Arguments for first language usage

In recent years increasing attention has been given to first language usage in foreign language or second language teaching and numerous studies give judicious reasons for incorporating the first language in foreign language or second language teaching (Cook, 2001; Macaro, 2001; Moore, 2002; Nation, 1997; Obler, 1982; Skinner, 1985). Some researchers changed their attitudes from banning the first language to admitting its merits in second or foreign language learning and teaching, as Willis (1996) summarised: “Don’t ban mother-tongue use but encourage attempts to use the target language” (p. 130).

As outlined in the previous section, the arguments against using the first language were, firstly, that target language learning should resemble first language acquisition, thus sufficient target language input should be ensured; and, secondly, that the first language and the target language were two languages that formed distinct systems in the mind, therefore all interaction in the target language was a must for successful language learning; and the first language should be avoided, otherwise the first language would produce interference. It was believed that the target language should be taught solely, and the first language should be avoided (Chaudron, 1988; Duff &

55 Polio, 1990; Ellis, 1984; Kim & Elder, 2005; Krashen, 1985; Polio & Duff, 1994; Weinreich, 1968).

Others found these arguments ill-grounded: foreign language or second language acquisition could not resemble first language learning (Cook, 2001). Additionally, the first language and the target language were interdependent on each other rather than interfering with each other (Atkinson, 1987; Beauvillain & Grainger, 1987; Cohen, 1998; Cook, 1994; Krashen, 1985; Locastro, 1987; Obler, 1982; Stern, 1992).

Cook (2001) pointed out that foreign language or second language learning could not be equivalent to the first language acquisition. Foreign language or second language learners had more mature mental status, more cognitive development, and higher social skills; hence these learners could express themselves more efficiently than first language learners. He stated that foreign language or second language meanings did not exist separately from the first language meanings in the learner's mind in terms of vocabulary, syntax, phonology and pragmatics. Cook (2001) warned:

Learning an L2 is not just the adding of rooms to your house by building an extension at the back: it is the rebuilding of all internal walls. Trying to put languages in separate compartments in the mind is doomed to failure since the compartments are connected in many ways.(p. 407)

56 input in foreign language or second language classrooms, but there was no need to deny the first language in teaching. He suggested that teachers could incorporate the first language into teaching when sufficient comprehensible target language input existed. Therefore, a failure of comprehension in the target language would lead to the failure of language learning, so using the first language helped to elicit meanings and avoid misunderstandings.

Nation (1997) had the same opinion and believed that first language usage was positive for target language acquisition, as “some learning goals can be achieved and even enhanced if learners use the first language during some parts of an activity”(p.

4). Macaro (2001) argued that the avoidance of the first language resulted in increased usage of input modification (e.g. repetition, speaking more slowly, substituting basic words for more complex ones, and simplifying syntax) and this in turn might bring about negative effects in any interaction, making the discourse less realistic.

From a cognitive perspective, researchers found that the first language could not be excluded from foreign language or second language learning (Cohen, 1998; Macaro, 2000, 2001; Moore, 2002; Skinner, 1985): “The L1-L2 connection is an indisputable fact of life, whether we like it or not the new knowledge is learnt on the basis of the previously acquired language” (Stern, 1992, p. 282). Skinner (1985) stated that

excluding the first language from target language learning was harmful for concept development as students could not connect thoughts and ideas that they had already

57 developed in the first language. In Cohen’s (1998) self-reported study of advanced

learners, many students reported that they still used the first language when thinking even though they were encouraged to think in the target language. Macaro (2000) reported the same finding and suggested that teachers should incorporate the first language into their teaching as the first language could help associate the two languages and reduce students’ memory constraints. Moore (2002) suggested that the first language usage could help enhance students’ linguistic awareness regarding

differences between two linguistic structures. By bringing attention to the differences between the two languages the first language usage could result in new insights into the previous knowledge. According to Atkinson (1987), “Although the mother tongue is not a suitable basis for a methodology, it has, at all levels, a variety of roles to play which are at present consistency undervalued” (p. 247).

Numerous studies have supported first language usage for different purposes. Cook (2001) suggested that the first language could be applied to explain grammar, particularly when grammatical rules in the target language were not present in the first language, and to explain tasks and activities to the students in the first language if it was more expedient. Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) even suggested that first language usage could also help improve the quality of target language input. When the first language was used for translation or contrast, the comprehension of the target language could be improved, and facilitated the target language learning.

58 Atkinson (1987) outlined the ways in which L1 can be used positively in L2 teaching: eliciting language, checking comprehension, giving instructions and promoting cooperation among learners. Cook (2001) has also identified three main areas where L1 may be used positively in the classroom:

 Teachers can use L1 to convey meaning, for example, checking the meaning

of words or sentences or explaining grammar.

 Teachers can use L1 for classroom organisation purposes such as organising

tasks, maintaining discipline or communicating with individual students.  Students can use L1 in their group work or pair work learning activities to

provide scaffolding for each other. (Song, 2009, p. 31)

Some researchers (Bolitho, 1983; Brooks-Lewis, 2009; Guest & Pachler, 2001; Klapper, 1997, 1998; Schweers, 1999; Van Lier, 1995) have argued that first language usage could help create a learner-friendly environment in which target language learning could be facilitated. In traditional target language teaching a total exclusion of the first language was accepted as a guideline for teachers. However, banning the first language might contribute to students’ negative feelings toward the target

language, especially among students with low language proficiency levels (Klapper, 1997, 1998). If the teacher applied students’ first language in the target language teaching, students might feel more confident and motivated. Van Lier (1995) reported that when the first language was used, a supportive foreign language learning environment could be created. Moreover, the first language could be used as a

59 resource in target language teaching to promote students’ confidence in the classroom and to make “learning meaningful and easier” (Brooks-Lewis, 2009, p. 234). Use of

the first language represented perhaps a more realistic multilingual environment rather than pretending that neither the teacher nor the students spoke the first language (Guest & Pachler, 2001). Bolitho (1983) argued that the use of the first language permitted students to express what they really wanted to say in the target language. Schweers (1999) also suggested that the first language usage could improve classroom dynamics: “Starting with L1 provides a sense of security and validates the learners’

lived experiences, allowing them to express themselves. The learner is then willing to experiment and take risks with English” (p. 34).