2.4 Views on using L1 and L2 in grammar teaching
2.4.1 Arguments for avoiding the First Language
“The origin of avoiding the first language in EFL classroom can be traced back in the prevalence of the methods used in language teaching. Grammar- Translation method encourages using L1 and translation as a medium of instruction. Meanwhile, the dominance of Direct method, Natural approach and Audio-Lingual and Audio-Visual method in grammar teaching from the late nineteenth century flatly refuses the use of any L1 in an L2 classroom. From the direct method to the Audio-lingual method to Task-based learning, they have emphasized that the less the first language is utilized in the classroom, the better the instruction. The mother tongue was explicitly rejected in the early days, a relic of the late nineteenth-century language education innovations. Later, aside from occasional suggestions on how to avoid it, such as in Task-based learning for beginners, the first language was rarely acknowledged as a tool for the classroom. For example, according to Franklin (1990), 90% of instructors believe that teaching in the target language is crucial. This is emphasized in the UK
17
National Curriculum, which includes dicta like: “The natural use of the target language for virtually all communication is a sure sign of a good modern language course” (DES, 1990, p. 58). “Although the popular teaching methods of the twentieth century vary in many ways, they almost always avoided using the learners' first language in the classroom. With his Natural Approach to language acquisition, Steven Krashen (2003) claimed that students develop their second language very much in the same way they acquire their first, and that therefore L2 is best learned through huge quantities of exposure to the language and limited time spent using L1. This convinced academics and practitioners that L1 should be completely excluded from L2 classes.”
“Cook (2016, p.192) explained an argument of avoiding L1 is that the language used by the teacher can serve as a model for authentic communicative usage of the second language. For example, using the target language to explain grammar such” as “When you want to communicate about something that is still relevant to the present moment, use the present perfect” provides genuine information to the student. The leaners are given real directions to follow when they are told to "turn your chairs around so that you are in groups of four."
“Hearing it in L1 would deprive the pupils of true engagement and interaction opportunities of the second language. However, Cook argued that the use of the second language during the course may make the class appear less authentic in many cases. Instead of acting like actual L2 users, the pupils just unnaturally imitate native speakers of the second language.”
“Another common argument from many opponents of using L1 were also reported by Cook (2016, p.192) that it does not happen when learning the native language. Except in the case of early simultaneous bilingualism, children learning their first language have no backup language to fall back on. Therefore, L2 learners should learn the second language in the same way that children do, without having to refer to another language. As a result, in learners' mind, the two languages should be maintained separate. It is usually believed that when students do not learn a language in its natural environment, they attempt to
18
translate L2 objects into their mother tongue, and they are unable to think in the target language. The use of the L1 in language teaching makes students reliant on it, and they do not bother to try to interpret meaning from context and teachers' explanation, or express themselves in the target language despite their limited command of it. In terms of practical applications, there is a risk of turning the educational process into” “teaching about grammar, not teaching grammar”.
(Demir 2012, p.23). “To fully develop a second language, you must first learn to utilize it independently of the first and then to 'think' in it. As a result, anything that maintains the two languages apart is advantageous to L2 learning. (Cook, 2016, p.193)”
“On the other hand, Cook argued that SLA research does not support either of these arguments. Because both learning processes occur in the same human mind, there are significant parallels between first and second language acquisition. The very obvious variations in age and situation can have an impact on these processes. The existence of another language in the consciousness of a second language learner is an unchangeable distinction from first language acquisition: the two processes cannot be equated. If the use of the first language in the classroom is to be avoided, it must be for other reasons rather than how children learn their first language. If there is no convincing reason to avoid using the first language in the classroom other than to provide pupils as much exposure to the second language as feasible, it may be more beneficial to use the first language when necessary (p.196). As Willis (1996, p. 130) stated, instead of prohibiting the use of one's native tongue, it would be better to encourage more use of the target language.” Similarly, Demir (2012, p.21) shared the same opinion that “The position of the majority of teachers turned out to be both communicative and pragmatic instead of already “traditional” total exclusion of L1 from the educational process.” “When twenty-first-century education is to keep accepting the late-nineteenth-century prohibition on the first language, it will be necessary to search elsewhere for its justification.” As Swain and Lapkin (2000, p.268) put it, “To insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an
19
important cognitive tool.” “The use of the L1 in immersion programs should not be banned, but it should not be deliberately encouraged either, as that might substitute for rather than support second language learning.”