The Primacy of L1-Based Cohesive Devices Over the Organization of Ideas in the Spoken English of Chinese EFL Learners


  •  Sulaiman Alrabah    
  •  Shu-hua Wu    

Abstract

L1 influence research on L2 learners’ spoken performance has focused on learners’ use of L1-based cohesive devices and propositional organization. The problem in these studies was that even though L2 learners were using L1-based cohesive devices, they were not making any grammatical or pronunciation errors, but their L2 speech patterns were not consistent with native speaker standards. This study investigated the ways in which 6 Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were influenced by their L1-based cohesive devices and organization of ideas during 30 hours of face-to-face interactions with 2 English native speakers. Data analysis involved transforming the transcribed data of interactions into a system of codes and categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), and the Excel software was used to generate the means, percentages, and ranks of different categories. Data analysis determined that Chinese L1-based cohesive devices and organization of ideas were manifested in the 6 Chinese participants’ speech as a coherent system of communication. Moreover, the researchers found that the most frequently-used L1-based cohesive device in the Chinese students’ L2 speech was the use of connectors which were employed to “add” new points to the speakers’ arguments. Implications for pedagogy included action research projects to scrutinize the introduction of a series of communicative tasks in the classroom that utilize scaffolding to highlight L1-L2 differences. The aim of these tasks is to raise students’ consciousness and help them “notice the gap” between L1-L2 discourse systems in the use of cohesive devices and organization of ideas.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • ISSN(Print): 1923-869X
  • ISSN(Online): 1923-8703
  • Started: 2011
  • Frequency: bimonthly

Journal Metrics

Google-based Impact Factor (2021): 1.43

h-index (July 2022): 45

i10-index (July 2022): 283

h5-index (2017-2021): 25

h5-median (2017-2021): 37

Learn more

Contact