L1 Use in the Accomplishment of a Task in a FL Classroom

Context

Màster Universitari Formació de Professorat d'Educació Secundària Obligatòria i

Batxillerat, Formació Professional i Ensenyament d'Idiomes

TREBALL DE FI DE MÀSTER

Student: Ramon López Garrido

Supervisor: Dra. Mandy Lee Deal

7h June 2017
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank everyone who has helped me with this research. My TFM supervisor,

Mandy Deal, for the constant support and wonderful advice at all times. My sincere thanks also

goes to my internship mentor, Berta de Dios, as well as all the lovely students at the high school,

from whom I learned so much. Thanks to all of them I had an incredibly enriching first teaching

experience which I will never forget. I would also like to thank all those professors in the Master's

program who have provided me with truly valuable resources for my development as a teacher.

Finally, a special thanks to Tamara for these last 5 years of academic company and friendship, and

to Roser and Laia, for making our study time endurable, memorable and always special.
Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………........………………………………………………1

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..2

2. Theoretical framework………………………………………………….......…………….….3

3. Methodology...…………………………………………………………....…………………..6

4. Analysis....……………………………………………………………………………….…...7

5. Discussion...................... ……………………………………………................................…20

6. Conclusion.........................................…………………………………….............................22

7. Resources…………………………………………………………………………………....25
Abstract

With a Conversation Analysis approach and within a peer interaction context, this study
explores the students' uses of their L1, Spanish, and the L2, which is English, during the
different stages of a task accomplishment process in the ESL classroom. The analysis is
performed through examination of conversation transcripts. Firstly, this paper explores how
students understand a reading task in collaboration. Secondly, how the students work together to
plan the co-construction of an answer to a prompt. Finally, how the students collaborate to co-
construct the outcome of their jointly prepared answer. While, to a certain degree, the L1 and
the L2 coincide in the ways they are used by students, several distinct features have been
observed in L1 use with different purposes such as task organization or leadership.

Keywords: Peer Interaction, Conversation Analysis, Task Accomplishment, L1, ESL, Foreign
Language Teaching

Amb el mètode d'Anàlisi de la Conversa i dins d'un context d'interacció entre iguals, aquest
estudi explora l'ús que els estudiants donen a la seva L1, el castellà, i a la L2, que és l'anglès,
durant les diferents etapes del procés de realització d'una tasca a l'aula d'anglès com a llengua
estrangera. L'anàlisi s'efectua a través de l'examinació de transcripcions de conversa. Primer
s'explora com els estudiants col·laboren per entendre una tasca de lectura. Llavors, com els
estudiants treballen junts per planejar la co-construcció d'una resposta per un enunciat.
Finalment, com els estudiants col·laboren per co-construir la resposta que abans han preparat
conjuntament. Tot i que, fins a cert punt, la L1 i la L2 coincideixen en les maneres com els
estudiants les utilitzen, hi ha vàries característiques que difereixen dins la L1 i a les quals se'ls hi
han observat finalitats diferents com ara organització de la tasca o lideratge.

Paraules clau: Interacció entre Iguals, Anàlisi de la Conversa, Realització d'una Tasca, L1,
Anglès com a Llengua Estrangera, Ensenyament de Llengües Estrangeres

1
1. Introduction

Peer interaction is a key element in the foreign language (FL) classroom, since students do not only

learn from the input they receive from the teacher, but also from the one they produce in

collaboration with other classmates. It is essential not to overlook the often forgotten crucial role of

in-class practice when it comes to oral production, which tends to be one of the most prominent

weaknesses for Spanish speakers when it comes to learning a FL (Carretero, 2017).

The research presented here intends to delve into the role that Spanish, the L1 of the

students, takes in the accomplishment of a task in the L2, in this case being English. The use of the

L1 has often been disregarded in a FL teaching context. A study by López (2016), however, found it

to be useful in learners' individual performance. The present study will be focused on analyzing

how the L1 and the L2 are used in combination during the collaborative process of accomplishing

an L2 task. Furthermore, the students' use of each language in interaction within that process will be

observed in detail by taking a Conversation Analysis (CA) approach.

The accomplishment of a task can be divided in three stages: firstly, how students

collaboratively interact to understand the instructions; secondly, how they collectively interpret and

plan the task; and finally, how they interact towards its co-construction. Transcripts of real

classroom data from peer interaction during these three stages will be used. The aim of this CA-

based paper will be to answer the following questions:

1. How are the L1 and the L2 used differently (or similarly) in this process?

2. In which ways do students use the L1 as a resource to achieve the task?

The conclusions drawn from this study will be taken into consideration for future development of

the teaching skills of the researcher, as it will provide a deeper understanding on how to observe

students and how they use the L1 as a resource in their interaction to accomplish a group task.

Furthermore, it will provide an insight on how the activities that the students perform are carried out

and, thus, how they can be improved for future lessons.

2
 The data was obtained from a so-called high complexity state high school in a working class

area of one of the biggest cities of Catalonia. This means that there was a high number of

immigrants in that area, the socioeconomic situation of the families was low, and attitudes towards

education were generally not positive.

2. Theoretical framewok

In spite of the poor reputation L1 has within current teaching trends, which see L2 exclusive use in

the classroom as the most effective teaching methodology, many studies have focused on the

benefits which the L1 offers the foreign language student. For instance, Malmkjær (1998) found

that interference between languages was positive, as it created awareness and control of both

languages. As Cohen (1998) claimed, languages have both distinctive and complementary purposes,

so trying to separate them instead of fostering linguistic collaboration can be counter-productive.

The influence of the L1 in the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom has been

investigated in different contexts, such as the teacher's interaction with students and how using the

L1 as the instruction language can foster the individual learning of grammar tenses (López, 2016).

Nonetheless, the present study will be exclusively focused on the role of the L1 within a peer

interaction context.

The CA approach to studying such contexts provides an insight regarding the specific ways

that students use the L1 in their in-class interactions. This analytical approach considers every part

of an exchange among interactants (in this case, students) to be relevant. Talk is seen as a

succession of utterances which respond to one another in a specific context (Jansson, 2007, p. 160).

According to Mondada's and Pekarek Doehler's (2004) study on the importance of classroom

interaction, interaction is “a fundamentally constitutive dimension of learners' everyday lives” and,

thus, “the most basic site of organized activity where learning can take place” (p. 502). These

authors studied students' interaction in their data with a CA approach, thereby highlighting the

“central role of contextuality” for learning activities (p. 504). Their study used a French L2

3
classroom to show how students self-repair and reconfigure the task depending on their learning

needs. They found that “the dynamic dimension of social interaction (…) gives rise to a continuing

emergence of new objects of learning and of new potentials of learning”, so the learner needs to

“put to work variable resources and adapt them continuously to the local contingencies of the

ongoing activities” (p. 514). The present study will thus take advantage of the investigative benefits

of this methodology and analyze how students use the L1 as a resource within their interactions.

It is within this central interactional context mentioned above that code-switching occurs in

different types of sequences. According to Jansson (2007), code-switching is a linguistic resource

due to the fact that bilingual speakers collaborate to obtain meaning in each conversational turn

combining both languages. In her study she found that the fact that students chose to use different

languages for different aims meant that code-switching was used just as another “interactional

device” available for students to complete a FL task. Moreover, she interpreted it “as an additional

resource in inviting one's co-speaker to participate in the task-oriented practice of linguistic

problem-solving in the process of producing an academic text” (p. 176). This suggests that code-

switching allows a better understanding between students working on the same goal, helping them

explore the task from a common linguistic ground where they may feel more comfortable to

participate in the development of the activity.

Similarly, Cromdal (2003) explored the differences in language choice in a bilingual

classroom environment and found that the roles English and Swedish had were remarkably

polarized. While English, the L2, was used basically towards the co-construction of the task

outcome, Swedish, the students' L1 had other more specific roles such as organizing the activity or

answering doubts. Thus, both his study and Jansson's show crucial functions of the L1 for the

students.

As indicated by Scott and De la Fuente (2008), banning the natural resource that code-

switching represents may lead to frustration for the student. In their study, CA and stimulated recall

4
sessions were used to analyze two groups of English-speaking students learning French or Spanish.

The students had to work collaboratively in form-focused tasks. They intended to investigate how

the L1 was used and what the consequences of prohibiting it would be (p. 103). One of the groups

was not allowed to use the L1, while the others were. The group who was limited to L2 use reported

in recall sessions that they had felt the task to be too difficult in aspects such as explaining grammar

concepts in the L2 (p. 107). On the other hand, L1 use was found to be “useful for task

management, task clarification, determining meaning and vocabulary, and explaining grammar” (p.

102). They concluded that using the L2 exclusively seems to “inhibit collaborative interaction,

hinder the use of metatalk and impede 'natural' learning strategies” (p. 109), while also creating a

cognitive competition between both languages instead of obtaining the best resources from them.

Unamuno (2008) analyzed multilingual switches in an ESL classroom of a Catalan high

school where Catalan is the institutional language, but Spanish is the most widely-spoken one

among students. While one of the main focuses of her study is of a sociolinguistic interest, she also

explored the ways students used the languages available to complete a task (p. 2). According to her

findings, the need for students to resort to the L1 in L2 tasks “fulfills an intrinsically conversational

function: the desire to cooperate in the execution of the task while maintaining some fluency in the

interaction” (p. 15). Otherwise, as mentioned by Scott and De la Fuente above, students feel

frustration which leads to silence. Unamuno concluded that “code-switching may open up social

and pedagogical sequences that are more favorable to language learning”, as well as becoming an

indicator of the linguistic limitations students have (p. 16). She highlighted the fact that code-

switching has not been found to be necessarily positive for language acquisition, but neither has it

been considered negative. Thus, the tide is actually turning towards a more welcoming attitude

when it comes to allowing L1 use in the classroom (p. 3).

When discussing peer interaction in a foreign language classroom context, it is unavoidable

to mention the fact that students have different levels of command of the L2. Therefore, it is an

5
aspect which should be taken into account when analyzing the collaborative task accomplishment

process. Donato (1994) claims that negotiation of meaning and the co-construction of knowledge

are key for L2 learning. His study focused on finding out how this co-construction is carried out by

analyzing conversations among students who negotiate meaning in foreign language activities and

comparing these findings with later conversations in order to see if co-constructed structures are

used later on. An analogy can be made between this collaborative process and the scaffolding

metaphor, which defines the action through which an expert helps a novice's learning process by

providing them with resources to extend their knowledge. Although this type of interaction in

commonly thought to occur between teachers and students, Donato found out that scaffolding

between learners can be the same as that of an “expert-novice”, providing each other with a similar

support as that which adults give children. This questions the fact that scaffolding is only

unidirectional, because learners' scaffolding affects each other's L2 development. This also means it

is not only the student with lower language levels, who takes the “novice” role, who learns from the

“expert” student. Ultimately, they all use the knowledge they have constructed collaboratively. This

is particularly significant in a code-switching context, where the students with a weaker command

of English are likely to receive the expert's support in the L1 rather than the L2. This aspect will be

analyzed and discussed in the present study.

3. Methodology

All the data were collected from 3rd year of ESO (secondary compulsory education) English

lessons at a state high school during the time the researcher taught there as an intern. The students,

who were a total of 15-25 per class and worked in small groups, were performing different tasks

from a teaching sequence designed by the author of this paper in collaboration with a peer from the

Master's degree program. Phones and cameras were used to record the interaction among students,

thereby obtaining both audio and video recordings. Nevertheless, none of the video data were used

because the students seemed to feel more self-conscious about the camera, as their interaction was

6
very limited and it did not sound natural, so the material was not useful for the present study. All the

data are intended for their use in qualitative and interpretative classroom research.

In order to protect the students' identity, names have been changed to ensure anonymity. All

recordings were made with the students' consent, as well as the internship mentor's approval. The

students were recorded as they engaged in different classroom contexts and activities. Three

activities were selected, divided into different excerpts and transcribed according to the Jeffersonian

system of transcription. The chosen fragments intend to illustrate the different parts of the task

accomplishment process and they will be analyzed with Conversation Analysis (CA). This approach

will allow the data to be observed within an interactional context which will help distinguish the

particular ways the L1 is used. Excerpts 1 to 5 correspond to a reading comprehension activity

where students needed to work collaboratively to understand a text in order to be able to answer

questions about it. Excerpts 6 to 9 illustrate students working together to co-construct an answer to

a prompt related to what they would do in a risk situation, as well as their final outcome in their

attempt of building the answer in English.

4. Analysis

4.1 Understanding the task

The first five excerpts correspond to a reading activity. In extracts 1,2 and 3 the interaction is

between two students carrying out pair work. The students were sitting next to each other and they

had to read and understand a text about someone's experience with an extreme sport. The goal was

to do it in collaboration so that both of them would be able to ask and answer questions about it.

Later on they would need to stand up and go around the class finding other classmates with

different texts in order to complete a “find someone who” activity. Joan was observed to have a

higher level of linguistic competence than Saul. Such understanding is reflected in Excerpt 1, as

Joan initiates the performance of the task and Saul gives him the floor to do this action. Before this

excerpt, the students have agreed on translating the text so that Saul can understand it well and

7
perform the second part of the activity.

Excerpt 1

1 Joan we use real weapons like swords (0.3) nosotros usamos (1) armas reales como::

we use real weapons like

2 espadas (1) escudos (1) and protections (.) real protections like helmets and

swords shields

3 protections all over the body (.) que sería el casco y toda la protección del

which would be the helmet and all the protection of

4 cuerpo (3)

the body

5 Saul it is [really xxxx]

6J [por supuesto] (.) of course (.) this (1) [sport]

of course

7S [sport]

8J is dangerous because we fight for real (.) este (.) por supuesto este [deporte]

this of course this sport

9S [deporte]

sport

10 J es peligroso porque nosotros luchamos en vida real

is dangerous because we fight in real life

Joan starts reading the text in English and translates each sentence into Spanish (lines 1-4). In line

5, Saul begins to continue the reading himself, but Joan overlaps his turn to draw Saul's attention to

a part of the sentence he had not addressed (line 6). Through this action, Joan displays his

knowledge and does not allow Saul to ignore the phrase of course. Saul shows interest in

8
participating in the activity as well as his own knowledge of the language by sharing the completion

of Joan's turn with the word sport (line 7). Joan continues the translation and by the end of the

sentence, Saul joins him and overlaps Joan's activity by translating the same word he had mentioned

earlier, deporte (line 9). Joan does not acknowledge Saul's action and continues the translation (line

10). Therefore, Joan starts leading the activity for Saul, reading and translating into Spanish

alternatively, but Saul tries to join the task progressively. Both of them combine the L1 and L2 to

make the thought process of understanding the text visible.

The extract below is a continuation of Excerpt 1, Saul and Joan continue working together

on the classroom task they have been assigned.

Excerpt 2

11 S aha (0.5) if you get hit in your arm with a sword it's really painful

12 J es (.) o sea (.) significa que (.) si a ti te dan un golpe con una espada (.) en el

it's I mean it means that if you get hit with a sword in your

13 brazo

arm

14 (0.5) realmente es mu:y doloroso (0.5)

it's really painful

15 S va:le

OK

Saul confirms he has understood the translation by uttering an aha, a change of state token

(Heritage, 1984). He then continues reading in English (line 11). Joan responds by translating what

Saul just read and he emphasizes several words to direct Saul's attention to those (lines 12-14). Saul

shows his alignment with and understanding of Joan's action by uttering a discourse particle, vale

(line 15).

9
 Excerpt 2 shows how, up to line 10, Saul only repeats some words in the L2, but by turn 11,

he has already joined the activity more actively by reading in the L2. He shows understanding and

engagement with the task (turns 11 and 15).

Excerpt 3 is a sequence that arose later in the interaction between Saul and Joan as they

worked on their task together.

Excerpt 3

16 S it gives you the opportunity to do your best and the feeling is great (3) it's great

17 (4) tu tienes la oportunidad de ser el mejor (2) en el campo de batalla

you have the opportunity to be the best in the battlefield

By the end of the activity, Saul is the one who initiates both the reading in English and the

translation into Spanish (lines 16 and 17). He self-corrects his intonation with the sentence it's

great. His pauses are significantly longer than Joan's as can be seen in Excerpts 1 and 2. Through

this, Saul displays he has picked up on Joan's strategy and he starts translating as if he was the

expert. However, his translation process is slower and the outcome is not as accurate as Joan's.

The next two excerpts show another pair of students, Núria and David, who work on the

same task as the previous two. They have also decided to follow a similar strategy to Joan's and

Saul's, although this time the translation is performed in collaboration.

Excerpt 4

1 Núria I don't understand this (1) the freedom your experience while being up in

2 the air or racing down a hill at high speed in the xxx

3 David esto sería (0.3) la libertad que que tengo con la experiencia (2) con la

this would be the freedom I have with the experience with the

10
 4 experiencia que (1.5) que tengo cuando estoy en el aire (0.5) y (.)

the experience that that I have when I'm up in the air and

5 bajando

going down

6N para abajo no

down, right?

7D bajando las montañas y (1) esto no lo sé (4.5)

going down the mountains and I don't know this

Núria expresses in English her lack of understanding of a fragment of the text by uttering a no-

knowledge claim in line 1. She then reads the text out loud (line 2). David responds by translating it

into Spanish (lines 3-5). In line 6 Núria proposes an alternative translation to David's, but David

does not take up Núria's suggested candidate translation and provides his own alternative while also

indicating, in Spanish, that he does not understand part of the fragment (7). Thus, the students refer

to their own knowledge of the content of the text in both the L2 (line 1) and the L1 (line 7). So far,

David is the student leading the translation.

The following excerpt is a continuation from Excerpt 4. In it, Núria and David continue to

carry out their task.

Excerpt 5

8N and (.) moreover (0.5)

9D moreover no sé lo que es (6)

I don't know what that is

10 N injured es xxx (5)

is

11
11 D contusiones (0.8)

contusions

12 N sprain (0.5) worrisome (3)

13 D bored (.) como aburrido (.)

like bored

14 N no (.) worry (1.5)

15 D me ha parecido como it's boring

I thought it was like

Núria indicates that she does not understand the word moreover (line 8). She formulates a request of

information from David about the word by saying it with a final rising intonation. David shows, in

Spanish, that he does not understand it either. Núria translates injured into Spanish (line 10) and

then David does the same with the word contusiones (line 11). Núria displays her lack of

knowledge about two other terms, sprain and worrisome, by uttering them with a rising intonation

(line 12). David apparently misunderstands the word worrisome and tells Núria it means the same

as bored (line 13). Núria initiates a repair of this misunderstanding by stressing the pronunciation of

worry (line 14). David then aligns with Núria's clarification by giving an account for his previous

turn in line 13. He reflects to his own thought process in reaction to Núria's pronunciation (line 15).

As opposed to Excerpt 4, in this case the students have a similar translation pace and they

collaborate simultaneously in deciphering the meaning. Moreover, the ways the L1 and the L2 are

applied to the task differs much less than with the first pair. That is, the L1 and the L2 are used not

only for translation and reading respectively as in the previous extracts. In this case, Núria and

David use both languages with similar purposes, such as referring to their own knowledge.

12
4.2 Co-construction of a task: preparation

This section will deal with how students collaborate to prepare the co-construction of the task they

are assigned. These excerpts present a group of three students who are given a prompt with a

situation to which they need to provide an answer. They were instructed to decide what they would

do if their boyfriend or girlfriend threatened to break up with them if they attended a birthday party.

This group decides to build an answer in the L2 by first reaching agreement in the L1 on what they

want to say.

Excerpt 6

1. Joan: I go to the party (2)

2. Albert: yes (.) I'm agree with you

3. David: ºyesº (.) I go to the party

4. A: pero en referencia a la respuesta que diremos en inglés ((coughs)) >EN

but in reference to the answer we'll provide in English in

5. REFERENCIA A LO QUE DIREMOS EN INGLÉS< (.) yo creo que

in reference to the answer we'll provide in English I think that

6. deberíamos comenzar diciendo que esto es una relación mala para los dos

we should start by saying this is a bad relationship for both

7. (.) porque es una relación controlativa (.) o sea a ver (.) no está bien

because it's a controlling relationship, I mean, that's not how you

8. dicho pero:

say it but

13
9. D: posesiva

possessive

10. A: sí (.) algo así (.) y como es una relación mala=

yes, something like that, and since it's a bad relationship

11. J: the girlfriend or the boyfriend

12. A: =este sería una una buena opción (.) un buen momento para romper la relación

this would be a a good option a good moment to break up

13. y: decírselo a la pareja (.) que no es una buena relación y que no se puede seguir

and telling your partner that it's not a good relationship and that you can't go on

14. de esta manera (.) por eso (0.8) habría que elegir la respuesta (.) de irse a la

like that that's why we should choose the answer about going to the

15. fiesta de cumpleaños (2)

birthday party

16. D: yo estoy de acuerdo contigo

I agree with you

17. J: me too

Joan responds, in English, to the prompt of the exercise by referring to the action he would take in

the situation aligned in the task (line 1). Albert aligns and affiliates with Joan's answer by displaying

his agreement in line 2. David shows agreement as well by not only confirming agreement, but by

repeating Joan's answer but with himself as the agent of the action (line 3). In line 4, Albert initiates

a sequence, in Spanish, in which they discuss how they should carry out the task. In line 5, he

14
recruits his partner's attention by coughing, raising his voice and intonation when repeating the

same sentence he had uttered in line 4. He proposes the way he thinks the answer should be

provided (line 6). He formulates his opinion using the modal deberíamos (should), thus conveying

the importance of following task instructions. In lines 7 and 8, he refers to his linguistic limitations

in terms of actually carrying out the task of formulating the candidate response he has provided.

David replies by offering a candidate word for which Albert seems to be searching for (line 9).

Albert confirms that David's proposed term is the concept to which he was alluding and continues

to give his opinion (line 10). He is interrupted by Joan, who attempts to start the answer in English

(line 11). However, Albert does not give Joan the floor and continues his turn (lines 12-15). David

declares his agreement with Albert in Spanish (line 16), while Joan does so in English (line 17).

In this extract, the students collaborate in both the L1 and the L2 in order to plan their

answer. However, Albert seems to be leading the other two students. His use of the L1 to give

instructions to his peers on how to develop the task allows him to take the floor more often than

Joan or David.

The following fragment displays how this tendency continues throughout the interaction

among these students.

Excerpt 7

18. A: so (0.5) la respuesta en inglés (0.3) sería (.) vamos a intentar traducir poco a

the answer in Enlgish would be let's try to translate little by

19. poco

little

20. J: vale (.) yo creo que sería

okay I think it would be

21. A: primero hay que decir this relationship is

first we need to say

15
22. J: this relationship is bad for the boyfriend or the girlfriend

23. A: bueno (.) para todos (.) for all

well for everyone

24. D: for all

25. J: for all (0.6) because not (1.8)

26. A: because is a:

Albert uses a discourse marker in English, so, to mark the beginning of his conclusion, but returns

to his L1 (Spanish) to manage further progress in carrying out the activity (lines 18 and 19). Joan

shows his alignment and affiliation with Albert with a okay token (line 20) and begins to formulate

a candidate answer by referring to his thoughts about how to proceed, but Albert cuts him off again

by stating in Spanish what should be said first and then by starting the translation into English (21).

Joan takes up on Albert's proposed sentence and offers a candidate completion of it (line 22). Albert

shows disagreement with Joan's addition by using the discourse marker bueno. He then provides a

corrected version of what he believes to be the correct answer (line 23). David corrects Albert's

pronunciation by stressing the word all (line 24). Joan repeats the structure Albert suggested and

tries to provide an account in English for his reasoning, but he makes a long pause (line 25). Albert

makes the same attempt (line 26), but their interaction is interrupted by a teacher.

Similarly to Excerpt 6, Albert seems to continue to take control of the development of the

activity by using the L1 to mark its different stages (lines 18, 19 and 21) or to take the floor (line

23). Therefore, the interaction in English is triggered by the previous thought process made explicit

in the L1.

In Excerpt 8, the students continue planning the answer of the task after the teacher is gone.

16
Excerpt 8

27. A: okay (.) primero decimos this relationship is bad for all (.) for all

first we say

28. D: for all

29. A: because (0.7) is a (0.4) ºbueno cómo decimosº

well how can we say it

30. D: possessive

31. A: possessive

32. D: relation (2)

33. J: busca pareja (.) pareja (3.2)

look up couple couple

34 A: vale (0.3) bueno (.) relationship or couple

okay well

35. J: vale pues diríamos=

okay so we would say

36. A: bueno for the pair

well

37. J: =this relationship

38. A: is bad for the pair (0.3) ºfor the coupleº

17
39. J: cou- couple cou- couple (0.4) couple

40. A: for the pair

41. J: is bad for the pair

Albert restarts the interaction with a okay token and then returns to Spanish to organize the answer

that will be given in English (line 27). David repeats the word he had previously corrected for

Albert (line 28). Albert makes another attempt at formulating a candidate answer in English, but

switches to Spanish, with a lower voice, to express his lack of knowledge about how to define the

type of relationship they are describing (line 29). David replies by providing a candidate completion

to Albert's sentence, which he emphasizes (line 30). Albert takes up on this suggestion (line 31) and

David adds another candidate word to complete the answer (line 32). There is a pause and Joan

requires one of his peers, in Spanish, to look up the word pareja on the dictionary (line 33). After a

3.2 seconds wait for the answer, Albert presents two candidate words: relationship or couple (line

34). Joan initiates in Spanish the answer they are going to provide in English (line 35), but Albert

interrupts him again to take the floor and provide a third alternative, pair, which happens to be

wrong (line 36). Joan continues his previously interrupted attempt and starts the sentence in English

(line 37). Albert completes it with the inappropriate alternative, pair, although he seems to consider

the word couple instead of pair in a lower voice, but he does not know how to pronounce it (line

38). Joan also has trouble with the pronunciation of this word (line 39), so Albert reverts to using

pair (line 40). Joan accepts this alternative by repeating it (line 41).

The students resort to their L1 in this fragment for similar purposes to the ones observed in

other extracts. Albert continues to set the pace of the activity by marking the steps which need to be

followed. Moreover, Joan also uses Spanish to give a command. This suggests that the status of the

L1 is higher than that of the L2 when it comes to the management issues and power in terms of

18
entitlement to make requests and directives within a group task. It is also noticeable how Albert

lowers his voice both in Spanish and English when he is unsure about what he is saying.

4.3 Co-construction of a task: outcome

Once they have agreed on what they are going to say and how they are going to say it, the same

students from Excerpts 6 to 8 provide their final answer.

Excerpt 9

42. A: so:: (.) comenzaríamos (.) this relationship is bad for the pair (.) because is a

we'd start

43. possessive relationship (0.3) a::nd (0.7) eh (.) a:nd (0.4) [nuestra]

our

44. J: [we]

45. D: [our (.) our]

46. A: [we answer] is [we would] (0.5) we would

47. D: [we go] [to the party]

48. J: [to the party]

49. A: we would go to the party

Albert marks with so the beginning of co-constructing the final outcome, bridging it with the

previous actions the group has agreed on. He then switches to Spanish to initiate the production

(lines 42 and 43). He initiates a word search by saying the word he does not know in Spanish and,

19
with rising intonation, Joan overlaps with him providing an inappropriate candidate answer

alternative (line 44). David utters an appropriate word, but overlaps with Albert and goes unnoticed

(line 45). Albert continues with Joan's suggestion and then overlaps with David, who first makes a

correction with a word Albert has missed and then continues with the end of the answer (line 47)

Joan overlaps with David by providing the same candidate ending to the sentence (line 48). Albert

makes the final remark and emphasizes the word he had missed earlier in turn 46 (line 49).

Even though the prominent language used during the outcome is English, students use the

L1 similarly to the other stages of the task accomplishment. First, Albert marks in Spanish that it is

the moment to start providing the final answer. Later, he uses the L1 again to search for an unknown

word. These findings about L1 use show consistency with the previous excerpts.

5. Discussion

This paper's aim was to observe students' interaction in the English classroom with a focus on

analyzing the role that the L1 and the L2 had in a code-switching context with English as the target

language. While the L2 is definitely the target, many students use the L1 when working together in

the accomplishment of the different parts of a task. This distinctive use of both languages has been

reflected in the different excerpts analyzed in the previous section.

In Excerpt 1, one of the students takes the role of the expert (Joan) and the other one is the

novice (Saul), in a type of collective scaffolding sequence similar to findings reported in Donato's

study (1994). This is shown by the difference of reading and translating paces between both

students, since the pauses Saul makes are much longer than Joan's (compare turns 1, 2, 3 and 4 to

16 and 17). Moreover, Saul orients to Joan as the expert, as he lets him speak first and follows his

lead. They are only using the L2 in the occasions when they read the text, while the L1 is more

prominent when they interact to understand the task.

While data presented in Excerpts 1 to 3 show a prevailing role of the L1, excerpts 4 and 5

present a less polarized use of the L1 and the L2 even though the students continue with the same

20
translation strategy in order to understand the text. The L2 is used to identify unknown words, while

the L1 identifies those they know. Although the L2 is used to communicate ideas such as lack of

understanding, the key language for the students when it comes to understanding the text is the L1.

The first two cases discussed above seem to be consistent with findings reported in a study

by Scott and De la Fuente (2008) when they point out the ways that students deploy the L1 in a

natural way. This resource is key in order for them to reach a clear understanding of the task they

need to carry out. While they would not need to understand every single word of the text, as was

seen in interaction between Núria and David, to complete the task successfully, a ban on the L1

might leave behind those students with a lower level such as Saul's. Following Scott's and De la

Fuente's argumentation, if those students had not had access to the use of the L1 resource, they

probably would have become frustrated, which might have compromised the accomplishment of the

task, especially for those students with a lower level

During the planning of the task, the extracts show how the L1 is crucial for the development

of the activity both content-wise and in organizational terms. The students first present their ideas in

Spanish and translate them into English later on. However, the agreement on the content of the

future L2 answer happens in the L1. Their first language is also key when it comes to organization.

In this case, while L1 use does not necessarily substitute a linguistic or interactional need during the

co-construction of the answer, it does offer those students who use it the ability to lead the

development of the activity. Every time Albert gives a command, states what is to be done next or

simply marks at what stage of the co-construction of the task they are, he uses the L1. By these

means, Albert seems to position himself as a leader who manages the task by using the L1. Many of

these utterances could be produced in the L2 given the advanced level of the students involved, but

they might not have carried the same significance for their peers.

Similarly, in Excerpt 9, during the final outcome of the answer which they are jointly

constructing, the interaction happens almost exclusively in the L2. However, the students also use

21
the L1 even when the outcome is supposed to be in English. Albert takes back the lead and marks

the rhythm of the development of the activity. Vocabulary doubts are also expressed in Spanish, as

Albert in line 43. The L1, thus, continues to have an organizational role during this stage.

These findings coincide with those by Cromdal (2003) and Jansson (2007). They both found

L2 use to be almost exclusive to the outcome of the activity, while the L1 was the crux of the

organization of the interaction among students. A possible reason for this might be the desire of the

students for fluency, as Unamuno (2008) claims in her study, since students make shorter pauses in

the L1.

This analysis helps shed some light on the processes involved in the collaborative

achievement of tasks and the potential learning opportunities such interactions might afford in the

foreign language classroom. It would be advisable to consider L1 use in the classroom as the

interactional device described by Jansson (2007), which students can use for their own benefit and

also as a tool which allows the teacher to identify the degree of the students' linguistic awareness

and examine their difficulties from a dual linguistic perspective. That is, by analyzing why and

when students use the L1 during a task accomplishment process, the teacher can assess to what

extent students should be allowed to speak in the L1, making the possible benefits visible for them.

These findings will surely be taken into consideration in the present researcher's development as a

teacher, as they represent valuable information which can help shape a lesson plan depending on the

students' needs.

6. Conclusion

This study analyzed several academic papers dealing with peer interaction in a code-switching

context through CA, where the authors followed a similar investigation line and generally reached a

conclusion favorable to L1 use. This paper initially aimed to answer the following questions

through the analysis of data obtained at a state secondary school:

22
 1. How are the L1 and the L2 used differently (or similarly) in the task-accomplishment

process?

2. In which ways do students use the L1 as a resource to achieve the task?

The data above allows us to observe the role of the L1 and the L2 in the different stages of the

accomplishment of a task in the L2. The use of the L2 seems to be mostly triggered by a context in

the L2. That is, students generally use English when they are either reading, as was observed in the

first two transcripts, or answering a question directly, as was shown in the beginning of the third

one. On the other hand, the L1 takes a more mechanical role. This means students use the L1 to

build the answer in the L2 or to manage the development of the activity.

The students use both of their available languages similarly in some cases. Uses of the L1

and the L2 have been observed in utterances related to expressing doubt or lack of knowledge, as

well as to showing agreement. Nonetheless, in most of the data, the L2 was reserved for answer

production or as a response to input also in English. On the other hand, the L1 was shown to be a

resource for the students in order to achieve the different stages of the task. When they were trying

to understand the text, the L1 was a pivotal element for the students' interaction. Without the

translation, the knowledge gaps may not have been resolved successfully, potentially causing them

frustration or even withdrawal from the activity. By collaborating together in Spanish, they

seemingly managed to reach a deeper understanding of the text which might have remained

superficial with L2-use only. In the stages of the task accomplishment, the L1 becomes an

organizational tool which was used towards establishing a leadership role to the student who uses it.

Even though the research questions have been answered, many new ones have arisen

throughout the realization of this paper. A larger amount of data and resources might allow the

frequency of the patterns and the roles of the L1 within an L2 task to be determined. This might be

carried out by delving into a specific area of the task process or a particular use of the L1 or the L2

which the present study has investigated.

23
 One of the most distinctive findings that was not mentioned earlier in the theoretical

framework and was thus unexpected is the use of the L1 to position the interactant to a leadership

status within the group. While its use as an organizational tool had been previously noted, no other

study made reference to these social dynamics related to stances towards power between students

and their languages. Yet again, it would be necessary to devote a specific study to this behavioral

aspect in interaction to discern whether it was a circumstantial phenomenon or an event to be taken

into consideration when dealing with peer interaction in the ESL classroom.

The present study may open new perspectives of L1 use in the classroom to other teachers

who may be skeptical about it or may not have given it a thought. While there are no right or wrong

methodologies, to the researcher's knowledge there is no evidence that code-switching is

particularly positive or negative. Thus, allowing L1 use in the classroom could make a difference

for many students who are unable perform a task fully in English. It would be advisable, however,

to explore more deeply in which aspects students benefit from this resource. Therefore, future

studies on this topic could focus on possible L1 restrictions which could be applied without

diminishing its value as an interactional device. At the same time, the focus on learning the L2

should not be overlooked. It is thus necessary for teachers to provide students with the resources

through which they can find the balance between the use of both languages in the ESL classroom.

24
 Resources

Carretero, R. (2017). 9 Datos Del CIS Que Reflejan Las Dificultades De Los Españoles Con Los

Idiomas. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.es/2017/01/04/espanolesingles_n_13949988.html

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. New York: Addison

Wesley Longman Inc..

Cromdal, J. (2003). Bilingual order in collaborative word processing: on creating an English text in

Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 329-353.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective Scaffolding in Second Language Learning. In Lantolf J. P. & Appel

G. (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (33-56). Norwork: Ablex.

Heritage, J. (1998). Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Distinctive Turn-

Taking Systems. In Cmejrková, S., Hoffmannová, J., Müllerová, O. & Svetlá, J. (Eds.)

Proceedings of the 6th International Congresss of IADA (3-17). Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Jansson, G. (2007). Bilingual practices in the process of initiating and resolving lexical problems in

students’ collaborative writing sessions. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 157-183.

López, R. (2016). Learning English Tenses through Spanish Grammar : When Using the L1

Benefits ESL Learning. Retrieved from http://ddd.uab.cat/record/165486

Malmkjær, K. (1998). Introduction: Translation and Language Teaching. In K. Malmkjær

(Ed.), Translation and Language teaching (1-11). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Mondada, L., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2004). Second Language Acquisition as Situated Practice:

Task Accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom. The Modern Language

Journal, 88, 501-518.

Scott, V. M., & De la Fuente, M. J. (2008). What's the Problem? L2 Learners's Use of the L1 during

Consciousness-Raising, Form-Focused Tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 100-113.

Unamuno, V. (2008). Multilingual switch in peer classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education,
19, 1-19.

25