Y a b u n o u s e d c o d e - s w i t c h i n g f o r a f e w m o r e functions.  147  Excerpt  1.  4.37 G r a m m a r l e s s o n : 'x' ni kiga tsuku ('to n o t i c e ' x " )  Yabuno:  Demo {but} past-tense desu yo ne koko {here, isn't it?}. C a n y o u use eeto ne ++ 'kigatsuitayo ne' {um ++ 'noticed, right?'} + the sentence w e have is this one. Shukudai wo wasureta koto ni ki ga tsuita no wa kurasu ga hajimatte kara datta. { W h e n I r e a l i z e d that I forgot my h o m e w o r k w a s w h e n o n c e c l a s s h a d already begun} It was after the class started.  Desu ne. {Right?} Kore {this} past desuyo ne {isn't it?}. Kore {this} + can it be non-past tense here? + Shukudai wo wasureru {Forget h o m e w o r k } ((i.e., instead o f wasureta, the past tense form)). B e c a u s e w e have past tense here. Past tense here kigatsuita {noticed}. ++. W i l l it w o r k w i t h non-past tense here? 2.  Students:  3.  Y a b u n o : W o u l d it?  4.  Students:  5.  Yabuno:  ++.  ++. Yes? No? +  Okashii desuyo ne. {It's s t r a n g e isn't it?} W h e n I n o t i c e d  + that I forgot m y h o m e w o r k . Past tense desu yo ne {isn't it?}. Wasureta koto ni kigatsuita. {I noticed that I h a d forgotten}. ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 12, 2002) First, i n L i n e 1, M s . Y a b u n o used E n g l i s h to help her student notice the important lesson content that she w a n t e d to focus. W h e n e v e r she wanted to p o i n t out and e m p h a s i z e that the verb was i n past tense, she used the E n g l i s h w o r d s 'past-tense' a n d ' p a s t ' to let student k n o w to focus o n that g r a m m a t i c a l feature.  T h e n she stopped to m a k e sure that  her students where f o l l o w i n g her e x p l a n a t i o n b y a s k i n g i n E n g l i s h " W i l l it w o r k w i t h non-past tense h e r e ? " I n the next three utterances ( L i n e 3 and L i n e 5), as M s . Y a b u n o tried to e l i c i t a response f r o m her students, she used E n g l i s h to i n v i t e her students to participate and c o n f i r m that her argument was b e i n g f o l l o w e d and understood. In the end, her requests w e r e d e n i e d and she answered her o w n question. F r o m the teacher's perspective, c o d e - s w i t c h i n g also f u n c t i o n e d as a t i m e saver because w h e n students d i d n ' t respond or h a d trouble understanding the explanations i n the T L , they u s e d E n g l i s h to  148  supplement their T L use so that, u l t i m a t e l y , teachers c a n get t h r o u g h the teacher-fronted lectures and q u i c k l y m o v e onto T L activities.  4.7.1.2 Assisted Performance During Peer Interaction: LI, L2, and L3 Use W h e n students w o r k e d o n c o l l a b o r a t i v e tasks, they were also able to take advantage o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g to h e l p t h e m tackle language p r o b l e m s b y p r o v i d i n g assistance to each other i n their z o n e o f p r o x i m a l d e v e l o p m e n t . B y w o r k i n g together, the pairs were able to h e l p each other get further a l o n g w i t h the task than i f they were w o r k i n g alone. H e r e is an e x a m p l e f r o m M i h o ' s and S h e r i ' s c o m p o s i t i o n session:  Excerpt 4.38  1.  Interview reflection composition task (Miho: HLL; Sheri: Chinese) Torn n ja arimasen. torn n ja arimasen. {Don't take} +  M i h o : M m , I d o n ' t t h i n k y o u c a n n o m i n a l i z e it that w a y . ++ {Don't take} Y e a h , it doesn't m a k e ,  Sono kurasu +++. {That class} 2.  S h e r i : Toranai= {Don't take}  3.  Miho:  =To-, [totte imasen. {Ta-, a m not taking}  4.  Sheri:  [Totte imasen. {am not taking}  5.  M i h o : I t h i n k 'totte imasen'. ' C a u s e I what are y o u t r y i n g to n o m i n a l i z e ?  6. S h e r i : A h l i k e the w h o l e t h i n g ? K i n d o f l i k e y o u say u m ongaku wo kiku no ga suki desu. {I like to listen to music} 7.  Miho: M m .  8.  S h e r i : T h a t m a k e s sense, right?  9.  M i h o : Y e a h , that makes sense.  10. S h e r i : Y e a h , l i k e that. 11. M i h o : Y e a h , I d o n ' t t h i n k i t ' s the same (x) here. 12. S h e r i :  ++  Wo toranakute then w e just= {Don't h a v e to t a k e ((accusative m a r k e r wo))}  149  13. M i h o : = Y e a h . 14. S h e r i : O k a y . + 15. M i h o :  Futsuu no kurasu wo toranakute- {Don't t a k e regular c l a s s e s } . O h yeah, 'toranakute' {'Don't take'}  16. S h e r i : (x)  toranakute ++ te. {'Don't take'} ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 2 )  In this d i a l o g u e , M i h o a n d S h e r i are t r y i n g to construct a sentence to e x p l a i n that the student they h a d i n t e r v i e w e d d i d not take regular classes but t o o k s p e c i a l classes f o r students i n the international p r o g r a m . W h a t they tried to f i n d i s the c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r the negative g e r u n d f o r m o f the verb 'to take'  {torn). I n L i n e 1, M i h o u s e d h e r k n o w l e d g e  o f Japanese a n d i n t u i t i v e l y c a m e to the c o n c l u s i o n that  torn n ja arimasen was not what  they w a n t e d to w r i t e . S h e requested S h e r i ' s help i n this process b y c o m m e n t i n g , " Y e a h , this doesn't m a k e sense", a n d f r o m L i n e s 2-6 they tried several constructions o f the negative f o r m o f torn. I n fact, i n L i n e 5, M i h o thought that  totte imasen " s o u n d e d " l i k e  an appropriate c h o i c e . Y e t , she w a s still unsure and, therefore, asked, " w h a t are y o u t r y i n g to n o m i n a l i z e ? " to facilitate m o r e d i s c u s s i o n . W h e n , i n L i n e 6, S h e r i s i g n a l l e d that she was not satisfied w i t h  totte imasen, the p a i r c o n t i n u e d to search for the appropriate  f o r m u n t i l L i n e 12 w h e n S h e r i s a i d toranakute. T h e n M i h o i m m e d i a t e l y j u m p e d i n to reassure her that this w a s i n fact the f o r m that they were searching for. B y w o r k i n g c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y a n d b y b e i n g able to negotiate the content o f the task as a pair, M i h o a n d S h e r i h e l p e d support each other through this process. B y c o n f i r m i n g , s i g n a l l i n g dissatisfaction, a n d a s k i n g questions to request assistance students p r o v i d e d s c a f f o l d i n g to each other. A s a result, u s i n g their C L a n d b e i n g able to c o d e - s w i t c h e n a b l e d the students to successfully f i n d the verb f o r m .  150  T h e s e c o n d e x a m p l e , illustrated b y the p a i r E m m a a n d P h i l d u r i n g their o r a l practice session, s h o w e d the pair t r y i n g to negotiate the correct verb c h o i c e f o r 'to take a test'. In L i n e s 2-4, E m m a a n d P h i l p l a y w i t h t w o verbs, b o t h m e a n i n g 'to t a k e ' . I n L i n e 5, E m m a used M a n d a r i n to say a l o u d the sentence equivalent that they were t r y i n g to write i n Japanese.  I n L i n e 6-9, they tried different forms o f the verb torn. A f t e r l i s t e n i n g  to each other's utterances, i n L i n e 10, P h i l n o t i c e d that these d i d not s o u n d correct a n d that i n d e e d the verb ikeru w a s the one that they were searching f o r a n d tried i t out i n L i n e 11, where after h e a r i n g the sentence, E m m a agreed that this w a s correct. F i n a l l y i n L i n e 14, they were able to construct the correct sentence.  Excerpt 4.39  1. E m m a :  Role-play using Chapter 5 Kaiwa #1 as guide (Phil & Emma: Mandarin) Ee. ++ Nihongo no + pureesumento testo ((mispronounces tesuto)) ga ++= { A h . J a p a n e s e l a n g u a g e p l a c e m e n t test ((nominative c a s e m a r k e r ga))}  2.  Phil:  =To-, totte. {Ta-, take}  3.  Emma:  Uke- ++. {Ta-}  4. P h i l :  Uke-{Ta-}MM  jiang. {You tell them}  5. E m m a :  Wo yao shuo ni, ni you meiyou na guo? ( ( ( l o o k i n g i n textbook)) ++ {I'm a s k i n g y o u , if y o u h a v e e v e r t a k e n it?}  6.  Phil:  Totte. {Take}  7.  Emma:  Totte? {Take?}  8.  Phil:  Totta. + Totta. Totta ga am ( ( g r a m m a t i c a l l y incorrect)). {Take. Take.  9.  Emma:  H a v e y o u take?}  Totta gaaru? + ( x x x ) . {Have ((dative c a s e m a r k e r ni)) y o u take?}  10. P h i l :  O h , uketa. ++ {take}  11. E m m a :  Pureesumento testo wo uke-, uketa? {Did (you) ta- take the p l a c e m e n t test?} 151  12. P h i l :  M m . ((agrees)) + Arimasen. {(I) haven't.}  13. E m m a :  Ah. ++Ah,+.  14. P h i l :  Ee, doko depureesumento tesuto + ukemasu ka. {Um, where do you t a k e the p l a c e m e n t test?} ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 14, 2002)  In this t h i r d and f i n a l e x a m p l e ( E x c e r p t 4.40) o f assisted performance i n the zone o f p r o x i m a l d e v e l o p m e n t , G a b r i e l l a , M e l i s s a , and Isabella w o r k e d together to c o m p l e t e a r o l e - p l a y a c t i v i t y . I n L i n e 1, G a b r i e l l a , w h o t o o k o n the role o f a student t r y i n g to m a k e an appointment to see a n a c a d e m i c advisor, struggled to conjugate the verb au into the potential f o r m . I n L i n e 2 , M e l i s s a questioned G a b r i e l l a ' s c h o i c e o f the incorrect verb form  airaemasu. In L i n e 3, G a b r i e l l a said the non-past f o r m o f the verb a n d the tried to  conjugate is i n L i n e 5. T h i s p r o v e d to be unsuccessful and, therefore, M e l i s s a offered the i n f i n i t i v e f o r m o f the v e r b : ae.  In L i n e 7, G a b r i e l l a was s t i l l unsure and, therefore,  revealed her frustration i n E n g l i s h , to w h i c h Isabella offered the correct conjugated f o r m o f the potential F i n a l l y , i n L i n e 9, w i t h the assistance o f her group m e m b e r s , she is able to use the correct f o r m o f the verb and c o m p l e t e the r o l e - p l a y .  Excerpt 4.40  1.  Role-play using Chapter 5 Kaiwa #1 as guide (Isabella: Korean; Gabriella: Cantonese) rai- {um, next} u h + u n t i l ? Raishuu no + pureesument tesuto wo kaite {Write next week's p l a c e m e n t test} ((incorrect tense o f  G a b r i e l l a : M m , eeto  v e r b ; s h o u l d be kaita)) atode {later} + k y o u - ah j i d o u k y o u j u ni + ah  ai + te ai + airare + masu. {((err)) ah ((err)) ((dative c a s e m a r k e r ni)) ah ((err)) (err)) ((err))} Airaremasul {((err})}  2.  Melissa:  3.  G a b r i e l l a : Au, right? {to meet}  4.  Isabella:  Mm.  152  5.  Gabriella:  Ai+rareru. {((err))}  6.  Melissa:  Ae?  7.  G a b r i e l l a : I d u n n o a what. ((Isabella laughs)) Aiue.  {To m e e t ((infinitive form))?} Ae, r i g h t ? ('a', Y ,  ' u ' , ' e . ' ? T o meet ((infinitive form))}  Aerareru. { C a n meet}  8.  Isabella:  9.  G a b r i e l l a : Ae- + rare.masu. { C a n meet}  10. Isabella:  A, sou desu ka. Wakarimashite. Domo arigatou gozaimashita. (oh, is that right? I u n d e r s t a n d . T h a n k y o u very m u c h . )  11. G a b r i e l l a : lie.  {Don't mention it} ( G r o u p w o r k , N o v e m b e r 14, 2002)  In a l l three e x a m p l e s o f the peer tasks, students were able to negotiate their w a y through the task b y a s k i n g and r e c e i v i n g for help. T h e students w e r e able to identify the cues for h e l p . E v e n t h o u g h a l l peers were still l e a r n i n g Japanese, e a c h learner h a d k n o w l e d g e and c o m p e t e n c i e s i n different areas c o n c e r n i n g the T L . T h i s means that e v e n students c o u l d offer to act as an ' e x p e r t ' w h e n their peers struggled. It is not the case that assistance c a n o n l y c o m e i n the f o r m o f the teacher. A s O h t a (2000) c o n c l u d e s f r o m her studies o n J F L students, students are able to express and r e c o g n i z e b i d s for assistance, and it is p o s s i b l e to have peers p r o v i d e this assistance. T h i s is one step i n the process o f internalization o f T L f o r m s and c a n be enhanced w i t h the use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g w h e n necessary. T h e L I c a n f u n c t i o n as a c o g n i t i v e t o o l that mediates L I l e a r n i n g . These findings are consistent w i t h other s i m i l a r studies o n c o l l a b o r a t i v e peer d i a l o g u e and assisted performance ( A n t o n & D i C a m i l l a , 1999; A r n f a s t & Jorgensen, 2 0 0 3 ; B r o o k s & D o n a t o , 1994; O h t a , 2 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 2 , 1995; V i l l a m i l & de G u e r r e r o , 1996); h o w e v e r , there are v e r y f e w studies that address J F L classrooms and, therefore, there needs to be more  153  research i n J F L settings to d e v e l o p a greater understanding o f l e a r n i n g a n d t e a c h i n g processes u n i q u e to J F L c l a s s r o o m s . 4.7.2  "Katakanization" o f E n g l i s h V o c a b u l a r y Teachers also adopted the Japanese m e t h o d o f i n c o r p o r a t i n g f o r e i g n l o a n w o r d s  i n t o Japanese language through the use o f their katakana s y l l a b a r y . B y u s i n g this s y l l a b a r y as a base, teachers used E n g l i s h w o r d s a n d made t h e m into Japanese-sounding w o r d s . B y d o i n g so, the E n g l i s h w o r d has b e c o m e , what I c a l l , "katakanized" a n d is g i v e n a Japanese p r o n u n c i a t i o n a n d is used to s o u n d l i k e a T L w o r d . T h e teacher used this strategy f o r w o r d s that were already often used i n E n g l i s h , most h a v i n g to d o w i t h g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y . S u c h e x a m p l e s f r o m the g r a m m a r lectures i n c l u d e : *kajuaru (casual speech), *negatibu (negative), *meiru (male (speech)), a n d *reguraa (regular). O t h e r w o r d s were u s e d d u r i n g administrative tasks: *konpozishon tesuto ( c o m p o s i t i o n test), *fainaru eguzamu (final e x a m ) , *risuningu (listening) a n d *raitingu ( w r i t i n g ) . I n the f o l l o w i n g excerpt, M s . Inoue e x p l a i n e d about the u p c o m i n g m i d t e r m e x a m i n a t i o n . T h e katakanized w o r d s have been d o u b l e u n d e r l i n e d . E x c e r p t 4.41 M i d t e r m E x a m d i s c u s s i o n 1.  Inoue: C h a p t e r three a n d four de benkyou-shi-ta *fankushon-wa +. request sore kara p e r m i s s i o n + plus etcetera, etcetera. A , *handoauto mo chanto mitoite kudasai,  *handoauto. + *Handoauto ne. ++ // desu ka.  *Handoauto kara mo demasu kara *handoauto mo chanto mitoite kudasai. ++ Nani ka shitsumon arimasu ka. *Foomatto wa daitai onaji desu. T h e almost the same format, o k a y ?  O k a y . *Maritipuru  choisu mo arimasu.  ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 4 , 2002) In this excerpt, M s . Inoue has c h a n g e d the E n g l i s h w o r d s f o r ' f u n c t i o n ' , ' h a n d o u t ' , 'format' a n d ' m u l t i p l e c h o i c e ' into Japanese-like w o r d s . T h e advantage o f u s i n g this m e t h o d i s that the teacher d i d not need to n e c e s s a r i l y teach o r use n e w v o c a b u l a r y d u r i n g  154  her lessons, w h i c h m i g h t have disrupted the f l o w o f the message a n d c o n v e r s a t i o n . B y inserting E n g l i s h w o r d s p r o n o u n c e d as Japanese, it was m u c h easier for students to understand what the teacher is attempting to c o m m u n i c a t e since it s o u n d e d l i k e E n g l i s h w o r d s . A list o f w o r d s for w h i c h teachers u s e d  katakanization is l i s t e d i n A p p e n d i x I.  W h a t is even m o r e interesting is that the students adopted a n d learned to use the same strategy w h e n they w a n t e d to m a k e E n g l i s h w o r d s into Japanese or w h e n they d i d n ' t k n o w the Japanese equivalent and s i m p l y c h a n g e d the E n g l i s h w o r d so that it b e c a m e Japanese-like. T h i s was evident i n E x c e r p t 4.30 (p. 80) w h e n J o h n n y and A n n a were t a l k i n g about m u s i c and the singer K y l i e M i n o g u e . T h e t w o students d e c i d e d to talk to each other u s i n g Japanese:  Kairi Minogu. A n d later o n , A n n a m e n t i o n s Weddingu  Plannaa for the m o v i e title, " T h e W e d d i n g P l a n n e r . " H e r e is another e x a m p l e o f J o h n n y , u s i n g this m e t h o d for the course n a m e ' C o n s u m e r B e h a v i o u r ' . B e c a u s e he d i d not k n o w the Japanese for this course name, instead he opted to change it into the E x c e r p t 4.42  katakana reading.  Interview reflection composition task (Johnny & A n n a : Mandarin)  1. J o h n n y : =Ichiban suki na koosu. {Favourite course}  2.  Anna:  Ichi+ban + ichiban, ichiban suki na + koo+su wa = {Most + most, most favourite c o u r s e is}  3.  J o h n n y : ((says i n a deeper, exaggerated tone)) { C o n s u m e r Behaviour}  4.  Anna:  5.  J o h n n y : It's o k a y .  *Konsuumaa biheebiaa.  D o w e have to w r i t e E n g l i s h ?  ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  155  A l t h o u g h the use o f katakana is appropriate for foreign w o r d s s u c h as names o f people and titles o f m o v i e s , s o m e student learned to use this m e t h o d for other w o r d s that s h o u l d not be m o d i f i e d i n s u c h a w a y e v e n t h o u g h the intended message r e m a i n e d clear. In E x c e r p t 4 . 4 3 , C a s s i e a n d M i n d y are not sure h o w to w r i t e the w o r d s 'cafeteria' and so they try to p r o n o u n c e it i n a Japanese manner. (See L i n e s 2, 8 a n d 9.) T h e i r attempt was not successful but their use o f this strategy a l l o w e d t h e m to p r o d u c e a w o r d that was v e r y c l o s e to the Japanese w o r d '/cafeteriaor, word  i n fact, they c o u l d have used the  shokudou, w h i c h they p r o b a b l y do not r e m e m b e r or k n o w .  E x c e r p t 4.43  Interview reflection composition task (Cassie & M i n d y : Cantonese)  1.  Cassie:  Tutor  wo owattara kafe-, kafeteria deyoru gohan wo tabemasu a. I:? +  {After finishing tutoring, cafe-, (she) e a t s d i n n e r at the cafeteria a . }  2. M i n d y :  * Kafetaria (xx). {err}  3.  Cassie:  O h , a h T a n d e m , T a n d e m +.  4.  Mindy:  Tandem.  5.  Cassie:  [Tooii. {It's far}  6.  Mindy:  [(x). D e e m y e u n g p i n g a h ?  7.  Cassie:  H i e m m h i e g u m a h ? J a u g u m y i n g m u n s o o n . {Is it like t h i s ? J u s t write it in English.}  8.  Mindy:  N e e g o h j a u n g y m g e h y i n g g o y . {It s h o u l d be correct}  9.  Cassie:  [*Ka-fu-.  1 9  { H o w do y o u p r o n o u n c e it?}  [*Ka-fu-teria.  ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002) E x c e r p t 4.44 s h o w s an e x a m p l e o f M i h o and S h e r i m a k i n g a Japanese equivalent for the E n g l i s h w o r d culture. T h e y s h o u l d k n o w that the Japanese w o r d for culture is  ' This is the name of the dormitory. The name has been changed.  156  bunka, yet they s t i l l p r o c e e d to use the strategy o f katakanization to compensate for not r e m e m b e r i n g the Japanese. T h i s use o f c h a n g i n g the w o r d ' c u l t u r e ' into *karucha o r karuchaa ( L i n e 3-5, 7-9) and the w o r d ' c u l t u r a l ' ( L i n e 3) into *karucharal m a y be i n f l u e n c e d b y the t e x t b o o k section entitled " C u l t u r e notes" for w h i c h the instructor sometimes refers to as  karuchaa nooto. A l t h o u g h w e d o use the w o r d karuchaa, the  students were o b v i o u s l y unsure as they t r i e d to use this strategy to m a k e the w o r d s  *karucha and *karucharal. I n this e x a m p l e , the students d o not seem to be aware that they used this strategy, as o p p o s e d to the p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e i n w h i c h i t was done quite deliberately.  Excerpt 4.44  Interview reflection composition task (Miho: HLL; Sheri: Chinese)  1.  Miho:  A r t s Studies? M m . O r , c u l t u r a l studies?  2.  Sheri:  I ' m not sure,  3.  Miho:  Yeah.  ((laughs))  ((laughs))  *Karu- *karucharal + to kankei ga am. {Cul- cultural + }  Karuchaa ni yotte or karuchaa ni yotte {according to culture or related to culture} + o r something? ++ 4.  Sheri:  *Karucha. {culture}  5.  Miho:  Karuchaa ni= {culture ((dative m a r k e r ni))}  6.  Sheri:  = M ? {((dative m a r k e r ni))}  7.  Miho:  Karuchaa no kankei {related to culture} o r s o m e t h i n g . + O r , kamkaruchaa ni yo:tte + kamoku desu o r s o m e t h i n g . { A c c o r d i n g to c u l culture + subject}  8.  Sheri:  Karuchaa no. {culture ((genitive c a s e marker))}  9.  Miho:  Karuchaa. ++ {culture} ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  157  E x c e r p t s 4 . 4 1 - 4 . 4 4 , illustrate h o w students have adopted and learned h o w to  katakanize E n g l i s h w o r d s so that they became Japanese and, therefore, m a d e it easier to continue their task output i n the T L . In this manner, students began u s i n g a strategy to deal w i t h u n k n o w n o r n e w E n g l i s h v o c a b u l a r y items. T h i s m e t h o d seemed to be a useful strategy because there w a s s t i l l effective c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n m e m b e r s o f the conversation. H o w e v e r , a l t h o u g h m a n y w o r d s have their proper e q u i v a l e n t i n some w o r d s do not a n d teachers w h o use  katakana,  katakanization need to be aware that their  students have adopted this strategy for their o w n c o m m u n i c a t i o n purposes a n d that they must be careful i n its use to a v o i d situations where students w o u l d not k n o w the difference b e t w e e n a katakana w o r d and one that is s i m p l y katakanized for o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n purposes.  Katakanization m a y be suitable for oral c o m m u n i c a t i o n but it  c o u l d not transfer o v e r to the w r i t t e n m e d i u m since these w o r d s are not a part o f the Japanese language a n d , therefore, teachers need to m a k e this p o i n t clear to their students. 4.7.3  Needs of E S L L e a r n e r s of J F L The m a k e - u p o f J F L classes at W C U is u n i q u e i n that m a n y students w h o e n r o l  are not native o r fluent E n g l i s h speakers. S i n c e the m a j o r i t y o f J F L students have c o m e f r o m C h i n a , T a i w a n and H o n g K o n g , instructors have had to m a k e certain adaptations to help E S L learners learn Japanese.  A s M s . Y o u n g m e n t i o n e d i n her i n t e r v i e w , she n o t i c e d  that C h i n e s e speakers, they w a y the b r a i n w o r k s for t h e m [is that] E n g l i s h i s not their first language; C h i n e s e is their first language. how  I don't k n o w  ... they translate it. [ W h e n we] speak w i t h t h e m i n E n g l i s h , ...they  w i l l p r o b a b l y t h i n k i n C h i n e s e and then the output w i l l b e i n Japanese. S o it w o r k s i n three different languages so I ' m not so sure [if] the students' b r a i n r e a l l y w o r k s that w a y . ( N o v e m b e r , 2002)  158  O t h e r teachers brought up this c o n c e r n as w e l l . W h e n M s . K i t a m u r a a s k e d students for translations into E n g l i s h , she n o t i c e d that m a n y o f t h e m had trouble e x p r e s s i n g themselves through the E n g l i s h language. S h e e x p l a i n e d that some students h a d yet to pass the E L F T (a p s e u d o n y m a c r o n y m ) , a written c o m p o s i t i o n test to measure a students' E n g l i s h language p r o f i c i e n c y for entry into u n i v e r s i t y - l e v e l E n g l i s h courses. T h e E L P T is u s e d to indicate i f students' E n g l i s h l e v e l is h i g h e n o u g h for u n i v e r s i t y - l e v e l w r i t i n g courses. A l t h o u g h students w h o have f a i l e d this test cannot e n r o l l i n regular E n g l i s h courses, they can s t i l l e n r o l l i n a l l other courses. M s . K i t a m u r a further m e n t i o n e d that some o f her J F L students, e v e n at the third-year l e v e l , had not e v e n passed this test. T h i s i m p l i e s that, i n particular for C h i n e s e - l a n g u a g e - b a c k g r o u n d students, they m i g h t have p r o b l e m s w i t h their g r a m m a t i c a l accuracy e s p e c i a l l y w i t h the tense/aspect system. M s . K i t a m u r a c o m m e n t e d that, T h e i r s p e a k i n g , p r o n u n c i a t i o n , is g o o d but I t h i n k the E L P T is l o o k i n g at a c c u r a c y as w e l l , l i k e [the] T O E F L e x a m  T h e n w h e n I m a r k , [they  c a n ' t even] change the [verb] 'put' [in]to past tense.  [It s h o u l d be] 'put,  put, p u t ' , r i g h t ? . [ H o w e v e r , ] they wrote 'put, putted, p u t t e d ' .  20  (Interview,  November, 2002) T h e i m p l i c a t i o n for this is that students have d i f f i c u l t y w i t h translation-type questions o n e x a m s and it m a k e s it m o r e c h a l l e n g i n g to m a r k their answers. M s . Inoue h a d the same concerns and shared her thoughts. I f o u n d that s o m e students, w h o s e first language is not Japanese,... cannot really, understand instructions on the e x a m s or tests [that are] w r i t t e n i n E n g l i s h . S o for e x a m p l e , w e use a certain v o c a b w h i c h is o b v i o u s l y clear to E n g l i s h native speakers but m a y b e [it's] not r e a l l y [clear] to s e c o n d language students.  F o r e x a m p l e , ... l i k e this question, for this k i n d o f  question w e have to ask for p e r m i s s i o n u s i n g certain s t r u c t u r e ^ ] Japanese;  that's one t h i n g [that] students have to do.  in  A n d then i n  [response] to ... question, they have to g i v e [a] yes or n o [response] i n [an] appropriate [manner]. S o , the instructions say ... m a k e a request or ask for This comment is addressing issues with English translations.  159  p e r m i s s i o n , w h i c h e v e r [you choose, and] so y o u have to d e c l i n e [by stating] certain reasons. T h e w o r d ' d e c l i n e ' , p r o b a b l y s o m e students d o n ' t k n o w the m e a n i n g o f ' d e c l i n e ' . S o w e have to use s i m p l e r , easier v o c a b . . . . [This is] p r o b a b l y s o m e t h i n g  [that] w e r e a l l y have  to t h i n k  about.  (Interview, N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 2 ) O n e w a y i n w h i c h C h i n e s e - l a n g u a g e - b a c k g r o u n d students, m o r e so for those w h o are less p r o f i c i e n t i n E n g l i s h , can use their k n o w l e d g e i s w i t h C h i n e s e characters to h e l p them with  kanji. In this respect, students have an alternative to r e l y i n g o n their  k n o w l e d g e o f E n g l i s h . T h i s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d further i n the f o l l o w i n g section.  4.7.5  Kanji T h e huge p o p u l a t i o n o f C h i n e s e - l a n g u a g e - b a c k g r o u n d students i n J F L p r o g r a m s  has i n f l u e n c e d teachers a n d students i n different w a y s . S o m e teachers such as M s . C h e n c l a i m e d that i t h a d not i n f l u e n c e d their lessons, w h i l e others s u c h as M s . K i t a m u r a , M s . M u r a k a m i , and M s . Inoue admitted that they adjusted their lessons due to the large n u m b e r o f C h i n e s e speakers. O n e area i n w h i c h some teachers adjusted their lessons was kanji teaching. Kanji i s one o f three types o f orthography i n Japanese.  It o r i g i n a t e d f r o m  C h i n e s e characters and w h i l e m a n y are written i d e n t i c a l l y the same, s o m e are u n i q u e to Japanese and n e e d to be learned w i t h c a u t i o n . M s . K i t a m u r a c o m m e n t e d that i f there were n o C h i n e s e speakers i n her class, that she w o u l d spend m o r e t i m e o n  kanji. S i m i l a r l y , M s . M u r a k a m i s a i d that there was  definitely a direct effect o n her  kanji lessons: " I d o n ' t go o v e r kanji: not as m u c h as the  t e x t b o o k suggests. I c a n just s k i p over, or, focus o n r e a d i n g o f kanji i n Japanese [instead]." A c c o r d i n g to M s . Inoue, the C h i n e s e - l a n g u a g e - b a c k g r o u n d students p r o b a b l y wrote better and k n e w the m e a n i n g o f each kanji, and therefore, she d i d n ' t n e c e s s a r i l y  160  need to e x p l a i n their m e a n i n g . H o w e v e r , M s . C h e n , w h o has C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d , warns that  [kanji] sometimes acts as a disadvantage for them. F i r s t o f a l l , i n terms o f w r i t i n g , the w r i t i n g o f some kanji i n C h i n e s e are different f r o m that i n Japanese and [students] tend to m a k e a lot o f mistakes. A n d s e c o n d l y , m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n i t c o m e s to r e a d i n g , w h e n they r e l y t o o m u c h o n kanji they w i l l neglect the structure a n d so o n .  They  thought [that] they [ k n o w ] m o r e o r less b y r e a d i n g the kanji. T h e y t h i n k they m i g h t t h i n k that they k n o w the m e a n i n g , ... but a c t u a l l y w i t h o u t k n o w i n g the structure w e l l ah that's n o t the case.  (Interview, D e c e m b e r ,  2002) S o h o w d i d the J F L instructors use this k n o w l e d g e to help their students learn Japanese? T h e teachers used kanji i n t w o w a y s : 1) they p o i n t e d out differences w h e n w r i t i n g kanji  (kanji versus w r i t i n g C h i n e s e ) , and 2) they used kanji to help students get an i d e a o f the m e a n i n g o f a n e w w o r d so that teachers d i d not have to e x p l a i n e v e r y u n k n o w n v o c a b u l a r y i t e m . T o d d e x p l a i n e d what he saw, e s p e c i a l l y after a kanji q u i z : " W h e n some people m a k e m i s t a k e w i t h the  kanji,... [ M s . Inoue] points out the difference  between the C h i n e s e character and Japanese character."  A s W e n d i c o m p l a i n e d , she  n o t i c e d that s o m e s m a l l parts o f the characters were different and that she a l w a y s got those parts w r o n g o n the q u i z z e s . She f o u n d that it was useful w h e n the teacher p o i n t e d the differences out since w h e n she l o o k e d at her kanji chart, she just thought o f the C h i n e s e character. A c c o r d i n g to M s . S a s a k i , she e x p l i c i t l y s h o w e d students differences because she w a n t e d to " m a k e sure that... [the students] d o n ' t use the w r o n g character because they use, e s p e c i a l l y M a n d a r i n people, ...use s i m p l i f i e d characters  b u t . . . those  characters are n o t . . . part o f Japanese and w e d o n ' t use t h e m . " Ms. vocabulary.  S a s a k i e x p l a i n e d that she used kanji to help her students  with  " Y e a h , sometimes I w r i t e d o w n the w o r d [in kanji characters] a n d  161  then [the C h i n e s e speakers] w i l l l o o k at the characters a n d s o m e t i m e s they c a n p i c k u p what I want to say." S i m i l a r l y , as M s . Y a b u n o points o u t that, " C h i n e s e speakers, they sometimes ask for C h i n e s e characters a n d then I ' l l s h o w t h e m a n d I ' l l p r o v i d e [the] furigana (the Japanese p r o n u n c i a t i o n / r e a d i n g ) for n o n - C h i n e s e speakers as w e l l . " It was o b s e r v e d that M s . Y a b u n o and M s . Inoue d i d focus o n C h i n e s e speakers to e x p l i c i t l y teach difference between kanji a n d C h i n e s e characters. T h e i n - c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n o f such differences d i d not happen v e r y often because kanji lessons a n d kanji q u i z z e s o c c u r r e d infrequently, but teachers d i d m e n t i o n that students d i d get such feedback o n i n d i v i d u a l w r i t t e n assignments. W h e n teachers d i d do this i t was apparent that i t targeted C h i n e s e languge b a c k g r o u n d students. F o r e x a m p l e , M s . Inoue stopped the kanji lesson, lead b y the T . A . , to p o i n t out a difference i n the first o f the t w o kanji for the w o r d  'yousu'  21  w h i c h means aspect, state o r appearance. T h e p o i n t o f focus is represented i n  F i g u r e 4.6.  Figure 4. 6 Comparing kanji with Chinese characters: W.  Japanese kanji  The kanji for yousu is  Hi-p  Chinese character  0  The teacher is focusing on bottom right portion o f the character  162  HI.  E x c e r p t 4.45 1.  Inoue:  Kanji L e s s o n  Ano, T-sensei yousu tte kanji wo chotto kaite itadakemasu. ((writes the kanji for yousu o n blackboard)) Atto ne, chotto minna ni mieru you ni. ((re-writes the kanji for yousu)) ++ Mou sukoshi (xx). ++ Mm. Ano  watashi mo onaji nan desu kedo T-sensei to ++koko ne ((points to b o t t o m right part o f the kanji)) + kono koko ano Chainiizu kanji mo kore tsukaimasu ka. { U m , instructor T, will y o u write the kanji for 'yousu*! O o p s um, s o that e v e r y o n e c a n s e e . A little (xx). M m . F o r m e it's the s a m e a s instructor T but here, o k a y , h e r e here. D o e s the C h i n e s e c h a r a c t e r a l s o u s e this?} 2.  Rachel:  (x).  3.  Inoue:  Arimasu ka. Arimasen ka. { H a v e (it)? H a v e (it)?}  4.  Students:  5.  Inoue:  Arimasu. {(We) h a v e (it)} Arimasu? Hai. Kou yatte kakimasu ka. ((writes C h i n e s e v e r s i o n o f the same kanji)) De, ++ koko to koko ((points to b o t t o m right part o f the kanji)) ga betsubetsu desu ka [Chaineezu kanji wa. {(you) h a v e it? O k a y . D o y o u write (it) like s o ? A n d , h e r e a n d here, is it s e p a r a t e ? }  6.  Students: [ H a i . {Yes}  7.  Inoue:  Watashi wa T-sensei to onaji de + kou yatte kaite kou iufuu ni kaku n desu ne. De, nan ka ne ano chuugokukei no hito no kanji kore wo mite ruto koko to koko ga separate + ni natte ru hito ga ooii no de + dou nano ka na ((laughs)) tte zutto omotte ta n desu kedo. Ano yoku kyoukasho wo yoku mite, mite kudasai ne. Dou natte n desu ka. ((Ss l o o k i n g i n their textbook for the kanji)) ++ {I'm the s a m e a s instructor T (I) write like this, write in this m a n n e r , o k a y ? A n d , s o m e t h i n g o k a y C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d p e o p l e ' s kanji there are m a n y in w h i c h , w h e n I look at this, h e r e a n d here is s e p a r a t e . I a l w a y s w o n d e r e d h o w it w a s . U m , p l e a s e look, look in your textbook carefully, carefully, o k a y ? H o w is (it in there)?  8.  Brad:  Kuttsuite ru. {(It's) together} ( C l a s s r o o m L e c t u r e , N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 2 )  T w o other e x a m p l e s f r o m a p r e v i o u s class i n c l u d e the kanji (See F i g u r e 4.7).  a n d 'tH'.  A n o t h e r e x a m p l e f r o m M s . Y a b u n o ' s class i n c l u d e the  163  kanji 'M\  for w h i c h m a n y C h i n e s e students w r o t e the kanji 'JC'-  A l t h o u g h both  characters exist i n both Japanese and C h i n e s e , e n o u g h students w r o t e the incorrect kanji that the T . A . h a d t o e x p l i c i t l y p o i n t out the difference d u r i n g the r e v i e w o f answers f o r a kanji q u i z . T h i s e x a m p l e is illustrated i n F i g u r e 4.8.  Figure 4.7  Comparing two &an/?/Chinese characters:  Japanese kanji  Chinese character The top portion of the Chinese version has an extra horizontal stroke, and also there is a stroke coming down directly from that horizontal line;  Japanese kanji  J  Figure 4.8  and  ^ . VcEzT^^ / 1 «, l - ^ V r  r  Chinese character The horizontal stroke in the middle is longer; it sticks out  Q j >  Comparing twofcan/7/Chinesecharacters: M and H  Japanese kanji  What many Chinese students wrote  s  F r o m the students' perspective, m a n y s a i d that their C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d h e l p e d t h e m w i t h kanji. T h e m a j o r i t y o f the students i n t e r v i e w e d c l a i m e d that, p r i o r to e n r o l l i n g i n J F L classes, they h a d the perception that Japanese w o u l d be  164  easy to learn because they k n e w C h i n e s e . I n fact, some students thought that i t w o u l d b e easy and i n d e e d it h a d been, at least w i t h respect to  kanji. H o w e v e r , there were some  students w h o were surprised to f i n d out h o w different the t w o language are i n m a n y w a y s . W h e n i n t e r v i e w e d about p r e - c o n c e i v e d notions o f l e a r n i n g Japanese, T o d d responded b y s a y i n g : " Y e s [I thought i t w o u l d be easy], and I was w r o n g . ' C a u s e I thought l i k e kanji w o u l d be easy and ah, y o u k n o w [but it w a s n ' t ] . Y e a h , that's l i k e m y first i m p r e s s i o n . " W h e n students were i n t e r v i e w e d and asked h o w k n o w i n g C h i n e s e h a d h e l p e d t h e m w i t h l e a r n i n g Japanese, almost a l l students s a i d that it was not that helpful except w h e n it c o n c e r n e d  kanji. T h e i r b a c k g r o u n d o f C h i n e s e characters h e l p e d t h e m m o s t l y  w i t h the w r i t i n g o f the actual kanji (i.e., stroke order) and w i t h r e c o g n i t i o n . A s C a s s i e m e n t i o n e d , she n o t i c e d o n l y a little difference between kanji and C h i n e s e characters and, therefore, it was easy to w r i t e  kanji. A n d P h i l c o m m e n t e d that the strokes are about 8 0 %  s i m i l a r . O t h e r students such as M i c h e l l e , A n n a , J o h n n y , and P h i l argued that the meanings were quite the same and that it was easy to get an i d e a o f the text b y s k i m m i n g the  kanji. T h e biggest difference they n o t i c e d was w i t h the p r o n u n c i a t i o n and readings o f  the  kanji. U n l i k e C h i n e s e , Japanese kanji characters have m u l t i p l e p r o n u n c i a t i o n patterns  and this is one aspect that C h i n e s e students c o u l d n ' t r e l y o n their C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d for. A m o n g peers, there were several e x a m p l e s o f students u s i n g their kanji b a c k g r o u n d to help t h e m w i t h w r i t i n g and r e c o g n i z i n g kanji d u r i n g w r i t i n g tasks. In the f o l l o w i n g excerpt, J o h n n y assisted A n n a w i t h w r i t i n g a kanji b y referring to the C h i n e s e character ( L i n e 4). E x c e r p t 4.45  1.  Anna:  Interview reflection composition task (Johnny & A n n a : Mandarin)  O k a y . +++ D e , ah + ki+ra+ri ( x x ) koosu wa accounting += {the c o u r s e they (err) is accounting}  165  2. J o h n n y : =Taikeigakubu. {Systematic studies} 3.  Anna:  O h . ((makes correction)) ++  4.  Johnny:  Kanji i s kuaiji. {The kanji is 'accountant'} Hui {((character 'hui))}. I mean hui {((character 'hui))}. Kangei. {Welcome party} ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  In E x c e r p t 4 . 4 6 , M i h o , a heritage language learner, asked her group m e m b e r S e a n , a M a n d a r i n speaker, to help her w i t h the m e a n i n g o f the w o r d f o r ' l o c a t e d ' w h i c h w a s written o n a v o c a b u l a r y sheet ( L i n e 1). I n L i n e 2 , Sean e x p l a i n e d that " i t ' s l i k e ' l o c a t e d ' and then i n L i n e 6 he stated that he guessed the m e a n i n g because that i s its m e a n i n g i n C h i n e s e . H e then c o n f i r m e d w i t h D a r r e n , a f e l l o w Cantonese speaker, w h o also used h i s C h i n e s e language k n o w l e d g e to c h e c k o n the m e a n i n g o f the  kanji.  Excerpt 4.46 Writing task on topic of "My Country" (Miho: HLL; Sean & Darren: Cantonese but fluent English speakers; Kwan: Korean) 1. M i h o :  W h a t ' s ichishite imasu? {located}  2.  Sean:  It's l i k e ' l o c a t e d ' .  3.  Miho:  O h , r e a l l y ? O k a y , w e ' l l just, w h y d o n ' t y o u ((laughs)).  4.  Sean:  Huh?  5.  Miho:  [Gaaden Machi  6.  Sean:  [ N o , no, no. Just m a k i n g it u p because i t l o o k l i k e Chinese. ((Darren &  22  wa + nishi ni. {Garden City is west} Is it +++?  Sean laugh))  2 2  7.  D a r r e n : O h yeah.  8.  Sean:  9.  Darren: Y u p .  [Is i t located? L o o k s l i k e it.  Reference to the actual city name has been change to Garden City, or in Japanese,  166  G-machi.  ( G r o u p w o r k , N o v e m b e r 5, 2 0 0 2 ) In this next e x a m p l e , G a b r i e l l a r e l i e d o n h e r C h i n e s e language k n o w l e d g e to create a Japanese kanji c o m b i n a t i o n w o r d . T h i s n e w w o r d she has created, 'maika',  is  correct. I n L i n e 4 , it w a s evident that G a b r i e l l a h a d used her C h i n e s e k n o w l e d g e to c o m b i n e the C h i n e s e characters for ' e v e r y ' a n d ' c l a s s ' to supposedly create a v a l i d Japanese kanji. A l s o , b y t r y i n g to affix a Japanese reading to it (i.e., p r o n u n c i a t i o n ) she tried to pass the characters as kanji. U n f o r t u n a t e l y i n this situation, this strategy w a s unsuccessful. Excerpt 4.47  Interview reflection composition task (Isabella: K o r e a n ; Gabriella: Cantonese)  1. Isabella:  Jugyou wa, ++ju-gyou  ( ( w r i t i n g d o w n o n paper))+. {Class is,  class} 2.  Gabriella:  Maika.  {((err))}  3.  Isabella:  W h a t ' s maika"? {((err))}  4.  Gabriella:  I d o n ' t k n o w . I just think o f the kanji. I d o n ' t k n o w what i t is, w h a t ' s the w o r d . Mai- ++. I d o n ' t k n o w what i s this i n Japanese.  Maika. {((err))} ( ( w r i t i n g kanji o n paper)) E a c h + class. + Mai jugyou? {((prefix for 'every')) class?} 5.  Isabella:  6.  Gabriella:  ++ ((laughs)) ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  T h i s next excerpt s i m p l y shows h o w Isabella, a K o r e a n speaker, r e l i e d o n G a b r i e l l a ' s C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d to ask f o r assistance i n w r i t i n g the kanji f o r 'tokidoki'  (sometimes)  to w h i c h G a b r i e l l a w i l l i n g l y responded b y s h o w i n g Isabella the characters. Excerpt 4.48 Interview reflection composition task (Isabella: K o r e a n ; Gabriella: Cantonese)  1. Isabella:  Toki- h o w d o y o u write= {Some}  167  2. G a b r i e l l a : =Tokidoki, right? 3.  Isabella:  4.  G a b r i e l l a : L i k e this.  {Sometimes}  H o w d o w r i t e the kanji?  ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2 0 0 2 ) T h e s e four excerpts s h o w e d that C h i n e s e - l a n g u a g e - b a c k g r o u n d students c o u l d r e l y o n their k n o w l e d g e o f C h i n e s e characters to h e l p themselves a n d their peers w i t h s o m e kanji related language situations. W i t h respect to kanji, C h i n e s e - s p e a k i n g students were able to use C h i n e s e characters to identify kanji characters, attempt to m a k e creative constructions o f kanji a n d assist n o n - C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d peers w i t h w r i t i n g kanji characters. E v e n though b o t h teachers a n d students c l a i m e d that there were advantages to u s i n g kanji to h e l p learn Japanese. H o w e v e r , A s M s . M u r a k a m i c l a i m e d , the C h i n e s e students d i d just as p o o r l y o n their kanji q u i z z e s as other students, although they h a d beautiful h a n d w r i t i n g . It seemed that w h e n u s e d c a u t i o u s l y , kanji c o u l d be helpful i n certain situations but its use w a s v e r y l i m i t e d . S o m e t i m e s , it appeared that the teachers and students f o u n d some negative transfer w h e n students r e l i e d too m u c h o n their C h i n e s e b a c k g r o u n d to w r i t e , read a n d p r o n o u n c e kanji. T h e r e d e f i n i t e l y needs to be m o r e research into this area to determine the advantages a n d disadvantages that the k n o w l e d g e o f C h i n e s e characters has o n Japanese language l e a r n i n g .  4.7.5  Heritage Language Learners: An Illustrative Case A m o n g the 4 5 students w h o participated i n the study, there w a s o n l y one heritage  language learner. M i h o , w h o w a s b o r n i n E a s t e r n C a n a d a a n d r a i s e d i n G a r d e n C i t y , w a s b o r n to a Japan-born-and-raised T a i w a n e s e mother a n d a Japanese father. S h e attended  168  Japanese heritage language classes throughout her elementary s c h o o l years yet quit after o n l y 5 o r 6 years. T h e W C U class that I o b s e r v e d was the first Japanese language class that she h a d taken since she was a c h i l d . A l t h o u g h she l i v e d o n her o w n , c u r r e n t l y , her parents spoke Japanese at h o m e as she was g r o w i n g up. D u r i n g h i g h s c h o o l , M i h o t o o k an interest i n Japanese entertainment a n d i d e n t i f i e d herself as b e i n g Japanese. N o w , she i d e n t i f i e d herself as Taiwanese-Japanese although she c o u l d relate m o r e to JapaneseC a n a d i a n s than to C h i n e s e o r C h i n e s e - C a n a d i a n s . . S h e d i d not k n o w any C h i n e s e . W i t h her b a c k g r o u n d as a heritage language learner ( H L L ) , M i h o w a s quite different f r o m m a n y o f her classmates. S h e h a d s o m e oral p r o f i c i e n c y i n the Japanese vernacular. F u r t h e r m o r e , even though she stated that her g r a m m a r was r e a l l y w e a k , the p a i r w o r k tasks r e v e a l e d that she h a d i n d e e d i n t e r n a l i z e d some g r a m m a r rules, w h i c h a l l o w e d M i h o to i n t u i t i v e l y evaluate T L structures. In the f o l l o w i n g peer task a c t i v i t y , M i h o attempted to create a sentence but her i n t u i t i o n t o l d her that s o m e t h i n g w a s n ' t quite right about the sentence. In L i n e 1, the sentence she p r o d u c e d was incorrect. S h e offered n o e x p l a n a t i o n for her e v a l u a t i o n except for the fact that, " T h i s is w e i r d . " T h i s c o m m e n t s h o w e d that she  thought there w a s s o m e t h i n g w r o n g w i t h the sentence, yet she c o u l d not  identify what the p r o b l e m w a s and, therefore, c o u l d not e x p l a i n w h a t she w a s t h i n k i n g to her groupmates. In L i n e s 1 1 , 1 5 a n d 17, M i h o repeated her i n i t i a l utterances a n d acted as i f she w a s v o c a l i z i n g the sentence for the purpose o f l i s t e n i n g to herself i n order to assess i f it "sounds right". T h e r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n at the e n d o f her utterances, i n d i c a t e d that she was unsure about the sentence. Perhaps, she was v o c a l i z i n g her private speech since it d i d not seem as i f her groupmates felt the need to assist her, but were, rather, s i m p l y w a i t i n g for M i h o to figure it out o n her o w n .  169  Excerpt 4.49 Writing task on topic of "My Country" (Miho: H L L ; Sean & Darren: Cantonese but fluent English speakers; Kwan: Korean) 1.  Miho:  Gaaden Machi no kikou wa sekai de ichiban su- sumi ni? Sumi ni ii kikou desu? {Garden City's climate is number one in the world Ii-,  ((infinitive of 'to live')) ((dative case marker ni))? ((infinitive of 'to live')) ((dative case marker ni)) is good climate?} T h i s is w e i r d . + Gaaden Machi no kikou wa sekai de ichiban nano, nano de +. {Because Garden  City's climate is number one in the world}  B e c a u s e i t ' s the best place to l i v e - 1 mean because it has v e r y g o o d c l i m a t e i t ' s a g o o d place to l i v e .  Gaaden Machi no kikou wa sekai de= {Garden City's climate is in the  world} 2.  Darren:  = W h a t ' s sekai?  3.  Miho:  World.  4.  Darren: O h .  5.  Miho:  {world}  Sekai de ichiban nano de sumi yasui desu ((rising i n t o n a t i o n ; unsure)).  {Is number one in the world, and therefore, is very liveable} 6.  D a r r e n & Sean & K w a n :  +  7.  Miho:  M a y b e ? I don't know.  8.  Sean:  I d o n ' t k n o w . ( x x x ) . ( ( H laughs out loud)) N o Japanese.  9.  Miho:  {Garden City ((genitive case marker no))} ++ was ((genitive case marker no))} + what d i d you +, kikou {climate}? (x) Gaaden Machi no  it Gaaden Machi no { Garden City  10. D a r r e n :  Gaaden Machi no= {Garden City ((genitive case marker no))}  11. M i h o :  =Kikou wa +++ ichiban ii ((rising intonation; unsure)). Ichiban ii?  {Climate is the best. Best?}  12. D a r r e n & Sean & K w a n :  ++  13. M i h o :  Nan de sumi yasui desu. {Why it is very liveable?}  14. K w a n :  Y u p , okay.  15. S e a n :  H o w d o y o u say (x)?  16. K w a n :  ( x x ) . (x) ichiban. ( ( H laughs))  170  {number one}  17. M i h o :  Gaaden Machi umi no chikaku ni arimasu! (x) umi no chikaku ni + nano de.  H o w about  ( G r o u p w o r k , N o v e m b e r 5, 2002) E x c e r p t 4.50 illustrates the same i n t u i t i v e sense that M i h o h a d about her sentences. In L i n e 10 she made a g r a m m a t i c a l l y correct sentence yet she f o u n d that there was s o m e t h i n g not quite right about i t ( L i n e 12) b y s a y i n g , " T h i s m a k e s sense." i n a sarcastic tone. T h i s , again, appeared to be v o c a l i z e d private speech since her response was a reflection c o m m e n t a r y o n her sentence. I n a f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w she c o n f i r m e d that she was i n d e e d v o c a l i z i n g her private speech i n order to see i f the sentence s o u n d e d correct and this was a strategy she used often. A n o t h e r H L L feature e x h i b i t e d i n this excerpt and i n E x c e r p t 4.51 was a weakness w i t h  kanji. In L i n e 1 o f E x c e r p t 4.50, M i h o d i d n ' t k n o w the kanji or even the  r e a d i n g for the w o r d 'forestry'. T h i s was evident because i n L i n e 2, D a r r e n created the w o r d 'forestry' b y u s i n g the w o r d s  'ki' (tree) and 'sangyou' (industry) a n d c o m b i n i n g  t h e m to m e a n ' i n d u s t r y o f trees'. M i h o l a u g h e d at his response and c o n t i n u e d her search for the  kanji. T h e n , she f o u n d the v o c a b u l a r y list sheet for the a c t i v i t y and p o i n t e d to an  i t e m . S e a n was able to read the kanji for 'forestry' a n d let M i h o k n o w that i t was pronounced  ringyou' (and not 'sangyou') w h e n he said, "Is i t ringyouT E v e n h a v i n g  l  heard the p r o n u n c i a t i o n o f this kanji she was still not sure because she d i d not k n o w the Japanese r e a d i n g for ' f o r e s t r y ' . Therefore, she c o n t i n u e d to persist and p o i n t e d ( L i n e 5) to a kanji and asked i f that particular one was the kanji for 'forestry ( L i n e 7 ) ' . F i n a l l y w i t h K w a n ' s c o n f i r m a t i o n , M i h o d e t e r m i n e d that she h a d located the correct kanji.  171  Excerpt 4.50  Writing task on topic of "My Country" (Miho: HLL; Sean & Darren: Cantonese but fluent English speakers; Kwan: Korean)  1.  Miho:  2.  D a r r e n : Ki no sangyou. {Industry of trees} ( ( M i h o laughs))  3.  Miho:  [Forestry. W h a t ' s forestry?  Gaaden Machi no san- (Garden City's ind-) o h is this i t ((points to v o c a b u l a r y list))?  4. Sean:  Is it ringyou! {forestry}  5.  Miho:  Y e a h , i t ' s this one?  6.  D a r r e n : Rin-. {For-}  7.  Miho:  Is that tree, forest ((asks S & D to e x a m i n e the kanji))?  8.  Sean:  Maybe.  9.  Kwan: Y u p .  10. M i h o :  S o , what is i t ? Gaaden Machi no sangyou wa ringyou desu. {Garden  City's industry is forestry.} V a n c o u v e r ' s industry is forestry? ((laughs)) 11. K w a n :  (x).  12. M i h o :  ( ( A b i t o f sarcasm i n tone)) T h i s makes sense.  13. D a r r e n :  T h e m a i n industry omoni. {main}  14. M i h o :  Omo na sangyou [wa + ringyou. {The main industry is forestry}  15. D a r r e n :  [Omo na. {Main}  16. K w a n :  Okay.  17. M i h o :  Okay,  ((laughs)) ( G r o u p w o r k , N o v e m b e r 5, 2 0 0 2 )  S i m i l a r l y , i n E x c e r p t 4.51 M i h o r e l i e d o n her peers f o r kanji assistance. T h i s t i m e she w a n t e d to w r i t e the kanji for ' f i s h e r y ' a n d again p o i n t e d to a kanji o n the v o c a b u l a r y sheet. O n c e Sean c o n f i r m e d her 'guess', she e x p l a i n e d that she i d e n t i f i e d that particular  172  kanji because it had the kanji for ' f i s h '  2 3  as part o f the first kanji o f fishing industry. T h e  kanji for fish is an easy one w h i c h is u s u a l l y learned at an early p r i m a r y s c h o o l l e v e l . She most l i k e l y r e m e m b e r e d this f r o m her heritage s c h o o l days. She also c o n f i r m e d this to b e true i n her f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w .  Excerpt 4.51  1.  Writing task on topic of "My Country" (Miho: H L L ; Sean & Darren: Cantonese but fluent English speakers; Kwan: Korean)  M i h o : O k a y , so w e can just say i t ' s forestry and fishery. ( ( K w a n laughs then H a n a laughs)) W h i c h one is fishery? + T h i s one?  2.  Sean: Sure.  3.  M i h o : I o n l y notice the fish, ((laughs)) ++ Ringyou + o h , h o w about, h o w do y o u say i t ' s not o n l y forestry but also fishery? ( G r o u p w o r k , N o v e m b e r 5, 2 0 0 2 ) T o s u m m a r i z e h o w M i h o , as a H L L , had to adapt and adjust i n the J F L classes,  E x c e r p t 4.52 contains a c o n v e r s a t i o n between M i h o and Sheri ( C h i n e s e speaker) about the challenges o f l e a r n i n g J F L as a H L L .  Excerpt 4.52  Interview reflection composition task (Miho: H L L ; Sheri: Chinese)  1.  M i h o : I w a n n a learn l i k e everything, ((laugh))  2.  Sheri: I t h i n k y o u r Japanese is pretty g o o d . 1 think y o u just had trouble w i t h  kanji. ((laughs)) 3.  M i h o : A n d the v o c a b u l a r y . L i k e y o u keep o n saying, I t h i n k y o u k n o w m o r e o f the v o c a b u l a r y than me.  4.  Sheri: B u t I d o n ' t k n o w (xx). I have to think v e r y s l o w .  5.  Miho:  6.  Sheri: B u t I have to think s l o w l y .  ' C a u s e l i k e w h e n I, 'cause w h e n people l i k e + l i k e say s o m e t h i n g and use hard w o r d s , I d o n ' t l i k e I have no idea. B u t I t h i n k y o u w o u l d k n o w .  The kanji for fishery is / i H The kanji for fish is &  173  7.  M i h o : A t least y o u k n o w , ((laughs)) A n d so ( x x ) m y g r a m m a r is r e a l l y b a d . +++  L i k e y o u k n o w i n ga {((Nominative case marker ga))} and stuff l i k e  that? I d o n ' t k n o w w h e n y o u use it. ((laughs)) T h a t ' s w h y I ' m (x) s t u d y i n g ( x x x ) . A n d then, and then y o u ( x x x ) but I d o n ' t e v e n k n o w . S o , I have to study. 8.  Sheri: (xxx).  9.  M i h o : W e l l , I, I have to study for the test but l i k e before I d i d n ' t k n o w (about g r a m m a r rules at a l l ) . ( P a i r w o r k , N o v e m b e r 19, 2002)  M i h o r e a l i z e d that she was w e a k e r w i t h v o c a b u l a r y and kanji.  24  F u r t h e r m o r e , she  r e v e a l e d that her g r a m m a r k n o w l e d g e was " r e a l l y b a d " because u n t i l n o w she " d i d n ' t even k n o w " the g r a m m a r rules. In a f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w i n 2 0 0 5 , M i h o c o n f i r m e d that the observations and interpretations d e s c r i b e d her language l e a r n i n g accurately. W h e n asked i f she felt that she acted as a "language b r o k e r " between the teacher and her group m e m b e r s she h a d m e n t i o n e d that she never felt that she t o o k o n this r o l e because her Japanese was at the same l e v e l as her peers. In fact, M i h o felt that her g r a m m a t i c a l k n o w l e d g e was w e a k e r than the rest o f the students since she h a d not taken any beginnerl e v e l u n i v e r s i t y courses i n J F L . S h e felt that the others h a d " l e a r n e d Japanese p r o p e r l y f r o m the start," h o w e v e r she h a d not. F o r M i h o , c o d e - s w i t c h i n g p r o v e d to be useful because she h a d trouble e x p r e s s i n g w h y a Japanese phrase s o u n d e d " w e i r d " . S h e was able to ask for assistance u s i n g E n g l i s h and used it to e x p l a i n w h y she m a y have felt this w a y . B e c a u s e she d i d not have a s o l i d b a c k g r o u n d i n the f o r m a l l e a r n i n g o f the g r a m m a r rules, it was even m o r e useful her M i h o to be able to access both Japanese and E n g l i s h to c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h and get appropriate assistance f r o m her peers.  2 4  See Shinbo (2004) about the challenges of H L L s of Japanese.  174  4.8  Chapter Summary T h e f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d that instructors i n this institution were u s i n g a h i g h ratio o f  T L (80%) i n the J F L classes and that this was s i m i l a r to what the M s . Inoue a n d M s . Y a b u n o h a d p e r c e i v e d themselves to be u s i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , the students felt that the teachers u s e d the T L about 7 0 % o f the t i m e and the m a j o r i t y o f the students were satisfied w i t h their instructor's balance o f T L and E n g l i s h use. T h e data also f o u n d that instructors used E n g l i s h a n d u t i l i z e d c o d e - s w i t c h i n g as a strategy to enhance the l e a r n i n g experiences o f their students. T h e students s a i d that they d i d not f a v o u r a T L - o n l y p o l i c y a n d that they benefited f r o m their teacher's use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g . O v e r a l l , both teachers' and students' concerns o v e r T L use was related to challenges w i t h c o m p r e h e n s i o n a n d c l a r i t y o f lesson explanations. A s a result, the teachers a n d students used a variety o f language-related strategies to enhance the l e a r n i n g o f the Japanese language. F i n a l l y , the chapter also h i g h l i g h t e d the different k i n d s o f expertise that students f r o m different e t h n o l i n g u i s t i c b a c k g r o u n d s c o n t r i b u t e d to the c l a s s r o o m l e a r n i n g situation: for e x a m p l e , the K o r e a n students brought their k n o w l e d g e o f K o r e a n syntax, w h i c h is s i m i l a r to Japanese; the C h i n e s e learners brought their k n o w l e d g e o f C h i n e s e characters, w h i c h are s i m i l a r to kanji; and the H L L brought her o w n tacit k n o w l e d g e o f Japanese i n the f o r m o f g r a m m a t i c a l intuitions.  175  Chapter 5 Implications of the Study 5.1  Introduction T h i s chapter w i l l introduce and discuss the p e d a g o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this study.  It w i l l be suggested that strategic and purposeful use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g b y instructors can enhance F L learning. A l s o , students' use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g d u r i n g peer tasks offers necessary access to T L use and the negotiation o f T L structures as they c o m p l e t e a task. F u r t h e r m o r e , b y b e i n g aware and adapting F L p r o g r a m s a c c o r d i n g to the language needs o f the students, F L l e a r n i n g experiences and opportunities for m o r e effective s c a f f o l d i n g , and, thus, input, w i l l be a v a i l a b l e to the students.  T h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f this study i n c l u d e  the subjectivity o f the researcher due to the qualitative nature o f this case study research, the s m a l l n u m b e r o f cases selected and the size o f each class (i.e., n u m b e r o f students), the refusal o f the use o f v i d e o - r e c o r d i n g , and the fact that o n l y just o v e r h a l f the students participated i n i n t e r v i e w s . A l s o b e i n g e x p l o r e d w i l l be the d i r e c t i o n for future research i n the areas o f T L and L I use, as w e l l as for J F L t e a c h i n g and learning. T h e chapter w i l l end w i t h s o m e c o n c l u d i n g remarks.  5.1  Pedagogical Implications T h i s study focused on language use i n J F L classrooms. O f p a r t i c u l a r focus w a s  the use o f the T L and the C L for e n h a n c i n g Japanese language learning. T h e study s h o w e d that strategic uses o f the T L and C L can be useful f r o m b o t h the teachers' and the students' perspective. F o r the teacher, it can p r o v i d e s c a f f o l d i n g to students, e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g c o m p l e x o r important tasks w h e r e effective c o m m u n i c a t i o n is c r i t i c a l . F o r students, the need to c o m p r e h e n d and to do so i n a clear and efficient manner w a s the  176  m a i n g o a l d u r i n g c l a s s r o o m lectures. D u r i n g p a i r w o r k , students u s e d the T L and L l / N L to negotiate the content a n d manage the task. In other w o r d s , the students f o u n d it necessary to adjust their language use to i m p r o v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n order to m e a n i n g f u l l y c o m p l e t e the task. O v e r a l l , the instructors were able to adjust and adapt to student needs through a variety o f language-related strategies. F i r s t o f a l l , teacher use o f E n g l i s h , w h e n strategically m o t i v a t e d , can be an effective m e d i a t i n g t o o l for language teaching. M o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , c o d e - s w i t c h i n g helps increase c o m p r e h e n s i o n , e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g f o r m - f o c u s e d lessons and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e tasks. T h e important p o i n t here is to be able to meet the needs o f the students, a n d adjust the l e v e l o f s c a f f o l d i n g as necessary. A c c o r d i n g to the students, the teachers u s e d E n g l i s h i n areas where they m i g h t otherwise struggle or s h o w e d signs o f struggle. O t h e r than these times, the teacher used as m u c h T L as p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t j e o p a r d i z i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n , thus p r e v e n t i n g any negative effects w i t h respect to opportunities for input. T h i s study c a l l s for r a i s i n g the awareness o f instructors w h o use a h i g h ratio o f E n g l i s h i n their F L teaching and/or are afraid to increase their T L use because they feel that it w i l l n e g a t i v e l y affect their students c o n f i d e n c e or m o t i v a t i o n .  A s the m a j o r i t y o f students i n this study  reported, they were c l e a r l y satisfied w i t h their instructors' ratio o f language use; they were satisfied e v e n w h e n their teachers' were u s i n g as m u c h as 8 0 % o f the T L i n class. Therefore, teachers do not necessarily have to assume that h i g h quantities o f T L use w i l l have a negative i m p a c t o n their language c l a s s r o o m s . T h e k e y is to use the L I strategically to enhance and c o m p l e m e n t the T L , and to adjust their language use a c c o r d i n g to the specific needs o f their students a n d not necessarily a c c o r d i n g to  177  department p o l i c i e s , s e l f - i m p o s e d p r i n c i p l e s , or because i t ' s c o n v e n i e n t for the teacher to use the L I w i t h o u t s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r i n g its use. S e c o n d l y , the study suggests that c o d e - s w i t c h i n g d u r i n g c o l l a b o r a t i v e tasks can support L 2 l e a r n i n g . B e c a u s e m a n y students d i d not use the T L d u r i n g teacher-led lectures, p a i r w o r k activities c a n p r o v i d e m u c h needed opportunities f o r language negotiating and T L use, i n general. T h i s study f o u n d that students used a fair amount o f L I , E n g l i s h and m i x e d utterances d u r i n g the process part o f the language task. T h i s i m p l i e s that use o f the C L was a natural and c o m f o r t a b l e strategy, yet effective i n that it h e l p e d students manage the task b y negotiating the T L content necessary to s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e the task. A l t h o u g h c o d e - s w i t c h i n g h e l p e d students c o m p l e t e the task, i n e v e r y instance the T L used was o n l y to refer to T L items f r o m textbooks, handouts, w r i t t e n notes and such. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , there was s e l d o m creative o r spontaneous use o f the T L . Perhaps it c a n be c o n c l u d e d that the students d i d not have the language tools to p e r f o r m these functions i n the T L . M o r e evident is that fact that students rarely h a d in-class opportunities to be creative and spontaneous.  I f students are e x p e c t e d to use the language  for authentic c o m m u n i c a t i o n , students must be g i v e n the language tools and the encouragement to d o so. F i n a l l y , the study suggests that teachers and p r o g r a m coordinators need to c o n s i d e r the language b a c k g r o u n d s o f their students and adjust their p r o g r a m , c u r r i c u l u m and m e t h o d o l o g y a c c o r d i n g l y . T h e study raises questions about h o w the J F L c u r r i c u l u m can be m o d i f i e d i n such a w a y that learners c a n engage i n m o r e spontaneous, creative language use, as listeners and speakers, u s i n g the T L . In this case, there were m a n y C h i n e s e - s p e a k i n g students e n r o l l e d i n the J F L classes and teachers made several  178  adaptations to a c c o m m o d a t e this p o p u l a t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , the teachers were sensitive to their needs and h e l p e d t h e m w i t h certain aspects o f the Japanese language such as e x p l a i n i n g the difference between s i m i l a r kanji pairs, s i m p l i f y i n g e x a m instructions for C h i n e s e E S L students, and m o d i f y i n g T L input through the use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g . W i t h such h i g h enrolments o f C h i n e s e - l a n g u a g e - b a c k g r o u n d students, programs m a y f i n d it b e n e f i c i a l to e v e n have a separate stream for C h i n e s e students and to have the T L taught not through the c o m m o n language o f E n g l i s h , but rather through C h i n e s e d i r e c t l y . W i t h some n o n - C h i n e s e students and F f L L s c l a i m i n g that they felt that the C h i n e s e students h a d an advantage o v e r t h e m , the p o p u l a r i t y o f J F L a m o n g C h i n e s e students m a y i n fact discourage students o f other ethnic and language b a c k g r o u n d s f r o m e n r o l l i n g i n these classes. T h e issue o f attracting m o r e n o n - C h i n e s e students d e f i n i t e l y needs further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , H L L s , w h o have their o w n different set o f needs, often get neglected i n the process since there are u s u a l l y few H L L s that e n r o l i n J F L classes at this institution (for reasons u n k n o w n ) and m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , regular F L classes are not d e s i g n e d to cater to H L L needs. I n terms o f T L a n d L I use, h a v i n g different streams can further enhance J F L l e a r n i n g experiences because the C h i n e s e speakers c a n learn J F L u s i n g the T L and their N L ; n o n - C h i n e s e , n o n - H L L s learners c a n benefit f r o m m o r e attention to their needs, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n i t c o m e s to kanji and v o c a b u l a r y lessons; and H L L s c a n benefit f r o m lessons w i t h an almost e x c l u s i v e use o f the T L . T h e role o f the L I i n F L l e a r n i n g remains a c o m p l e x issue. aspect o f T L / L 1 use is d e t e r m i n i n g  T h e most c h a l l e n g i n g  how much, i n a d d i t i o n to in what ways the use o f the  L I i s "appropriate" and the "most effective".  179  S i n c e every F L class is not e x a c t l y  identical to any other F L class, this issue continues to be an i n t r i g u i n g one that requires further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 5.3  L i m i t a t i o n s o f the S t u d y T h e qualitative nature o f this study requires that the researcher be i n v o l v e d i n  interpreting the data. D a t a w e r e c o l l e c t e d f r o m a n u m b e r o f sources so that these sources c o u l d p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n to support the findings, regardless o f the researcher's subjectivity, thus strengthening the internal v a l i d i t y i f the study. D e s p i t e the t r i a n g u l a t i o n o f teacher and student i n t e r v i e w s and the c l a s s r o o m lecture and p a i r w o r k audio recordings, it is not p o s s i b l e to c o m p l e t e l y eradicate the researcher's r o l e i n the data analysis process. T h e researcher h e r s e l f is often o c n s i d e r e d an instrument i n qualitative research. T w o cases w e r e the p r i m a r y object o f investigation and, a l t h o u g h the t w o J F L classes p r o v i d e d a w e a l t h o f information, g e n e r a l i z i n g f r o m this study to other p o p u l a t i o n s is not possible. H o w e v e r , the case study can p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n that can contribute to the current research o n s i m i l a r issues o n T l / L l use and i n d i v i d u a l s o r groups w h o are e x p e r i e n c i n g s i m i l a r l e a r n i n g contexts can use this study to try and understand their o w n t e a c h i n g o r l e a r n i n g experiences. F u r t h e r m o r e , the study sheds light o n the different experiences o f students f r o m different b a c k g r o u n d s l e a r n i n g the same language, Japanese. T h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l size o f each class (less than 25 students i n each o f the t w o classes) meant that I c o u l d o n l y r e c o r d a l i m i t e d n u m b e r o f pair g r o u p i n g s d u r i n g peer tasks. T h i s w a s because not all students consented to the a u d i o - r e c o r d i n g s . Therefore, there w a s great v a r i a t i o n i n the n u m b e r o f pairs that w e r e a u d i o - r e c o r d e d d u r i n g every  180  task. A t the most, five pairs (total for both classes c o m b i n e d ) w e r e a v a i l a b l e for analysis. I f students w e r e g i v e n a tape-recorder and yet chose not to r e c o r d their sessions, then I d i d not get access to that p a i r w o r k r e c o r d i n g . H o w e v e r , the pairs and excerpts selected w e r e representative o f the l e a r n i n g experiences o f the students. A n o t h e r point is that d u r i n g the first m e e t i n g w i t h the t w o focal instructors, I asked the teachers i f I c o u l d videotape their lectures. T h e i r response w a s that the v i d e o r e c o r d i n g w o u l d distract students and perhaps m a k e t h e m u n c o m f o r t a b l e . Therefore, the o n l y r e c o r d i n g d e v i c e accessible were the cassette recorders. T h e v i d e o recordings w o u l d have been useful to observe any b o d y gestures that the instructor o r students m a y have u s e d w h e n c o m m u n i c a t i n g to each other. F u r t h e r m o r e , I c o u l d have o b s e r v e d the facial expressions o f the students, e s p e c i a l l y before and after instances o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g i n order to see the reactions o f the students to the lesson. A l s o , since I used one professional tape recorder to r e c o r d the c l a s s r o o m lectures, it m a y have been helpful to have another r e c o r d i n g d e v i c e to catch all the utterances, e s p e c i a l l y o f those students w h o s p o k e softly o r sat the farthest f r o m the tape recorder. L a s t l y , o n l y about h a l f the students participated i n the i n t e r v i e w s . I n a d d i t i o n , the i n t e r v i e w s ( w i t h both instructors and students) were done o n l y once and n o f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w o r d i s c u s s i o n session t o o k place. A l s o , after data analysis w a s c o m p l e t e , m e m b e r c h e c k s w e r e not done for both instructors and students.  O n e e x c e p t i o n is w i t h  M i h o , w i t h w h o m I had a f o l l o w - u p o n l i n e chat i n t e r v i e w about her H L L experiences. 5.4  Directions for F u t u r e Research T h i s study attempted to fill a gap i n the literature on L I and T L use and, i n  particular, research c o n c e r n i n g Japanese-as-a-foreign-language  181  classes. D u e to the  l i m i t e d scope o f this research, i n a d d i t i o n to the l i m i t a t i o n s m e n t i o n e d i n the p r e v i o u s section, I w o u l d l i k e to suggest a few areas for future research. F r o m the best o f m y k n o w l e d g e , this present study, aside f r o m O h t a ( 2 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 0 1 , 1995), is the o n l y study that e x a m i n e d the r o l e o f language d u r i n g J F L classes. A l t h o u g h O h t a ' s l o o k e d o n l y at peer tasks, m y study also addresses c o d e - s w i t c h i n g and s c a f f o l d i n g p r o v i d e d b y instructors to their students. F u r t h e r m o r e , this study is u n i q u e i n that it also investigated the effects o f h a v i n g m a n y C h i n e s e - l a n g u a g e - b a c k g r o u n d students i n J F L classes i n a N o r t h A m e r i c a n contex, a trend that m a y continue i n the future, g i v e n recent i m m i g r a t i o n patterns. T h e study illustrated c o d e - s w i t c h i n g practices not o n l y i n the T L and E n g l i s h (the m a i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l language besides the T L ) but also w i t h a d d i t i o n a l languages i n the same c o n v e r s a t i o n . T o get a m o r e thorough understanding o f the experiences o f the Japanese language teachers and their students, it w o u l d be m o r e effective to not o n l y i n t e r v i e w t h e m o n c e but to do research for a l o n g e r p e r i o d w i t h a few i n t e r v i e w s d u r i n g the entire p e r i o d . H a v i n g focus groups o f students o n l y , teachers o n l y , a n d students and teachers m i g h t y i e l d e v i d e n c e o f m o r e interesting i n f o r m a t i o n that c o u l d either c o n f i r m or perhaps e v e n contradict the f i n d i n g s o f this study. It w o u l d be e x c i t i n g , for e x a m p l e , to f i n d out i f the teacher's L I status h a d any effect on teaching J F L , e s p e c i a l l y to a m a j o r i t y C h i n e s e class. W o u l d native speakers o f E n g l i s h or native speakers o f C h i n e s e teach differently f r o m the t w o teachers observed, and i f so, h o w ? A s i m i l a r study w i t h non-native teachers o f Japanese c o u l d demonstrate h o w n o n native speakers o f Japanese c o p e w i t h the challenges o f teaching Japanese through their o w n L 2 o r L 3 , perhaps.  182  A t o p i c for farther i n v e s t i g a t i o n w o u l d be to e x a m i n e the role o f E S L learners i n J F L classes and h o w they c o p e w i t h issues o f language ( T L , E n g l i s h , and N L ) i n classes where the teacher is proficient i n the T L , yet less proficient i n E n g l i s h . It w o u l d be interesting to see h o w teachers and students w o u l d negotiate the language gap and w h a t strategies they w o u l d use ( w i t h respect to language) to scaffold their learning. S i m i l a r l y , it w o u l d be interesting to c o n d u c t a study about a N o r t h A m e r i c a n J F L ( C h i n e s e stream) class taught b y a C h i n e s e s p e a k i n g instructor and to what extent they w o u l d use E n g l i s h to teach Japanese to C h i n e s e - l a n g u a g e - b a c k g r o u n d students. 5.5  Concluding Remarks T h i s study investigated the role o f the T L and L I i n a J F L l e a r n i n g context w h e r e  m a n y students had C h i n e s e language b a c k g r o u n d . A total o f 2 focal instructors, 6 other instructors, and 45 students (21 o f w h o m participated i n interviews) participated i n the study t h r o u g h c l a s s r o o m observations, interviews, and p a i r w o r k audio-recordings.  The  data s h o w e d that teachers used a r e l a t i v e l y large amount o f T L w h i l e students' T L use d u r i n g peer tasks was about h a l f that o f the teacher. B o t h teachers and students made use o f c o d e - s w i t c h i n g to assist learners b y p r o v i d i n g s c a f f o l d i n g i n the z o n e o f p r o x i m a l development. It w a s found that teachers used a variety o f l i n g u i s t i c and p r a g m a t i c strategies to help students learn Japanese. T h e u n i q u e processes and effects o f J F L l e a r n i n g for K o r e a n , C h i n e s e , and Japanese H L speakers were also identified and illustrated. A s a f o r m e r u n i v e r s i t y J F L student and a H L L , as w e l l as a secondary s c h o o l Japanese teacher, it w a s v e r y r e w a r d i n g to conduct research i n an area that is o f personal and professional interest. B e c a u s e I w a s a l w a y s i n t r i g u e d b y the large C h i n e s e - s p e a k i n g  183  student p o p u l a t i o n e n r o l l e d i n J F L classes at W C U , this gave m e an o p p o r t u n i t y to understand this p h e n o m e n o n and to get a g l i m p s e o f the p o p u l a r i t y o f Japanese a m o n g Chinese youth. A l s o , I b e c a m e quite interested i n h o w M i h o was e x p e r i e n c i n g her J F L classes. L i k e other H L L s , she felt that her g r a m m a r basis was w e a k a n d that kanji and v o c a b u l a r y were the most d i f f i c u l t aspects o f l e a r n i n g Japanese as a H L L . B e c a u s e I c o u l d relate to her experiences, it was interesting to see what strategies she used to o v e r c o m e the challenges. W h a t was the most salient was that her Japanese language l e a r n i n g was connected to her identity as a Japanese-Taiwanese.  S h e felt that she s h o u l d k n o w  Japanese because she was Japanese; this was e x a c t l y h o w I felt d u r i n g m y o w n undergraduate years. Interestingly, o f a l l the students i n the study, I b e c a m e m o s t acquainted w i t h M i h o . T h e experience o f d o i n g research has been both c h a l l e n g i n g and e x c i t i n g . I learned a lot f r o m the study itself, as w e l l as the process o f c o n d u c t i n g research.  Upon  reflection, the d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h the participants about their language l e a r n i n g / t e a c h i n g were the h i g h l i g h t s o f the data c o l l e c t i o n and seeing h o w a l l the data m e r g e d together to f o r m this thesis has been a most r e w a r d i n g experience.  184  REFERENCES A n t o n , M . (1999). T h e discourse o f a learner-centered c l a s s r o o m : S o c i o c u l t u r a l perspectives o n teacher-learner interaction i n the second-language c l a s s r o o m . Modern  Language  Journal,  The  83, 3 0 3 - 3 1 8 .  A n t o n , M . , & D i C a m i l l a , F . J . (1999). S o c i o - c o g n i t i v e functions o f L I c o l l a b o r a t i v e interaction i n the L 2 c l a s s r o o m . The Modern  Language  Journal,  83, 2 3 3 - 2 4 7 .  A r n f a s t , J . S . , & J0rgensen, J . N . (2003). C o d e - s w i t c h i n g as a c o m m u n i c a t i o n , l e a r n i n g , and s o c i a l n e g o t i a t i o n strategy i n first year learners o f D a n i s h . Journal  of Applied  Linguistics,  International  13, 2 3 - 5 3 .  B a s z a n g e r , I., & D o d i e r , N . (1997). E t h n o g r a p h y : R e l a t i n g the part to the w h o l e . In D . S i l v e r m a n ( E d . ) , Qualitative  research:  Theory,method  and practice  (pp. 8-23).  L o n d o n : Sage. B e a u v i l l a i n , C , & G r a i n g e r , J . (1987). A c c e s s i n g i n t e r l e x i c a l h o m o g r a p h s : s o m e l i m i t a t i o n s o f a language-selective access. Journal  of Memory  and Language,  26,  658-672. B r o o k s , F . B . , & D o n a t o , R . (1994). V y g o t s k y a n approaches to understanding f o r e i g n language learner discourse. Hispania, B r o w n , H . D . (2000) Principles Longman.  of Language  B r o w n , H . D . (2001). Teaching  by principles:  pedagogy.  77, 2 6 2 - 2 7 4 . Learning  and Teaching.  an interactive  approach  New York:  to  language  New York: Addison Wesley Longman.  C h a m b e r s , F . (1991). P r o m o t i n g use o f the target language i n the c l a s s r o o m . Learning  Journal,  Language  4, 2 7 - 3 1 .  C h a v e z , M . (2003). T h e d i g l o s s i c foreign-language c l a s s r o o m : L e a r n e r ' v i e w s o n L I and L 2 functions. In C . S . B l y t h ( E d . ) , The sociolinguistics classrooms:  Contributions  of the native, the near-native,  of and the  foreign-language non-native  speaker (pp. 163-208). B o s t o n : H e i n l e . C o o k , V . J . (1991). T h e poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and m u l t i - c o m p e t e n c e . Second Language  Research,  7, 103-117  C o o k , V . J . (1994). T i m e d g r a m m a t i c a l i t y j u d g m e n t s o f the head parameter i n L 2 l e a r n i n g . In G . B a r t e l t ( E d . ) , The dynamics  of language  The Netherlands: Gunter Narr.  185  processes,  (pp. 15-31). T u b i n g e n ,  C o o k , V . J . (1997). T h e consequences o f b i l i n g u a l i s m for c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g . I n A . de Groot & J.F. K r o l l (Eds.),  Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives.  (pp. 2 7 9 - 2 9 9 ) H i l l s d a l e , N J : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m . C o o k , V . J . (1999). G o i n g b e y o n d the native speaker i n language teaching.  TESOL  Quarterly, 33, 185-209. C o o k , V . J . (2001a).  Second language learning and language teaching. (3rd ed.).  L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press. C o o k , V . J . (2001b). U s i n g the first language i n the c l a s s r o o m .  The Canadian Modern  Language Review, 57, 4 0 2 - 4 2 3 . D a n h u a , W . (1995). M e d i u m o f instruction i n the L 2 c l a s s r o o m .  TEANGA:  The Irish  Yearbook of Applied Linguistics, 15, 2 1 - 2 9 . D i c k s o n , P . (1996).  Using the target language: A view from the classroom. L o n d o n :  National Foundation for Educational Research. D o n a t o , R . (1994). C o l l e c t i v e s c a f f o l d i n g i n s e c o n d language l e a r n i n g . I n J . P . L a n t o l f , & G . A p p e l , (Eds.) 56).  Vygotskian approaches to second language research, (pp. 3 3 -  N o r w o o d , N.J.: A b l e x Publishing Corporation.  D u f f , P . , & L i , D . (n.d.). L I a n d L 2 use i n M a n d a r i n c l a s s r o o m s . U n p u b l i s h e d manuscript. D u f f , P . A . , & P o l i o , C . G . (1990). H o w m u c h f o r e i g n language i n there i n the foreign language c l a s s r o o m ?  The Modern Language Journal, 74, 154-165.  D u n n , W . E . , & L a n t o l f , J . P . (1998). V y g o t s k y ' s z o n e o f p r o x i m a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d K r a s h e n ' s i + 1: I n c o m m e n s u r a b l e constructs; i n c o m m e n s u r a b l e theories.  Language Learning, 48, 4 1 1 - 4 4 2 . F r a n k l i n , C . E . M . (1990). T e a c h i n g i n the target language. Language Learning Journal, 2 20-24. L  H a n c o c k , M . (1997). B e h i n d c l a s s r o o m c o d e - s w i t c h i n g : L a y e r i n g a n d language c h o i c e i n L 2 learner interaction.  TESOL Quarterly, 31, 2 1 7 - 3 5 .  H a r b o r d , J . (1992). T h e use o f the mother tongue i n the c l a s s r o o m . ELT Journal, 46, 3 5 0 355. J o h n s o n , D . M . (1992). Longman.  Approaches to research in second language learning. N e w Y o r k :  186  K a i s e r , S., I c h i k a w a , Y . , K o b a y a s h i , N . , & Y a m a m o t o , H . (2001).  Japanese: A  comprehensive grammar. L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e . Mediating ESL learning through collaborative dialogue: An exploration of the processes occurring between Korean adults and their partners.  K i m , C . (2005).  U n p u b l i s h e d doctoral dissertation, O n t a r i o Institute for Studies i n E d u c a t i o n o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o . K i n g i n g e r , C . (2001).  i +1^ Z P D . Foreign Language Annals, 34, 4 1 7 - 4 2 5 .  A sociocultural study of second language tasks: Activity, agency, and language socialization. U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y o f  K o b a y a s h i , M . (2004).  British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. K o b a y a s h i , M . (2003). T h e role o f peer support i n E S L students' a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f oral academic tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 3 3 7 - 3 6 8 . K r a s h e n , S . D . (1985). Longman.  The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. L o n d o n :  The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. L o n d o n : Prentice H a l l E u r o p e .  K r a s h e n , S . D . & T e r r e l l , T . D . (1983).  K u b o t a , R . (1998). V o i c e s f r o m the m a r g i n : S e c o n d and f o r e i g n language teaching approaches f r o m m i n o r i t y perspectives. 54, 3 9 4 - 4 1 2 .  The Canadian Modern Language Review,  L a n t o l f , J . P . (2000). Introducing S o c i o c u l t u r a l theory.  In J . P . L a n t o l f ( E d . ) ,  Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press. L a n t o l f , J . P . (2002). S o c i o c u l t u r a l theory and s e c o n d language a c q u i s i t i o n . In R . B . K a p l a n (Ed.),  The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 109-119). O x f o r d :  O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press. L a n t o l f , J . P . , & A p e l , G . (1994). T h e o r e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k : A n i n t r o d u c t i o n to V y g o t s k i a n perspectives on s e c o n d language reaserch. In L a n t o l f , J . P . , & A p p e l , G . (Eds.)  Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 1-32). N o r w o o d , N . J . , A b l e x Publishing Corporation. L a n t o l f , J . P . , & P a v l e n k o , A . (1995). S o c i o c u l t u r a l T h e o r y and s e c o n d language acquisition.  Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-124.  L e v i n e , G . S. (2005). C o - c o s t r u c t i o n and a r t i c u l a t i o n o f code c h o i c e practices i n foreign language c l a s s r o o m s . In C M . Barette, & K . P a e s a n i ( E d s ) . Language program articulation: Developing a theoretical foundation (pp. 110-130). B o s t o n : H e i n l e .  187  L e v i n e , G . S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use and anxiety: R e p o r t o f a questionnaire study. T h e  Modern  Language Journal, 87, 343-364. L i u , D . , A h n , G , B a e k , K . , & H a n , N . (2004). S o u t h K o r e a n h i g h s c h o o l E n g l i s h teachers' c o d e s w i t c h i n g : Questions and challenges i n the d r i v e for m a x i m a l use  TESOL Quarterly, 38, 6 0 5 - 6 3 8 .  o f E n g l i s h i n teaching.  L o c a s t r o , V . (1987). Aizuchi: A Japanese c o n v e r s a t i o n a l routine. In L . E . S m i t h ( E d . ) , Discourse across cultures (pp. 101-113). N e w Y o r k : P r e n t i c e H a l l . L o n g , M . H . , & Porter, P . A . (1985). G r o u p w o r k , interlanguage talk, and s e c o n d  TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-227'.  language a c q u i s i t i o n . M a c a r o , E . (1997).  Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. C l e v e d o n :  M u l t i l i n g u a l Matters. M a c a r o , E . (2001). A n a l y s i n g student teachers' c o d e s w i t c h i n g i n f o r e i g n language c l a s s r o o m s : T h e o r i e s and d e c i s i o n m a k i n g .  Modern Language Journal, 85, 5 3 1 -  548. M e i r i n g , L . , & N o r m a n , N . (2002). B a c k on target: R e p o s i t i o n i n g the status o f target  language i n M F L teaching and learning. Language Learning Journal, 26, 27-35. M e r r i a m , S . B . (1998).  Qualitative research and case study application in education. S a n  Francisco: Jossey-Bass. M i u r a , A . , & M c G l o i n , N . H . (1994).  An integrated approach to intermediate Japanese.  T o k y o : Japan T i m e s . M o n t g o m e r y , C , & E i s e n s t e i n , M . (1985). R e a l reality r e v i s i t e d : A n e x p e r i m e n t a l c o m m u n i c a t i v e course i n E S L .  TESOL Quarterly, 19, 3 1 7 - 3 3 4 .  N g u y e n , A . , & S h i n , F . , & K r a s h e n , S. (2001). D e v e l o p m e n t o f the first language is not a barrier to second-language a c q u i s i t i o n : E v i d e n c e f r o m V i e t n a m e s e i m m i g r a n t s to the U n i t e d States.  International Journal of Bilingual Education and  Bilingualism, 4, 159-164. N o o r , H . H . (1994). S o m e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the role o f the mother tongue i n s e c o n d language a c q u i s i t i o n .  Linguistica Communicatio, 6, 9 7 - 1 0 6 .  N o r t o n , B . (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity change. H a r l o w , E n g l a n d : L o n g m a n / P e a r s o n E d u c a t i o n .  and educational  N o r t o n P e i r c e , B . (1995). S o c i a l identity, investment, and language l e a r n i n g .  Quarterly, 2 9 , 9 - 3 1 .  188  TESOL  O b l e r , L . K . (1982). T h e p a r s i m o n i o u s b i l i n g u a l . I n L . K . O b l e r & L . M e n n , (Eds.),  Exceptional language and linguistics (pp. 339-346). S a n D i e g o , C A : A c a d e m i c Press.  Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. M a h w a h , N . J . : L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m .  O h t a , A . S. (2001).  O h t a , A . S. (2000). R e - t h i n k i n g interaction i n S L A : D e v e l o p m e n t a l l y appropriate assistance in the Z o n e o f P r o x i m a l D e v e l o p m e n t and the a c q u i s i t i o n o f L 2 grammar. In J . P . L a n t o l f ( E d . ) , Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press. O h t a , A . S. (1995). A p p l y i n g s o c i o c u l t u r a l theory to an analysis o f learner discourse: L e a r n e r - l e a r n e r c o l l a b o r a t i v e interaction i n the Z o n e o f P r o x i m a l D e v e l o p m e n t .  Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 9 3 - 1 2 1 . P o l i o , C . G . , & D u f f , P . A . (1994). T e a c h e r s ' language use i n the u n i v e r s i t y foreign language c l a s s r o o m s : A qualitative analysis o f E n g l i s h a n d target language Alteration.  The Modern Language Journal, 78, 3 1 1 - 3 2 6 .  R o l i n - I a n z i t i , J . , & B r o w n l i e , S. (2002). T e a c h e r use o f learners' native language i n the foreign language c l a s s r o o m .  The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 4 0 2 -  426.  Challenges, needs, and contributions of heritage language students in foreign language classrooms. U n p u b l i s h e d master's thesis, U n i v e r s i t y o f  S h i n b o , Y . (2004).  British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Stake, R . E . (1995).  The art of case study research. T h o u s a n d O a k s : Sage.  S t o r c h , N . , & W i g g l e s w o r t h , G . (2003). Is there a role for the use o f the L I i n an L 2 setting?  TESOL Quarterly, 37, 7 6 0 - 7 7 0 .  S w a i n , M . (2000). T h e output hypothesis a n d b e y o n d : M e d i a t i n g a c q u i s i t i o n through c o l l a b o r a t i v e dialogue. In J . P . L a n t o l f ( E d . )  Sociocultural theory and second  language learning (pp. 9 7 - 1 1 4 ) . O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press. S w a i n , M , B r o o k s , L , & T o c a l l i - B e l l e r , A . (2002). Peer-peer d i a l o g u e as means o f s e c o n d language l e a r n i n g .  Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.  S w a i n , M . , & L a p k i n , S. (2000). T a s k - b a s e d s e c o n d language l e a r n i n g : T h e uses o f the first language.  Language Teaching Research, 4, 2 5 1 - 2 7 4 .  S w a i n , M . , & L a p k i n , S . (1998). Interaction a n d s e c o n d language l e a r n i n g : T w o adolescent F r e n c h i m m e r s i o n students w o r k i n g together.  Journal, 82, 320-337.  189  Modern Language  T a r o n e , E . , & S w a i n , M . (1995). A s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c perspective o n s e c o n d language use in immersion classrooms.  Modern Language Journal, 79, 166-178.  T u r n b u l l , M . (2001). T h e r e is a role for the L I i n s e c o n d and f o r e i g n language teaching, but . . . .  The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 5 3 1 - 5 4 0 .  T u r n b u l l , M . , & A r n e t t , K . (2002). T e a c h e r s ' uses o f the target and first languages i n second and f o r e i g n language c l a s s r o o m s .  Annual review of applied linguistics, 22,  204-218. V i l l a m i l , O . S., & de G u e r r e r o , M . C . M . (1996). Peer r e v i s i o n i n the L 2 c l a s s r o o m : S o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e activities, m e d i a t i n g strategies, a n d aspects o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o r .  Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 5 1 - 7 5 . V y g o t s k y , L . S. (1978).  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological  processes. C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press. W e l l s , G . (1999). U s i n g L I to master L 2 : a response to A n t o n and D i C a m i l l a ' s " S o c i o c o g n i t i v e functions o f L I c o l l a b o r a t i v e interaction i n the L 2 c l a s s r o o m " .  The  Modern Language Journal, 83, 2 4 8 - 2 5 4 . W i g g l e s w o r t h , G . (2002). T h e role o f the first language i n the s e c o n d language c l a s s r o o m : F r i e n d or foe. E n g l i s h Y i n , R . K . (1994).  Teaching, 57, 17-31.  Case study research: Design and methods. ( 2  O a k s : Sage.  190  n d  ed.). T h o u s a n d  Appendix I Informed Consent Form for Focal Instructors Title of Study:  L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  Faculty Advisor Dr. Patricia D u f f Associate Professor Department o f Language and Literacy Education Faculty of Education 604-822-9693  Graduate Student Emy Nakamura Master o f Arts Candidate Department o f Language and Literacy Education The University o f British C o l u m b i a XXX-XXX-XXX M . A . T h e s i s research  Purpose T h e purpose o f this study i s to e x a m i n e teacher a n d student c o m m u n i c a t i o n patterns i n Japanese as a f o r e i g n language c l a s s r o o m s ( J F L ) i n a l o c a l u n i v e r s i t y setting.  I am  interested i n the roles o f first, second, a n d e v e n t h i r d languages i n J F L l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t s . I w i l l be e x a m i n i n g h o w J F L instructors adapt their language use to enhance c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h students w h e n teaching Japanese.  Procedures Y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l i n v o l v e a 30-45 m i n u t e audio-taped i n t e r v i e w , a questionnaire a n d c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n sessions d u r i n g T e r m 1 o f the W i n t e r 2 0 0 2 a c a d e m i c year at T h e W e s t e r n C a n a d i a n U n i v e r s i t y . T h e c l a s s r o o m observations o f the s e m i n a r sessions o f Intermediate Japanese (i.e. J A P N X X X X ) w i l l o c c u r four times throughout the term. T h e s e four c l a s s r o o m observations w i l l be a u d i o - r e c o r d e d w i t h the p e r m i s s i o n o f the students i n v o l v e d a n d w o u l d be d u r i n g w e e k s 4 - 8 . F o r the i n t e r v i e w session, I w o u l d be g l a d to arrange an i n t e r v i e w o n c a m p u s at a t i m e c o n v e n i e n t f o r y o u .  191  Confidentiality A n y i n f o r m a t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m this research study w i l l be kept strictly c o n f i d e n t i a l . Participants w i l l not be i d e n t i f i e d b y n a m e a n d where necessary p s e u d o n y m s w i l l be used for a n o n y m i t y i n any reports o f the c o m p l e t e d study. A u d i o - t a p e s a n d transcribed documents w i l l be kept i n a secure f i l i n g cabinet a n d w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d o n l y b y a code number.  Compensation In appreciation o f y o u r i n v o l v e m e n t i n the study, each participant w i l l r e c e i v e an h o n o r a r i u m i n the amount o f $ 2 0 0 .  Contact If y o u have any questions o r desire to for further i n f o r m a t i o n o r feedback w i t h respect to this study, y o u m a y contact E m y N a k a m u r a at X X X - X X X - X X X o r e m y n @ i n t e r c h a n g e . u b c . c a , or, the faculty advisor, D r . P a t r i c i a D u f f at 6 0 4 - 8 2 2 - 9 6 9 3 o r patricia.duff@ubc.ca. If y o u have any concerns about y o u r treatment or rights as a research participant y o u m a y contact the D i r e c t o r o f R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e s at T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a at 604-822-8598.  192  STATEMENT OF INFORMED  CONSENT  T i t l e o f S t u d y : L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  I understand that m y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n this study is entirely v o l u n t a r y and that I m a y refuse to participate or w i t h d r a w f r o m the study at any t i m e w i t h o u t penalty. If y o u are w i l l i n g to participate i n this study, please f i l l i n the i n f o r m a t i o n b e l o w . B e sure to keep a s i g n e d c o p y o f page 3 for y o u r o w n records, and pages 1-2.  I have r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f this consent f o r m for m y o w n records. I c o n s e n t to participate i n this study.  Name  :  Signature  Date  Phone number Witness  Date  Please keep this copy for your records.  193  STATEMENT OF INFORMED  CONSENT  T i t l e o f S t u d y : L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  I understand that m y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n this study is entirely v o l u n t a r y a n d that I m a y refuse to participate or w i t h d r a w f r o m the study at any t i m e w i t h o u t penalty. If y o u are w i l l i n g to participate i n this study, please f i l l i n the i n f o r m a t i o n b e l o w . B e sure to keep a s i g n e d c o p y o f page 3 for y o u r o w n records, and pages 1-2.  I have r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f this consent f o r m for m y o w n records. I c o n s e n t to participate i n this study.  Name Signature  Date  Phone number Witness  Date  Please return this copy to the researcher.  194  Appendix II Informed Consent F o r m for Non-Focal Instructors  T i t l e o f S t u d y : L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  Faculty Advisor Dr. Patricia D u f f A s s o c i a t e Professor D e p a r t m e n t o f L a n g u a g e and L i t e r a c y E d u c a t i o n Faculty of Education 604-822-9693  Graduate Student Emy Nakamura Master of Arts Candidate D e p a r t m e n t o f L a n g u a g e and L i t e r a c y E d u c a t i o n The University o f British C o l u m b i a XXX-XXX-XXX M . A . T h e s i s research  Purpose T h e purpose o f this study is to e x a m i n e teacher and student c o m m u n i c a t i o n patterns i n Japanese as a f o r e i g n language c l a s s r o o m s ( J F L ) i n a l o c a l u n i v e r s i t y setting.  I am  interested i n the roles o f first, second, and e v e n t h i r d languages i n J F L l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t s . I w i l l be e x a m i n i n g h o w J F L instructors adapt their language use to enhance c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h students w h e n t e a c h i n g Japanese.  Procedures Y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l i n v o l v e a 30-45 m i n u t e audio-taped i n t e r v i e w d u r i n g T e r m 1 o f the W i n t e r 2 0 0 2 a c a d e m i c year at T h e W e s t e r n C a n a d i a n U n i v e r s i t y . I w o u l d be g l a d to arrange the i n t e r v i e w o n c a m p u s at a t i m e that is c o n v e n i e n t for y o u .  Confidentiality A n y i n f o r m a t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m this research study w i l l be kept strictly c o n f i d e n t i a l . Participants w i l l not be i d e n t i f i e d b y n a m e and where necessary p s e u d o n y m s w i l l be used for a n o n y m i t y i n any reports o f the c o m p l e t e d study. A u d i o - t a p e s and transcribed documents w i l l be kept i n a secure f i l i n g cabinet and w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d o n l y b y a code number.  195  Compensation In appreciation o f y o u r i n v o l v e m e n t i n the study, each participant w i l l receive a $ 4 0 gift certificate to a l o c a l bookstore.  Contact If y o u have any questions or desire to for further i n f o r m a t i o n or feedback w i t h respect to this study, y o u m a y contact E m y N a k a m u r a at X X X - X X X - X X X or e m y n @ i n t e r c h a n g e . u b c . c a , or, the faculty advisor, D r . P a t r i c i a D u f f at 6 0 4 - 8 2 2 - 9 6 9 3 or patricia.duff@ubc.ca. If y o u have any concerns about y o u r treatment or rights as a research participant y o u m a y contact the D i r e c t o r o f R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e s at T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a at 604-822-8598.  196  STATEMENT OF INFORMED  CONSENT  T i t l e o f S t u d y : L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  I understand that m y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n this study is entirely v o l u n t a r y and that I m a y refuse to participate or w i t h d r a w f r o m the study at any t i m e w i t h o u t penalty. If y o u are w i l l i n g to participate i n this study, please f i l l i n the i n f o r m a t i o n b e l o w . B e sure to keep a s i g n e d c o p y o f page 3 for y o u r o w n records, and pages 1-2.  I have r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f this consent f o r m for m y o w n records. I c o n s e n t to participate i n this study.  Name  — Date  Signature Phone number  Witness  Date  —  Please keep this copy for your records.  197  STATEMENT OF INFORMED  CONSENT  T i t l e o f S t u d y : L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  I understand that m y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n this study is entirely v o l u n t a r y a n d that I m a y refuse to participate or w i t h d r a w f r o m the study at any t i m e w i t h o u t penalty. If y o u are w i l l i n g to participate i n this study, please f i l l i n the i n f o r m a t i o n b e l o w . B e sure to keep a s i g n e d c o p y o f page 3 for y o u r o w n records, and pages 1-2.  I h a v e r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f this consent f o r m f o r m y o w n records. I c o n s e n t to participate i n this study.  Name  1  .  Signature  Date  Phone number Witness  Date  Please return this copy to the researcher.  198  A p p e n d i x III Informed Consent F o r m for Students  T i t l e o f S t u d y : L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  Faculty Advisor Dr. Patricia D u f f Associate Professor D e p a r t m e n t o f L a n g u a g e and L i t e r a c y E d u c a t i o n Faculty of Education 604-822-9693  Graduate Student Emy Nakamura Master of Arts Candidate D e p a r t m e n t o f L a n g u a g e and L i t e r a c y E d u c a t i o n The University of British C o l u m b i a XXX-XXX-XXX M . A . T h e s i s research  Purpose T h e purpose o f this study is to e x a m i n e teacher a n d student c o m m u n i c a t i o n patterns i n Japanese as a f o r e i g n language c l a s s r o o m s ( J F L ) i n a l o c a l u n i v e r s i t y setting.  I am  interested i n the roles o f first, second, and even t h i r d languages i n J F L l e a r n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t s . I w i l l be e x a m i n i n g h o w J F L instructors adapt their language use to enhance c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h students w h e n teaching Japanese.  Procedures Y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l i n v o l v e b e i n g o b s e r v e d b y the researcher d u r i n g y o u r Japanese class. T h i s w i l l i n c l u d e up to four classes o f the s e m i n a r sessions ( J A P N X X X X ) d u r i n g T e r m 1 o f y o u r W i n t e r 2 0 0 2 academic year at T h e W e s t e r n C a n a d i a n U n i v e r s i t y . T h e s e observations w i l l be audio-taped  Confidentiality A n y i n f o r m a t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m this research study w i l l be kept strictly c o n f i d e n t i a l . Participants w i l l not be i d e n t i f i e d b y n a m e and where necessary p s e u d o n y m s w i l l be used for a n o n y m i t y i n any reports o f the c o m p l e t e d study. A u d i o - t a p e s and transcribed documents w i l l be kept i n a secure f i l i n g cabinet a n d w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d o n l y b y a code number.  199  Contact If y o u have any questions o r desire to for further i n f o r m a t i o n o r feedback w i t h respect to this study, y o u m a y contact E m y N a k a m u r a at X X X - X X X - X X X o r e m y n @ i n t e r c h a n g e . u b c . c a , or, the faculty a d v i s o r , D r . P a t r i c i a D u f f at 6 0 4 - 8 2 2 - 9 6 9 3 o r patricia.duff@ubc.ca. If y o u have any concerns about y o u r treatment o r rights as a research participant y o u m a y contact the D i r e c t o r o f R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e s at T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a at 604-822-8598.  200  STATEMENT OF INFORMED  CONSENT  T i t l e o f S t u d y : L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  I understand that m y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n this study is entirely v o l u n t a r y a n d that I m a y refuse to participate or w i t h d r a w f r o m the study at any t i m e w i t h o u t penalty. If y o u are w i l l i n g to participate i n this study, please f i l l i n the i n f o r m a t i o n b e l o w . B e sure to keep a s i g n e d c o p y o f page 3 for y o u r o w n records, and pages 1-2.  I have r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f this consent f o r m for m y o w n records. I c o n s e n t to participate i n this study.  Name Date  Signature Phone number  Date  Witness  Please keep this copy for your records.  201  STATEMENT OF INFORMED  CONSENT  T i t l e o f S t u d y : L a n g u a g e use i n Japanese as a F o r e i g n L a n g u a g e C l a s s r o o m s  I understand that m y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n this study is entirely v o l u n t a r y a n d that I m a y refuse to participate or w i t h d r a w f r o m the study at any t i m e w i t h o u t penalty. I f y o u are w i l l i n g to participate i n this study, please f i l l i n the i n f o r m a t i o n b e l o w . B e sure to keep a s i g n e d c o p y o f page 3 for y o u r o w n records, and pages 1-2.  I have r e c e i v e d a c o p y o f this consent f o r m for m y o w n records. I c o n s e n t to participate i n this study.  Name Signature Phone number Witness  Date  :  :  '  Date  Please return this copy to the researcher.  202  Appendix IV Instructor Interview Guide 1.  F o r what purposes d o y o u prefer to use E n g l i s h as o p p o s e d to Japanese i n the Japanese c l a s s r o o m ? W h y ? F o r what purposes d o y o u prefer to use Japanese as o p p o s e d to E n g l i s h i n the Japanese c l a s s r o o m ? W h y ?  2.  W h a t do y o u feel is the role o f E n g l i s h i n y o u r Japanese c l a s s r o o m ?  3.  T o what extent, and b y w h o m , are languages other than Japanese or E n g l i s h used i n y o u r class? W h i c h languages are used for what purposes? W h a t are y o u r v i e w s about the use o f a d d i t i o n a l languages (such as C h i n e s e ) i n y o u r classes?  4.  W h a t languages do students generally use to c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h one another i n class?  5.  W h a t do y o u t h i n k is the ratio o f E n g l i s h to Japanese language use i n y o u r Japanese c l a s s r o o m ? Is the language y o u choose to use throughout y o u r sessions s o m e t h i n g y o u so c o n s c i o u s l y (i.e. through lesson p l a n n i n g ) ? H o w , i f at a l l , does y o u r use o f E n g l i s h or Japanese change o v e r t i m e ?  6.  W h a t are y o u r thoughts about Japanese as a f o r e i g n language ( J F L ) classes that are taught o n l y i n the target language? D o y o u t h i n k it is p o s s i b l e to d o so? In y o u r o p i n i o n , is it an effective m e t h o d for teaching J F L ? W h a t challenges are there i n t r y i n g to teach i n this w a y ?  7.  W h a t k i n d o f tasks or activities have y o u f o u n d to be successful i n m a x i m i z i n g Japanese language use a m o n g students? W h a t k i n d s o f tasks or activities have y o u f o u n d to be not as successful i n m a x i m i z i n g Japanese language use?  8.  W h a t are some o f the challenges or issues that y o u have encountered i n teaching students w h o s e first language is not E n g l i s h , and for w h o m Japanese is the t h i r d or e v e n fourth language? H a v e y o u had to learn to adapt or m o d i f y y o u r lessons to a c c o m m o d a t e such learners? W h a t types o f a c c o m m o d a t i o n s have y o u i m p l e m e n t e d ?  9.  H o w d o y o u t h i n k that y o u r teaching style or lesson p l a n n i n g has been i n f l u e n c e d b y the increase i n Chinese-as-a-first-language students? H o w d o y o u t h i n k this affects students e n r o l l e d i n the Japanese class w h o are non-native speakers o f C h i n e s e ? H o w d o y o u balance these t w o elements w i t h i n the same c l a s s r o o m e n v i r o n m e n t ? W h a t i m p a c t does the presence o f C h i n e s e - b a c k g r o u n d students have o n y o u r approach to literacy tasks and instruction?  203  Appendix V Student Interview Guide 1.  C a n y o u tell m e b r i e f l y about y o u r past experience l e a r n i n g Japanese p r i o r to this  -  course? W h a t is y o u r major? W h y are y o u l e a r n i n g Japanese? W h y d i d y o u decide to study Japanese at W C U and w h y d i d y o u choose this course i n particular? W h a t are the best features o f the class, i n y o u r o p i n i o n ? 2.  W h a t d o y o u t h i n k is the ratio o f E n g l i s h use to Japanese use b y y o u r instructor? W o u l d y o u l i k e y o u r instructor to use m o r e E n g l i s h ? W o u l d y o u l i k e her to use m o r e Japanese? W h y or w h y not? H o w do y o u t h i n k the use o f one or the other language affect y o u r language l e a r n i n g ?  3.  W h a t are y o u r thoughts about intermediate Japanese as a f o r e i g n language ( J F L ) classes that are taught o n l y or almost a l l i n the target language? W h a t challenges w o u l d y o u face i n such a class? W h a t benefits w o u l d y o u receive i n such a c l a s s r o o m environment?  4.  F o r what purposes w o u l d y o u prefer that the teacher use E n g l i s h as o p p o s e d to Japanese i n the Japanese c l a s s r o o m ? W h y ? F o r what purposes do y o u prefer the teacher to use Japanese as o p p o s e d to E n g l i s h i n the Japanese c l a s s r o o m ?  5.  Why?  In general, what k i n d o f tasks or activities do y o u f i n d to be useful i n c h a l l e n g i n g and m a x i m i z i n g y o u r Japanese language use a n d language l e a r n i n g ? I n general, what k i n d o f tasks or activities d o y o u f i n d to not be as c h a l l e n g i n g or not as useful i n m a x i m i z i n g Japanese language use?  6.  D o y o u have any opportunities to practice Japanese outside o f class? Please e x p l a i n .  7.  (Chinese-as-a-first-language students) In what w a y s is k n o w l e d g e o f y o u r first language, C h i n e s e , h e l p f u l i n l e a r n i n g Japanese?  D o y o u have opportunities to use  C h i n e s e i n class as w e l l as Japanese and E n g l i s h ? H o w , i n what situations? D o y o u r teachers use y o u r first language b a c k g r o u n d to h e l p y o u learn Japanese? H o w , any e x a m p l e s ? H o w often do y o u f i n d y o u r teachers use y o u r first language b a c k g r o u n d to help y o u earn Japanese? H o w do y o u t h i n k this makes non-Chinese-as-a-firstlanguage students feel? H o w different do y o u the l e a r n i n g situation w o u l d be i f a l l the students i n the class k n e w C h i n e s e ? (Non-Chinese-as-a-first-language students) I f y o u r first language is not C h i n e s e or E n g l i s h does y o u r teacher use y o u r first language b a c k g r o u n d to help y o u learn Japanese? H o w often do y o u f i n d y o u r teachers u s i n g y o u r first language b a c k g r o u n d to h e l p y o u learn Japanese? In regards to the Chinese-as-a-first language students, h o w often do y o u f i n d y o u r teachers u s i n g their first language b a c k g r o u n d to help t h e m learn Japanese? H o w does it m a k e y o u feel?  204  (English-as-a-first-language b a c k g r o u n d students) W h a t advantages or disadvantages are there i n s t u d y i n g Japanese i n a class l i k e yours w i t h students f r o m different language b a c k g r o u n d s ? In what w a y s d o y o u t h i n k y o u r experience w o u l d be different i f a l l the students i n the class spoke E n g l i s h as their first language? 8.  W h a t is y o u r o p i n i o n about the t e x t b o o k ? H o w d o y o u f i n d the m i x o f E n g l i s h and Japanese throughout y o u r t e x t b o o k ?  9.  H o w has l e a r n i n g Japanese changed y o u ?  205  Appendix V I Transcription Conventions  [  b e g i n n i n g o f o v e r l a p p i n g speech  =  w o r d s cut o f f b y or cutting o f f a partner's utterance;  w-b-r-d  short pause i n the m i d d l e o f a w o r d , u s u a l l y i n b e t w e e n s y l l a b l e s  +; ++; +++  one s e c o n d pause; t w o seconds pause; three or m o r e seconds pause  (x); (x); ( x x x )  one unclear w o r d ; t w o unclear w o r d s ; three or m o r e u n c l e a r w o r d s  CAPITAL  l o u d speech  underlining  e m p h a s i z e d speech  italics  Japanese w o r d s i n r o m a n i z e d form ( o n l y i n translations)  'word'  gloss or c i t a t i o n f o r m i n excerpts, quotation m a r k s indicate reported speech  ( ) ((comments))  author's insertion c o m m e n t s o f relevant details p e r t a i n i n g to i n t e r a c t i o n u n u s u a l l y lengthened s o u n d or s y l l a b l e  X-  (err)  {}  (attached) c u t o f f w o r d untranslatable sequence o f letters or m i s p r o n o u n c e d w o r d translation  206  Appendix V I I  Katakanization W o r d L i s t  Katakanazation  Katakanazation  English equivalent  word  shichueeshon buranku obiasu guramaa puroburemu paamishon undaarain kontorasuto : sesshon modem no daiaroggu fankushon handoauto foomatto maritipuru choisu negatibu ' akusepputaburu skippu Chaputaafoo hai skuum sisutemu yangaa konfuujon kajuaru spiichisutairu kasutamaa Noosu Amerika famirii sain uppu shiito peaa '. ribaizudo konpozishon tesuto ooraru eguzamu shiito maakingu paato taamu  English equivalent  word situation blank obvious grammar problem permission underline contrast session model dialogue function handout format multiple choice negative acceptable skip Chapter Four H i g h S c h o o l system younger confusion casual speech style customer North America family sign-up sheet pair revised c o m p o s i t i o n test oral exam sheet marking part term  fainaru omitto regulaa fakuto pirioddo gaarisshu rukkusu kontekisuto familii neemu Chainiizu  final omit regular fact period girlish looks context family name Chinese  partner paatonaa , . point form pointo foomu loose l e a f ruusuriifu essay f o r m essei foomu d o u b l e space daburu speesu intorodakushon . introduction conclusion konkurujon bodii body meem male library raiburarii lecture rekuchaa building birudingu meter p a r k i n g miitaa paakingu dialogue daialoggu listening risuningu writing raitingu muubu move vocab bookabu opening oopuningu kurouzingu closing finish finisshu expert ekusupaato karuchaa culture forouppu follow-up dissenbaa twerubu December twelve  207  Appendix VIII JAPANESE WORD COUNT CONVENTIONS CATERC;()R\ Particles  WORD One word/attached 25  Relational noun Time noun Lexical noun Adjectivesnoun modifying Nominalizer Adverbs Demonstrative/ questions words  One word One word One word One word  Pronoun  One word  One word One word  EXAMPLE ITEMS 1. conjunctive: aida, -ba, dattara, de (copula), kara, ga, keredomo, -nagara, nara, node, shi, -tara (including dattara), -tarif-dari, -tatte, -te kara, -te mo/-de mo, -te wa, to (samuku naru to), toki (hima na toki), uchi, 2. adverbial: bakari, dake, demo, gurai/kurai, hodo, koso, nado, nanka, nante, shika, to, shika, to (pikapika to hikaru), -zutsu 3. focus: datte, made, mo, wa (ni wa, e wa, to wa, kara wa) 4. case: de, e, ga, kara, made, made-ni, ni, no, wo, to, yori, to (with),yori, 5. conjoining: ka (or), to (and), toka, ya 6. question: ka 7. quotative: to 8. final: mon(o), ne, no, yo, wa 9. phrasal: ni atatte, ni kanshi(te), ni taishite, ni totte, bi tsuite, ni yoreba, ni yotte, wo motte, to shite, 10. comparative: yori Mae, naka, uchi, Koro, toki Mon(o) Furui hon, shizuka na machi, pinku no fuku Koto, mono/mon, no, Totemo, ima, yugata ni, kitto, amari, Kore, sore, are, dore Kono, sono, ano, dono Kou, sou, aa, dou Kochira, sochira, achira, doshira No  "One word" means that items in this category can stand alone as one word. "Attached" words are those in which the item is not counted as a word since it is usually attached to the end of other item. "Attached" examples are those that have a dash before the item e.g., -nagara, ox-tachi. These only become counted as one word once it is attached to another word such as tabenagara (while eating) or watashitachi (we, us).  208  JAPANESE WORD COUNT CONVENTIONS (CONTINUED) Suffix  Attached  structural noun sentence ending  One word One word/attached  V+masu verb attached ending Negative ending attached (verb) V+suru verb ending One word VERBAL NOUN Passive form of One word verbs One Negative conjunctive word/attached -te form verbs -ta (past/perfect attached ending) V tai form Attached Counters Attached One word Indirect quotations OTHER ITEMS English words pronounced as Japanese English contractions  -domo, -garu, -gata, -goro, personal:-san, -sama, plural: -ra, -tachi nominalizing: -sa, kata e.g (tabekata), -mi adjforming: -teki Hou, mama, tame Hazu, kamoshirenai, -mai, mitai, ni chigai nai, n(o) da, rashii, sou (hear say), -sou (likely to), -tai, -takatta, -ta aru, -te ageru, -te hoshii, -te hoshikatta, -te ikuf-teku, -te iruf-teru, -te itadaku, -te, kudasaru, -te kureru, -te kuru, -te miru, -te morau, -te oku/-toku, -te shimaru/ -chau, -te yaru, tsumori, -tte, wake, hazu, you V+masu -naif-masen, de wa nai, V+suru: hakken suru, kenkyuu sum Taberareta, korareta, Nakute, ja nakute, v-nakute, v-nai de, v-te v.katte ageru, -ta: natta, kureta, atta, data, shita, Tabe-tai, morai-tai -kai, -mai, -sai To iu, to, -tte/te,  C o u n t e d as Japanese w o r d  One word  209  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091984/manifest

Comment

Related Items