espero les sirva

1. y

2. y
EFFECT OF L1 INTERLINEAR GLOSSES
ON L2 READING AND TRANSLATION TASKS
Camilo Andrés Bonilla Carvajal
Research grant: 80740-204-2020
Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación
Universidad del Quindío
Ministerio de Ciencias
2021

3. 3
Interlinear translations

4. 4

5. 5
Introduction
The study investigates the effects of different types of glossing for
word recall after reading a text in English. This work addresses how
modifying a text written in a foreign language (L2), by using glosses
in a learner’s first language (L1), can reduce the cognitive load (CL)
associated to vocabulary learning. Learning is defined as the rate
of L1 words that participants recall immediately after reading the L2
text, and one week after. This study will compare three conditions:
1-) Interlinear translation.
2-) Parallel text translation.
3-) Columnar translation.

6. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In the history of language teaching methodologies, there has been a long-held view that criticises the
usage of translation for L2 learning.*1
In modern times, teachers and methodologists have accepted the idea that the L1, in particular, and
translation, in general, should be avoided in the classroom.*2
Interlinear translations (ITs) were abandoned without explanation.*3
As of today, ITs still remains under-discussed in applied linguistics and vocabulary studies.*4
Support for the use of translation is found in Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). Reading in a foreign
language imposes a load in the available cognitive resources which affects performance.*5
The mental effort to meet the demands imposed by a complex task takes up cognitive capacity.*6
*1 (Hummel, 2010; Husain, 1994; Kern, 1994; Liao, 2006; Malmkjær, 1998; Prince, 1996; Tsagari & Phlōros, 2013).
*2 (Hummel, 2010).
*3 (Blum, 2008).
*4 (Elekaei et al., 2015; Holley & King, 1971; Zarei & Hasani, 2011).
*5 (Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994, p. 122).
*6 (Choi et al., 2014; Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994; Paas et al., 2003, p. 64).

8. 8
Cognitive Load Theory and language learning
WM is one of the best predictors of successful language learning.*1
CLT: humans have not evolved to acquire domain-specific skills
(i.e. learning grammar rules or L2 vocabulary), but generic-
cognitive knowledge that does not require explicit instruction, i.e.
biologically secondary, domain-specific knowledge.*2
Information processing load induced by learning tasks affects one’s
ability to process new information and add it to long-term
memory.*2
*1 Gathercole & Baddeley (1993); Service (1992); Wen, Borges Mota & McNeill (2015).

9. 9
Automation frees WM capacity that can be used for other activities
because, when attention is not focused on the automated schema,
WM can process new ‘steps’ in the concatenation of a complex
behaviour.*1
The goal in a CLT-based intervention is to prevent the excessive
usage of our limited cognitive WM capacity in order to concatenate
more complex skills.
*1 Van Merriënboer & Sweller (2005).

10. 10
Research Questions
The effects of different types of glosses in word recall during a task
of reading texts of academic English.
This work examines the possible correlation between the recall of
L2 words and the extraneous CL when participants read the
English text unassisted by the translation.

11. 11
RQ-1) What type of L1 gloss ...will induce the higher L2 word recall
rate (as measured by a post-test and a delayed test of L2-L1
translation) for EFL beginner learners reading a text in academic
English?
RQ-2) Which of these types of gloss will induce the higher and
lower CL, as measured by the average score of the perception
questionnaire NASA-Task Load Index?

12. 12
Method
Word recall: the subject’s capacity to retrieve the L1 meaning of an
L2 lexical item in a written text to provide its L1 translation. This
was assessed employing a translation task from L2 (English) to L1
(Spanish); a task which measured participants’ word recall after
exposure to an L2 text.
Participants in all conditions read one text (4 paragraphs: 472
words) in different reading conditions: interlinear translation,
parallel text, and columnar text.
They were tested immediately after (post-test) and eight days later
again using the same final task (delayed post-test). Participants
answered four reading comprehension questions.

14. 14
For the parallel and columnar, participants also received the
instruction of confirming that each word in every sentence was
understood before moving on to read the next one.

17. 17
Procedure
1. Participants were selected out of the first-semester students that do not belong to the B.A. in English.
2. The total number of participants was randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions:
interlinear, parallel, or columnar.
3. Participants fill out the consent form and the linguistic background questionnaire.
4. In one session lasting 60 minutes, each participant read the glossed version of the text.
5. Participants were instructed to make sure they understood each sentence in L2.
6. Once the time was over, participants completed an immediate post-test where they had to provide the
translation of the L2 text into L1.

18. 18
7. The accuracy of the translation that participants provide was assessed with the meaning of the L1 gloss.
It was obvious that a participant could not recall the exact L1 meaning of an L2 word, but the usage of a
synonymous word that still conveyed the idea of the sentence was counted into the total amount of
recalled words. On the contrary, false cognates, leaving a blank space or using an incorrect translation
were not counted. Participants were therefore instructed to write out the translation for every word in an
online form. When they forgot the meaning of a word, they typed a series of question marks ‘???’ and
proceeded with the rest of the translation.

19. FINDINGS
Session 1
Interlinear Parallel Columnar

20. FINDINGS
Session 2
Interlinear Parallel Columnar

21. CONCLUSIONS
The results from this study correlate a short-term memory recall for lexical meanings in L2 with the
exposure to an IT as a more effective reading strategy than the traditional use of dictionary, or a
contextual-inferential reading.
With the aid of an interlinear reading method, there are interesting accomplishments for L2 first-
semester beginners, such as the capacity to read an authentic text from a business journal requiring
over 10 years of formal English education, or, in other words, to achieve a reading capacity beyond
high-school level according to the U.S. grade standards despite of a self-reported average
proficiency of 1.18 in a 0-10 scale.
It is recommended to stress the relevance of the printed word in order to develop linguistic skills (i.e.
vocabulary and grammar).*1
ITs are not a replacement to a thorough process of reading. “Interlinear glosses are not
abbreviations of deep analyses, but reading aids to the reader”.*2
1* (Parent & Belasco, 1970, p. 503)
2* (Haspelmath, 2016, p. 301)

22. REFERENCES
Blum, E. (2008). The new old way of learning languages: Now all but vanished, a once-popular system of reading Greek and Latin
classics could revitalize modern teaching methods. The American Scholar, 77(4), 80–88. https://theamericanscholar.org/the-new-old-
way-of-learning-languages/
Choi, H.-H., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: Towards a
new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9262-6
Elekaei, A., Faramarzi, S., & Koosha, M. (2015). The impact of gloss types on reading comprehension, vocabulary gain and vocabulary
retention: A comparative study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(5).
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.5p.97
Haspelmath, M. (2016). The challenge of making language description and comparison mutually beneficial. Linguistic Typology, 20(2).
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0008
Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1971). Vocabulary glosses in foreign language reading materials. Language Learning, 21(2), 213–219.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1971.tb00060.x
Hummel, K. M. (2010). Translation and short-term L2 vocabulary retention: Hindrance or help? Language Teaching Research, 14(1),
61–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346497
Husain, K. (1994). Translation in the ESL classroom: Emerging trends. International Journal of Translation, 1(2), 115–130.
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 441–
461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013450

23. REFERENCES
Liao, P. (2006). EFL Learners’ Beliefs about and Strategy Use of Translation in English Learning. RELC Journal, 37(2), 191–215.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206067428
Malmkjær, K. (Ed.). (1998). Translation & language teaching: Language teaching & translation. St. Jerome Pub.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks.
Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213420
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load
theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
Parent, P. P., & Belasco, S. (1970). Parallel-column bilingual reading materials as a pedagogical device: An experimental evaluation. The
Modern Language Journal, 54(7), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1970.tb03584.x
Prince, P. (1996). Second Language Vocabulary Learning: The Role of Context versus Translations as a Function of Proficiency. The Modern
Language Journal, 80(4), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05468.x
Tsagari, D., & Phlōros, G. (2013). Translation in language teaching and assessment. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Zarei, A. A., & Hasani, M. (2011). The effects of glossing conventions on L2 vocabulary recognition and production. Journal of Teaching
Language Skills, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.390