The Use of the Mother Tongue to Teach a Second / Foreign Language
The issue this article is going to tackle is whether or not the use of students’ L1 in the classroom by the teacher, the students, or both, hinders the learning of a second / foreign language (in our case English) or, on the opposite, can facilitate it. This debate, as our Egyptian colleague Shaima Nasr said, is not a new one. Still, there has been little research which has measured the exact effects of L1 use in the English classroom due to the difficult nature of measuring, and gathering evidence to answer such a complicated question.
When we surf the Internet, we find that proponents of the English-only policy are referred to as the Monolingual Approach. Those advocating the use of L1 in the classroom are known as the Bilingual Approach.
So, what are the reasons that supporters of the Monolingual Approach advance to justify the English-only policy? And what arguments do supporters of the Bilingual Approach offer to rationalize the use of L1 to teach L2?
Support for the Monolingual Approach:
There is a strong support for the Monolingual Approach to teaching in the literature and advocates usually organize their support around three claims:
1- The learning of an L2 should model the learning of an L1 through maximum exposure to the L2.
2- Successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2.
3- Students should be shown the importance of L2 through its continual use.
The Monolingual Approach considers that L2 acquisition is similar to L1 acquisition, which is mainly based on the notion of exposure as being the determining factor for learning. Children learn their first language through listening and copying what people around them say, and, undoubtedly, exposure to the language is vital in the development of their linguistic skills. The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) generally favored a monolingual approach with learners for similar reasons, justified on the pretence of maximizing communication in L2.
In regards to the second point, supporters of the Monolingual Approach have stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be dangerous as it encourages the belief that there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the languages, which is not always true. They believe the two languages should be distinct and separate.
According to the Monolingual Approach, it is considered likely that the use of L2 only in the classroom does help demonstrate the L2’s importance and can portray the usage of the language being studied.
Support for the Bilingual Approach:
However, supporters of the Bilingual Approach believe that the use of L1 could be a positive resource for teachers. For them, there is strong evidence that the use of L1 to teach a second / foreign language is popular and students tend to PREFER teachers who speak or, at least, understand their students’ mother language.
Many attempts to discredit the Monolingual Approach have focused on three points:
1- It’s impractical.
2- Native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers.
3- Exposure alone is not sufficient for learning.
Supporters of this approach say that the Monolingual Approach is impractical because of many reasons. The most important one is that to enforce the sole use of English can often lead to a reduced performance on the part of the teachers and the alienation of students from the learning process. They also think that the Monolingual teaching can create tension and a barrier between students and teachers, and there are, for them, many occasions when it’s inappropriate and even impossible to use the language being taught.
The Monolingual Approach also supports the idea of the native teacher as being the ideal teacher. Supporters of the Bilingual Approach see that this is not the case as being a native speaker does not necessarily mean being a better or a more qualified teacher. Actually, non-native teachers are possibly better teachers as they themselves have gone through the process of learning the L2 they are teaching now, thereby acquiring for themselves a perspective on learning the language.
Another problem with the Monolingual Approach is its belief that exposure to language leads to learning. Excluding students for the sake of maximizing their exposure to the L2 is not necessarily productive. Obviously, the quantity of exposure is important, but other factors such as the quality of the text material, the well trained teacher and sound methods of teaching are more important than the amount of exposure to L2.
Some researchers have attempted to demonstrate the positive effects of using L1 and have categorized when it should be used. These categories can be summarized as follow:
1- Students should be allowed to express themselves, and while they are still learning a language it is natural that they will periodically slip back to their mother tongue.
2- Students will naturally equate what they are learning with their L1. So, trying to eliminate this process will only have negative consequences and impede learning.
3- The use of L1 to explain grammar is acceptable, especially with beginners.
4- It’s also suggested to use L1 in situations such as eliciting language, checking comprehension, giving instructions and helping learners cooperate with each other.
Harold, 1992, concluded that there are three reasons for using L1 in the classroom.
Ø Facilitating communication.
Ø Facilitating teacher-student relationships.
Ø Facilitating the learning of L2.
In conclusion, researchers have found that evidence for the practice of English-only policy is neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound. In fact, it is often harmful to the learning process. The findings presented above indicate that the use of L1 to teach a second / foreign language can be effective and is even necessary in some situations. However, while arguing for the option of using L1 in the classroom, most researchers have at the same time cautioned against the overuse of it. They believe that this can create an over reliance on the mother language, oversimplify differences between the two languages and create laziness among students.
Therefore, dear Moroccan, Jordanian and Egyptian colleagues, we are allowed to use Arabic to teach English to our students, but we have to show great caution and attention in doing that. A good teacher is the one who knows when, how and how much Arabic he should use to reach his objective, which is making his students able to communicate in English.
References:
§ Cook, V (2001). Using the First Language in the Classroom, in the Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne des Langue Vivantes.
§ Lewis, M (1993). The Lexical Approach. Language Teaching Publication: London.
§ Mitchell, R (1988). Communicative Language Teaching: in Practice CILT: London.
§ Harold, J (1993). The Use of the Mother Tongue in the classroom. ELT Journals.
§ Schweers, Jr, C.W. (1999). Using L1 in the classroom. Forum 37.
The issue this article is going to tackle is whether or not the use of students’ L1 in the classroom by the teacher, the students, or both, hinders the learning of a second / foreign language (in our case English) or, on the opposite, can facilitate it. This debate, as our Egyptian colleague Shaima Nasr said, is not a new one. Still, there has been little research which has measured the exact effects of L1 use in the English classroom due to the difficult nature of measuring, and gathering evidence to answer such a complicated question.
When we surf the Internet, we find that proponents of the English-only policy are referred to as the Monolingual Approach. Those advocating the use of L1 in the classroom are known as the Bilingual Approach.
So, what are the reasons that supporters of the Monolingual Approach advance to justify the English-only policy? And what arguments do supporters of the Bilingual Approach offer to rationalize the use of L1 to teach L2?
Support for the Monolingual Approach:
There is a strong support for the Monolingual Approach to teaching in the literature and advocates usually organize their support around three claims:
1- The learning of an L2 should model the learning of an L1 through maximum exposure to the L2.
2- Successful learning involves the separation and distinction of L1 and L2.
3- Students should be shown the importance of L2 through its continual use.
The Monolingual Approach considers that L2 acquisition is similar to L1 acquisition, which is mainly based on the notion of exposure as being the determining factor for learning. Children learn their first language through listening and copying what people around them say, and, undoubtedly, exposure to the language is vital in the development of their linguistic skills. The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) generally favored a monolingual approach with learners for similar reasons, justified on the pretence of maximizing communication in L2.
In regards to the second point, supporters of the Monolingual Approach have stated that translating between L1 and L2 can be dangerous as it encourages the belief that there are 1 to 1 equivalents between the languages, which is not always true. They believe the two languages should be distinct and separate.
According to the Monolingual Approach, it is considered likely that the use of L2 only in the classroom does help demonstrate the L2’s importance and can portray the usage of the language being studied.
Support for the Bilingual Approach:
However, supporters of the Bilingual Approach believe that the use of L1 could be a positive resource for teachers. For them, there is strong evidence that the use of L1 to teach a second / foreign language is popular and students tend to PREFER teachers who speak or, at least, understand their students’ mother language.
Many attempts to discredit the Monolingual Approach have focused on three points:
1- It’s impractical.
2- Native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers.
3- Exposure alone is not sufficient for learning.
Supporters of this approach say that the Monolingual Approach is impractical because of many reasons. The most important one is that to enforce the sole use of English can often lead to a reduced performance on the part of the teachers and the alienation of students from the learning process. They also think that the Monolingual teaching can create tension and a barrier between students and teachers, and there are, for them, many occasions when it’s inappropriate and even impossible to use the language being taught.
The Monolingual Approach also supports the idea of the native teacher as being the ideal teacher. Supporters of the Bilingual Approach see that this is not the case as being a native speaker does not necessarily mean being a better or a more qualified teacher. Actually, non-native teachers are possibly better teachers as they themselves have gone through the process of learning the L2 they are teaching now, thereby acquiring for themselves a perspective on learning the language.
Another problem with the Monolingual Approach is its belief that exposure to language leads to learning. Excluding students for the sake of maximizing their exposure to the L2 is not necessarily productive. Obviously, the quantity of exposure is important, but other factors such as the quality of the text material, the well trained teacher and sound methods of teaching are more important than the amount of exposure to L2.
Some researchers have attempted to demonstrate the positive effects of using L1 and have categorized when it should be used. These categories can be summarized as follow:
1- Students should be allowed to express themselves, and while they are still learning a language it is natural that they will periodically slip back to their mother tongue.
2- Students will naturally equate what they are learning with their L1. So, trying to eliminate this process will only have negative consequences and impede learning.
3- The use of L1 to explain grammar is acceptable, especially with beginners.
4- It’s also suggested to use L1 in situations such as eliciting language, checking comprehension, giving instructions and helping learners cooperate with each other.
Harold, 1992, concluded that there are three reasons for using L1 in the classroom.
Ø Facilitating communication.
Ø Facilitating teacher-student relationships.
Ø Facilitating the learning of L2.
In conclusion, researchers have found that evidence for the practice of English-only policy is neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound. In fact, it is often harmful to the learning process. The findings presented above indicate that the use of L1 to teach a second / foreign language can be effective and is even necessary in some situations. However, while arguing for the option of using L1 in the classroom, most researchers have at the same time cautioned against the overuse of it. They believe that this can create an over reliance on the mother language, oversimplify differences between the two languages and create laziness among students.
Therefore, dear Moroccan, Jordanian and Egyptian colleagues, we are allowed to use Arabic to teach English to our students, but we have to show great caution and attention in doing that. A good teacher is the one who knows when, how and how much Arabic he should use to reach his objective, which is making his students able to communicate in English.
References:
§ Cook, V (2001). Using the First Language in the Classroom, in the Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne des Langue Vivantes.
§ Lewis, M (1993). The Lexical Approach. Language Teaching Publication: London.
§ Mitchell, R (1988). Communicative Language Teaching: in Practice CILT: London.
§ Harold, J (1993). The Use of the Mother Tongue in the classroom. ELT Journals.
§ Schweers, Jr, C.W. (1999). Using L1 in the classroom. Forum 37.
