This framework reveals how English-medium instruction impacts L2 learners' errors in Chinese, suggesting the role of cognitive load and cross-linguistic interference.
This study proposes a preliminary descriptive framework of the Multilingual Conversion Error (MCE) to account for systematic errors made by L2 learners from non-native English-speaking countries when learning Chinese as a second language (L2) in an English-medium instruction (EMI) context. Unlike classical transfer models, the MCE framework emphasizes that language education often proceeds through an indirect route—from English (instructional language) to L1 (native language) to Chinese (target language). This indirect processing increases cognitive load and facilitates more cross-linguistic interference. Drawing on a collection of 68 compositions by beginning learners writing in Chinese at a university in Taiwan, the study identifies four typical error types: syntactic transfer, semantic transfer, literal idiom translation, and cultural-pragmatic misuse. These errors showcase the multilingual learners’ reliance on mental translation strategies and structural characteristics of their L1. The MCE Framework takes a different approach than the more traditional L1 to L2 transfer or interlanguage theories by highlighting instructional language as a non-neutral variable in learning, particularly when it is not a learner’s L1. The data show that EMI may inadvertently reinforce learners’ use of their first or native tongue as a mediator step, for conceptual mediation purposes, creating systematic error patterns in the learners’ output. The study contributes to viewing multilingual mediation as part of language processing and advocates for a re-evaluation of EMI in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language (TCSL). It also encourages the use of the target language in classroom instruction to maintain a lower cognitive load and facilitate language acquisition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shane Chen (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: