Aspectos Tecnológicos del Proyecto

Having compiled a significant number of features which I saw as characterizing L1 Japanese/L2 English interlanguage, I set about the development of pedagogic materials aimed at addressing each of the features in turn. The interlanguage features were addressed via a standardized format comprising L1 background and L1/L2 contrastive information and examples of typical errors or ‘unnatural’ L2 formulations. I initially wrote entirely in English, and subsequently had the relevant sections of the materials – comprising my L2 reformulations of the attested interlanguage utterances, meta-linguistic information, exemplification, and instructional rubrics for exercises - translated into L1 Japanese – a design feature which I viewed as desirable in respect of the materials’ facility as a self-study aid.

The idea was essentially that, via the explicit provision of contrastive information, L1 Japanese/L2 English learners could be guided in the identification and diagnosis of erroneous or unnatural L2 English formulations and, via the provision of apposite examples and opportunities for (productive) practice, would then be able to more closely approximate ‘standard’ L2 English forms.

With regard to the format of the WENS learning materials themselves, the structure is as follows: The five hundred and forty basic interlanguage features recorded in Japan over the period 1997–2009 have been organized into thirty-six units, with each unit dealing with fifteen of the basic interlanguage features.

Within each unit, three of the fifteen interlanguage features have been highlighted, and these three features are addressed in detail – this coverage typically taking the form of an L1 Japanese meta-linguistic explanation of the language point at issue, several examples thereof, and opportunities for learners to engage with practice exercises involving production of the relevant language feature. The materials therefore cover a total of one hundred and eight interlanguage features in detail. Where practice exercises are included in a unit (approximately 40% of cases), full answer keys have been provided.

76 2.4.1 Some Examples of the Materials’ Content

As the total size of the materials precluded their being bound in a single volume, I had the materials bound in three separate volumes for convenience – numbered 1, 2 and 3 – each containing twelve units. Essentially, however, the materials’ three volumes should be seen as comprising a single text. Each of the text’s thirty-six units exhibits a uniform layout as follows: Fifteen of the five hundred and forty basic interlanguage features are itemized on the left hand side of the page. Thus, taking the example feature cited above, the attested utterance, ‘Tomorrow I will go (to) Kobe’ appears as item number 03 in unit 04, and is therefore given the materials reference number 0403.

Immediately opposite the attested interlanguage item, on the right hand side of the page, there is a grammatically correct, more ‘natural’ or more commonly produced and/or recognized formulation – a ‘reformulation’. I myself was responsible for producing these reformulations – presented as the formulations of an idealized ‘native speaker’. Thus, the reformulation in respect of materials reference 0403 - the reformulation of the attested interlanguage utterance ‘Tomorrow I will go (to) Kobe’ – appears as ‘I’m going to Kobe tomorrow’.

Within each unit, the page containing the attested interlanguage utterances and my reformulations thereof is immediately preceded by L1 Japanese translation equivalents of my reformulation of each of the fifteen attested interlanguage utterances with identical materials reference numbers, together with a blank space in which learners are encouraged to attempt initial translations of the L1 Japanese formulations (for diagnostic purposes).

Thus, the page in unit 04 immediately preceding the page containing the attested interlanguage utterance ‘tomorrow I will go (to) Kobe’ and my reformulation ‘I’m going to Kobe tomorrow’ as the third item contains the L1 Japanese translation equivalent ‘Ashita Kobe ni ikimasu’ (printed in L1 Japanese using a standard combination of ‘Kanji’ Chinese characters and Japanese Hiragana script).

These pages are followed in turn by two pages containing an L1 Japanese meta- linguistic explanation of the language point (i.e. the contrasting positions typically occupied by adverbial time references in L1 Japanese and L2 English), appropriate 68

77 examples and production practice exercises. There then follows a page containing an answer key to these practice exercises. This particular language point is one of three highlighted for special focus within the unit, as is the case in each of the thirty-six units comprising the WENS materials.

Let us now consider another example, one which illustrates learner need, pedagogical function and (recurrent) methodology in respect of the materials. A considerable degree of uncertainty is associated with lexical choice in cases where essentially unitary L1 Japanese concepts and lexical items are regarded and expressed as pluralities in L2 English. An example of this phenomenon, appearing under the rubric ‘Instances of overuse’ in the ‘Prototypical Interlanguage Profile’, concerns the overuse/misuse of the L2 English verbs ‘know’ and ‘understand’ which occurs when learners, unaware of the internal complexities (i.e. the lexical range) of the L2, fall back on L1 and its known L2 equivalents.

The Japanese verbs ‘kizuku’ (‘notice’/‘realize’) and (especially) ‘wakaru’ (‘know’/‘understand’/‘tell’/‘recognize’/‘find out’, etc.) have numerous potential L2 translation equivalents, only a limited number of which (i.e. ‘know’ and ‘understand’) are widely apprehended among the learner population in the Japanese context. The three L1 Japanese sentences, ‘Sore wa totemo yoku niteita node watashi wa dochira ga dochira ka wakaranakatta’, ‘Watashi no shougakkou no sensei wa watashi no koto ga wakarimasen deshita’, and ‘Kinoo wakarimashita’ all use the same verb – ‘wakaru’.

The L2 English translation equivalents, however, call for three different verbs: ‘They looked very similar, so I couldn’t tell which was which’, ‘My old elementary school teacher didn’t recognize me’, and ‘I found out yesterday’, respectively. As is to be expected, Japanese learners at all but advanced levels of proficiency routinely produce evidence of a limited knowledge of L1–L2 lexical equivalence – hence the attested interlanguage utterances ‘I couldn’t understand which was which’, ‘My old elementary school teacher didn’t understand who I was’, and ‘I knew yesterday’ (materials references: 3014, 3013 and 1308 respectively).

The ‘Prototypical Interlanguage Profile’ refers readers to unit 3002 in the WENS materials, which addresses this feature of L1 Japanese/L2 English interlanguage in detail. The L1 Japanese meta-linguistic explanation of the language point in focus is 69

78 followed by a section the aim of which is to assist the learner in differentiating the plurality of L2 translation equivalents when set against visual cues and L1 stimuli. There then follows a practice exercise encouraging learners to produce the correctly differentiated L2 forms in the overt presence of the (unitary) L1 stimuli using the preceding section as a model and guide. As it was my pedagogical intention to encourage learners to make informed L2 lexical production choices in the overt presence of the L1 stimuli (Hammerly, 1991), bilingual ‘language awareness’ exercises throughout the WENS materials serve to ‘diffract’ essentially unitary L1 lexical forms, resulting in greater learner awareness of a plurality of L2 translation equivalents.

The WENS program materials are, therefore, a response to the Japanese EFL context. They are, however, in a sense also one of its products, in that they share – or at any rate overtly reflect - that context’s prevailing exonormative, teleological (i.e. idealized native speaker) orientation. I therefore sought to balance or compensate for this particular aspect of the materials via the dedicated inclusion of additional program elements with the potential to interrogate and challenge this exonormative orientation – an orientation with which, by their own admission, the participants themselves had approached their 2010 study-abroad program at the University of Warwick’s Centre for Applied Linguistics; a venue indeed not twenty miles from the birthplace of the most celebrated native speaker of them all.

2.5 Rationale in respect of Case Study Selection and Design