Friday, 20 October 2017
Sunday, 15 October 2017
Tuesday, 25 July 2017
Wednesday, 19 July 2017
Tuesday, 18 July 2017
Monday, 17 July 2017
TO USE OR NOT TO USE MOTHER TONGUE IN ELT CLASSROOMS,
KAMAL EBRAHIMI KAVARI Ph.D Scholar, Department of English and Cultural Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
ABSTRACT
The debate over whether or not to use the learners’ mother tongue (native language or first language or L1) inside the English language teaching (ELT) classrooms has always been the topic of discussion for various people involved in the field. While some researchers claim that such use may lead to more dependence of ESL/EFL learners on their L1 that may impede the progress of mastering the target language, on the flip side, others argue that the use of ESL/EFL learners’ L1 may expedite the process of teaching and learning the target language as the teachers can explain complex ideas and rules more effectively in learners’ L1 saving a lot of time. This use can also assist the ESL/EFL learners in acquiring and mastering target language vocabulary. Bearing in mind such counter arguments, the current paper aims to investigate when to use native language in a class, how to use it to promote learning process, advantages and disadvantages of using native language in ELT classroom, how to encourage students to use L2 appropriately, arguments against and in favor of teacher use of students’ MT in ELT classes and advantages and disadvantages of using MT in ELT classes. Keywords: L1 (First Language, Mother Tongue or Native Language), L2 (Second Language or English Language), ELT (English Language Teaching) _________________________________________________________________________ 1.Introduction
The use of learners’ mother tongue (MT) in the ELT classrooms has been one of the main controversial academic issues for many years (Alseweed, 2012; Hisham Salah & Hakim Farrah, 2012; de la Campa & Nassaji 2009; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Tang, 2002). Some theorists prescribe the monolingual approach in the EFL classroom. The proponents of this approach attribute success in a foreign language to L2 input alone. Therefore, if teachers use L1, they deprive learners of the opportunity to receive input in the target language (Kellerman, 1995; Krashen, 1981; Weschler, 1997). They argue that the process of L2 learning is similar to a child’s L1 learning and L2 should be “largely acquired rather than consciously learned, from message-oriented experience of its use” (Mitchell, 1988 as cited in de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009, p. 2). There are, on the other hand, language experts and educators who are in favor of the bilingual approach in L2 classes, viewing the use of L1 as essential for L2 instruction and learning (Cook, 2001; Dedrinos, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Nation, 2003). In support of their position, they adduce both cognitive and psychological reasons. From a cognitive point of view, they assert that adult learners who have already acquired their L1 are ‘sophisticated individuals’ (Cook, 2001 as cited in de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009). L1 is part of their experience and world knowledge which, as an important cognitive tool, can help them in carrying out L2 tasks that are linguistically and cognitively complex (Swain & Lapkin, 2000 as cited in Machaal, 2012). In addition, the use of L1 decreases the psychological obstacles to language learning and allows for a more rapid progression. Janulevicine and Kavlaliauskiene (2002 as cited in Beressa, 2003, p. 29) assert that “the ability to SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 207 http://www.prj.co.in switch to a native language, even for a shorter time, gives learners an opportunity to preserve self –image, get rid of anxiety, build confidence and feel independent in their choice of expression”. Next part of the present paper catches a glimpse of short history of attitudes change toward the MT use. Change of attitudes over time towards the use of the MT For over 120 years, the prevailing attitude in FL teaching has been anti-MT and discouraging of the use of students’ MT in language teaching (Cook, 2001). The main principle of FL teaching was monolingual or intra-lingual, rather than cross-lingual (Cook, 2001). The prevailing method of instruction was the Direct Method, which did not encourage the use of comparative analysis between the MT and the FL. MT-free lessons were a “badge of honor” (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009, p. 24). Translation had pejorative overtones in teaching and was often avoided. Only more recently have researchers concluded that “translation provides an easy avenue to enhance linguistic awareness” (Cook, 2001). They recognized the importance of comparative analysis between the MT and the FL and that the FL does not aim at substituting for the MT. This paradigm shift to the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis has occurred recently (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Cummins, 2007) and indicates a welcoming attitude to teacher usage of students’ MT in teaching. However, in practice, the “judicious and principled use” of MT (Turnbull, 2001, p. 536) remains an unresolved issue; teachers often feel guilty for straying from the path of teaching using only the FL and feel the use of the MT is professionally inappropriate (Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Swain, Kirkpatrick, & Cummins, 2011). The following parts of the current paper discuss the arguments against and in favor of use of MT in ELT classes respectively. Arguments against teacher use of students’ MT in FL classes Arguments against teachers using students’ MT are mainly pedagogically based. Turnbull (2001), in his response to Cook (2001), mentions that students do not benefit when teachers over-rely on using their students’ MT, particularly when the EFL teacher is the sole linguistic model and main source of FL input. Classroom situations can create various experiences for students such as real-life situations through simulations (McDonald, 1993); if the teacher uses the MT to a great extent, students may lose the chance to benefit from these situations. In addition, teachers who overuse their students’ MT deprive these learners of an important language process in which students try to make sense of what is being said in class (Ellis, 1994). The use of the FL in class influences students’ achievements and proficiency in FL because of the experiences they gain in class. In addition to pedagogical factors, followers of the monolingual principle support the compartmentalized language pedagogy that inhibits the interdependent nature of the MT and the FL. Hence, they perceive the introduction of the MT in FL teaching as an inhibitive factor. The three assumptions of the monolingual principle in FL teaching as reflected in Howatt’s (1984) history of teaching EFL are: (a) FL teaching should be done exclusively in the FL; (b) translation between the MT and the FL should be avoided; and (c) in bilingual programs, the two languages should be kept separate. Arguments in Favor of Teacher Use of Students’ MT in FL Classes The issue of teacher use of students’ MT in FL teaching has been explored with a variety of languages and mainly relates to the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, to universal principles of foreign language acquisition, and multi-linguistic models. Studies on the transfer between the MT and the FL indicate a linguistic interdependence (Jessner & Cenoz, 2000) with regard to multiple subsystems (phonological, syntactic, semantic, and textual) within the MT and FL systems (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). Bouvy (2000) supported the theory of cross- linguistic transfer with regard to literacy skills. Similarly, Hauptman, Mansur, and Tal (2008) used a trilingual model for literacy skills among Bedouins in Israel whose MT is Arabic and found that it “created a support system for SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 208 http://www.prj.co.in Arabic, the mother tongue, through English [FL] and Hebrew [MT2].” Other researchers stated that the MT catalyzes the intake process of the FL (e.g., Ellis, 1994), as well as saves time and enhances understanding (Turnbull, 2001). Cook argued that a “systematic use” (2002, p. 403) of the MT would minimize the guilty feelings of teachers when using their students’ MT. Cook (2002, p. 23) also argued that “given the appropriate environment, two languages are as normal as two lungs.” A number of psycho-linguistic arguments contribute to the stance that advocates teacher use of students’ MT: 1. Teacher use of the MT cannot present a threat to FL acquisition because learners already have a language basis from their MT. Because of this basis, learners are more socially developed and have more short-term memory capacity and more maturity when they become acquainted with the FL (Cook, 2002). Therefore, there is no competition between their MT and FL. 2. The belief in the 20th century was that the MT and the FL make distinct systems in the brain. However, evidence shows that languages are interwoven in the brain in vocabulary, syntax, phonology, and pragmatics. Therefore, FL teaching should match the invisible processes in the brain and should not be separated from the MT, assuming that the ability to transfer between languages (code-switch) is a normal psycho-linguistic process (Cook, 1996; 1997). 3. The process of foreign language acquisition involves cognitive, social, and emotional factors that are inseparable and equally related to the MT and the FL. After elaborating on the arguments against and in favor of MT use in ELT classes, the researcher intends to shed some light on advantages and disadvantages of using students’ MT in ELT classes. Advantages and disadvantages of using L1 in ELT classes The advantages of using the mother tongue cannot be disregarded. Al- Hinai (2011: 1) highlighted some advantages of using L1 by summarizing researchers’ ideas as below: 1. It reduces learner anxiety and creates a more relaxing learning environment, 2. It is a means of bringing the learners’ cultural background knowledge into the class, 3. It facilitates checking understanding and giving instructions, 4. It facilitates the task of explaining the meaning of abstract words and of introducing the main differences in grammar and pronunciation between L1 and L2. Secondly, the other advantages summarized by Butzkamm (2003) were mentioned in the article of Jadallah & Hasan (2011: 6) as shown below: 1. L1 use gives a sense of security and helps learners to be stress-free. 2. A foreign language friendly asset people bring to the task of FL learning. 3. The use of the L1 saves learners from a feeling of frustration they might have within their FL learning. 4. L1 techniques allow teachers to use richer and more authentic texts, which mean more comprehensible input and faster acquisition. 5. All-newly-acquired FL items have to sink roots in our minds which are eventually deep enough for the items to function independently of the L1”. Furthermore, based on the researcher’s experience, in addition to the a b o v e m e n t i o n e d advantages presented for the use of native language of the learners inside the classroom in some situations other benefits can be listed below: - Native language saves great deal of time - Helps clarify the meaning of difficult words SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 209 http://www.prj.co.in - Prevents the misunderstanding of the meaning of new word - Helps to explain grammar rules - Provides a sense of security and confidence - Provides a better possibility to give instructions more effectively The arguments presented by the students to justify the use of the native language inside the classroom for teaching and learning ESL include: - Native language gives a sense of security and helps feel less stressful - By being able to use both languages they are less confused - They feel the need to express their ideas and thoughts in their own language - They prefer translating difficult context and words - They feel necessary the teacher’s use of native language in grammar explanations In fact, there is no fixed rule that you should never use native language in English class and it cannot be rejected since it fulfills certain functions and purposes for the learners. L1 can also be beneficial to maintain communication in the classroom. The students express themselves in English when they fail to understand and when they want to clarify the meaning of a word in L2 and express themselves in English. Salah, (2011), referring to Harbord (1992: 22) stated that “students use their L1 to speak to the teacher when they are quite incapable of expressing what they mean". Wharton (2007: 12) described L1 as a “time saving device”. He also shared the ideas of Atkinson (1987), Green (1979) and Tudor (1987) that “translation, or mother tongue use, is often encouraged as an efficient, timesaving technique; supported by ELT professionals.” (cited in Wharton, 2007: 12) Despite the advantages of using L1, it is nonetheless indicated that there are disadvantages of overusing mother tongue in foreign language classrooms. Overusing L1 causes using L2 less. The students feel dependent on their mother tongue. Rolin-Ianziti & Vrshney (2008) emphasized that “without continuous L2 input students tend to lose confident in using the L2 and as a result, lose interest in or are discouraged from participating in future L2 endeavors” (cited in Jones 2010). Atkinson (1987, p. 246) stressed that the following problems of overusing: 1. “The teacher and / or the students begin to feel that they have not ‘really’ understood any item of language until it has been translated. 2. The teacher and / or the students fail to observe the distinctions between equivalence of form, semantic equivalence, and pragmatic features, and thus oversimplify to the point of using crude and inaccurate translation. 3. Students speak to the teacher in the mother tongue as a matter of course, even when they quite capable of expressing what they mean. 4. Students fail to realize that during many activities in the classroom it is essential that they use only English”. Encouraging L2 use In classes where learners all share the same first language or national language, teachers need to use a range of options to encourage learners to use the L2 as much as possible (Nation 1997). The following range of options is based on the idea that there are several reasons why learners use the L1 when they should be using the L2. These reasons include low proficiency in the L2, the naturalness of using the L2 to do certain jobs, shyness in using the L2, or simply a lack of interest in learning the L2. Here are some of the ways of dealing with these obstacles to L2 use. SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 210 http://www.prj.co.in 1. Choose manageable tasks that are within the learners' proficiency. 2. Prepare learners for tasks by preteaching the language items and skills needed. 3. Use staged and graded tasks that bring learners up to the level required. 4. Get learners to pretend to be English speakers. 5. Make the L2 an unavoidable part of the task. Retelling activities, strip stories, completion activities, and role plays all require the use of the L2. 6. Repeat tasks to make them easier. 7. Inform learners of the learning goals of each task so that they can see how using the L2 will help them achieve a clear short term learning goal. 8. Discuss with the learners the value of using the L2 in class. 9. Get learners to discuss the reasons why they avoid using the L2 and get them to suggest solutions to encourage L2 use. 10. Set up a monitoring system to remind learners to use the L2. In group work speaking tasks this can involve giving one learner in each group the role of reminding others to use the L2. 11. Use non-threatening tasks. Learners can choose their own groups, the teacher can stay out of the groups, allow learners to prepare well for the tasks, don't use tasks that put learners in embarrassing situations, and choose interesting, non-threatening topics. If encouraging L2 use is a problem, several of these different solutions may need to be used. These solutions cover a range of affective, cognitive, and resource approaches and thus can be seen as complementary rather than as alternatives. In some countries, English and the L1 are in competition with each other and the use of English increases at the expense of the L1. Teachers need to show respect for the learners' L1 and need to avoid doing things that make the L1 seem inferior to English. At the same time, it is the English teacher's job to help learners develop their proficiency in English. Thus, a balanced approach is needed which sees a role for the L1 but also recognizes the importance of maximizing L2 use in the classroom.
Conclusions
The use of native language in ELT classes has been discussed for a long time. One of the problems that teachers sometimes face with students who all share the same native language is that they use their native language rather than English to perform classroom tasks. This may be because they want to communicate something important, and so they use language in the best way they know. They will almost certainly find speaking in their language a lot easier than struggling with English.
Regarding the use of the native language in English classroom, it is important to find out how students themselves feel about it.
I feel bad in my mind because I wonder why I can’t speak English very well. My English appear is not good enough; I can’t express very well. I always feel nervous when speaking English.
These kinds of statements are often declared by foreign learners and often heard by teachers and this indicates to an important issue that needs to be discussed. Here are some ideas presented by a well-known British linguist G. Cook (Cook, 2007): SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 211 http://www.prj.co.in
‘The ESL classroom cannot follow the motto “One nation, one people, one language”. The importance is highlighted even more by the fact that the students’ culture is part of their language and by neglecting their language, the teacher, in a monolingual classroom, neglects their culture which leads to the danger of neglecting their identity as well. What is more, there is no valid database that could confirm the standpoint that the monolingual approach in teaching is the best one. The disregard of the students’ mother tongue can in fact de-motivate the students and be counterproductive. Therefore, there is neither a scientific nor a pedagogic reason to exclude L1 from the teaching process”
KAMAL EBRAHIMI KAVARI Ph.D Scholar, Department of English and Cultural Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
ABSTRACT
The debate over whether or not to use the learners’ mother tongue (native language or first language or L1) inside the English language teaching (ELT) classrooms has always been the topic of discussion for various people involved in the field. While some researchers claim that such use may lead to more dependence of ESL/EFL learners on their L1 that may impede the progress of mastering the target language, on the flip side, others argue that the use of ESL/EFL learners’ L1 may expedite the process of teaching and learning the target language as the teachers can explain complex ideas and rules more effectively in learners’ L1 saving a lot of time. This use can also assist the ESL/EFL learners in acquiring and mastering target language vocabulary. Bearing in mind such counter arguments, the current paper aims to investigate when to use native language in a class, how to use it to promote learning process, advantages and disadvantages of using native language in ELT classroom, how to encourage students to use L2 appropriately, arguments against and in favor of teacher use of students’ MT in ELT classes and advantages and disadvantages of using MT in ELT classes. Keywords: L1 (First Language, Mother Tongue or Native Language), L2 (Second Language or English Language), ELT (English Language Teaching) _________________________________________________________________________ 1.Introduction
The use of learners’ mother tongue (MT) in the ELT classrooms has been one of the main controversial academic issues for many years (Alseweed, 2012; Hisham Salah & Hakim Farrah, 2012; de la Campa & Nassaji 2009; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Tang, 2002). Some theorists prescribe the monolingual approach in the EFL classroom. The proponents of this approach attribute success in a foreign language to L2 input alone. Therefore, if teachers use L1, they deprive learners of the opportunity to receive input in the target language (Kellerman, 1995; Krashen, 1981; Weschler, 1997). They argue that the process of L2 learning is similar to a child’s L1 learning and L2 should be “largely acquired rather than consciously learned, from message-oriented experience of its use” (Mitchell, 1988 as cited in de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009, p. 2). There are, on the other hand, language experts and educators who are in favor of the bilingual approach in L2 classes, viewing the use of L1 as essential for L2 instruction and learning (Cook, 2001; Dedrinos, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2011; Nation, 2003). In support of their position, they adduce both cognitive and psychological reasons. From a cognitive point of view, they assert that adult learners who have already acquired their L1 are ‘sophisticated individuals’ (Cook, 2001 as cited in de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009). L1 is part of their experience and world knowledge which, as an important cognitive tool, can help them in carrying out L2 tasks that are linguistically and cognitively complex (Swain & Lapkin, 2000 as cited in Machaal, 2012). In addition, the use of L1 decreases the psychological obstacles to language learning and allows for a more rapid progression. Janulevicine and Kavlaliauskiene (2002 as cited in Beressa, 2003, p. 29) assert that “the ability to SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 207 http://www.prj.co.in switch to a native language, even for a shorter time, gives learners an opportunity to preserve self –image, get rid of anxiety, build confidence and feel independent in their choice of expression”. Next part of the present paper catches a glimpse of short history of attitudes change toward the MT use. Change of attitudes over time towards the use of the MT For over 120 years, the prevailing attitude in FL teaching has been anti-MT and discouraging of the use of students’ MT in language teaching (Cook, 2001). The main principle of FL teaching was monolingual or intra-lingual, rather than cross-lingual (Cook, 2001). The prevailing method of instruction was the Direct Method, which did not encourage the use of comparative analysis between the MT and the FL. MT-free lessons were a “badge of honor” (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009, p. 24). Translation had pejorative overtones in teaching and was often avoided. Only more recently have researchers concluded that “translation provides an easy avenue to enhance linguistic awareness” (Cook, 2001). They recognized the importance of comparative analysis between the MT and the FL and that the FL does not aim at substituting for the MT. This paradigm shift to the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis has occurred recently (Butzkamm & Caldwell, 2009; Cummins, 2007) and indicates a welcoming attitude to teacher usage of students’ MT in teaching. However, in practice, the “judicious and principled use” of MT (Turnbull, 2001, p. 536) remains an unresolved issue; teachers often feel guilty for straying from the path of teaching using only the FL and feel the use of the MT is professionally inappropriate (Littlewood & Yu, 2011; Swain, Kirkpatrick, & Cummins, 2011). The following parts of the current paper discuss the arguments against and in favor of use of MT in ELT classes respectively. Arguments against teacher use of students’ MT in FL classes Arguments against teachers using students’ MT are mainly pedagogically based. Turnbull (2001), in his response to Cook (2001), mentions that students do not benefit when teachers over-rely on using their students’ MT, particularly when the EFL teacher is the sole linguistic model and main source of FL input. Classroom situations can create various experiences for students such as real-life situations through simulations (McDonald, 1993); if the teacher uses the MT to a great extent, students may lose the chance to benefit from these situations. In addition, teachers who overuse their students’ MT deprive these learners of an important language process in which students try to make sense of what is being said in class (Ellis, 1994). The use of the FL in class influences students’ achievements and proficiency in FL because of the experiences they gain in class. In addition to pedagogical factors, followers of the monolingual principle support the compartmentalized language pedagogy that inhibits the interdependent nature of the MT and the FL. Hence, they perceive the introduction of the MT in FL teaching as an inhibitive factor. The three assumptions of the monolingual principle in FL teaching as reflected in Howatt’s (1984) history of teaching EFL are: (a) FL teaching should be done exclusively in the FL; (b) translation between the MT and the FL should be avoided; and (c) in bilingual programs, the two languages should be kept separate. Arguments in Favor of Teacher Use of Students’ MT in FL Classes The issue of teacher use of students’ MT in FL teaching has been explored with a variety of languages and mainly relates to the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, to universal principles of foreign language acquisition, and multi-linguistic models. Studies on the transfer between the MT and the FL indicate a linguistic interdependence (Jessner & Cenoz, 2000) with regard to multiple subsystems (phonological, syntactic, semantic, and textual) within the MT and FL systems (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). Bouvy (2000) supported the theory of cross- linguistic transfer with regard to literacy skills. Similarly, Hauptman, Mansur, and Tal (2008) used a trilingual model for literacy skills among Bedouins in Israel whose MT is Arabic and found that it “created a support system for SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 208 http://www.prj.co.in Arabic, the mother tongue, through English [FL] and Hebrew [MT2].” Other researchers stated that the MT catalyzes the intake process of the FL (e.g., Ellis, 1994), as well as saves time and enhances understanding (Turnbull, 2001). Cook argued that a “systematic use” (2002, p. 403) of the MT would minimize the guilty feelings of teachers when using their students’ MT. Cook (2002, p. 23) also argued that “given the appropriate environment, two languages are as normal as two lungs.” A number of psycho-linguistic arguments contribute to the stance that advocates teacher use of students’ MT: 1. Teacher use of the MT cannot present a threat to FL acquisition because learners already have a language basis from their MT. Because of this basis, learners are more socially developed and have more short-term memory capacity and more maturity when they become acquainted with the FL (Cook, 2002). Therefore, there is no competition between their MT and FL. 2. The belief in the 20th century was that the MT and the FL make distinct systems in the brain. However, evidence shows that languages are interwoven in the brain in vocabulary, syntax, phonology, and pragmatics. Therefore, FL teaching should match the invisible processes in the brain and should not be separated from the MT, assuming that the ability to transfer between languages (code-switch) is a normal psycho-linguistic process (Cook, 1996; 1997). 3. The process of foreign language acquisition involves cognitive, social, and emotional factors that are inseparable and equally related to the MT and the FL. After elaborating on the arguments against and in favor of MT use in ELT classes, the researcher intends to shed some light on advantages and disadvantages of using students’ MT in ELT classes. Advantages and disadvantages of using L1 in ELT classes The advantages of using the mother tongue cannot be disregarded. Al- Hinai (2011: 1) highlighted some advantages of using L1 by summarizing researchers’ ideas as below: 1. It reduces learner anxiety and creates a more relaxing learning environment, 2. It is a means of bringing the learners’ cultural background knowledge into the class, 3. It facilitates checking understanding and giving instructions, 4. It facilitates the task of explaining the meaning of abstract words and of introducing the main differences in grammar and pronunciation between L1 and L2. Secondly, the other advantages summarized by Butzkamm (2003) were mentioned in the article of Jadallah & Hasan (2011: 6) as shown below: 1. L1 use gives a sense of security and helps learners to be stress-free. 2. A foreign language friendly asset people bring to the task of FL learning. 3. The use of the L1 saves learners from a feeling of frustration they might have within their FL learning. 4. L1 techniques allow teachers to use richer and more authentic texts, which mean more comprehensible input and faster acquisition. 5. All-newly-acquired FL items have to sink roots in our minds which are eventually deep enough for the items to function independently of the L1”. Furthermore, based on the researcher’s experience, in addition to the a b o v e m e n t i o n e d advantages presented for the use of native language of the learners inside the classroom in some situations other benefits can be listed below: - Native language saves great deal of time - Helps clarify the meaning of difficult words SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 209 http://www.prj.co.in - Prevents the misunderstanding of the meaning of new word - Helps to explain grammar rules - Provides a sense of security and confidence - Provides a better possibility to give instructions more effectively The arguments presented by the students to justify the use of the native language inside the classroom for teaching and learning ESL include: - Native language gives a sense of security and helps feel less stressful - By being able to use both languages they are less confused - They feel the need to express their ideas and thoughts in their own language - They prefer translating difficult context and words - They feel necessary the teacher’s use of native language in grammar explanations In fact, there is no fixed rule that you should never use native language in English class and it cannot be rejected since it fulfills certain functions and purposes for the learners. L1 can also be beneficial to maintain communication in the classroom. The students express themselves in English when they fail to understand and when they want to clarify the meaning of a word in L2 and express themselves in English. Salah, (2011), referring to Harbord (1992: 22) stated that “students use their L1 to speak to the teacher when they are quite incapable of expressing what they mean". Wharton (2007: 12) described L1 as a “time saving device”. He also shared the ideas of Atkinson (1987), Green (1979) and Tudor (1987) that “translation, or mother tongue use, is often encouraged as an efficient, timesaving technique; supported by ELT professionals.” (cited in Wharton, 2007: 12) Despite the advantages of using L1, it is nonetheless indicated that there are disadvantages of overusing mother tongue in foreign language classrooms. Overusing L1 causes using L2 less. The students feel dependent on their mother tongue. Rolin-Ianziti & Vrshney (2008) emphasized that “without continuous L2 input students tend to lose confident in using the L2 and as a result, lose interest in or are discouraged from participating in future L2 endeavors” (cited in Jones 2010). Atkinson (1987, p. 246) stressed that the following problems of overusing: 1. “The teacher and / or the students begin to feel that they have not ‘really’ understood any item of language until it has been translated. 2. The teacher and / or the students fail to observe the distinctions between equivalence of form, semantic equivalence, and pragmatic features, and thus oversimplify to the point of using crude and inaccurate translation. 3. Students speak to the teacher in the mother tongue as a matter of course, even when they quite capable of expressing what they mean. 4. Students fail to realize that during many activities in the classroom it is essential that they use only English”. Encouraging L2 use In classes where learners all share the same first language or national language, teachers need to use a range of options to encourage learners to use the L2 as much as possible (Nation 1997). The following range of options is based on the idea that there are several reasons why learners use the L1 when they should be using the L2. These reasons include low proficiency in the L2, the naturalness of using the L2 to do certain jobs, shyness in using the L2, or simply a lack of interest in learning the L2. Here are some of the ways of dealing with these obstacles to L2 use. SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 210 http://www.prj.co.in 1. Choose manageable tasks that are within the learners' proficiency. 2. Prepare learners for tasks by preteaching the language items and skills needed. 3. Use staged and graded tasks that bring learners up to the level required. 4. Get learners to pretend to be English speakers. 5. Make the L2 an unavoidable part of the task. Retelling activities, strip stories, completion activities, and role plays all require the use of the L2. 6. Repeat tasks to make them easier. 7. Inform learners of the learning goals of each task so that they can see how using the L2 will help them achieve a clear short term learning goal. 8. Discuss with the learners the value of using the L2 in class. 9. Get learners to discuss the reasons why they avoid using the L2 and get them to suggest solutions to encourage L2 use. 10. Set up a monitoring system to remind learners to use the L2. In group work speaking tasks this can involve giving one learner in each group the role of reminding others to use the L2. 11. Use non-threatening tasks. Learners can choose their own groups, the teacher can stay out of the groups, allow learners to prepare well for the tasks, don't use tasks that put learners in embarrassing situations, and choose interesting, non-threatening topics. If encouraging L2 use is a problem, several of these different solutions may need to be used. These solutions cover a range of affective, cognitive, and resource approaches and thus can be seen as complementary rather than as alternatives. In some countries, English and the L1 are in competition with each other and the use of English increases at the expense of the L1. Teachers need to show respect for the learners' L1 and need to avoid doing things that make the L1 seem inferior to English. At the same time, it is the English teacher's job to help learners develop their proficiency in English. Thus, a balanced approach is needed which sees a role for the L1 but also recognizes the importance of maximizing L2 use in the classroom.
Conclusions
The use of native language in ELT classes has been discussed for a long time. One of the problems that teachers sometimes face with students who all share the same native language is that they use their native language rather than English to perform classroom tasks. This may be because they want to communicate something important, and so they use language in the best way they know. They will almost certainly find speaking in their language a lot easier than struggling with English.
Regarding the use of the native language in English classroom, it is important to find out how students themselves feel about it.
I feel bad in my mind because I wonder why I can’t speak English very well. My English appear is not good enough; I can’t express very well. I always feel nervous when speaking English.
These kinds of statements are often declared by foreign learners and often heard by teachers and this indicates to an important issue that needs to be discussed. Here are some ideas presented by a well-known British linguist G. Cook (Cook, 2007): SAJMR Spectrum: A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 3 Issue 6, June 2014, ISSN 2278-0637, pp. 206-212 Pinnacle Research Journals 211 http://www.prj.co.in
‘The ESL classroom cannot follow the motto “One nation, one people, one language”. The importance is highlighted even more by the fact that the students’ culture is part of their language and by neglecting their language, the teacher, in a monolingual classroom, neglects their culture which leads to the danger of neglecting their identity as well. What is more, there is no valid database that could confirm the standpoint that the monolingual approach in teaching is the best one. The disregard of the students’ mother tongue can in fact de-motivate the students and be counterproductive. Therefore, there is neither a scientific nor a pedagogic reason to exclude L1 from the teaching process”
Saturday, 8 July 2017
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)