Languaging in SLA Research
By definition, languaging is “an action - a dynamic, never-ending process of using language to make meaning” ([39], p. 96). Grounded in Vygotskyian sociocultural theory (SCT), languaging is a semiotic tool that language learners use to regulate their mind while performing on cognitively demanding tasks [48]. Swain [39] maintained that languaging is verbalized mediation of the brain with “the cognition and recognition of experience and knowledge” (p. 106) in learning a language. She argued that L2 learners can produce double outputs - primary L2 output and languaging – when they are languaging about L2 - which in turn enhances the noticing and metacognitive functions.
Languaging as learning mediation can take place either through collaborative dialogue with others, or self-addressed dialogue as private speech. Swain and Lapkin [40] reintroduced Donato’s [8] ‘collaborative dialogue’ as peer languaging or the “dialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem solving and knowledge building” (p. 102). A few years later, Negueruela and Lantolf [27] paralleled private speech to self languaging and defined it as “the intentional use of overt self-directed speech to explain concepts to the self” (p. 86). Both dynamics of languaging were supported as effective scaffolding mediation in several SLA research studies [6, 19, 41, 36, 49]. Languaging is not always in oral mode. Suzuki [35] introduced the concept of written languaging and defined it as an “equivalent of private speech, but in writing” (p. 4). He maintained that through WL, the L2 learners’ co-constructed cognition is transformed into written mediation for further critical reflection. Suzuki [36] claimed that WL might “stimulate more elucidation and clarification of thoughts than oral languaging, in the absence of audience in person” (p. 4).
Recent SLA studies on languaging have narrowed their scope to the interconnection between languaging and L2 learner language proficiency [32], task type [37], and the focus of languaging episodes [12]. In a case study with two Mandarin English-as-a-second language (ESL) learners, Qi and Lapkin [32] investigated how language-related noticing was related to composing and reformulation in a writing task and reported the benefits of both in promoting noticing; however, the noticing quality was different in high and low proficiency languagers. Their analysis of recorded language-related episodes indicated that contrary to high proficiency languager, the low proficiency languager paid more attention to lexis than grammar while comparing her essay to the reformulated version. In a seminal study with 141 Japanese EFL learners, Suzuki and Itagaki [37] operationally defined WLEs as ‘written languaging episodes’ or “written retrospective reports about how [languagers] solved the exercises” (p. 221). They investigated the interactions among two types of orientation in WL (i.e., grammar-based and lexical-based), two types of discrete grammar tasks (i.e., comprehension and production-oriented translation), and L2 learners’ higher and lower levels of proficiency. Their analysis of WL episodes indicated that the total number of grammar-based WL was much more than lexical-based WL in both comprehension and production types of grammar tasks. Analysis of WL episodes also reported that high proficiency languagers produced more grammar-based WL episodes than low proficiency languagers.
Apart from their remarkable findings, Suzuki and Itagaki [37] promoted the pedagogical implication of translation as a discrete, form-focused grammar task which has a critical role in teaching language in real classroom context. Similarly, in a research with 14 Japanese EFL learners, Ishikawa [13] explored the role of WL in the performance of self-languagers on Japanese-to-English translation task. She introduced the concept of metanote as “any language used by learners to reflect on their language use while they work on a task, with or without metalinguistic terminology” (p. 220). Her reports indicated that the self-languagers produced L-notes (metanotes on word formation and word choice) much more than G-notes (metanotes on use of articles or voice) on translation tasks.
Languaging in Translation Tasks
Recently, translation has been viewed as a versatile language skill which is actively used by “intercultural mediators, foreign trade experts, international marketing professionals, global content managers, multilingual secretaries or diplomats” ([4], p. 14). Despite a general negative attitude towards using the mother tongue (L1) in foreign language classrooms [18], translation is becoming important as a communicative activity and as a learning tool particularly in non-native contexts [5, 13, 18, 23, 37].
Emphasizing the mediating role of translation in the L2 learning context, Nord [30] argued that a contrastive analysis of the inter-lingual commonalities between the source and the target lanugage can develop metalinguistic awareness which in turn improves language learning. By introducing a functional model of translation, Nord [30] defined the act of translation as a target-text function, and argued that the functions a text fulfills in the target culture will determine the language and rhetoric alternatives that a translator chooses in the process of translation. In other words, translation can raise L2 learners’ awareness to make smart decisions on their lexical and grammatical choices. Nord’s approach to translation tasks has had strong pedagogical and research implications in SLA, including studies on L1 transfer competence [17], and linguistic and cultural competence in the source and the target languages [18].
Further support for the benefits of translation tasks goes back to Brooks and Donato [3] who reported L1-mediated oral interactions by L2 learners and supported the facilitating role of L1 as a common and ‘normal psycholinguistic process’. During the L1-mediated interactions, “utterances in L1 mediate the cognitive processes that learners use in problem solving tasks, specifically, to reflect on the content and the form of the text” ([1], p. 238). Therefore, using L2 learners’ L1 in translation tasks is believed to generate content, to foster scaffolding and to externalize private speech in terms of languaging [13].
Purpose of the Study
Despite several arguments for the comparable impacts of oral and written languaging on L2 learning [39], there are also counter-arguments which speculate such equivalence [35, 36]. Moreover, some research findings emphasized the superiority of written over oral languaging for its capacity of lowering the time pressure on languagers or its relative permanency [36]. As our review indicated, current SLA research has mostly focused on oral self-languaging [33, 37], whereas the effectiveness of peer languaging in the written mode is under-researched and worthy to further exploration. Finally, SLA research literature on languaging lacks the cross-examination of WL by self and peer languagers.
To fill in the gap, we attempted to analyze the quantity and quality of WL episodes across the self and pair (peer-peer) dynamics of languaging in the platform of L1-to-L2 translation tasks. To fulfill the objectives of the study, we raised the following research questions:
1. Does the dynamics (pair vs. self) of written languaging make any difference in the quantity of WL episodes?
2. Does the dynamics of written languaging make any difference in the focus (i.e., grammar-based and lexis-based) of WL episodes?
3. Does the dynamics of written languaging make any difference in the conceptual processes (i.e., paraphrasing, inferencing, analyzing, self-assessment, rereading) underlying WL episodes?
4. Does the dynamics of written languaging make any difference in language learning improvement (i.e., performance on translation tasks)?