1.0 Introduction
As a novice teacher, I was told by my employer that the students’ mother tongue (in my case, Russian) was not to be used in the classroom under any circumstances. I was explained that this company policy was based on the principles that extra strain was put on the brain if a student had to switch constantly between languages, that we were attempting to recreate an environment as close as possible to living in an English-speaking country, and that students would over-rely on Russian if they were allowed to use it whenever they were unable to find the appropriate English word.
Over time, I have changed my attitude towards the use of L1 in the classroom, from a total ban to a selective use, both on my part and on the part of the students.
I appreciate that there is a huge variety of teaching contexts across the world, which each have their own specific needs, but these cannot be covered in the scope of this assignment, so I will relate my paper only to EFL classes in language schools in Russia. I will state the main reasons why L1 was frowned upon for many years as part of the Communicative Approach, I will explain the shift in opinion towards this matter, and finally I will look at the justification of ‘judicious use’ (Kerr 2014:3) of the mother tongue in the classroom, without hindering the language learning process.
2.0 The History of Monolingualism in the Classroom
2.1 The Direct Method
As the purpose for language learning shifted from the ability to read literature in the original language to oral communication, dissatisfaction with the Grammar-Translation method in the second half of the 19th century led to the proposal of various ‘natural’ principles of teaching, whereby ‘a foreign language could be taught without translation or the use of the learner’s native language if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration and action’ (Richards and Rogers 2001:11). It is generally accepted that the ban on the mother tongue in classroom instruction has its roots in the most famous of these, the Direct Method.
This method gained huge popularity thanks to the commercial language schools started by Sauveur and Berlitz, the latter of which is still successful today and which argues the following points:
i) too much classroom time is taken up on using L1 rather than L2
5
ii) ‘one must also learn to think like someone who has that language as their mother tongue’ (Kerr 2014:3)
iii) ‘there is by no means for every word of one language, the exact equivalent in the other’ (Berlitz 1916:4 quoted in Kerr 2014:3)
Kerr (2014:4) quotes E. V. Gatenby, a proponent of the Direct Method, who stated that students must mentally separate the two languages in order to think in the new language. Nowadays this ability is called into question, as modern studies show the brain is not compartmentalised (Butzkamm 2003), Furthermore, the goal of reaching a near-native level in order to ‘think’ in a foreign language has been described as ‘neither useful, desirable or attainable ‘ (Hall and Cook 2012: 276), achievable, if at all, only by highly proficient learners.
The association of using the mother tongue with Grammar-Translation resulted in a movement to eliminate all incidences of L1, yet Atkinson (1987:242) suggests that this ‘total rejection of translation and all that it implied was clearly a case in which the baby was thrown out with the bathwater’. ‘Published critics of translation, including Berlitz, have tended to paint worst-case scenarios of the dullest, driest, most relentless grammar-translation slog (…) and then used them as justification for rejecting all cross-lingual work’ (Kerr 2014:4).
2.2 Other Reasons for the Rejection of the Mother Tongue
2.2.1.Krashen’s Comprehensible Input
Stephen Krashen claimed that second language acquisition occurs in certain sequences ‘whatever their own language’ (Hall and Cook 2012:276), thus negating the influence of the L1 on learning. Another theory to carry weight in the discussion was the idea that students would learn successfully if they were exposed to large amounts of ‘comprehensible input’, that is, plenty of exposure to the target language. Littlewood and Yu support Krashen’s theory by pointing out that the teacher is often the only model of the target language and should thus maximise their opportunities, and that by using the L2 as the language of instruction students are ‘more likely to perceive it as a useful medium for communication and develop more positive motivation to learn it’ (2011:66).
Besides understanding the teacher’s directions and explanations, ‘learners need the chance to talk with native speakers in a fairly open-ended way, to ask questions, and to clarify meanings when they do not immediately understand’ (Candlin and Mercer 2001:22). This valuable negotiation of meaning is unavailable to learners if everything is presented in translated form.
6
Merrill Swain’s Comprehensible Output Hypothesis supports the use of L2 in that ‘the production of language pushes learners to process language more deeply’ (Lightbown and Spada 2006:48). Therefore it is not enough for students to be exposed to the L2, they must also be actively engaged in using it themselves, and for more than just the completion of tasks.
2.2.2. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis / Behaviourism
In the 1940s and 1950s there was widespread support for behaviourist theories, which stated that learning was a question of forming correct habits, and that incorrect habits formed while learning the L1 would negatively transfer to the learning of the L2 (Lightbown and Spada 2006). The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis predicted that interference from the L1 would cause difficulties for the learner when the first and second languages differed in structure, further stressing the exclusion of L1. Lightbown and Spada add that the L1 may cause avoidance when the structure is just too dissimilar from the students’ L1 (2006:94), or result in errors identifying what is not possible in the target language (2006:95).
However, drawing similarities with the sequence of acquisition of young first language learners, Lightbown and Spada state, ‘not all errors made by second language learners can be explained in terms of first language transfer alone’(2006:79). They go on to mention studies which show that learners intuitively know which structures might transfer and which may not; for example, most learners appreciate that idioms will probably not transfer. I would suggest, based on my own observations, that this is true only of adult learners.
Candlin and Mercer compare the two viewpoints:
‘Behaviourist theorists viewed language transfer as an important source of error and interference in L2 learning, because L1 ‘habits’ were so tenacious and deeply rooted. The interlanguage theorists (…) pointed out that many L2 errors could not be traced to L1 influence’ (2001:20)
and thus neglected the value of L1 in the classroom.
Since theorists have once again begun to accept the role that L1 transfer can play, both positively and negatively (Tarone et al 1976), and that similarities between L1 and L2 can lead to faster acquisition (Candlin and Mercer 2001), it seems only logical to make use of those aspects of L1 which facilitate learning.
7
2.2.3. The Role of the Native Speaker
Countless language schools across the world market themselves on their employment of native speaker teachers, many of whom do not speak their students’ L1. There is a strong feeling among learners that the native teacher provides a better classroom experience, and this belief, although often misguided, heavily influences a school’s recruitment choices. Commercial language schools depend on the retention of satisfied students, and the option of a native teacher may be the reason a student joins a course. Duff and Polio (1990) find that this interaction with a native-speaking teacher may be practically the only exposure students have to the target language, a fact that is only too true in the current Russian classroom.
Student opinions not only influence the choice of school, but also how much they enjoy a course, and ultimately how successful they become towards their goal. As Lightbown and Spada (2006:67) mention, ‘learner beliefs can be strong mediating factors in their experience in the classroom’, therefore student choices cannot be ignored.
Besides their inability to speak the L1, native teachers may avoid the mother tongue because they have been trained in an English-only environment (Atkinson 1987) or as part of a ‘British-based teacher training movement’ preparing them to work with multilingual classes (Harbord 1992). Such training may lead teachers to feel that use of the L1 is frowned upon or even forbidden.
Atkinson draws our attention to the lack of emphasis on the L1 during training, adding that ‘the gap in methodological literature is presumably partly responsible for the uneasiness which many teachers, experienced and inexperienced, feel about using or permitting the use of the students’ native language’ (1987:241). This question of teachers’ unease prompted the following study.
3.0 A Mini Case Study: Teacher Attitudes towards the Use of L1
Although, as stated in the introduction, I work in a context where the use of L1 is discouraged, I was interested to know whether the reality of the classroom is in fact somewhat different, and so I carried out the following survey among 24 fellow teachers, ADoSes and DoSes:
Table 1: Questionnaire
Do you allow the use of Russian in the classroom? Please choose ONE answer and complete as appropriate.
Yes
8
Yes, but … (please complete)
No, but … (please complete)
No.
Table 2: Results
The results were as follows: Non-native teachers Native teachers Yes
1
1 Yes, but … (please complete)
4
10 No, but … (please complete)
3
3 No.
1
1
There are, of course, many limitations to these results, in that the sample is small and specific to one language school. Also, Littlewood and Yu (2011) highlight a wide discrepancy between what teachers say (or believe) they do and what actually happens in the classroom.
Nonetheless, despite the school-wide ban on using the L1, two thirds of teachers, be they natives or local teachers, do in fact use Russian during classes. A fact not borne out by these results is that even the Director of Studies, a native speaker, was the only native teacher to categorically answer “yes” to using Russian, despite, as I remind again, a school policy to the contrary. Does this suggest that teachers are more open-minded to the benefits of allowing the L1 than the school administrators? Hall and Cook (2012:272) mention that there is often a time lag between new approaches and their implementation in the classroom, so that trends may differ from reality. It could be that teachers are individually investigating and experimenting with latest trends, while the school remains resistant to change.
Auerbach’s (1993:14) larger-scale survey at a TESOL conference gave somewhat similar results. The teachers in her survey qualified their answers with comments such as ‘usually not but they’re going to do it anyway’, ‘last resort’ etc. Examples of comments in my survey include:
Table 3: Sample Responses
9
Yes, but…
only when all else fails.
only with advanced students.
only for abstract ideas.
only to clarify grammar with children.
only to show students I’m interested in their culture.
only to save time.
No, but…
it would save time.
I don’t shout at students if they do.
Interestingly, non-natives gave one single reason for using the L1 – to save time, while natives had a wider range of reasons. The most popular reason among natives was to clarify a difficult point, which could be quite closely related to saving lesson time. This shows that most teachers see no reason to use the L1 except when it enables a grammar / lexis presentation to take place faster, and only one teacher (a native) suggested that it was to build rapport with students.
Teachers who allow the L1 feel the need to justify their actions with the argument of efficiency. Auerbach found, as I did, that ‘despite the fact that 80% of the teachers allowed the use of the L1 at times, the English-only axiom is so strong that they didn't trust their own practice: They assigned a negative value to "lapses"’ (1993:14). This supports what many others have found: that teachers often feel guilt at using the L1 (Auerbach 1993; Butzkamm 2003; Harbord 1992; Prodromou 2002; Littlewood and Yu 2011). This guilt leads teachers to dissuade their students from speaking L1 in a number of ways, ranging from games to fines. (Auerbach 1993:10)
4.0 Justification of L1 Use
4.1 Humanistic Factors
From a humanistic perspective, allowing students to use the L1 when their L2 resources are insufficient gives them the opportunity to say what they really mean, rather than paying communication ‘mere lip-service’ (Butzkamm 2003:33). The Communicative Approach proposes meaningful over mechanical communication, allowing students to say what they want to say (Harbord 1992), while, as Butzkamm puts it, ‘the call for ‘real’ communication and the ban on the MT are conflicting demands’ (2003:33).
4.2 Cognitive Perspectives
10
Early SLA theorists believed in drawing students’ attention primarily to meaning to facilitate acquisition (Hall and Cook 2012). However, more recently there has been a move towards a focus on form.
According to the ‘noticing hypothesis’, ‘nothing is learned until it has been noticed’ (Lightbown and Spada 2006:44). If we accept Michael Long’s assertion cited in Lightbown and Spada (2006:43), ‘there are no cases of beginner-level learners acquiring a second langue from native-speaker talk that has not been modified’, then using the L1 to draw attention to certain features allows students even at lower levels to interact with authentic native speaker language.
Learners at beginning levels cannot notice every aspect of a text they are studying. They typically, consciously or unconsciously, concentrate on the main words and ignore less pressing features, because the brain is unable to focus on every aspect at the same time (Lightbown and Spada 2006). The cognitive demands on a beginner when confronted with a text are therefore huge, and the use of the L1 can facilitate this study so as to lessen the overwhelming sense many learners feel when presented with a task.
4.3 Time-Efficiency
Possibly the most common justification for the L1 is saving time. Butzkamm is forceful in his argument against elaborate ‘arm-waving’ and ‘inaccurate guessing … for weeks until the penny drops’ (2003:30) and calls for efficiency over the L1 ban.
Furthermore, provided the teacher and students share the same language, the teacher is in a position to ‘overhear’ students’ use of their mother tongue and thus instantly evaluate their comprehension of the target language. Students often repeat new words in translation out loud to consolidate the new knowledge, therefore the teacher has the chance to explain again if she hears that the student has taken up the word wrongly. This can usually be done without the students realizing that the teacher has understood them, enabling teachers in contexts where L1 is forbidden to maintain the image of an English-only environment.
Finally, students have access to authentic texts earlier if they can use their mother tongue to clarify meaning (Butzkamm 2003). Most students would agree that the comprehension of authentic language, whether spoken or written, is one of their priorities.
4.4 Classroom Management
11
There are many reasons why a teacher may choose to permit the use of L1 in the pursuit of effective classroom management, including eliciting and checking meaning without encountering misunderstandings (Atkinson 1987; Auerbach 1993; Butzkamm 2003; Harbord 1992), giving instructions (Atkinson 1987; Littlewood and Yu 2011), maintaining discipline (Littlewood and Yu 2011) and encouraging better cooperation between learners (Atkinson 1987). Littlewood and Yu’s three dimensions of pedagogical communication (‘establishing constructive relationships, ensuring understanding, and maintaining a disciplined environment’ (2011:69) are so essential that it is obvious why teachers choose to use the L1 if L2 resources are insufficient.
Auerbach (1993:20) states that
‘even those who acknowledge the usefulness of a bilingual approach to beginning ESL acquisition often find it counter-productive beyond the very beginning stages, arguing that over-reliance on the L1 will interfere with ESL acquisition’.
Personally, I prefer the reverse; that is, to find an appropriate L2 strategy for beginners and thus maximise their immersion into the new language, while encouraging deeper thought at more advanced levels through discussion of nuances and association of complex ideas with a familiar term in the L1.
4.5 Affect
Opinions are divided on whether the L1 should be used to lower the student’s affective filter. Butzkamm (2003: 31) points out that the use of the L1 can give students confidence in the classroom, while Harbord says:
‘Lowering student anxiety and achieving a good teacher-student rapport are very desirable aims and greatly to be encouraged: but when many effective L2 strategies are available to the teacher, the advantages of LI use for this purpose would seem to be outweighed by the potential dangers’ (Harbord 1992:354).
However, Candlin and Mercer (2001) cite language anxiety as an important aspect of affect which has been proven to influence success, and Butzkamm (2003) notes the strange tendency among teachers to praise in the L2, but criticise in the L1, which naturally means that the negative comments will have greater impact on the learner, adding to their anxiety. Praise could be more significant and more easily comprehended if given in the mother tongue.
12
Rubin (1975) suggests a number of strategies which a good language learner implements. These include a tolerance of ambiguity, attention to meaning over accuracy, communication strategies such as circumlocution and an ability to make good guesses. All of these are arguably risk-taking strategies on the part of the learner, and it is highly unlikely that an anxious student will move outside his comfort zone in this way. Atkinson (1987:245) gives examples of how these strategies can be taught more effectively using the L1. Rubin (1975) also mentions that a good learner can draw similarities between the L1 and the L2, further justifying the selective use of the mother tongue, for, if the student is ultimately using the L1 mentally, why should classroom activities not take account of this and make full use of this resource?
4.6 Learner Preferences
Most students come to the lesson with preconceived ideas about the role of the teacher, the role of the student, and what should happen in the classroom. There have been many studies into the extent to which students want to use the L1, for example Schweers (1999), who claims that as many as 86% of students want to use their mother tongue.
‘We would be unwise to underestimate the significance in the classroom of the students’ beliefs about the most effective methodology’ (Kerr 2014:4). Atkinson agrees, explaining that ‘a belief in the way one approaches a task is likely to affect one’s chances of success’ (1987:242).
Student beliefs, whether right or wrong, can influence their progress, their behaviour in class, and many other aspects of the learning environment. Auerbach (1993:17) mentions students dropping out of courses as a result of a L2-only environment which does not take account of their individual needs and fears. In the commercial school business, as in other businesses, the customer is pivotal and their retention is crucial. Consequently, student preferences cannot be ignored.
5.0 The Dangers of Over-use
Certainly, the use of the mother tongue in the classroom may entail definite dangers.
Atkinson (1987) lists the dangers of native teachers ‘showing off’ their knowledge of the students’ L1, of students becoming lazy and using L1 even when they have the lexical resources to otherwise cope, of oversimplifying, and perhaps most critically, of both students and teacher believing that translation is essential in order to really understand new material.
13
‘If a mother-tongue strategy achieves gains in areas such as time-saving or improving teacher-student rapport at the expense of causing the above problems, it must be regarded as suspect and replaced wherever possible by a corresponding L2 strategy’ (Harbord 1992:352).
Harbord (1992) blames inadequate training for teachers’ overuse of L1. The failure to use any of a multitude of teaching strategies available to get around using the L1, which were surely demonstrated in initial teacher training programmes, may also contribute to the feeling of guilt mentioned above, since teachers know that, had they prepared more thoroughly in advance, they might have been able to avoid the situation. Harbord also makes the very important point that if a teacher uses L1 outside the main lesson focus, they belittle the point of genuine communication in the L2.
Despite the potential risks, ‘the fact that some teachers overuse the students’ own language in translation-aided teaching cannot justify the complete exclusion of this language’ (Kerr 2014:3). Rather it leads us to conclude that what is required is more adequate training to be able to judge when, how and how much the L1 should be used.
‘Learners need, in addition to peer interaction, direct interaction with the teacher, provided it is quality interaction’ (Candlin and Mercer 2001:104, my italics). This suggests that the question of L1 or L2 is less important than the choice of the appropriate language at the appropriate moment. Correct training should enable teachers to make this choice in order to reap benefits from language transfer. ‘Understanding this process may help us to structure L2 lessons to maximize positive transfer and minimize negative transfer’ (Tarone et al 1976:23).
6.0 Conclusion
We have seen that there has been a shift in methodology over recent years to begin to allow the use of L1 once again in the classroom.
As Kelleher (2013:2041) puts it, ‘despite an often negative viewpoint held towards the mother tongue, it can and does have a positive role to play’. He recommends the following when learning a second language:
Using the L1 ‘sparingly and in a pre-planned way’, especially for vocabulary
‘Using L1 in the early stages’
Banning the mother tongue is ‘an impossible rule to enforce’
14
‘Clear rules and guidelines regarding L1 use must be put in place, in order to avoid confusion and overuse’
On the other hand, we must of course be careful ‘not to open the floodgates of L1 use but to use it in a principled way’ (Littlewood and Yu 2011:70). One of our goals is to encourage students to communicate in any way possible to them, and as Littlewood (1981:45) says,
‘Many learners are likely to remain unconvinced by our attempts to make them accept the foreign language as an effective means of satisfying their communicative needs, if we abandon it ourselves as soon as such needs arise in the immediate classroom situation’.
Paul Knight in Candlin and Mercer (2001:163) is very positive about the future of classroom-centred research, stating that we not only can, but must, observe our own classrooms as we are in a position to make a great contribution to the continuing study of SLA. Tarone et al. (1976) agrees that much is still to be done in this field. Littlewood and Yu (2011) pose a number of salient questions that teachers could attempt to research, covering the selected use at appropriate stages, the gradual phasing out of L1 help, and how to reconcile the fact that L1 use can both motivate and demotivate learners. Finally they ask how to persuade teachers of this research and then to support them in their practice. It is therefore clear that this topic is likely to remain controversial for some time to come.
References
Atkinson, D. (1987). The Mother Tongue in the Classroom: A Neglected Resource? ELT Journal, 41/4: 241-247.
Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27/1: 9-32.
Butzkamm, W. (2003) We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language learning journal 28 : 1 p.29 - 39
Candlin, C. N. and Mercer, N. (eds.) (2001) English Language Teaching In Its Social Context: A Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Duff, P. and Polio, C. (1990) How Much Foreign Language Is There in the Foreign Language Classroom? The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 74, No. 2
Harbord, J. (1992). The Use of the Mother Tongue in the Classroom. ELT Journal, 46/4: 30-55.
Hall G. and Cook G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45, pp 271-308
15
Kelleher, M. (2013) Overcoming the First Language Taboo to Enhance Learning a Foreign Language. Downloaded from www.sciencedirect.com Kerr, P (2014) Translation and Own-Language Activities. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Lightbown, P & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Littlewood W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
Littlewood W. and Yu B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, pp 64-77
Prodromou, L. (2002) The role of the Mother Tongue in the Classroom. IATEFL Issues 166.
Schweers Jr, C.W. (1999). Using L1 in the Classroom. Forum: 37/2: 6-12.
Richards, J. and Rogers, T. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What ‘the good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9 (1): 41-51.
Tarone, E., Swain, M. and Rathman, A. (1976) ‘Some Limitations to the Applications of Current
Second Language Acquisition Research’. TESOL Quarterly 10/1: 19-32.
