DEVELOPING CEFR ILLUSTRATIVE DESCRIPTORS OF ASPECTS OF MEDIATION
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Mediation is not concerned with the linguistic expression of a speaker. Instead, the focus is on the role of language in processes like creating the space and conditions for communication and/or learning, constructing new meaning, encouraging others to construct or understand new meaning, passing on information in an appropriate form, and simplifying, elaborating, illustrating or otherwise adapting input in order to facilitate these processes (mediation strategies). Mediation always involves bridging across spaces, facilitating understanding. The context can be social (e.g. Wall & Dunne 2012), pedagogic (e.g. Mercer & Hodgkinson 2008), cultural (e.g. Zarate et al 2004), linguistic (e.g. Statholopoulou 2015) or in the workplace (e.g. Lüdi 2014). The concept of mediation has a very long history, originating in acting as an intermediary in diplomacy and conflict resolution, developing into wider forms of conflict avoidance and counselling services. Its relevance to the educational domain derives from Vgotsky’s (1978) theories, in which, it is seen as a core feature when adults, siblings and peers interact with a child. In the resulting socio-constructivist / social cultural view of learning (Lantolf 2000) it has recently been developed into the concept of ‘languaging’ in order to mediate meaning, a process that takes two forms: collaborative dialogue and private speech (Swain, Kinnear & Steinman, 2015: 32). The latter concerns the individual mediating meaning for themselves and is often internal and invisible. It is the former with which we are primarily concerned in this article. Collaborative dialogue in fact already appears in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR: Council of Europe 2001) in the scale under interaction strategies for Cooperating. In addition, the emphasis in the CEFR on the mediator as an intermediary between different interlocutors underlines its social, collaborative vision of language (Piccardo 2012).
Article Details
Authors retain copyright to their work, licensing it under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License and grant the journal exclusive right of first publication with the work simultaneously and it allows others to copy and redistribute the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in IOJET and provided that no changes were made on the article.
References
Coste, D. and Cavalli, M. (2015). Education, mobility, otherness: The mediation functions of schools, Strasbourg: Council of Europe DGII – Directorate General of Democracy, Language Policy Unit.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eichelmann (2015). Der gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen und die Hochschulspezifik. am Beispiel UNIcert. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Dresden.
Glaboniat, M., Müller, M., Rusch, P., Schmitz, H. and Wertenschlag, L. (2005) Profile deutsch A1 - C2. Lernzielbestimmungen, Kannbeschreibungen, Kommunikative Mittel. München: Langenscheidt.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lüdi, G. (2014). Dynamics and management of linguistic diversity in companies and institutes of higher educations: Results from the DYLAN project. In Gromes, P. and Hu, A. (Eds.) Plurilingual education: Policies – practices – language development, Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity 3, John Benjamins, 113–138.
Mercer N. and Hodgkinson (Eds.) (2008). Exploring talk in schools, London, Sage.
North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency, New York: Peter Lang.
North, B. (1992). European Language Portfolio: Some options for a working approach to design scales for proficiency. In: Council of Europe (1992) Transparency and coherence in language learning in Europe: Objectives, assessment and certification. Symposium held in Rüschlikon, 10–16 November 1991. (Edited by North, Brian). Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation, 158–174, reprinted in Schärer R. & North B. Towards a Common European Framework for Reporting Language Competency, Washington D.C.:NFLC Occasional Paper, National Foreign Language Center.
Piccardo, E. (2012). Médiation et apprentissage des langues: Pourquoi est-il temps de réfléchir à cette notion ? In Aden, J. and Weissmann, D. (eds) ÉLA (Études de Linguistique Appliquée), No. 167, Didier édition Klincksieck: 285–297.
Piribauer, G., Steinhuber, B, Atzlesberger, U., Mittendorfer, F., Ladstätter, T. Greinix,I, and Renner, H. (2014). Wegweiser: Mehrsprachigkeitsprüfungen. Linguistic mediation: “How to assess plurilingual oral competences within the final Austrian baccalaureate exam. Work in progress. Dokument für Brian North Council of Europe expert & coordinator on behalf of the Council of Europe, March 2014. CEBS: Center für Berufsbezogene Sprachen, Vienna.
Stathopoulou, M. (2013). The linguistic characteristics of KPG written mediation tasks across levels. In Lavidas, N., Alexiou, T. & Sougari, A-M. (eds.) Major trends in theoretical and applied linguistics: Selected papers from the 20th ISTAL. London: Versita de Gruyter.
Stathopoulou, M. (2015). Cross-language mediation in foreign language teaching and testing, Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M., Kinnear, P. and Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives (2nd edn) Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wall, J. A. and Dunne, T. C. (2012). Mediation research: A current review, Negotiation Journal, 217 –244 April 2012.
Zarate, G., A. Gohard-Radenkovic, A. and Lussier, D. (2004). Cultural mediation in language learning and teaching, Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.