Novitas-ROYAL, 2008, Vol.: 2 (2), 138-153. [i]
THE ROLE OF L1 IN L2 ACQUISITION:
ATTITUDES OF IRANIAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Abstract: Learning a second
language in an EFL context requires both students and teachers to cooperate
efficiently and resourcefully. By referring to the current theories of second
language acquisition and reviewing the recent literature, it can be seen that
the first language
of learners (L1) has a necessary and facilitating role in all aspects of
language instruction. This indicates that the ‘bilingual approach’ is gaining
more support by incorporating the students’ L1 as a learning tool and also as a
facilitator for an efficient communication. At the same time, advocacy for an English-only
policy has been declining. Inspired by these views, this paper aims to
explore the Iranian university students' attitudes and perceptions toward
the use of L1. A well-known survey – Prodromou (2002) was employed and,
surprisingly, the results were contradictory to the all previous similar
studies. Iranian university students reported reluctance to use their L1.
Finally, some pedagogical suggestions for a judicious use of L1 will be
presented.
Key words: First
language (L1), second language (L2), bilingual, monolingual, students'
attitudes.
Özet: İkinci bir dil
öğrenmek için öğrenciler ve öğretmenlerin etkili
bir biçimde işbirliği içerisinde olmaları gerekmektedir. İkinci
dil edinimi üzerine güncel çalışmalara
bakıldığında, birinci dilin dil öğretiminde
yardımcı bir rol üstlendiğini görürüz. Bu durum
gösteriyor ki ‘İkidillilik Yaklaşımı’
öğrencilerin anadilini öğrenme sürecinde bir
yardımcı olarak kullanarak daha cok destek bulmaya
başlamıştır. Aynı zamanda, ‘sadece İngilizce’
politikasına destek azalmaktadır. Bu görüşlerden yola
çıkarak bu çalışmada İran’daki üniversite
öğrencilerinin anadil kullanımına karşı
tutumlarının araştırılması amaçlanmaktadır.
Alanda tanınmış olan bir ölçek uygulanmıştır
(Prodromou 2002) ve ilginç bir şekilde daha öncekiler ile zıt
sonuçlara ulaşılmıştır. İranlı üniversite
öğrencileri anadil kullanımında isteksizlik
göstermişlerdir. Son olarak makul ölçüde anadil
kullanımı için öneriler sunulacaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Anadil (L1), ikinci dil (L2), ikidilli, tek dilli,
öğrencilerin tutumları.
1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays it is common
for EFL teachers to use the students' mother tongue as a tool for conveying
meaning as a means of interaction both in English language institutes and in
the classroom. Research shows that complete deletion of L1 in L2 situation is
not appropriate (Schweers, 1999; Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Nation, 2003; Butzkamm,
2003). When used appropriately, the use of L1 can be very beneficial. Brown
(2000, p. 68) claims that “first language can be a facilitating factor and not
just an interfering factor”, and Schweers (1999) encourages teachers to
incorporate the native language into lessons to influence the classroom
dynamic, and suggests that “starting with the L1 provides a sense of security
and validates the learners' lived experiences, allowing them to express and
themselves” (p.7).
In
i.
What is the learner's first language?
ii.
What is the learner's age?
iii.
Are we teaching beginners or advanced
levels?
iv.
What is the ratio of students/teaching
time per one class?
v.
How long is the learner going to study
the second language?
vi.
What are his/her learning purposes?
vii.
Is it a one nationality or mixed
nationality group?
viii.
What is the institution's pedagogical
policy?
ix.
What kind of educational background does
the learner have?
x.
In what kind of social context is the
teaching ofL2 taking place?
Mattioli (2004)
believes that "most teachers tend to have opinions about native language
use, depending largely on the way in which they have been trained and, in some
cases, on their own language education" (p.21).
A number of studies have considered the attitudes and perceptions toward the L1 use in the classroom. They can be classified into two categories: Those which only investigate the attitudes of language learners, and those which explore the attitudes of both language learners and teachers.
In the first study, Prodromou (2002) divided the number of his 300 Greek participants into three groups: Elementary, Intermediate, and finally Advanced level students. He tried to investigate the reaction and attitude of students with different levels of proficiency. The findings showed that students at higher levels of study have a negative attitude toward the use of L1 in their classroom. But lower students showed more tendencies to accept the use of their mother tongue. Another recent Croatian study, Duimovic (2007) examined the attitudes of his 100 EFL students. He concludes that his students responded positively to the use of L1 in L2 context and showed their interests as well.
Schweers (1999) conducted a study
with EFL students and their 19 teachers in a Spanish context to investigate
their attitudes toward using L1 in the L2 classroom. He found that 88.7% of
Spanish students studying English wanted L1 used in the class because they
believe it facilitates learning. Students also desired up to 39% of class time
to be spent in L1 (Schweers, 1999, p. 7). Burden (2001) investigated the
attitudes of 290 students and 73 teachers at five universities. The results showed
that both students and teachers believe the importance of L1 in explaining new
vocabulary, giving instruction, talking about tests, grammar instruction,
checking for understanding and relaxing the students. Another similar research
conducted by Tang (2002) in a Chinese context with 100 students and 20 teachers
depicts similar results. The research shows that limited and judicious use of
the mother tongue in the English classroom does not reduce students’ exposure
to English, but rather can assist in the teaching and learning processes. In
addition, to all the previous studies that were conducted in EFL context, a
large scale study by Levine (2003) in an ESL context revealed the same result.
Levine concludes that “despite the prevailing ‘monolingual principle’ in
By looking back to the discussion of L1 use, some concepts such as: approaches to the use of L1, L1 and teaching methodology, L1 and language skills and activities, will be crucially important to consider. In this section each of these concepts will be defined briefly.
2. APPROACHES
TO THE USE OF L1 IN L2 CONTEXT
Anecdotal
evidence suggests that some EFL teachers strongly believe that they should never
use even a single word from the mother tongue in the classroom. These teachers
are followers of the so-called ‘Monolingual
Approach’, and others who are somehow skeptical about the use of L1 or
use it wisely in their classes are the proponents of ‘Bilingual approach’. In addition to these two approaches, Nation
(2003) introduces another approach called a ‘Balanced Approach’. He believes teachers need to show respect for
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, here is that a balanced approach is
needed which sees a role for the L1 but also recognizes the importance of
maximizing L2 use in the classroom. Support for the Monolingual approach to
teaching can be summarized as follows:
1.
The learning of an L2 should model the
learning of an L1 (through maximizing the exposure to the L2).
2.
Successful learning involves the
separation and distinction of L1 and L2.
3.
Students should be shown the importance
of the L2 through its continual use.
However,
the monolingual approach is not without its criticisms. One of them is that
exposure to language leads to learning, excluding the students' L1 for the sake
of maximizing students' exposure to the L2 is not necessarily productive
Dujmovic (2007, p. 93). In addition, Auerbach (1993) criticizes these tough
exposures to the target language by calling them “all-or-nothing views”, and
adds: “acquiring a second language is to some extend contingent on the
societally determined value attributed to the L1, which can be either
reinforced or challenged inside the classroom” (p.16).
During
its history, bilingual approach gained support and validation form many scholars
and research findings. Auerbach (1993, p.18) believes that “when the native
language is used, practitioners, researchers, and learners consistently report
positive results”. In fact there has been a gradual move over the years away
from the "English only" dogma that has long been a part of the
British and American ELT movement Baker (2003). Miles (2004) advocates the use
of Bilingual approach and discredits the monolingual approach in three ways: 1:
it is impractical, 2: native teachers are not necessarily the best teachers and
3: exposure alone is not sufficient for learning. In support of the bilingual
approach Atkinson proposes his theory called "Judicious use theory"
(p. 21), in which he espouses that L1 works as a vital source and also a communicative
tool both for students and teachers (as cited in Mattioli, 2004).
3.
ROLE OF L1 IN TEACHING METHODOLOGY
By
exploring the role of students' L1 in English language classrooms, one of the
fundamental principles is the method by which EFL teachers manage the process
of language instruction in their classrooms. Here, the aim is to first
categorize different language teaching methods and then discuss the role and
use of L1 in each of them briefly. A common classification of methods is:
Traditional, Alternatives and Current Communicative Methods.
In
the field of English language teaching (ELT) traditional methods of teaching a
language are as: Grammar Translation Method, Direct Method, and Audiolingual
method. Examples for alternative methods are
The
emphasis while using L1 is a systematic, selective and judicious use. A
haphazard use of the mother tongue may be an unwanted side-effect of
monolingualism, often employed today by disaffected teachers (Butzcamm, 2003).
A very concise description of L1 role in EFL context is presented by
Larsen–Freeman (2000). She supports the role of the mother tongue in the
classroom procedures and summarizes the role of L1 in various ELT methods:
·
Grammar Translation Method: The
meaning of the target language is made clear by translating it into the
students’ native language. The language that is used in the class is mostly the
students' native language (p.18).
·
Direct Method and Audiolingual Method: The
students' native language should not be used in the classroom because it is
thought that it will interfere with the students' attempts to master the target
language (pp.30 and 47).
·
Silent way: The students’
native language can, however, be used to give instructions when necessary, and
to help a student improve his or her pronunciation. The native language is also
used (at least at beginning levels of proficiency) during feed back sessions
(p.67).
·
Suggestopedia:
Native-language translation is used to make the meaning of the dialogue clear.
The teacher also uses the native language in class when necessary. As the
course proceeds, the teacher uses the native language less and less (p.83).
·
Community Language Learning:
Students' security is initially enhanced by using their native language. The
purpose of L1 is to provide a bridge from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Also,
directions in class and sessions during which students express their feelings
and are understood are conducted in their L1 (pp.101-102).
·
Total Physical Response:
this method is usually introduced initially in the students' native language.
After the lesson introduction, rarely would the native language be used.
Meaning is made clear through body movements (p.115).
·
Communicative Language Teaching:
Judicious use of the students' native language is permitted in communicative
language teaching (p.132).
As
exemplified, the students' native language has had a variety of functions
nearly in all teaching methods except in Direct Method and Audiolingualism.
Those methods had their theoretical underpinnings in ‘structuralism’ and
assumed language learning to be a process of habit formation, without
considering the students’ affect, background knowledge and their linguistic
abilities in their L1. In addition, no attention was given to humanistic views
of teaching.
4. L1
APPLICATION IN LANGUAGE SUB-SKILLS AND ACTIVITIES
Students' native language plays an important role in
teaching language skills and sub-skills and in classroom activities as well. In
fact, L1 has a wide range of deliberate functions. Butzcamm (2003) believes “successful learners capitalize on the vast amount of
linguistic skills and world knowledge they have accumulated via the mother
tongue”
(p. 31). Mattioli (2004) refers to five functions of L1 in an
EFL classroom. They are: explaining vocabulary, giving instructions, explaining
language rules, reprimanding students, and talking to individual students.
Here, the importance of L1 for instructing language skills (reading, listening,
writing and speaking), sub-skills (vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and
culture) will be highlighted, and the role of mother tongue in conducting
classroom activities will be discussed.
In a language learning situation, a competent learner is
assumed to be the one who is proficient in all four language skills and also
sub-skills. As research findings reveal, L1 use is decisive in both teaching
and learning aspects of these skills. For instance, Nuttall (1996), by
addressing the reading skill, appreciates the importance of L1 in training
reading-based library skills, for the discussion of students' worksheets and in
reading summary test. In relation to the concept of language response, he adds:
“Inability to express themselves (students) in the target
language necessarily limits both the kind and the quality of the responses
students give. It is quite possible that students who are permitted to use
their L1 in responding will explore the text more accurately and thoroughly
than those who are restricted to target language responses” (p.187). Koren (1997) observed students listening to
lectures in a foreign language while taking notes in L1. She concludes that the
use of translation while taking notes is not a bad strategy if the aim is to
understand and keep the material for future reading before a test. Hamin and
Majid (2006), in an experimental research, investigated the effectiveness of
the use of L1 to generate ideas for second language writing. They found a
remarkable improvement in the writing performance of students who used their
first language to generate ideas, for it could trigger their background
knowledge. Elementary learners who are not proficient enough to express
themselves in L2, must constantly think before they speak and this inner speech
happens in L1 (Auerbach, 1993).
In discussing English
language sub-skills, vocabulary and pronunciation are often emphasized. For example,
in learning new vocabulary, making word cards with the definition of L1 is
effective, because this strategy will speed up their vocabulary progress. A
model of vocabulary cards is designed by the author (Table.1). In this sample 7
steps need to be developed in both sides (back/front page). The arrangement of
the steps is plausible especially for the sake of reviewing. At the first
glance it may seem time consuming, but my students consistently believe that
the learnt words and their functions will last for a long time. This strategy
is very practical for those who prepare themselves for international exams such
as TOEFL and GRE. Nation (2003) emphasizes and encourages the use of bilingual
cards, L1-L2 word pairs and L1 translation as the best ways for increasing
vocabulary size. He contends “forget all the criticism
you have heard about rote learning and translation; research has repeatedly
shown that such learning is very effective” (Laufer, Meara, & Nation, 2005, p. 6). In relation to the role of L1 in
pronunciation, Celce-Murcia (1991) calls the learner's native language as one
of the six variables for the acquisition of L2 pronunciation. In her idea
mother-tongue transfer is really widespread in the area of pronunciation than
in grammar and lexicon. She believes “this makes it important for
teachers to know something about the sound system of the language(s) that their
learners speak in order to anticipate problems and understand the source of
errors” (p. 137). Scott and de la Fuente
(2008) invited students in form-focused grammar tasks; they divided the
learners into two groups. Students in group 1 were allowed to use L1 whereas
group 2 only used L2. Using conversation analysis of audiotaped interactions,
they found that learners of group 1 (used L1) worked collaboratively in a
balanced and coherent manner, while on the other hand group 2 (only L2)
exhibited fragmental interaction and little evidence of collaboration.
Finally, as it is believed
the bilingual/bicultural teachers are in a position to enrich the process of
learning by using the mother tongue as a resource, and then, by using the L1
culture, they can facilitate the progress of their students toward the mother
tongue, the other culture Dujmovic (2007). Gill (2005) mentions the role of mother
tongue for discussing the cross-cultural issues. He believes it can be possible
through comparison and contrast and judicious use of the L1 (e.g. connotation, collocation, idiomatic usages,
culture-specific lexis, politeness formulae, sociocultural norms, the use of
intonation, gestures etc.)
Table.1
Front-page
Back-page
Seven-step vocab cards: [1: Word entity, 2: Word
pronunciation, 3: Different parts of speech, 4: Synonyms & Antonyms, 5:
dictionary example (Oxford Dic), 6: Learner's example, 7: L1 definition]
After considering the effect of L1 in classroom language
skills and sub-skills, now we refer to classroom activities which
favor from the use of L1. The role of L1 in group work in EFL situations is
highlighted by Brown (2001), as he confirms that “this is when students feel that the task is too hard, or
that the directions are not clear, or that the task is not interesting, or that
they are not sure of the purpose of the task, then teachers may invite students
to take shortcuts via their native language” (p.180). When running classes with beginning groups for
approaching vocabulary, Hitotuzi (2006) believes “one can use props such as flashcards, cutout figures and
realia for words representing concrete items; as for the representation of
abstract items, drawing on L1 equivalents might solve the problem whenever
contextualization, mimicry, and other techniques fail to gloss them convincingly” (p.
169). Other functions of L1 in classroom activities are as
follow: conversation activities, discussion of intensive reading, preparation
for writing, and some fluency tasks, awareness-raising activities, contrasting
L1 and L2, research in L1, presentation in L2 (Nation, 2003; Prodromou, 2002).
A very systematic and practical approach for maximizing the L2 use in classroom
and placing a deliberate use for the learners' L1 was proposed by Nation
(1997). He considers the cause of L1 use under the major categories of learner
proficiency and task difficulty, circumstances of the task, and learner
attitude. This approach automatically reduces the uncontrolled use of L1 in
classroom activities. For further reading on practical bilingual activities refer
to (Weschler, 1997).
Furthermore, according to the term ‘L1 problem clinic’
proposed by Atkinson (as cited in Mattioli, 2004, p. 24) that is a weekly or
monthly meeting set up to discuss a classroom problem as a group in L1, the
author proposes another solution for the deliberate use of L1 which is
assigning a ‘5-mitute-break’ per session (preferably) in which our students are
permitted to ask their questions and share their ideas in L1.
Finally the role of L1 is not limited to the above
dimensions of language learning. Both cognitive and affective aspects of L1 use
play a vital role in classroom procedure. For instance, Auerbach (1993)
emphasizes the role of L1 in developing ‘metacognitive awareness’ of learners
while writing a text. Others believe that L1 is used to process L2. Cognitive
perspective of language learning called ‘mainstream’ has been
predominantly concerned with the role of the L1, acquisition orders,
development sequences, input/output relationship, and the role of
biologically-specified universal grammar (UG) (Bernat, 2008). The use of L1 also reduces anxiety and enhances the
affective environment for learning (Auerbach, 1993). It is regarded as a factor for lowering affective
barriers in the language classroom as it assists comprehension for all language
learners. In particular, it can help those with language disorders such as
stuttering, because stuttering EFL students will perform more efficiently when
they find their teachers and classmates intimate and their classroom less
intimidating (Nazary, 2008). In addition, when
empathy and delicacy are required, L1 is ready. This calls upon an
"affective side" in classroom, in which every learner wants to be
liked and appreciated (Bawcom, 2002).
5. AIMS AND
RATIONALE
This
study was designed in order to gather Iranian tertiary students’ views on the
use of L1. It also tries to examine the relationship between the learners'
language proficiency level and their attitudes and degree of awareness of the
benefits of L1 use. Since there has
been little research so far in this area, the primary goal of this study is to
find evidence to support the theory that L1 can facilitate L2 acquisition and
to reject the existing notion that L1 acts as a hindrance.
This
study assumes that L2 use in the classroom should be maximized, however, there
should also be a place for judicious use of L1. The importance of the role of
L1 in the classroom seems worthy of consideration,
as, to date, very few studies in
For the purposes of this study, the following research
questions were identified:
1) Do Iranian EFL university students have a
positive or negative attitude toward the L1 use in their classroom?
2) Do
students with different levels of proficiency have different views and
attitudes toward the importance of L1?
6. METHODOLOGY
Participants
The total number of EFL students both males and females
who participated in this study was eighty-five (85). The L1 of these students
is Farsi and they are studying English at
Instrument
A questionnaire taken from a related previous study (Prodromou,
2002) was used for the exploration of the Iranian university students'
attitudes. This questionnaire has two parts. Part I includes demographic
information such as name, family name, age and proficiency levels of students.
Part II includes 16 items on a Likert scale to define student's attitudes.
Items included in this 16-item questionnaire underline the main points
discussed in previous sections, the concepts such as the role of L1 in language learning skills
and sub-skills, L1 in classroom activities among others.
Procedure
This16-item-questionnaire administered to university
students from different levels of English language proficiency studying at
Table 2
Total N: 85
|
Items |
Questionnaire Items |
Elementary N 22 |
Intermediate N 30 |
Advanced N 33 |
|||
|
f |
p |
f |
p |
f |
p |
||
|
1 |
Should the
teacher know the L1? |
15 |
68% |
21 |
69% |
27 |
81% |
|
2 |
Should the
teacher use the L1? |
5 |
22% |
5 |
16% |
7 |
21% |
|
3 |
Should the
students use their L1? |
7 |
31% |
7 |
23% |
6 |
18% |
|
4 |
Explaining new
words in L1 |
4 |
18% |
1 |
3% |
7 |
21% |
|
5 |
Explaining
grammar in L1 |
9 |
40% |
8 |
26% |
13 |
39% |
|
6 |
Explaining
differences between L1 & L2 |
16 |
72% |
13 |
43% |
20 |
60% |
|
7 |
Explaining
differences in the use of L1 & L2 |
13 |
59% |
11 |
36% |
20 |
60% |
|
8 |
Giving
instructions in L1 |
7 |
31% |
4 |
13% |
9 |
27% |
|
9 |
Talking in
pairs and groups in L1 |
3 |
13% |
4 |
13% |
5 |
15% |
|
10 |
Asking in L1
how do we say ‘…’ in English? |
6 |
27% |
23 |
76% |
28 |
84% |
|
11 |
Translating an
L2 word into L1 |
15 |
68% |
16 |
53% |
14 |
42% |
|
12 |
Translating a
text from L2 to L1 |
12 |
54% |
11 |
36% |
10 |
30% |
|
13 |
Using
translation tasks in a test |
6 |
27% |
7 |
23% |
14 |
42% |
|
14 |
Using L1 to
check listening comprehension |
10 |
45% |
4 |
13% |
8 |
24% |
|
15 |
Using L1 to
heck reading comprehension |
8 |
36% |
4 |
13% |
7 |
21% |
|
16 |
Discussing in L1
the methods used in class |
12 |
54% |
10 |
33% |
16 |
48% |
Key: f = frequency; p = percentage
7. DATA ANALYSIS
After the process of data collection, the obtained data
were transcribed into the above table. The process of the data collection followed
these steps: All participants' questionnaires were divided into three parts,
according to their levels of language proficiency (Elementary, Intermediate,
and Advanced). Each group's data were analyzed and the frequencies of agreement
and disagreement marks were calculated. Later, obtained frequencies of all
items were converted to percentages to determine which group of students agreed
and disagreed on the use of their first language in their L2 classes. Finally
the obtained frequencies and percentages were put into tables for better
depiction and further analytic decisions.
8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The overall findings show that Iranian university
students are reluctant to use their mother tongue in English language
situations and reject it strongly for the sake of better exposure to L2. The
transcribed data in this research show that, overall, the majority of students
from all the three proficiency levels do not believe on the effectiveness and
importance of L1 use. Surprisingly, the intermediate students in comparison
with elementary and advance students showed fewer tendencies to use their L1 in
their classroom activities and did not expect their teachers to use L1 as well.
The results can be discussed in several ways by considering the main points of
this study.
According to the figures, 81% of students at advanced
level and about 68% of students at elementary and intermediate level believe
that the teacher should know the students' mother tongue (Item1). The main
question in the questionnaire (Item 2) asked "Should the teacher use the
mother tongue in class?" The percentage numerals of agreements in all
three groups are nearly the same (Elementary 22%, Intermediate 16%, and
Advanced 21%) which indicates that the function of L1 is really neglected by
the learners. In item 3 (Should the students use their
mother-tongue?) students reported their agreements as 31%, 23%, and 18%
respectively.
Among the next four items which addressed the use of L1
for explanations (item 4, 5, 6 and 7, see Appendix 1), items 6 and 7 received more
support from the students (item 6: explaining differences between
L1 and L2 grammar [72%, 43% and 60% respectively],
and item 7: explaining
differences in the use of L1 and L2 rules [59%, 36% and 60% respectively]). Responses to items 4 and 5 regarding the
use of L1 in explaining new words and grammatical rules, contrast with what
Nation (2003) and Auerbach (1993) suggest.
In items 8 and 9 (giving
instructions and talking in pairs and groups) only few students perceived the learners’ mother tongue
as useful. Item 10 aims to check the students' preference for checking
comprehension. As the results show, advanced and intermediate students (84%,
76% respectively), more than elementary students (27%), endorsed the use of L1
when asking for an English-equivalent of word.
Items 11-13 address the issue of translation as a useful classroom activity, including its incorporation in tests. Duff (1989) expounds on the merits of translation as a language learning activity. He describes how translation can help develop three characteristics essential for language learning: flexibility, accuracy, and clarity. He states: “translation trains the learner to search (flexibility) for the most appropriate words what is meant (clarity). This combination of freedom and constraint allows the students to contribute their own thoughts to a discussion which has a clear focus-the text” (Duff, 1989, p. 7). For more principle uses of translation refer to Gabrielatos (1998, p. 24). According to the results (items 11 and 12) students revealed a greater preference for the use of translation of L2 words (68%, 53%, and 42% respectively) and texts (54%, 36%, and 30% respectively) into L1, whereas they were divided on its use of translation as a test.
Items 14 and 15 tried to elicit the students' attitudes
toward the use of L1 in checking listening and reading comprehension. Here,
most elementary students responded positively to items 14 (45%), and 15 (36%).
Finally, the last item (item 16) highlights the importance of mother tongue for
discussing the methods used in classroom. Warford (2007) believes the L1
function for explaining classroom procedures and teaching methods however, the
students' responses show a neutral attitude (54%, 33%, and 48% respectively).
Among the questionnaire items, item1 (see the Appendix1)
obtained the highest average percentage of 72% and this shows that most of the
students prefer a bilingual teacher. Choong (2006) points out that bilingual
teachers are more sensitive to the language problems of their students and
would be able to share their own experience of learning a foreign language.
Item 9, with the average percentage of 13%, indicates that students rarely use
their L1 while talking in pairs or groups. (For more detailed information refer
to Table 2.)
Another important factor of discussion was the
relationship between the students' language proficiency level and their views
on the use of L1. Cole (1998)
states L1 is most useful at beginning and low levels. If students have little
or no knowledge of the target language, L1 can be used to introduce the major
differences between L1 and L2, and the main grammatical characteristics of L2
that they should be aware of. This gives them a head start and saves a lot of
guessing. As Butzcamm (2003) continues “with growing proficiency in the foreign language, the use
of the mother tongue becomes largely redundant and the FL will stand on its own
two feet” (p. 36). By a careful analysis of the results it can be
concluded that all of the students from three levels of English language
proficiency had a ‘negative attitude’. This is likely due to their teachers'
insistence on not using the L1 and identifying it as a hindrance for language
learning. The obtained data reveals the fact that intermediate students, in
comparison with the two other groups, have a deeper negative attitude toward
the first language use. The variance in their point of views might be due to
two reasons: 1: They are not like elementary students who have no choice except
using their L1 in the classroom, and second they are not like advanced students
who have comprehended the importance of L1 functions for enhancing both their
language fluency and accuracy.
Finally the findings of this study surprisingly showed
quite opposite results to all previously conducted studies, except that of
Prodromou (2002). As mentioned
earlier, studies such as Schweers (1999), Burden (2001), Tang
(2002), and Dujmovic (2007) highlight the importance of the L1 use in four different
EFL contexts. One of the limitations of this study was considering only the
attitudes of language learners, while the attitudes and perception of language
teachers is of paramount importance. Therefore there is a need for more
research that takes into account teachers' perspectives about the use of L1 in
their L2 classroom in order to identify the congruence between students’ and
teachers views.
9. CONCLUSION
This study aimed to explore the Iranian students'
attitudes and degree of awareness toward the use of their mother tongue (Farsi)
in their English classrooms. As it was hypothesized, most students reported a
negative view and rejected L1 use. However, the results showed that
students with different levels of language proficiency reported different
attitudes toward the L1 function in this EFL context. Undoubtedly, constructive
role of L1 in designing a classroom syllabus, English language teaching
methods, classroom management, instructing language learning skills and
sub-skills, performing all types of activities and language assessment of
students is repeatedly emphasized. We should finally free ourselves
of the old misconceptions and try to praise the existed alliance between the
mother tongue and foreign languages. Our final
goal should be to have students who are proficient L2 users rather than
deficient native speakers.
Acknowledgment
I take this
opportunity to express my sincere and heartfelt thanks to Dr. Eva Bernat for her
invaluable advice, informative feedbacks and help with this paper. I also would
like to express my gratitude to Dr. M. H Keshavarz and Dr. M. R Anani Sarab for
their contribution on the first draft of this paper.
References
Auerbach, E. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9-32
Baker, D. (2003). Why English Teachers in
Japan
Bawcom, L. (2002).
Overusing L1 in the classroom? Modern English Teacher, Retrieved on
October 17, 2007 from http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:
1ZiKq021Xw4J:www.eltforum.com/articles/free/129.pdf+%22Bawcom%22+%22Over+using+l
L1%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 .
Bernat, E.
(2008). Beyond Beliefs: Psycho-cognitive, Sociocultural
and Emergent Ecological Approaches to Learner Perceptions in Foreign Language
Acquisition. The Asian EFL Journal,
10(3). Retrieved on September 12, 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_08_eb.php
Brown, H. D. (2000).Principles of language learning and
teaching. Fourth edition.
Brown, H. D. (2001).Teaching by principles: An
interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nd ed.).
Burden, P. (2001). When do native English speaking teachers
and Japanese college students disagree about the use of Japanese in the English
conversation classroom? The Language Teacher, 25(4), 5-9
Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn
language once. The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: death of a
dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28, 29-39
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Teaching English: as a second
or foreign language (2nd
ed.).Newbury House Publication
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills:
Theory and Practice (3rd
ed.).
Choong, P.K.
(2006). Multicompetence and second language teaching. Teachers College,
Cole, S. (1998). The use of L1 in communicative
English classrooms. The Language Teacher, 22(12), 11-13. Retrieved May
10, 2008 from http://www.jalt-
publications. org/tlt/files/98/dec/cole.html
Connick-Hirtz, S. (2001). Using the first language in second language
instruction. TESL-EJ Forum. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from http://www.aitech.ac/iteslj./html.
Duff, A. (1989). Translation.
Dujmovic, M. (2007). The use of Croatian in the EFL
classroom. Metodicki Obzori 2(1), 91-100. Retrieved on June 12, 2007 from http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/19437
Gabrielatos, C. (1998).Translation impossibilities: problems and opportunities for TEFL. TESOL Greece Newsletter, 60, 21-24. Retrieved on March 13, 2008 from http://www.gabrielatos.com/TranslationImpossibilities
Gill, S. (2005).The L1 in the L2 classroom. Retrieved on May 22, 2008 from http://www. hltmag .co.uk/
Sep/05/ mart03.htm
Hitotuzi, N. (2006). The learner's mother tongue in the L2 learning-teaching
symbiosis. PROFILE, 7, 161-171
Koren, S. (1997). Listening to Lectures in L2; Taking Notes in L1.TESL-EJ, 2(4). Retrieved on July 16, 2008 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESl-EJ/ej08/a1.html
Larsen–Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in
language teaching.
Laufer, L., Meara, P., & Nation, P. (2005). Ten best ideas for teaching
vocabulary. The language Teacher, 29, 7, 3-10
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and
attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: report of
a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 343-364
Mattioli, G. (2004). On native language and intrusion making do
with words. The English Teaching Forum, 42, 20-25
Miles, R. (2004). Evaluating the Use
of L1 in the English language Classroom.
Nazary, M.M. (2008). EFL Stuttering Students: The role of
the teacher and the classroom. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Nation, P. (1997). ‘L1 and L2 Use
in the Classroom: A Systematic Approach’. TESL Reporter, 30(2), 19-27
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in
foreign language learning. The Asian EFL Journal, 5(2). Retrieved on December 10, 2007
from http://www.asian-efl-journal.
com/june_2003_PN.html
Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading
skills in a foreign language.
Prodromou, L. (2002). From mother tongue to other tongue.
Retrieved on August 20, 2007 from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/mothertongue.shtml
Richards, Jack C. & Rodgers,
Theodore S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd
ed.).
Schweers, W. Jr. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 6–9
Scot, V. M. & de la Fuente, M. J.
(2008). What’s the Problem? L2 Learners’ Use of the L1 during
consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal,
92, 100-113
Hamin, S., & Majid, A. H. (2006). The use of first language in limited
English proficiency classes: Good, Bad or Ugly? Bilangan, Jilid,
1. Retrieved on July 11, 2008 from http://eprints.ukm.my /24/1/sitihami-edited1.pdf
Tang, J. (2002).
Using L1 in the English Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 36-44
Warford, M.K. (2007). L1 vs. L2 in the foreign language classroom: New
Findings. The NECTFL Review, 60, 50-67
Weschler, R. (1997). Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English classroom: Introducing the functional translation method. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(11). Retrieved on August 25, 2008 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-UsingL1.html
Appendix 1
The Questionnaire sample
(Center of cultural affairs and open education)
Part I Personal
Information
· Name & Family
Name:
---------------------------------
· Age : ------
· Sex : Male [ ]
Female [ ]
· Field/University of
study
--------------------------------
· English class level: Low Intermediate
IN 1 [ ] IN 2 [ ]
IN 3 [ ]
Intermediate EL 1 [
] EL 2 [ ] EL 3 [ ]
Advanced IM 1 [ ] IM 2 [ ] IM 3
[ ]
Part II Mark: Agree
(A) / Disagree (D)
1:
Should the teacher know the students' mother-tongue? ----
2: Should the teacher use the students'
mother-tongue? ----
3:
Should the students use their mother-tongue?
----
- It is useful if the teacher uses L1 when:
4:
explaining new words ----
5:
explaining grammar ----
6:
explaining differences between L1 and L2 grammar ----
7:
explaining differences in the use of L1 and L2 rules ----
8:
giving instructions ----
-Students
should be allowed to use L1 when:
9: talking in pairs and groups ----
10:
asking how do we say '...' in English?
----
11:
translating an L2 word into L1 to show they understand it ----
12:
translating a text from L2 to L1 to show they understand it
----
13:
translating as a test ----
- The teacher and students can use L1 to:
14:
check listening comprehension ----
15:
check reading comprehension ----
16: discuss the methods used in class
----