Content uploaded by Sandro Caruana
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandro Caruana on Mar 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
253
Volume 10, No. 2 Special Issue, pp. 253-
275
Faculty of Education©,
UoM, 2016
Interaction and Approximation to the Target Language
During Italian Lessons in Malta
Antoinette Camilleri Grima
Faculty of Education
University of Malta
antoinette.camilleri-grima@um.edu.mt
Sandro Caruana
Faculty of Education
University of Malta
sandro.caruana@um.edu.mt
Abstract: For many years it had been considered axiomatic that in the
foreign language classroom exposure to the target language should be
emphasized, and that the learners’ native language should be banned.
However, in recent years, the analysis of classroom discourse has
unravelled some essential pedagogical functions of the learners’ native
language in foreign language teaching (Macaro, 2009). In line with this,
the term ‘translanguaging’ has been introduced in the international
literature with reference to the drawing on all of the linguistic resources
that one has in order to ‘make sense’ (Garcia, 2009), and to improve
language learning processes and outcomes (Lewis, Jones & Baker, 2012).
Taking a sociocultural discourse analysis approach, this contribution
shows how Maltese learners of Italian and their teachers interact
bilingually to fulfil pedagogical requirements such as the assimilation of
grammar points, explaining new vocabulary items, and shifting from
formal to informal language. We give examples of how the teacher
guides the learners in interaction toward target language approximation.
Keywords: foreign language teaching, Italian, translanguaging,
interaction
Qualitative research in the language classroom
Classroom research investigates the processes of teaching and learning as
they occur in classrooms, as distinct from research that concentrates, for
example, on syllabus quality and teaching material, or on examination results
(Karunakaran & Nirmala, 2013). Like other educational research its ultimate
aim is to explore the implications of the findings for the benefit of improved
pedagogical practices by teachers and more effective learning by students
(Allwright & Bailey, 1991). It is not simply research ‘in’ the classroom, but
veritably research ‘for’ the classroom.
254
Williams (2012) gives a succinct overview of second language classroom
research. She explains that classroom research highlights the role of the
teacher and of inter-learner dynamics and investigates questions such as,
“What do teachers do and say? How do they respond to learners? How do
learners respond to the teacher? What are the patterns of interaction in the
classroom?” (ibid., p. 542). These, and similar questions have been researched
on the basis of audio-recording and transcription (Ohta, 2000; Gauci, 2011)
and conversation analysis (Waring, 2009), among others.
Martin-Jones (1985) provides an overview of the initial research projects that
examined code-switching in bilingual classrooms both quantitatively and
qualitatively, and which showed for the first time that code-switching is
aligned with pedagogical functions in many different classrooms around the
world. We feel it is crucial for us, as language educators, to gain a better
understanding of what happens in the foreign language (FL) classroom as a
matter of course, especially in a plurilingual context where we know from
experience that other languages than the target language (TL) are employed.
The description of code-switching in the classroom has now developed into
the concept of translanguaging, or the drawing on all of the linguistic
resources that one has in order to ‘make sense’ (Garcia, 2009; Garcia & Li Wei,
2014), and to maximise understanding and achievement (Lewis, Jones &
Baker, 2012). Translanguaging is also used to describe a pedagogy of writing
whereby shifting from one language to another according to need is viewed
as a strategy for scaffolding instruction, self-regulation, meaning-making and
an aid to developing metacognitive skills (Velasco & Garcia, 2014;
Canagarajah, 2011). Camilleri Grima (2015) explains that in the Maltese
classroom context the term translanguaging is appropriate because all the
participants are normally bilingual in Maltese and English and move from
one code to another dynamically and holistically (Lewis et al., 2012). The term
translanguaging is therefore more appropriate than code-switching because
the latter is often used by non-specialists who perceive language from a
monolingualising perspective, that is, they hold the belief that it is essentially
wrong to use more than one language within the same conversation as they
think that those who do so show signs of weak proficiency in each one of the
languages they use (Camilleri Grima, 2003; 2015). These beliefs have now
been superseded (e.g. Garcia and Li Wei, 2014).
In this sense, this article is a further contribution to the growing body of
literature on the medium of instruction in Maltese classrooms (Camilleri,
1995; Farrugia, 2009a; 2009b; Farrell & Ventura, 1998: Caruana, 2011;
Camilleri Grima, 2013). Specifically, it looks at the second language classroom
and follows on from recent studies of the Italian language classroom (Gauci,
2011; Gauci & Camilleri Grima, 2013; Caruana & Camilleri Grima, 2014). It
255
builds on already existing knowledge by taking the approach of sociocultural
discourse analysis (Thoms, 2012; Mercer, 2004). Sociocultural discourse
analysis focuses on language as a tool for teaching and learning, and its
application involves a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods
(Mercer, 2004). We share the view of Swain & Lapkin (1998), Mercer (2004)
and Thoms (2012) that language use serves both as a communicative funtion
and a cognitive activity in the classroom. Language facilitates task
performance and learning outcomes when it is used as a mediating tool by
the teacher with the learners, or by learners among themselves. It is
necessary, for instance, to look at utterances and their illocutionary force
(Tsohadzidid, 2010), and at the verbal and non-verbal interaction patterns
and discursive practices of teachers and learners (Thoms, 2012; Poplin, 2011).
In the present study our goal is to examine how the dialogue of the teacher
with the learners in whole-class activities leads to linguistic approximation to
the TL, and hence how communication acts as a cognitive tool which leads to
learning, specifically understood in this context as the acquisition of the TL.
Italian as a ‘foreign’ language in Malta
Italian is the third language of Malta and it is present on the island because of
Malta’s geographical proximity to Italy and also due to the historical and
commercial ties between the two countries. Italian was one of Malta’s official
languages till 1936 and, historically, it was used mainly within administrative
and cultural spheres of society although at the time there was a small portion
of the population that adopted Italian as an L1 (Agius, 1998). Today, contact
with Italian is evident in many Maltese words, especially those which form
part of the language as integrated borrowings. Although exposure to Italian,
especially through television programmes, has declined when compared to
the recent past, many Maltese still come in contact with the language: some
still tune into Italian TV channels quite regularly, Italian is the most popular
foreign language studied in local schools and there are regular political,
commercial and cultural exchanges between Italy and Malta (Caruana, 2013).
Eurydice-Eurostat (2012) data indicate that Malta is the EU country in which
Italian as a foreign language is most widespread in relation to population
size.
Although Italian is one of the languages taught as part of a foreign language
awareness programme in Maltese primary schools, the main instructional
process of the language initiates in secondary schools when students are 11
years old. The teaching of Italian, therefore, is introduced after students
would have already had six years of formal schooling in both Maltese and
English. Italian is currently the foreign language which most secondary
school students choose to study, with approximately 60% of each cohort
opting to follow a course in this language.
256
The history of Italian in Malta, as well as the geographical and cultural
proximities between the two countries, are aspects to be taken advantage of in
the language classroom, especially when taking into consideration the
amount of cognates from Italian present in Maltese. Furthermore, in teacher
formation, emphasis is placed on teaching the language through its
communicative and socio-pragmatic functions. This contributes to the
motivation of the students who learn the language, while taking into account
individual learning strategies. Although the importance of teaching the
language directly via Italian is stressed, it is acknowledged that since students
and teachers share the same L1, the mother tongue cannot be excluded a priori
from the classroom and that it is necessary to take advantage of it, as well as
to identify didactic contexts in which it may be useful during classroom
interaction. Research findings in Malta so far have confirmed that the use of
the L1 may support the instruction process and helps to establish a stronger
rapport between the teacher and the learners (Gauci, 2011; Caruana &
Camilleri Grima, 2014).
The theoretical framework and the empirical investigation
Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) scheme of classroom interaction was the first
to provide a systematic analysis of classroom discourse. It is a scheme that
has continued to be applied and researched in many contexts (Meerholz-
Harle & Tschirner, 2000; Waring, 2009), both in primary classrooms (e.g.
Molinari, Mameli and Gnisci, 2013) and more specifically in foreign language
teaching (Thoms, 2012).
Sinclair & Coulthard’s (1975) smallest unit of analysis is the speech act, i.e. an
illocutionary act, or “the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc in uttering
a sentence, by virtue of the conventional force associated with it, or with its
explicit performative paraphrase” (Levinson, 1983, p. 236). Sinclair &
Coulthard’s (ibid.) system of analysis is based on teacher-dominated
classroom interaction and is sub-divided into discourse ranks (see Figure 1):
(i) the largest unit is the lesson, (ii) the lesson is made up of exchanges
(boundary or teaching), (iii) which are made up of moves, and (iv) moves are
made up of acts. The boundary exchange signals the beginning or end of
what the teacher considers to be a stage in the lesson. Teaching exchanges are
the individual steps by which the lesson progresses. The most prototypical
structure of a teaching exchange is the IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback).
There are five classes of moves and they realise two classes of exchange:
framing and focusing moves realize boundary exchanges; opening,
answering and follow-up moves realize teaching exchanges. Framing moves
are indications by the teacher that one stage in the lesson has ended and that
another is beginning.
257
Lesson
Ë Ì
Boundary Exchanges
Ë Ì
Teaching Exchanges
Ë È Ì
Framing
Move
È
Focus
Move
È
Opening
Move
È
Answering
Move
È
Follow-up
Move
È
acts
acts
acts
acts
acts
Figure 1: Rank scale of classroom discourse in a lesson (Sinclair & Coulthard,
1975)
Sinclair & Coulthard (ibid.) identified twenty-two speech acts in the
traditional classroom context. Speech acts make up the structure of moves.
For example, ‘elicit’ is typically an opening move, while ‘reply’ is typically an
answering move. The major element from Sinclair & Coulthard’s (ibid.) work
that has continued to be researched is the IRF pattern. In classroom discourse
it relates to the sequence of the triadic move: opening (initiation) by the
teacher, answering (reply) by the learner and follow-up (accept or reject) by
the teacher. Some scholars have preferred to describe the pattern as IRE
(Initiation-Response-Evaluation) instead (Hall & Walsh, 2002; Nassaji &
Wells, 2000). The results obtained by studies conducted on video- or audio-
recorded material collected during whole-class lessons have shown that the
vast majority of teachers’ questions are focused and oriented at receiving a
pre-determined answer, with the teachers allowing learners a short time for
the reply, and that the third turn is often limited to brief and simple feedback
(Molinari et al., 2013; Waring, 2009; Thoms, 2012).
In Camilleri (1993), Sinclair & Coulthard’s (1975) scale of analysis was applied
to a sample of lesson transcripts from non-language subjects at secondary
school level in Malta. Their scale was found to be useful to some extent, e.g. to
identify patterns of interaction, but could not be wholly implemented as a
coding scheme due to the lengthy explanations by teachers which excluded
the verbal involvement of learners. In the sample we were analysing for this
study, however, the interaction patterns seemed to be very similar to those
identified by Sinclair and Coulthard (ibid.) in primary schools. In the end we
decided to navigate through our data using an adapted form of Sinclair and
Coulthard’s (ibid.) scheme.
For instance, we noticed that there were moments in the lesson when the
teacher and/or the learners digressed from a teaching mode to an aside, and
that certain utterances that looked like a statement at face value, e.g.
‘M’għidtulix iva jew le’ (You didn’t tell me yes or no) were in fact illocutionary
258
acts, in this case a prompt, and had a perlocutionary effect (Levinson, 1983)
because the learners understood the illocution and reacted by asking for a
clarification of the teacher’s elicitation. Table 1 presents the list of speech acts
adapted from Sinclair & Coulthard (ibid.) that are relevant to our analysis.
marker
Realised by a limited class of items such as ‘now’, ‘so’, ‘ok’.
Its function is to mark boundaries in the discourse.
directive
Realised by an imperative.
Its function is to request a non-lingu
istic response, such as
finding a page in a book, and other instructions relating to
learner behaviour.
informative
Realised by a statement.
Its function is to provide information.
elicitation
Realised by a question, or a statement with the intonation of a
question.
It is always asked by the teacher and is not a genuine request
for information. Its function is to involve learners in classroom
interaction by getting them to produce knowledge they already
have, or to reason out their point aloud.
prompt
Realised by items such as ‘come on’, ‘let me see’, ‘why’.
Its function is to reinforce an elicitation or a directive.
clue
Realised by a statement or a question.
Its function is to provide additional information which helps
the learners to answer an elicitation or to do something.
reply
Usually realised by a statement.
Its function is to provide a linguistic response which is
appropriate to the elicitation.
accept
Realised by ‘yes’ or ‘ok’, and commonly by the repetition of the
reply.
Its function is to
indicate that the teacher has heard the reply
and considers it to be correct.
reject
Realised by a negative or a statement.
Its function is to notify the learner that the reply was incorrect,
and for a learner to notify the teacher of their disagreement o
r
refusal.
question
Realised by a question and is a genuine request for
information.
It is used by learners to signal to the teacher that they need
clarification or by the teacher to find out things about the
learners.
check
Realised by items such as ‘is that ok? ’
Its function is to enable the teacher to find out whether the
learners are successfully following the explanation.
bid
Realised by a close class such as ‘Miss’.
Its function is to signal a desire by the learners to contribute.
259
nominate
Realised by the names of the learners, or references such as
‘you over there’.
Its function is to signal to a learner or a group of learners that
they are expected to provide a reply.
loop
Realised by statements such as ‘pardon’ or ‘what did you say?’
Its
function is to return the discourse to the stage where it was
before an interlocutor spoke.
aside
Realised by statements
Its function is to signal a change in topic for a very short time.
read
Realised by the reading from a book, sheet of paper etc.
self-praise
Realised by phrases that highlight a student’s own
achievements.
Table 1: Speech acts identified in our study
We created a new label for a speech act called ‘self-praise’ because we came
across instances in our data where a learner praised himself for his
achievement, e.g. in knowing many of the answers to the teacher’s
elicitations, or in being the first to finish an exercise. In Lesson 4B (Table 2)
two such examples were: ‘Kemm sirt bravu’ (How good I’ve become) uttered by
a learner after he had correctly provided an answer, and ‘Kważi kollha jien
għidthom’ (I’m the one who has answered almost all of them).
To analyse a sample of classroom discourse we started by randomly selecting
two lesson transcripts from an existent database (Gauci, 2011). Then, we
needed to identify the elementary units of the text that were to be assigned an
illocution label. An illocutionary act is taken to be the minimal unit of human
communication (Searle & Vanderveken, 1985). This is not always simple, and
necessitates a level of interpretation by the researcher. Thus, the transcription
was re-typed in the shape of a list of speech acts which were then labelled on
the basis of Sinclair & Coulthard’s (ibid.) adapted inventory as it fit our data
(Table 1). This process highlighted various interesting events that were going
on in teacher-learner interaction. For instance, some of the learners behaved
very informally and rudely toward the teacher. On two occasions learners
uttered expletives expressing their annoyance: ‘uff’ and ‘u ejja’ (come on)
when they did not want to co-operate with the teacher and refused to do the
activity. At one stage of the lesson one student addressed a directing
comment to the teacher ‘ejja Miss komplihom ħa neħilsu’ (come on Miss
continue let’s get it done). At the end, when the teacher gives instructions for
further work, one learner refuses outrightly, ‘xejn issa’ (now nothing), and
another student asks a rhetorical question, ‘int bis-serjetà?’ (are you serious?).
We have labelled these speech acts ‘reject’ (Table 1).
Both lessons analysed here (labelled as 4B and 4C, on the basis of the
nomenclature of the classes in which they were held) were delivered with
Form 4 classes (age 14-15) in a secondary school for boys in October 2009.
260
Lesson 4B was delivered to a class of 18 learners of average ability (students
of Italian were set in different classes in this school on the basis of annual
exam results), and all the learners spoke Maltese as their first language. The
lesson was 35 minutes long, and the lesson objective was to guide learners to
work out a set of vocabulary exercises on the textbook and on handouts
prepared by the teacher, about various objects found in an office (L’ufficio).
The teacher was female and had been teaching for eight years, the last six of
which were in this school. Lesson 4C was delivered to another class of Form 4
boys that consisted of 15 students of high ability, taught by a male teacher,
also fully qualified and who had been teaching for 5 years in this school.
Lesson 4C was 38 minutes long and was intended as a grammar revision
lesson of the Imperfect verb tense (Imperfetto). Ethical clearance procedures
were followed such that permission was obtained from all the participants
and the students’ parents, and all the names have been changed.
The transcriptions of lessons 4B and 4C were subdivided into teacher (T) and
learner turns (pseudonyms have been used to identify the learners). A turn
refers to a stretch of speech by the same speaker, starting when s/he starts
talking and ending when s/he is stopped or is interrupted. Within each turn,
speech acts are listed. Lesson 4B provided us with a transcript of speech acts
during teaching exchanges that was twelve pages long (font size 11, single
spacing), and a total of 375 speech acts; 288 acts by the teacher and 87 acts
shared between the 18 learners. The turns taken by the learners were
extremely brief, mostly single words or two-word utterances consisting of an
article + noun. Lesson 4C was a few minutes longer than lesson 4B and had
fewer stretches of silence during writing activities. The list of speech acts was
sixteen pages long, with a total of 540 acts; 393 by the teacher and 147 by the
students. The teacher’s turns in lesson 4C were longer than those of lesson 4B
as he often embarked on a grammatical explanation which involved several
examples in a single turn.
Analysis and discussion
The first picture that emerged from the analysis was the limited extent of
participation of learners, both in length of utterance as well as in terms of
opportunities to speak. The teachers, most of the time, called out individual
learners to answer questions and/or to prompt them to participate, thus
giving each one of the students in class the chance to say at least something
throughout the lesson. Interaction was clearly dominated by the teacher, who
was continuously directing the activity and eliciting replies that served the
purpose of working out exercises on the textbook or handouts. In this sense
they were traditional in teaching style, centred round a text, and the questions
and answers were almost always factual. Since lesson 4B was a vocabulary
lesson learners’ answers tended to be much shorter and more limited than in
261
lesson 4C which was a grammar lesson and during which the teacher elicited
fuller sentences.
The longest contribution by a learner in lesson 4B was 13 words long
(Example 1, lines 486 to 489). Paul was prompted by another student, Jon, to
provide the reply to a question numbered 7a in a written exercise. Paul does
not know which one was question 7, but then he finds it, reads it out, writes
the answer and informs the teacher that he had finished doing so, all in a
single turn. The moves in this exchange are interesting because they are all
performed by these two learners; Jon opens, and then Paul opens too,
answers, and follows-up all by himself.
Line
Lesson 4B
Move
Act
485
Jon
(addressing his neighbour) ejja għidha s-
seven ‘a’
(come on, give the reply to seven ‘a’)
opening
prompt
486
Paul
Is-sebgħa x’inhi?
(what is number seven?)
opening
question
487
(reads) ascoltare musica in macchina
(listening to music in the car)
answering
read
488
(writes and says aloud) L’autoradio
(car radio)
reply
489
Lest Miss jien
(I’m ready teacher)
follow-up
inform
Example 1: The longest turn by a learner in lesson 4B
The teacher’s turns in lesson 4B were longer than those of the learners, on
average consisting of 13 words, with the longest turn consisting of 58 words.
It occurred at the very beginning of the lesson when the teacher was giving
directions to the class about lesson content and procedures, and consisted in
both a boundary and a teaching exchange.
The longest student turn in lesson 4C was 15 words long and consisted of a
sentence in reply to the teacher’s elicitation asking for a sentence expressing
what they used to do when they were younger and what they do now. Mario
says, ‘Mela, sir, prima giocavo con la bicicletta e adesso vado a lavorare con la
macchina’ (so, sir, before I used to play on the bicycle and now I go to work by car).
The average length of learners’ turns in lesson 4C was 5 words because the
learners were asked to reply by giving sentences and not single words.
Since our ultimate aim is to obtain a deeper understanding of how language
learning occurs by means of communication, we shall now focus on speech
acts from the point of view of language use and translanguaging. For the rest
of our analysis we focus only on teaching exchanges. Both lessons are further
analyzed quantitatively as shown in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.
262
Maltese
Italian
Maltese+Italian
Total
reply
31
31
1
63
question
10
0
0
10
reject
3
0
0
3
loop
4
0
0
4
prompt
3
0
0
3
informative
1
1
0
2
self-praise
2
0
0
2
TOTAL
54
32
1
87
Table 2: Number of speech acts in Maltese, Italian or both languages, by
learners during teaching exchanges in lesson 4B
Maltese
Italian
Maltese+Italian
Proper
name
Total
informative
11
33
6
0
50
nominate
0
0
0
37
37
elicit
20
50
12
0
82
accept
11
22
0
0
33
reject
4
1
0
0
5
question
0
4
0
0
4
clue
2
0
0
0
2
directive
25
26
0
0
51
check
2
0
0
0
2
reply
4
2
1
0
7
marker
4
6
0
0
10
prompt
5
0
0
0
5
TOTAL
88
144
19
37
288
Table 3: Number of speech acts in Maltese, Italian or both languages, by the
teacher during teaching exchanges in lesson 4B
Tables 2 and 3 give an indication of which speech acts were performed in
which language by the learners and by the teacher. From Table 2 it is clear
that most of the learners’ contributions were replies to the teacher’s
elicitations, and they were uttered in equal amounts in Maltese and in Italian
(31 in each language). The replies in Italian consisted of examples of office
equipment such as ‘penna’ (pen), ‘portatile’ (laptop), or as to whether a
particular tool was used for listening or communicating (‘ascoltare’,
‘comunicare’). The replies in Maltese consisted of examples like ‘tieħu l-
vidjow’ (records on video) and ‘sterjow tal-karozza’ (car stereo). The questions,
loops, prompts and self-praise were all uttered in Maltese. There were also
three instances of reject in Maltese whereby the learners signalled that they
were unwilling to co-operate with the teacher on a task.
263
Table 3 illustrates the extent to which the teacher employed the first language
(L1) and the TL during the lesson and for what purposes. She elicited
utterances largely in Italian (50 instances), although there were 20 occasions
when she resorted to Maltese and L2 mixed utterances. It is understandable,
and was to be expected, that the teacher speaks Italian during the Italian
lesson. Since it was a vocabulary lesson (L’ufficio) she went through a number
of exercises highlighting words in Italian. She rarely gave the meaning of a
word herself, but elicited this from the learners throughout the lesson by
using Italian, for example, ‘Di che cosa abbiamo bisogno?’ (What do we need?),
‘Cosa fa la segretaria?’ (What does a secretary do?), ‘Con il telefono si può
ascoltare la musica, oppure?’ (Do we use the telephone to listen to music, or?).
Sometimes, though, she resorted to Maltese to elaborate the elicitation,
probably because she did not get an immediate reply from the learners and
wanted to make sure they had understood her question or wanted to guide
them further: ‘Immaġinaw naqra li qegħdin f’uffiċċju’ (Try to imagine you are
in an office); ‘Meta inti ċċempel u?’ (When you phone and?); ‘Għandha x’taqsam
mal-kompjuter’ (It is related to the computer). In a few cases the elicitation
involved both Maltese and Italian: ‘meta ngħidilkom il-kelma ‘ufficio’ x’jiġi
f’moħħkom? (When I tell you the word ‘ufficio’ what comes to your mind?); ‘Ġieli
smajtuha l-kelma ‘stampante’ fuq it-televixin?’ (Have you ever heard the work
‘stampante’ on TV?); ‘La macchina fotografica hija kamera tar-ritratti’
(‘Macchina fotografica’ is a camera). In all the cases where translanguaging was
used in elicitations. The focus was on word meaning and on word equivalents
in the two languages. A couple of interesting elicitations occurred when the
teacher substituted the word she wanted with a phrase in Maltese: ‘Avevo
una bella xi ħaġa, ma adesso ne ho una digitale’ (I had a nice ‘something’, but
now I have a digital one), and continued to elicit, ‘Kif tafu kamera ngħidulha
macchina?’ (As you know we call it macchina), and a learner replied correctly
‘fotografica’.
The informative acts by the teacher were to a large extent performed in Italian
(33), while 11 were in Maltese and 6 were in both languages. The teacher
sometimes expanded the explanation a little bit by giving some information
on, for example, the utility of an answering machine, e.g. ‘Se la segretaria non
è presente abbiamo bisogno di una cosa’ (If the secretary is not present we need
something). In relation to this, prompts and checks were all expressed in
Maltese.
The directives were almost equally shared between Italian and Maltese.
Directives in Maltese largely had to do with class control, e.g. ‘L-aħħar ċans
minn hawn għal barra’ (This is the last chance or you’ll get sent out of class); and
directives in Italian were mainly given to explain how to work out the
exercises, e.g. ‘la mettiamo qua sotto comunicare’ (We place it here under
‘comunicare’). The feedback of the teacher to learners’ replies was mostly
given in Italian (22 instances), but there were also occasions when the teacher
264
reacted in Maltese (11 instances), normally after a learner had replied in
Maltese. There were four instances in which the teacher asked genuine
questions to find out more about the learners, such as, ‘Ti piace usare il
computer?’ (Do you like to use the computer?); ‘Quale sito preferisci?’ (Which site
do you prefer?); ‘Che tipo di giochi?’ (Which type of games?). Possibly these
questions were also meant to involve the learners more directly in the lesson
content, and to encourage them to speak in Italian. As it turned out they got
by with single word answers, which, however, were in Italian, e.g. ‘calcio’
(football), ‘giochi’ (games).
Maltese
Italian
Maltese+Italian
Name
Total
reply
7
82
6
0
95
question
19
3
2
0
24
reject
4
1
0
0
5
loop
4
0
0
0
4
prompt
0
0
0
0
0
informative
12
0
1
0
13
self-praise
0
0
0
0
0
read
0
2
0
0
2
bid
0
0
0
4
4
TOTAL
46
88
9
4
147
Table 4: Number of speech acts in Maltese, Italian or both languages, by
learners during teaching exchanges in lesson 4C
In lesson 4C there were another two types of speech acts uttered by learners
which were not registered in lesson 4B: read and bid. The total number of
speech acts in Italian by learners is also significantly higher than in lesson 4B,
because while in lesson 4B the learners uttered 54 speech acts in Maltese and
32 in Italian (Table 2), in lesson 4C they uttered 46 acts in Maltese and 88 in
Italian (Table 4). It is worth recalling that although both were held with
students aged 14-15 and in their fourth year of learning Italian, lesson 4B was
a vocabulary lesson with a group of average learners while lesson 4C was a
grammar lesson with a higher ability group. Apart from the different topic
and difference in learners’ ability, the teacher was also different and this
could be another factor that contributed to the divergence in the number of
speech acts in Italian and in Maltese. From our data it is evident that the
teacher of lesson C managed to sustain the use of Italian longer, both in his
own speech acts and in those uttered by the learners.
Maltese
Italian
Maltese+Italian
Name
Total
informative
33
43
0
0
76
nominate
0
0
0
35
35
elicit
6
68
0
0
74
accept
3
36
0
0
39
reject
11
13
0
0
24
265
question
2
8
0
0
10
clue
0
0
0
0
0
directive
12
39
0
0
51
check
0
1
0
0
1
reply
3
16
0
0
19
marker
24
1
0
0
25
prompt
2
9
0
0
11
praise
5
19
0
0
24
read
0
4
0
0
4
TOTAL
101
257
0
35
393
Table 5: Number of speech acts in Maltese, Italian or both languages, by the
teacher during teaching exchanges in lesson 4C
It must be noted that speech acts that were uttered in both Maltese and Italian
were at a minimum in both lessons, with only 12 elicitations occurring in a
mixed code in lesson 4B. This tallies with all the other research conducted on
code-switching in Maltese classrooms (Camilleri Grima, 1995, 2013) and
outside of the classroom (Xerri, 2015) which shows that although a bilingual
discourse is prevalent, the vast majority of utterances and/or speech acts take
place in one or the other language. Therefore, rather than simply perpetrating
the perception that code-switching is rampant in the classroom and hence
something to be viewed negatively and eradicated, it is necessary to “validate
code-switching” (Council of Europe, 2015, p. 63) because, as we are trying to
show here, translanguaging is worth much more consideration and esteem
from educational and pedagogical perspectives.
Approximation to TL vocabulary
The fact that, as shown in Table 2, half of the learners’ replies were in Italian
indicates that some learning of vocabulary, the objective of the lesson, was
indeed taking place. Furthermore, when a student had difficulty with
pronunciation the teacher provided the correct form as illustrated in Example
3. In Example 3, reported in l. 394 below, a student asks the teacher how to
write the answer on the handout, i.e. with or without the article. The teacher
replies (l. 395 to l. 397) that for the purpose of this exercise the use of the
article was not necessary. The interaction proceeds as the teacher elicits the
students to produce another term (l. 398). This occurs in Italian and the same
learner, Scott, answers by translating the teacher’s phrase into Maltese (l. 399).
The teacher continues to use Italian in order to elicit responses from the
learners (l. 400 and l. 402) but the learner has difficulty to pronounce the word
correctly in Italian (l. 403). At this point the teacher reprimands the learner
because she interprets his mistake as a reading error (l. 404) and provides the
correct answer (l. 405 and l. 406) by means of further elicitation so as to give
the learners the opportunity to say the word correctly (although in this case
they do not do so, because there is an interruption in the flow of discourse).
266
Lesson 4B, ‘L’Ufficio’
394
Scott
Il lettore CD jew lettore?
(the lettore CD or lettore?)
opening
question
395
396
397
398
T
Lettore biss
Hm, tagħmlux l-artiklu please.
Christian, grazzi.
Fare i conti, con che cosa facciamo i
conti?
(only lettore
Don’t insert the article please
Thank you Christian.
To work out a bill, with what do we
work out bills?)
answering
opening
reply
inform
accept
elicit
399
Scott
Li tagħmel il-kontijiet?
(that which works out the bills?)
answering
question
400
T
Che cos’è?
(what is it?)
opening
elicit
401
Scott
Kelkjulejter?
(calculator?)
answering
reply
402
T
Allora, in italiano?
(so, in Italian?)
opening
elicit
403
Scott
Calci...latrice
answering
reply
404
405
406
T
Taf taqra?
Calcolatrice, numero due calcolatrice,
mhux calcio. Calco?
(Can you read properly?
Calculator, number two calculator,
not football)
feedback
reject
inform
elicit
Example 3: Teacher feedback on pronunciation
Example 3 shows the extent to which the teacher pushes for a reply in Italian
by the learners. At the same time we can appreciate how this learner
managed to follow the teacher’s explanation by translating her phrases into
Maltese until he finally produced the right answer.
Approximation to TL grammar
Example 4 presents the approximation to a TL grammar point. The topic of
discussion is food and the teacher is trying to get the learners to use the
structure of the ‘imperfetto’ verb tense by expressing what they liked to eat as
children and what they like now by comparison (l. 171 to l. 178). At one point
(l. 181), Aldo says ‘mi piacevo’ (I used to like myself), which is a reflexive
form, instead of ‘mi piaceva’ (I used to like). The teacher rejects the reply by
267
formulating a translation of the wrong answer in Maltese in a questioning
intonation such that the learner immediately corrects his error (l. 182 to l.
184). The teacher in turn accepts his answer, and through words and gestures
elicits a full phrase (from l. 185 to l. 186). As it happens another learner, Steve,
steals the turn (l. 187) and utters a correct phrase himself which the teacher
accepts (l. 189).
Lesson 4C: ‘L’Imperfetto’
Moves
Acts
167
168
169
170
T
Mela,
ricordatevi cosa vi piaceva prima.
Ma naħsibx li l-istess ħaġa.
A me non piaceva il pesce quando
ero piccolo.
(So,
remember what you used to like in
the past.
I don’t think it was the same thing.
When I was young I did not like
fish)
opening
marker
elicit
inform
inform
171
Aldo
A me un hamburger
(I used to like hamburgers)
answering
reply
172
173
174
T
Non devi mangiarne troppo di
quelli.
Aldo,
cosa ti piaceva prima?
(You musn’t eat too many of those.
Aldo,
what did you used to like?)
follow-up
opening
accept
nominate
elicit
175
Aldo
Pasta
(pasta)
answering
reply
176
177
T
Ti piaceva la pasta
e ora?
(You used to like pasta
And now?)
follow-up
opening
accept
elicit
178
Aldo
La carne
(meat)
answering
reply
179
180
T
E dì una frase in italiano.
Prima?
(Come on, say a phrase in Italian.
Before?)
follow-up
opening
direct
elicit
181
Aldo
Mi piacevo
(I liked myself)
answering
reply
182
183
T
Mi piacevo?
Kont togħġob lilek innifsek?
(You liked yourself?
follow-up
reject
inform
268
You used to like yourself?)
184
Aldo
Mi piaceva
(I used to like)
answering
reply
185
T
Prima mi piaceva (gesture eliciting
continuation)
(Before I used to like)
opening
accept
186
Aldo
Mangiare, e adesso mi piace
(To eat, and now I like)
answering
reply
187
Steve
Prima mi piaceva mangiare la pasta
e oggi mi piace mangiare la carne.
(Before I used to like to eat pasta and
now I like to eat meat)
answering
reply
189
190
T
Benissimo! Ottima frase.
Francesco
(Very good! Excellent phrase)
follow-up
opening
accept
nominate
Example 4: Clarifying a grammar point
The exchange in Example 4 illustrates how translanguaging is successfully
employed to scaffold the acquisition of a new grammatical form. In l. 183 the
teacher does not reject the learner’s answer outright by saying ‘no’ or ‘wrong’.
Instead, by providing the translation of the learner’s answer in Maltese she
helps him realise what his error was because in this way he understands what
his own utterance in Italian meant. Thus the learner assimilates the distinction
between these two verb forms and their meaning.
In Example 5 we can see another approximation to TL grammar, in this case
relating to the use of the auxiliary verb ‘essere’. Mark replies to the teacher’s
elicitation by producing only the past participle ‘arrivati’ (l. 403). The teacher
rejects his reply by explaining that he needs to produce a two-word phrase
‘qbiżtli kelma’ (you skipped a word) in l. 404. In l. 405 Mark reacts by asking a
question in Maltese, ‘m’għidthiex?’ (Haven’t I said it?) which shows a degree
of uncertainty from his end. The teacher replies that he had not said it (l. 406),
and Mark then realises that he needed to add the auxiliary verb ‘siamo’ to
produce this verb correctly (l. 407). To be sure that he has understood Mark
asks in l. 411, ‘niktibha kollha? (do I write it all?) and the teacher explains
further by reminding him that he needs to use both the auxiliary and the past
participle (l. 412): ‘passato prossimo mhux bi tnejn?’ (isn’t the ‘passato
prossimo’ constructed with two verbs?).
Lesson 4C: ‘L’imperfetto’
Moves
Acts
401
402
T
Provaci.
Quando siamo arrivati o quando
arrivavamo al cinema il film stava
iniziando?
(Try.
opening
prompt
elicit
269
Was the film about to start when we
arrived or when we used to arrive at
the cinema ?)
403
Mark
Arrivati
(arrived)
answering
reply
404
T
Jonqsok kelma imma qbiżtli kelma
imma
(There;s a word missing but you
skipped a word)
follow-up
reject
405
Mark
M’għidthiex?
(didn’t I say it?)
answering
question
406
T
No
follow-up
reply
407
Mark
Siamo?
answering
reply
408
T
E certo
(of course)
follow-up
accept
409
Mark
Quando siamo arrivati
(when we arrived)
answering
reply
410
T
E siamo arrivati
(and we arrived)
follow-up
accept
411
Mark
Niktibha kollha jiġifieri?
(so should I write it all?)
answering
question
412
413
414
T
Passato prossimo mhux bi tnejn?
Essere e avere, e ato, uto, ito.
Ryan
dimmi la prossima.
(Isn’t the passato prossimo formed by
using two verbs?
Essere or avere, and ato, uto, ito.
Ryan tell me the next one)
follow-up
opening
accept
inform
nominate
elicit
Example 5: Giving a grammar clue
In Example 5, the teacher does not spoon-feed the learners by providing the
correct answers, but helps them to reason it out on their own. They do so
through translanguaging, which would not have been possible had they been
obliged to use Italian exclusively. Thus, the learner initially realises through
the use of Maltese, that his answer is incomplete and then, with a little bit
more translanguaging, he provides a correct answer.
In Example 6, Peter has difficulty producing the correct verb form ‘andavo’ in
the imperfetto and says ‘sono andato’ (l. 250). The teacher follows-up by
rejecting his reply (l. 251), nominating him for a reply once again (l. 252), and
by using elicitation in Italian (l. 253). This time Peter replies correctly (l. 254).
The teacher continues to follow this up not only by accepting his correct reply
(l. 255) but also by giving a further explanation by translating the verb into
270
Maltese ‘andavo, kont immur, andavo’ (l. 255) and by giving further
information, also in Maltese (l. 256-257).
Lesson 4C, ‘L’imperfetto’
Move
Act
248
249
T
(...) due,
Peter
da bambino sono andato o andavo tutte
le estati?
(two,
Peter when I was young sono andato or
andavo every summer?)
opening
direct
nominate
elicit
250
Peter
Sono andato
answering
reply
251
252
253
T
No,
Peter,
da bambino sono andato o andavo a
Gozo tutte le estati?
(no,
Peter,
when I was young sono andato or
andavo to Gozo every summer?)
follow-up
reject
nominate
elicit
254
Peter
andavo
answering
reply
255
256
257
T
Andavo, kont immur, andavo,
kont immur Għawdex kull sajf,
mhux mort kull sajf
(andavo, I used to go, andavo,
I used to go to Gozo every summer,
not I went every summer)
follow-up
accept
inform
inform
Example 6: Explaining Italian grammar through translation
Translanguaging in Examples 4, 5 and 6 is a pedagogical tool in the teachers’
hand to reinforce the acquisition of the target language. The learners adopt
translanguaging as an effective way to make transitions from their L1 to a
deeper understanding of how the TL works. Each shift from the L1 to the TL,
sometimes back and forth, represents an approximation to the acquisition of
the TL.
Moving from formal to informal communication
Example 7 illustrates how learners in this class sometimes tried to divert the
content of the lesson and shifted communication from a formal mode to an
informal one. It is an aside that interrupts the flow of the teaching exchange.
Mario reacts with a prompt in Maltese in reply to the teacher’s prompt, also
in Maltese (l. 429), urging her to hurry up so that they could finish as quickly
as possible (l. 430). Another learner, Karl, immediately takes the cue and asks
271
about how much time is left until break time (l. 431). The teacher replies in
Italian ‘undici minuti’ (eleven minutes). At this point Karl starts counting in
Italian (l. 433), and the teacher prompts him to stop to which he replies in
Maltese in l. 437 ‘ħdax-il minuta’ (eleven minutes). This interruption, which the
teacher quickly brings to a close and which is immediately followed with a
teaching exchange (l. 438), illustrates how a single word in Maltese can
possibly be taken as a cue by the learners to transform a formal teaching
exchange into an informal dialogue.
Lesson 4B: ‘L-ufficio’
moves
Acts
426
T
(...) segreteria telefonica
(answering machine)
answering
inform
427
Questa è la numero tre
(this is number three)
opening
direct
428
Thank you
answering
accept
429
Kompli
(carry on)
opening
prompt
430
Mario
Ejja Miss komplihom forsi
neħilsu
(come on teacher continue so
that we finish)
prompt
431
Karl
Kemm fadal Miss għall-break?
(teacher how much time is left
for break?)
question
432
T
Undici minuti
(eleven minutes)
reply
433
Karl
Uno, due, tre
(one, two, three)
inform
434
T
Come on
prompt
435
Undici ta m’għidtlekx due mila
(I told you eleven not two
thousand)
inform
436
Dai
(come on)
prompt
437
Karl
Ħdax-il minuta
(eleven minutes)
inform
438
T
Leggere ‘immagini per il
computer’
(read ‘pictures for the computer’)
opening
elicit
Example 7: From formal to informal communication
At first glace it seems as though the prompt in Maltese by the teacher (l. 429)
had the negative effect of triggering an interruption in the flow of the lesson.
However, even within the informal exchange, the counting of numbers in
Italian and the translation into Maltese in l. 437, show that approximation of
272
the TL has not been disturbed! This is a clear indication of how informality
within a lesson may actually be conducive to acquisition, and how implicit
learning may occur even when the learners stray from the topic that is being
tackled by their teacher.
Conclusion
The excerpts included in this paper demonstrate how translanguaging
operates in subtle ways and how it may boost learner participation in the
lesson and their understanding of the subject matter, as well as TL production
and its rehearsal. Translanguaging scaffolds the second language acquisition
process and makes it more natural and effective. Finally, it must be pointed
out that, in the Maltese context, translanguaging often may occur
spontaneously and unconsciously by teachers and learners alike. Teachers are
not trained to do it and no prior planning is made for it. It simply happens in
a most natural manner, possibly as a reflection of the constant interplay
between Maltese and English that occurs locally in everyday speech.
In the early 1980s Krashen (1981; 1982; 1985) made quite an impact on how
teachers understood and employed language pedagogy through his
convincing arguments in favour of comprehensible input in the TL. This led,
at least in theory, to the exclusion of the L1 in the L2 classroom (Gass, 2003;
McMillan & Turnbull, 2009),. However, recent classroom-based research has
revealed that the learners’ L1 can, and is, used successfully to teach a foreign
language (McMillan & Turnbull, 2009; Hélot & Ó Laoire, 2011; Levine, 2011).
In fact, relatively recent analyses of classroom discourse have unravelled
some essential pedagogical functions of the learners’ L1 in FL teaching
(Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Potowski, 2009; Cook & Singleton, 2014). As
Macaro (2009, p. 49) puts it:
“What emerges is an increasing possibility that banning the first
language from the communicative second language classroom may in
fact be reducing the cognitive and metacognitive opportunities available
to learners. We have some evidence that some items of vocabulary might
be better learnt through a teacher providing first-language equivalents
because this triggers deeper semantic processing than might occur by
providing second-language definitions or paraphrases”.
Indeed, the role of the L1 in an English-immersion classroom to support
cognitive and metacognitive development has also been reported in the
teaching of other subjects, like Mathematics in Malta: Farrugia (2009a; 2009b)
noted that a shift to an exclusive use of English was not the most
educationally beneficial policy, as pupils whose L1 was Maltese refrained
from asking questions and had greater difficulty assimilating content, among
other issues. Camilleri Grima’s (2003; 2013; 2015) research has also come to
the conclusion that banning the L1 from the classroom in whichever subject,
273
is a form of ‘silencing’ (Simon, 1990). The Italian language lesson in Malta is
no exception, as although the use of the L2 is encouraged therein, both
English and Maltese feature regularly in students’ production (Caruana, 2011)
As indicated in international literature (Molinari et al., 2012; Thoms 2012),
and as confirmed through our study, one of the main recommendations that
can be made to teachers is to be aware of how their ‘feedback’ moves can be
used to render interactions more open-ended, rather than to restrict or close
them. By using the ‘feedback’ move in order to probe for further amplification
by the learner, or by re-launching subsidiary questions, preferably ones that
involve higher-order thinking skills that begin, for instance, with ‘how’, ‘why’
and ‘explain’, there would be a greater opportunity for more extended turns
by learners. Similarly, authentic questions, in addition to elicitations, promote
wider participation in whole-class activities.
References
Agius, D. (1998). Formality-Intimacy Continuum in Maltese. Zeitschrift für Arabische
Linguistik, 35, 29-51.
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Camilleri, A. (1993). Bilingual Teacher Talk in Maltese Secondary Classrooms. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Camilleri, A. (1995). Bilingualism in Education. The Maltese Experience. Heidelberg:
Julius Groos Verlag.
Camilleri Grima, A. (2003). ‘Do as I say not as I do’. Legitimate language in bilingual
Malta. In L. Huss, A. Camilleri Grima & K.A. King, K.A. Transcending
Monolingualism. Linguistic Revitalisation in Education. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger,
53-65.
Camilleri Grima, A. (2013). A select review of bilingualism in education in Malta.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(5), 553-569.
Camilleri Grima, A. (2015). Malta: Bilingual Education for Self-Preservation and
Global Fitness. In Mehisto, P., and Genesee, F. (Eds.) Building Bilingual
Education Systems: Forces, Mechanisms and Counterwieghts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 217-226.
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable
Strategies of Translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(iii), 401-417.
Caruana, S. (2011). “Alavolja il suo padre e la sua mamma non folevanno”:fenomeni
di contatto nella produzione scritta di italiano L2 degli apprendenti maltesi.
In Bombi, R., D’Agostino, M. and Dal Negro, S. (Eds), 2011, Lingue e culture in
contatto. Atti del 10° Congresso AItLA, Perugia: Guerra, 365-381.
Caruana, S. (2013). Italian in Malta: a socio-educational perspective. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(5), 602-614.
Caruana, S. & Camilleri Grima, A. (2014). L’Italiano a Malta e la commutazione di
codice. Paper presented at the Congresso Internazionale Società di
Linguistica Italiana: “Lingue in Contatto / Contact linguistics”, Udine,
September 2014.
274
Cook, V. & Singleton, D. (2014). Key Topics in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe. (2015). Language Education Policy Profile: Malta. Strasbourg:
Language Policy Unit, Council of Europe.
Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a
pedagogy for learning and teaching? in, The Modern Language Journal, 94(i),
103-115.
Eurydice-EUROSTAT. (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe,
Brussels: EACEA, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/key_data_
en.php, [21st November 2014].
Farrell, M. P. & Ventura, F. (1998). Words and understanding in Physics. Language and
Education, 12(4), 243-253.
Farrugia, M. T. (2009a). Registers for mathematics classrooms in Malta: considering
options. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(1), 20-25.
Farrugia, M. T. (2009b). Reflections on a medium of instruction policy for
mathematics in Malta. In Barwell, R. (Ed.) Multilingualism in Mathematics
Classrooms, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 97-112.
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. A Global Perspective. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Garcia, O. & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging. Language, Bilingualism and Education.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and Interaction. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.) The Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell, 224-255.
Gauci, H. (2011). Teacher Codeswitching in the Italian Second Language Classroom in
Malta. Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, University of Malta.
Gauci, H. & Camilleri Grima, A. (2013). Codeswitching as a tool in teaching Italian,
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(5), 615-631.
Hall, J. K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.
Hélot, C., & Ó Laoire, M. (Eds.) (2011). Language Policy for the Multilingual Classroom.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Karunakaran, T. & Nirmala, Y. (2013). SLA and classroom research. Language in India,
13(2), 152-163.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
Levine, G. S. (2011). Code Choice in the Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, G., Jones, B. & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: developing its
conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation,
18(7), 655-670.
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring
optimal use. In Turnbull, M. & Dailey-O, J. (Eds.) First Language Use in Second
and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 35-49.
Martin-Jones, M. (1985). Code-switching in the classroom: two decades of research. In
Milroy, L. & Muysken, P. (Eds.) One speaker: two languages. Cross-disciplinary
perspectives on code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
275
McMillan, B., & Turnbull, M. (2009). Teachers’ use of the first language in French
Immersion: revisiting a core principle. In Turnbull, M. & Dailey-O’Cain, J.
(Eds.) First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, Bristol:
Multilingual Matters, 15-34.
Meerholz-Harle, B., & Tschirner, E. (2000). Teacher Talk. In Byram, M. (Ed.) Routledge
Encycopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, London: Routledge, 608-610.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a
social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137-168.
Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2012). A sequential analysis of classroom
discourse in Italian primary schools : The many faces of the IRF pattern.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 414-430.
Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”? An investigation
of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 376-406.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking Recasts: A learner-centred examination of corrective
feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In Hall, J. K. & Verplaetse, L.
(Eds.) Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 47-71.
Poplin, M. (2011). Valuing a plurality of research methodologies and instructional
ideologies in classroom research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(2), 150-152.
Potowski, K. (2009). Forms and Functions of Codeswitching by Dual Immersion
Students: A Comparison of Heritage Speaker and L2 Children. In Turnbull,
M. & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (Eds.) First Language Use in Second and Foreign
Language Learning, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 87-114.
Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Simon, R. I. (1990). The fear of theory. In Eagleton, T. (Ed.) The Significance of Theory,
Cambridge: Blackwell, 82-85.
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two
Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together. The Modern
Language Journal, 82(iii), 320-337.
Thoms, J. J. (2012). Classroom discourse in Foreign Language Classrooms: A Review
of the Literature. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 8-27.
Tsohatzidis, S. L. (2010). Speech Act Theory: Some current options. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 7(2), 341-362.
Velasco, P. & Garcia, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the Writing of Bilingual
Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37, 6-23.
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A single case
analysis. Language Learning, 59, 796-824.
Williams, J. (2012). Classroom Research. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.) The
Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, London: Routledge, 541-
554.
Xerri, T. (2015). Bilingual Interaction by Young Children in Public Play Areas.
Unpublished B.Ed. (Hons.) dissertation, University of Malta.
