2.4 Views on using L1 and L2 in grammar teaching
2.4.2 Pedagogical functions of CS in teaching grammar
“Along with viewpoints on anti-L1 use, there are still many theorists and researchers who advocate using mother tongue in EFL classrooms. These research are in favor of the use of CS because they believe on its benefits that are brought to learners and teachers in various situations. Teachers' CS is used in ELT classrooms for a variety of pedagogical purposes.”
“Firstly, previous studies about the use of L1 in teaching grammar share a commonality in terms of ensuring students’ comprehension in teaching instruction as the main reason for code-switching. Copland and Neokleous’
research (2011, p.7) reported that teachers should switch to L1 when they feel that linguistic problems are preventing the students from understanding. Some explanations have a high level of complexity, meaning that a similar explanation in L2 would have been too complicated for intermediate learners. Therefore, teachers in her study chose to use English-Greek translation after repeatedly failing to explain the complicated rules to Greek students in English. The finding was also in consistent with Lee (2010, p.33) that when students fail to understand what the teacher tries to explain, code switching had to be used to help weaker students better understand the text and the structures. Similarly, Hidayati (2012, p.30), Nguyen (2012) and (Tang, 2002) also reported that teachers prefer code- switching to provide complex classroom instruction, to explain complex grammar points and to check students' comprehension. As a result, it is beneficial to use an appropriate amount of L1 to enable students' comprehension. (Demir, 2012, p.22)”
“Secondly, CS is an effective tool of raising learners’ consciousness about the possible mistakes as well as the similarities and differences between their native language and the target language, which play an important role in grammar teaching. Indeed, L1 and L2 comparison with their equivalence and
20
differences naturally appears in consciousness-raising and form-focused tasks, which is discussed in contrastive beliefs. Whereas direct comparisons between L1 and L2 were not considered to be helpful by any of the teachers in the research conducted by Copland and Neokleous’ (2011, p.7), a number of other researchers such as Arshad et al. (2015) and Demir (2012) held a total opposite idea. It seems that if students have little or no prior knowledge of the target language, L1 can be a powerful tool of consciousness-raising when introducing new grammatical constructs by highlighting the major differences between L1 and L2 grammatical characteristics. (Arshad et al., 2015, p.637). The author agreed with Demir (2012) that when students make repetitive mistakes and these typical mistakes are in danger of becoming fossilized under the influence of the native language, it's a good idea to offer a clarification in L1 or to compare and contrast sentences in L1 and L2 for highlighting the differences. In addition, because grammar is made up of rules for the combinations of words or morphemes, CS does the function as signpost, pointing out potential problems and lighting the way to a deeper understanding of grammar (Gardner et al., 2009, p.5).” For example, “She wa took her a month to get home yo” is a Japanese/English phrase that employs the word ‘wa’ to express what is being discussed and its purpose in Japanese. “It can be clearly seen that the usage of markers from one language to highlight items in another is a motivation to switch (Cook, 2016, p.184).”
Thirdly, learners’ proficiency level is also an important factor that teachers put under consideration when using CS. Catherine Doughty’s influential article on “the cognitive underpinning of focus on form” (Doughty, 2001) believed that there is not other choice better than using L1 to teach grammatical concepts for beginner level. She wondered what else students are supposed to do but use L1 via translation for a French beginners course to learn such complicated terms such as “La conjugaison pronominale”, “Construction avec l’infinitif” and “Les adjectifs possessifs et demonstratifs”. The grammatical reference part of English Unlimited (Doff, 2010, cited in Cook, 2016) includes phrases like "present," "questions," "pronouns," "possessive adjectives,"
21
"singular and plural nouns," and other terms from mainstream EFL grammar.
These will be meaningless without translation, especially when the learner's own culture's grammar differs from the English grammar system, as in the case of Japanese learners who have no notion of grammatical plural in their language.
“Moreover, CS can also be used to explain the tasks’ instruction. If the task is urgent, it doesn't matter what language is utilized; what matters is that the pupils complete the task successfully as soon as possible. For example, in Unit 3 of the book Atlas 1 provides a task chain called "talking about occupations" that includes the following activities. “Listen and circle the occupations that you hear... Listen again and check the questions that you hear...” If the pupils can comprehend the instructions in the second language, the practice is generally unnecessary. “When describing tasks, the instructor may find it quite convenient to use the first language (Cook, 2016, p.196). Demir (2012, p.21) also believed that it is impractical to expect to learn an EFL grammar entirely through practice and subconscious acquisition, or through explanations given in a one hundred percent second language.” Hence, he suggested “the most pragmatic approach would probably be much L2 + little (when very necessary) L1”. “Therefore, in these cases, code-switching is used when teachers want to save time and to avoid beating around the bush under the pressure of time restriction (Nguyen, 2012.
p.17, Lee 2010. p.34).”
“However, the experimental study of Arshad et al. (2015, p.637) reveals that while using the students' mother tongue as a consciousness-raising tool for grammar instruction was successful for beginners, the same method of teaching did not help upper-intermediate students equally. The findings are consistent with Lee (2010, p.26) that the use of code switching is dependent on the level of proficiency of the students. For the most part, code switching is almost always unnecessary for good classes.”
“Fourthly, the reason of using code-switching also stems from cognitive factors. Teachers are frequently encouraged to restrict pupils from participating in pair and group activities in their native language.” “If they are talking in small
22
groups, it can be quite difficult to get some classes- particularly the less disciplined or motivated ones- to keep to the target language” (Ur, 1996, p. 121).
However, outside of the classroom, CS is a natural component of bilingual life. It is the "natural recourse" of L2 users when they are with people who speak the same languages. Prohibiting CS in the classroom, “which is what a ban on the L1 actually amounts to, is denying a central feature of many L2 situations.”
“Students should not be made uneasy by a common feature of L2 communication. Learning is a collaborative discussion, then, first language can offer some of the scaffolding for this dialogue. (Cook, 2016, p.196)”
“Scott and Fuente (2008, p.110) suggested that when students are not allowed to use their first language, their two languages clash, causing irritation and cognitive pressure.” “When we engage students in this type of reflective inquiry about grammar structures, however, banning the L1 may impede the learners’ ultimate success. If students are discouraged from using the L1 for quiet reflection and are not given the opportunity to verbalize intrapersonal L1 speech, they may not benefit from natural and spontaneous cognitive processes that support L2 learning.” “Indeed, there are certain activities that required CS when learners practice the language. During group work or pair work, teachers circulate, provide students with help and explanation based on their individual needs. Demir (2012, p.21) share the same belief that to be student-centered, we can't disregard requests from students to explain complex, difficult-to-understand concepts in their original language, even if their perspectives on language acquisition are, in our opinion, outdated. Indeed, we don't have, or rather, can't, satisfy all of their wishes, we'll have to explain why we can't fulfill some of their demands. Nevertheless, if we want to establish a pleasant learning environment, some compromise is required.”