The Mother Tongue in the Foreign Language: An Account of Russian L2 Learners’ Error Incidence on Output

Abstract

Based on Selinker's hypothesis of five psycholinguistic processes shaping interlanguage (1972), the paper focuses attention on the Russian L2-learners' overreliance on the L1 as the main factor hindering their development. The research problem is, therefore, the high incidence of L1 transfer in the spoken and written English language output of Russian learners as an EFL issue largely ignored, and the research question, how much these learners' dependence on the L1 affect their interlanguage (IL) development. The objectives are to offer an account of Russian L2 learners' interlingual error incidence in free output, the L2 areas these error affects the most, and the effect of non-traditional remedial work in IL development. Thirty students out of a cohort of 123 were chosen for the study because of their little progress in the FL and later divided into two groups depending on their time of English-only L2 instruction. Their L2 spoken and written samples were used to determine their communication strategies and the output areas they affect the most. The study shows that time under L2-learning through the L2 does not modify significantly the students learning and communication strategies historically acquired through transfer of learning. The comparison with similar data from Spanish-speaking students, classroom observation, and introspection reveal the students use three L1-based strategies to cope with L2 communication demands. These strategies are so closely connected with their beliefs and language practices that non-traditional remedial work is ineffective unless the students understand the nature of their problems and willingly engage in overcoming them.

Language choices of language teachers and learners: Meta-synthesis of qualitative research

“…Besides warning about the domination of L1 in L2 classrooms , many researchers claim that playing an essential role in diminishing learning anxiety, the use of L1 may also help to create a more comfortable and effective learning atmosphere, particularly for shy or less-proficient L2 learners to communicate in the classroom (Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008;Nation, 2003). Furthermore, the students may have trouble understanding and participating when lessons are carried out in only target language medium since their stress ranges up and naturally, they lose their motivation (Fernandez & Korneeva, 2017;Viakinnou-Brinson et al, 2012). In this sense, as a pedagogical and instructional tool, the use of L1 is thought to serve many facilitative functions in L2 classrooms (Balam & Perez, 2017;Codina Camó & Pladevall Ballester, 2015;Levine, 2014; It has been observed that most English language classes in Turkey are conducted through the native language of learners, Turkish (Balabakgil & Mede, 2016;Kocaman &Aslan, 2018;, although the curricula developed for primary, secondary, and high schools state the opposite (MNE, 2018a(MNE, , 2018b.…”

Polylingualism in Monolingual Yekaterinburg, a 2018 World Football Cup City

“…However, it should be pointed out that research [1], [2], [3], [4] has shown that classroom communication, the excessive use of the mother tongue, and error correction in addition to the challenges posed by new learning environments call for a change of mentality and practices in FLE practitioners and learners. These conditions imposed by, for instance, the advent of IT, the presence of the multiple language repertoires performed in international classrooms at the universities, and the resulting multicultural contact in and outside campus [5] demand proactive language policies in which not only the educational environment but also the city as whole is considered.…”

Towards Enhanced Output: An Approach To Remedial Teaching

“…Forteza (2015) and Forteza and Korneeva (2017) demonstrate that interlingual interference is a major factor affecting L2 output. Dependence on the mother tongue to produce the L2 is a major factor not alien to many language learners.…”