Cálculo eje principal

The ability to make linguistic connections has been identified as a key element in intercultural competence (Liddicoat et al., 2003). In order to continue to build

comprehensive answers to the research questions, this section discusses three aspects of metalinguistic ability in the behaviour of case study students. These are:

• the degree of metalinguistic ‘noticing’ 4

which students do both independently and as directed in class, and the transfer skills which appear to develop

• students’ experience of language ‘shift’5

• students’ development of certain learning strategies.

4 _{For the purposes of this discussion, metalinguistic noticing means students making comparisons across}

languages, talking about different aspects or features of languages, or explaining their own experience and use of strategies across languages.

5 _{By language shift, this study denotes an aspect of code-switching (Baker, 2006, p. 100) where the}

student exits a target language class aware of ‘thinking in the target language’ and experiences the shift back to L1. It has also been variously referred to as ‘inner speech’ (Tomlinson, 2000), ‘private speech’ (De Courcy, 2002b) and ‘inner voice’ (Cohen & Gomez, 2004).

4.2.2.2.1 Metalinguistic noticing as intercultural competence

In focus groups and in classroom observation, students showed ability in metalinguistic noticing. Both explicitly and implicitly they spoke of reflective comparisons and transfers they make between the target language and English (31 of 49 students), and with many other languages occurring in family and social contexts (30 of 49). In the focus groups (see Focus group questions, Appendix H), the researcher asked no question which explicitly asked for comparisons, but students nevertheless offered unsolicited

comparisons. Emily reflects on the consistent nature of Japanese syntax, compared to English: In English the rules are always getting broken, but in Japanese, it has rules,

you know that's never going to get broken. Lucinda draws out a difference between

English and her other languages: English is really different to Korean and Japanese,

because it’s not an Asian language and it sounds different. In comparing German and

English, Pauline shows reflective empathy in imagining the difficulties of an English learner: If someone didn't know English, it would be a lot harder to learn English, I think.

It might be anticipated that metalinguistic noticing may be less apparent in students of Japanese, where syntactical and script difference makes comparisons with English less evident. However, Table 14 (MLC2) demonstrates that this was not the case. Forty- seven percent of students of Japanese (7 of 15) also commented on additional

languages. Veronica and Paul, students of Japanese, explained how they have learnt how language works, and in Paul’s case, how he uses metalinguistic transfer skills to work out another language: You get more understanding how language works

(Veronica); I try to get words, because my friends are Lebanese… but I try and get

words they have taught me, so I can understand like half Lebanese (Paul).

The data suggest that implicit metalinguistic noticing is being practised by students, and the script and syntax issues of Japanese are not relevant. De Courcy (2006), in her study of ESL students engaging with a variety of bilingual programs, similarly notes that literacy skills still transfer even when the new target language does not share any syntax similarity with their first language.

Students of German, perhaps due firstly to the close relationship between English and German, and secondly as a result of the frequent ‘noticing’ encouraged in the classroom

(discussed later in teacher data), made frequent mention of ‘noticing’ language: Well,

you do notice a lot of things in German, like ‘und’ which is ‘and’ (Wilhelmina). Bob

commented: I like learning German because it helps with learning other languages as

well because many languages share words that sound sort of the same.

In the French focus group discussions, when students were asked why they liked

French, they mentioned the sound, style, pace, rhythm, construction and the glamour of their target language, compared to English. English is such a boring language, but

French… actually sounds glamorous (Rachael); The actual language itself, if you translate it, it’s backwards (Crystal). Some students of French commented that French

was ‘easy’. This may be interpreted as recognition of its linguistic relationship with English, or an expression of the students’ own intercultural confidence. Classroom observation also revealed a high incidence of metalinguistic noticing in class, with frequent attention to gender, verbs, and spelling. This is further detailed in analysis of teacher behaviour in section 4.3.3.1.

4.2.2.2.2 Language shift as intercultural competence

While not explicitly part of the intercultural language literature, this study considers the variety of language shift experiences, and ‘thinking in the target language’, to be of personal importance to these students’ intercultural development. As discussed in Chapter 2 (Literature review), section 2.3.2.1, this can be considered an aspect of code- switching (Baker, 2006, p. 100). It has also been variously referred to as ‘inner

speech’(Tomlinson, 2000) ‘private speech’ (De Courcy, 2002b) and ‘inner voice’ (Cohen & Gomez, 2004). Thinking in the target language ‘allows learners to create mental representations of the world and helps them to initiate ideas, plan and develop their thoughts’ (Cohen & Gomez, 2004). Cohen and Gomez (2004) have demonstrated how the deliberate enhancement of the students’ target language inner voice influences linguistic knowledge and the ability to comprehend and produce language. Experience of ‘inner voice’ highlights to the students their own increasing ability to shift between two language perspectives.

What is meant by this ‘overflow’ of thinking in the target language, or experience of language shift, is best exemplified by Grace and Kristen: Whenever I go back to a

different class, I go, ‘Oh, its not in Japanese’ (Grace). Straight after German, I’m thinking in German, I try to say something in English, and I can’t remember the words (Kristen).

Some students also reported some perception of ‘spontaneous’ target language production: When the teacher asks you a question, and you answer it, sometimes you

go ‘Where did I just get that? How did that come out of my mouth?’ (Kim). The teacher

Anna Ludwig, in interview, places this language shift in context when she says, For

them, its natural. It’s what you do, you swap to different languages (teacher interview,

March 2, 2006). These experiences of the students shifting between target language and English in their thinking, are indicators of dual linguistic membership, and of intercultural competence.

4.2.2.2.3 Metalinguistic learning strategies as intercultural competence

As one aspect of this study’s approach to investigating student behaviours and

perceptions, this study included an investigation into whether particular target language learning strategies developed by students in the immersion situation may be indicative of skills associated with intercultural development. Data from the amended Young

Learners’ Language Strategy Use Survey (Cohen & Oxford, 1992) on student

preferences contribute an extra perspective to the discussion.

The Young Learners’ Language Strategy Use Survey, as amended by this researcher, consists of 73 statements (see Appendix I). They are learner strategies in the areas of listening, retention of vocabulary, speaking, reading, writing, and intercultural interest. The survey was originally designed to identify and highlight strategies for effective language learning. Students were asked to score each strategy statement on a three point scale of frequent use / occasional use / infrequent use. Over 50% of participating students (N=49) over the three languages made ‘frequent use’ responses on the strategies shown below (a sample of the response data can be found in Appendix P).

1 I listen for the important words.

2 I move my hands or body so the person will understand me. 3 I try to say it a different way.

5 I change the subject if I don’t have the words I need.

6 I like to understand the right time and place to use certain language. 7 I like to know how TL is different to English.

8 I like to know how to act in France/Germany/Japan. 9 If I hear people speaking in the language, I listen in.

These preferred learning strategies can be characterised as indicating particular skills and preferences. Strategies 1, 3, and 5 indicate an ability to use contextual strategies in reading and listening and interaction, and the ability to look and listen for clues. Strategy 2 suggests the awareness and use of non-verbal elements. Strategy 9 indicates an awareness of the use of (teacher or other) language model. Strategies 4 and 7 indicate confidence in metalinguistic strategies to approximate meaning. Strategies 6 and 8 imply an appreciation of cultural context of language.

A number of these strategies are also confirmed and illustrated in the following focus group data. Students were asked what they do when they do not understand something in class. Ulysses explained that I pick up words I’ve heard before, and ask what they

mean. Veronica offered: I try to pick out certain words and gradually if I know what they mean, figure out what she [the teacher] means. Crystal explained that If we can’t work it out… we help each other and Diana admitted that We mix English and French a bit.

These learning strategies are also confirmed by a variety of approximating and code- mixing behaviours noted in classroom observation.

The principles of intercultural language learning are described by Liddicoat et al. (2003, p. 60) as being grounded in making contextual, linguistic and cultural connections, social interaction and reflection. It is evident that the case study student learning strategies discussed above present some supportive triangulated evidence of these behaviours in students.

To summarise, and in answering Research question 1, a number of student behaviours are noted below, which again, have been identified by the literature as embodying intercultural competence:

• Students critically observe the features of target language.

• Some students analyse differences between target language and L1. • Students report they have transfer skills in further languages L3/4/5. • Some students report they think in target language.

• Some students report they are aware of ‘shifting’ between target language and L1. • Students use some code-switching.

• Students display learning strategies which involve metalinguistic skill.

Having covered issues of student language use, and metalinguistic ability, this discussion now moves to the third and last area of evidence of student intercultural competence, to answer Research question 1, that of the students’ negotiation of their relationships with their languages and cultures.

4.2.2.3 Third area of student evidence: Student ability to analyse relationship and