Abstract
This article is the second of two articles reporting on a study from the first author’s master’s thesis in Translation entitled “’n Ondersoek na pedagogiese tolking vir Afrikaanstweedetaalverwerwing: ’n Gevallestudie met US-studente” (Van der Merwe 2022). In the first article pedagogical interpreting as a teaching technique is discussed, while the second article elaborates on pedagogical interpreting as an interactive task.
The motivation for the study is based on the need for a teaching technique that will cultivate improved communicative skills in Afrikaans. In South Africa, second-language teaching is related mainly to Afrikaans and English, and statistics show that more than half of matric learners achieve below 50% in their final exam for Afrikaans as a second language. The study examines the workability of pedagogical interpreting as a teaching technique for the purpose of interaction, and the research is based on the question of whether pedagogical interpreting holds value and/or challenges for Afrikaans second-language acquisition. It was found in Van der Merwe (2019) that language teaching with interpreting can be driven by interaction because interpreting is an interactive activity that shares several characteristics with the interaction approach in second-language acquisition. This phenomenon was empirically investigated in Van der Merwe (2022).
The interaction approach (Long 1996; Gass and Mackey 2015) and task-based language teaching (Ellis 2018) were investigated to examine pedagogical interpreting as an interactive task. The interaction approach proposes that language is acquired by means of input, interaction and output in the second language. Interactionally modified input is the necessary mechanism to render language understandable in the interaction approach and in pedagogical interpreting. Interaction, the conversations in which students participate in the classroom, involves negotiation of meaning, negative feedback and modified output. Regarding negative feedback the interaction approach offers a set of clearly defined discourse categories, namely interaction strategies. These strategies are metalinguistic explanation and corrections, confirmation checks, comprehension checks, elicitation, recasts, and nonverbal behaviour. Complementary to the interaction approach is the output hypothesis (Swain 1985), which entails that pressure must be exerted on the language learner in order to encourage modified output.
Task-based language teaching (Ellis 2018), an influential framework within the context of the communicative approach, suggests that the use of tasks promotes language acquisition. The approach focuses on tasks with the following characteristics: a primary focus on meaning and a communication gap, the use of one’s own linguistic resources, real-world language use, active involvement, a clear communicative goal, the prioritisation of task completion, and assessment in terms of task outcome. Task-based lessons usually comprise three task phases: a pre-task phase (pedagogical sight interpreting), the main task (pedagogical liaison interpreting) and a post-task phase (pedagogical telephone interpreting). Classified according to task types the interpreting activity in the main task is an open, output-based pedagogical two-way task with an information and opinion gap. Focus on form is a set of procedures that draws language learners’ attention to linguistic elements as they emerge, which includes negotiation of meaning and negative feedback with interaction strategies as well as modified output.
The framework interpreting as interaction was reconciled with the interaction approach by considering coordination and turn-taking in the dialogical model of communication, and non-renditions. Interpreting as interaction is a way of continually evaluating expressions in each context, which is related to negotiation of meaning and interaction strategies in the interaction approach where meaning is continually formed. Consequently, the new theoretical framework pedagogical interpreting as interaction was created to refer to interpreting as interaction for language teaching.
As discussed in detail in the first article, data was collected by ways of a case study of three tutorials with different themes – animation films, live-action films and series. A mixed-method approach and participatory action research were used in the investigation of pedagogical interpreting as an interactive task for Afrikaans second-language acquisition. Participant observation using audio recordings was used to capture task performance (response-based evaluation). Transcription of audio recordings is a simple form of participant observation that is effective in describing interaction. A questionnaire was developed to carry out learner-based evaluation. The quantitative and qualitative results of the questionnaires were used in consultation with the discussion of the transcriptions to achieve triangulation. Three 50-minute task-based tutorials were designed and carried out with 21 Afrikaans Language Acquisition students at Stellenbosch University in 2021. The tasks consisted of the following phases: introduction, pre-task, main task, post-task and closure. Pedagogical sight interpreting was used in the pre-task phase and pedagogical liaison interpreting was used in the main-task phase. The tutor (the first author) played the Afrikaans-speaking interviewer, and the participants took turns playing an English-speaking character of their choice (the student speaker or interviewee) and the student interpreter who mediated between Afrikaans and English. The main task was recorded, transcribed and analysed in terms of interaction.
It was found that pedagogical interpreting is exceedingly workable for the purpose of interaction in the Afrikaans Language Acquisition class of university students. The use of various interaction strategies to facilitate comprehensible input and output went hand in hand with the negotiation of meaning and modified output. It is evident that the negotiation of meaning provided the students with the opportunity to pay attention to form because the message was understood. There were several cases of modified output that occurred following different types of interaction strategies. The most popular interaction strategy was confirmation checks, followed by elicitation (repetition, normal clarification requests and focused clarification requests) and recasts. The tutor’s use of confirmation checks with the student interpreters sought to verify comprehension and model a more accurate version of the utterance to the student. The use of other words in the process of negotiation of meaning to explain what is meant elicits Afrikaans vocabulary. Modified output plays a role in capturing both vocabulary and pronunciation because the correct version is repeated and pronounced correctly following the tutor’s native pronunciation. Interaction also holds value for self-confidence in Afrikaans speaking skills because students are aware that assistance in the form of interaction strategies is available if needed. As confirmed by the response-based evaluation, the participants consequently performed satisfactorily by interacting with other parties in the interviews.
The questionnaire data provided an overview of the participant perspective on pedagogical interpreting as an interactive task, which confirms its workability in practice. Most of the participants consider the interactive nature of pedagogical interpreting to be helpful for the comprehension of Afrikaans utterances (negotiation of meaning) in the main task. All the participants indicated that pedagogical interpreting as interaction was helpful to produce utterances (modified output) in the main task. Participants were assisted with interaction when they struggled with the formulation of their interpreted utterances. Finally, the participants found it beneficial that pedagogical interpreting enables interaction and collaboration with other parties in the main task. Regarding task performance, the transcriptions indicate that the participants enjoyed the main task with pedagogical liaison interpreting as role-play and completed it relatively easily and with no stress. It also appears from the questionnaire data that all the participants enjoyed the main task, thereby characterising their motivation levels as high. Most of the participants considered the difficulty and stress levels of pedagogical liaison interpreting in the main task to be average, which is ideal for language acquisition. Most of the participants considered the pre-task to be effective preparation for the main task. Moreover, all the participants understood and easily followed the instructions for each task phase in the tutorial. As can be deduced from the learner-based evaluation, all the participants in the study therefore considered pedagogical interpreting to be a valuable interactive task for Afrikaans second-language acquisition.
The investigation into pedagogical interpreting as a contemporary phenomenon in second-language acquisition contributes to the international corpus of studies on translation and language teaching, and locally can also have a positive impact on Afrikaans second-language acquisition.
Keywords: Afrikaans second-language acquisition; interaction; interaction strategies; pedagogical interpreting; task-based language teaching
- The photo on this article’s featured image was taken by Alexander Suhorucov and obtained from Pexels.
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans:
Pedagogiese tolking as ’n interaktiewe taak vir Afrikaanstweedetaalverwerwing (deel 2)