Arguments against first language usage

The most influential arguments against first language usage in foreign language or second language teaching are based on the rationale that target language acquisition should resemble first language learning. A monolingual child is exposed to various kinds of the first language input; s/he listens, imitates and responds to the surrounding environment. The extensive exposure to first language leads to a successful mastery of the language. Foreign language or second language acquisition was believed to be successful when extensive exposure was ensured, as exposure was vital in the learning of the target language (Cook, 2001). Therefore, foreign language or second language teachers should maximise foreign or second language usage.

This assumption of resemblance between first language acquisition and target language acquisition echoed Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypothesis. Krashen claimed that learners should be exposed to sufficient meaningful and comprehensible target language input to ensure the successful target language acquisition. This hypothesis was highly supported by researchers such as Day (1985):

50 variables in the successful acquisition of the target language – the more often students use or practice the second or foreign language; the more likely they are to learn it. (p. 257)

Researchers began to emphasise the importance of target language input. Ellis (1984) claimed that language teachers should maximise their target language use, using it for a range of functions, including classroom management, so that learners were exposed to authentic language communication. Kim and Elder (2005) agreed that teachers should maximise exposure to the target language input, particularly since the classroom is often the only opportunity for learners to be exposed to the target language. Polio and Duff (1994) also suggested that teachers should use the target language as much as possible to facilitate the target language comprehension. Wong Fillmore (1985) believed that listening to teachers’ target language input was an important part of the target language acquisition processes. Therefore successful target learning could only occur in classrooms where the teacher provided sufficient target language input, not only drill practice but also activity instruction and classroom management (Chaudron, 1988).

The anti-first language researchers believed that first language input would inevitably reduce the amount of the target language and be detrimental to the target language acquisition. Ellis (1984), for example, argued that first language input would “deprive the learners of valuable input” (p. 133) in the target language. Turnbull (1999, 2000)

51 expressed the same concern, arguing that the decline of target language input was the major disadvantage of teachers’ relying on the first language, especially when the

teacher was not fluent in the target language.

The teaching techniques which applied to the first language, such as translation from the target language into the first language, were severely attacked. Krashen (1981) reported that “a high amount of first language influence” (p. 66) was found in

situations where translation exercises were frequent. Many researchers opposed translation between the target language and the first language in the teaching and learning processes. Cummins (2007) emphasised this opposition as the “no translation assumption”:

[…] use of translation as an instructional strategy is typically equated with the concurrent translation method that utilized immediate translation across languages, with the result that students ‘tuned out’ their weaker language and

consequently learned very little of that language. (p. 222)

Arguments against first language usage in foreign language or second language teaching also came from the assumption that the first language would interfere with the target language acquisition. Duff and Polio (1990) argued that first language usage sometimes caused misunderstandings when the teacher did not have a high level of proficiency in the students’ first language. Valuable class time was thus wasted

52 language was considered a negative factor in foreign language or second language learning. If the first language was used, learners might become dependent on their first language, and thus ignore the target language input, which would finally result in a failure in the target language learning (Wong Fillmore, 1985).

Weinreich (1968) argued that the first language and the target language formed two distinct systems in bilinguals’ minds. When the first language was used in the target

language teaching, interference would inevitable occur and be the main impediment to the target language acquisition.

In addition to the interference assumption, opponents of first language usage in foreign language or second language teaching also found support from Long’s (1996)

Interaction Hypothesis. Long claimed that interactions in language learning made in the target language could help enhance target language comprehension. Interaction was the process of meaning exchange and negotiation through which learners could have more chance to make the language input comprehensible and hence facilitate language learning. It was believed that all interactions in the target language classroom, conducted only in the target language, could show the significance of the target language in satisfying learners’ communicative needs. According to Littlewood

(1981):

Many learners are likely to remain unconvinced by our attempts to make them accept the foreign language as an effective means of satisfying their

53 communicative needs, if we abandon it ourselves as soon as such needs arise in the immediate classroom situation. (p. 45)

If students wanted to learn the target language, they needed to communicate through the target language. As Willis (1996) stated, “… explain to students that if they want to communicate in the target language they need to practice”(p. 49). Using the target language for communicative purposes was believed vital for language learning: “Only

through the learner using L2 can s/he achieve strategic communicative competence” (Macaro, 2001, p. 183). Speaking activities were essential for language learning, especially for enhancing oral proficiency. If interactions were not carried out in the target language, students’ oral proficiency would not develop efficiently or effectively.

Polio and Duff’s (1994) study also showed that learners could have more opportunity

to learn how to negotiate the meaning and interact with other learners in the target language when the teacher’s discourse was in the target language. If the teacher used

the first language for interactions, students might lose the chance to learn how to express themselves, how to negotiate language meanings, and how to solve problems occurred in the learning processes. Thus first language usage would be a hindrance to successful target language acquisition. However, some teachers resorted to using students’ first language because they were concerned that students might not

comprehend the meaning of their statements, and the teachers wanted to make sure students understood what they were talking about in the classroom. Polio and Duff

54 (1994) and Chambers (1991) pointed out that students did not need to understand every word said by their teachers, as in the real language environment people did not need to understand everything told to them.