THE USE OF THE FIRST LANGUAGE I N SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING RECONSIDERED

NAJWA HANNA HALASA MAJEDA AL-MANASEER

University of Jordan Language Centre This paper aims to study new techniques in second language leaming involving the active use of the mother tongue in classroom situations. Several teaching methods will be discussed such as The Alternating Approach, The New Concurrent Method, and Community Language Learning method. These methods of employing the first language recognise the link between the two languages in the student's mind. The student's first language must not be ignored and must have an active role in class. An empirical study was conducted on 50 students studying English Communication Skills 102 at the University of Jordan. The aim of the test was to validate the assumption that LI use gives different and better results in the students' performance. 100% negative transfer from the first language was the cause of the errors. Another test was conducted on the students after comparing the sentences in Arabic and explaining the areas of difficulties the results were surprisingly different Key words: Mother tongue (LI). Second Language (L2). Psycholinguistics. Monolingual. Bilingual. Multicompetence. Compound bilingualism. English as foreign language. ESL: English as Second Language (EFL). Introduction

'

This paper attempts to study the use of the mother tongue (LI) in Language teaching. The paper advocates reconsideration, for which has been long adopted by Ianguage teaching experts to avoid the use of the first Language in classroom situations, ThejustificationforthisisthatLl had been used by Second Language (L2) learners in methods that create links in the mind between the two Languages. These methods will he discussed later in this paper. "LI use is a normal psycholinguistic process that facilitates L2 production and allows the learners hoth to initiate and sustain verhal interaction with one other." Brooks and Donato ( 1994 -pp. 268). 71

Learners may also use bilingual dictionaries. Other educators e.g., Roberts (1999) have carried this so far as to suggest the use of dual language texts, This paper suggests that it is time for second or foreign language teachers not to hesitate and start using LI in language teaching methods. It supports teaching methods that would actively employ LI in classroom situations and may allow students and teachers to use it positively. Language teaching theories had varied throughout the twentieth century. There were hasic assumptions that were accepted by language teachers and students, and had affected many generations of language

72 / College Student Journal

teachers and students. These assumptions were taken for granted as they had laid the foundation for language teaching in the 20th century. Is some of these assumptions that spoken language is more basic than written, explicit grammar explanation must be avoided, and that language must be taught and practised as a whole and not as separate parts. The idea of multicompetence in second or foreign language teaching has long been iirgued as there is a compound state of mind with two grammars. This idea will be further discussed in the paper. Vivian Cook states that over the last century, the use of LI in classroom situations has been considered a taboo in second language teaching. Cook (2002), advocates a more positive approach since the first language is always present in the user's mind, and it would be artificial to avoid its use. According to Cook the first language must be used to convey grammatical forms and meanings, instructions and in class management. Eun-young Kim (2010) introduced new innovative techniques, through the use of grammar-translation learning approach. It was proved that this approach revealed the fact that the students' first language use in a second language writing classroom can be a positive tool for improving their writing proficiency. It is to be noted that this paper does not agree with the method of translation as a teaching technique, as this is a different matter; although Stem (1992) approves of translation techniques.

Discussion
Different attitudes on the use of LI in teaching ESL or EFL.

Educators agree that using the second or foreign language in a classroom is a primary goal of instruction. If learners of English for example are to acquire it as second language they must be exposed to it and use it actively in classroom situations. But there has been controversy on how much of LI should be used. The researchers discuss the different attitudes toward the use of LI in teaching English as a foreign or second language in classroom situations. The main tendency by most educators is complete banning of LI in EFL classroom situations. They believe that the second language must be used without any limitations inside the classroom and in social environments where L2 could be practised outside the classrooms. In this case the more L2 was spoken the better the students performances would be.
Reasons to avoid LI in the classroom.

The discussion assumes a teacher sharing LI with the students. "Not a single respondent expressed any pedagogical values in a teacher referring to the learner's own language." Macaro (1997, p29). The first argument is that L2 should be based on the characteristics of LI acquisition, since monolingual LI children do not have another language to rely on. teaching L2 should be based on the characteristics of LI acquisition. Singleton (1989) argued that L2 learners are different from children acquiring their LI because they have more mature

The Use of First Language... / 73

minds, greater social development and larger short term memory capacity. Dodson (1985) points out that reasons for avoiding LI which are based on LI acquisition is not convincing. The second argument is that successful L2 acquisition depends on keeping the second language separate from L1. This implies coordinate bilingualism in which the two languages form different systems in the mind. Lado (1957) calls for elimination of LI use since all the major problems in L2 leaming come from the LI. This compartmentalisation seems to be prominent in most of the teaching methods in the 20th century. The argument of putting the two languages in two different compartments in the mind (compartmentalisation) is doomed to failure since they are connected in many ways. As Stern (1992, p. 282) puts it, "the LI - L2 connection is an indisputable fact of life." According to Prodromou (2003) LI is useful in L2 classroom situations as in giving instmctions, and sorting out activities. He states that useful areas for study is in contrasting the two languages such as in proverbs and idioms and comparing verbnoun collocations across the two languages helps students understand how LI interference can often give the problems in L2 leaming. Most teaching methods since the end of the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century have banned the use of mother tongue, by using the direct method that strongly avoids LI. The communicative language teaching and task-based leaming methods ignore the necessity to use LI, the only time to use

LI is strictly to give instructions and advice. Most teachers adopting this communicative approach, including most instructors of communication skills at the University of Jordan treat the ideal classroom as having very little to do with LI, and those that use LI in classroom situations have no support from their supervisors. Whatever the advantages of these methods are, there should be no logical necessity why these communicative tasks should avoid the use of LI. "Don't ban the mother tongue use but encourage attempts to use the target Language." Willis (1996). Other possibilities in using the mother tongue in EFL or L2 situations is what has been pointed out by Dedrinou (2006) it could be for evaluating the teaching learning process, for purposes of developing fiuency in L2, also for presenting the meaning of a new lexical item or expression and for giving mies of usage in order to facilitate the leaming process. Cook (2001) argues for deliberate and systematic use of LI and he says it can be used positively for conveying meaning, explaining grammar and for organizing the class (giving directions, providing feedback, instmctions in tests). Cook promotes the teaching methods that employ the LI, stating that LI should be seen as a resource and a tool, rather than something to be avoided. Anton and Dicamella (1998) viewed the use of LI as a useful psychological tool in the early stages of second language leaming, and they found in their study that the use of LI helped the students psychologically in providing help to each other.

74 / College Student Journal

Most language teaching practices assume that difficulties and errors made by foreign or second language learners in the study of English are a result of LI interference, and on the degree to which their language differs from English. For example an Arab learner of English may face more difficulties than a German learning English as both German and English are closely related, whereas Arabic is not. The idea of compound bilingualism with two languages and their two different Grammars has many implications as seen by Vivian Cook (2002). Cook sees learners and users of L2 as fundamentally different from monolingual users of their mother tongue. He therefore suggests that educators must consider and recognize this distinction. Choong (2006) reviewed Cook's (2002) and stated that Cook divides the goals into two broad categories the external goals which apply to the use of the second language outside the classroom situation, and the internal goals are the mental process that the learner goes through when learning the second language. What should be taken into consideration here is the communicative competence of L2 learner, as his needs are different from those of the native speaker. Cook (2002) points out the importance of the non-native speaker teacher. Students are more likely to identify with, and the teachers would also be able to share the experience of learning the language and would be able to present areas of difficulties and present meaning of certain idioms or vocabulary in the native language.

Teaching methods that involve the use of LI

The first step in involving these methods is to give the teachers the absolution for using LI, even if this is against the rules of the institution where they are teaching. The next step is to choose the teaching method that allows the positive use of LI within the classroom without feeling guilty about it. 1. The Alternating Language Approach: The Alternating Language Methods approach the students learning a second or foreign language on one hand and then using their LI. The important issue here is reciprocality; both languages are involved without being in a classroom situation. This has been successfully experienced in the Language Centre at the University of Jordan. Multi lingual students studying Arabic in Jordan have what they call language partners, foreign students practice Arabic with the Jordanian students while Jordanian students get the chance to learn English from native speakers in social environments. The proof for the success of this experience was in the students' satisfaction and improvement in their oral skill. This kind of approach is limited as it requires two or more balanced groups. 2. Methods that create links between LI and L2.

There have been methods that favoured the use of the two lan-

The Use of First Language. . / 75

guages in the same lesson and in the same class. a. The new concurrent method. This method allows the teacher to switch from one language to another according to particular rules (Jacobson 1990). The teacher can switch when concepts are taught, or to praise and scold students. In this case the classroom becomes real L2 teaching, and not pretends it is a monolingual situation, LI can also be used when introducing new vocabulary that can never be understood by using a synonym. b. Community Language Learning. Students are encouraged to talk to each other spontaneously in L2, but with some mediation of their L1, the teacher interferes and translates this into L2, as students' progress they become less dependent on L1 translation. This situation and method was adopted in several private schools in Jordan, where students were encouraged to use L2, but with some L1 mediation of their teacher. This method makes use of LI for giving meaning to whole L2 sentences and attaches both languages to each other.

c. Dodson's Bilingual Method Dodson (1967) introduced this method in which the teacher reads a sentence in L2 and then interprets it into LI, but he points out that this method is not translation. Next, students copy what the teacher had said. The teacher tests the students' understanding by saying the sentence in LI requiring an answer in L2. In this bilingual method students get the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Ways to u.se LI positively in L2 teaching to convey the meaning. a. Teachers can convey and check the meaning of the 2nd language to the leamer, either for words, sentences or certain language functions. The Audio-Visual method used this method. This method recognises the close link of the two languages in the mind, what is also popular in this method is checking the comprehension by using LI, this would be seen natural in L2 leaming, and its normal use in the classroom. b. Class management Another positive way is in organising the class like in carrying out tasks, students need to know what they have to do in LI. Teachers can also use LI in maintaining discipline or through individual contact with the students. c. Testing Testing mbrics should be explained in LI as well as test instructions.

76 / College Student Journal

Students use LI freely in classrooms, the importance of the teacher's knowledge of the students' LI comes in here. The students use LI as part of the main leaming activityIn group work or pair work it is quite difficult to minimise their use of LI since they share it. This use is normal and can sustain their interaction with one another. d. Dictionaries Another possibility of LI use is the use of bilingual dictionaries which is found useful in providing the meaning. To test the validity of the methods that employ the use of LI in L2 or foreign language teaching, a test was conducted. Aims of the test: The aim of the test is to validate the assumption that LI use gives different and better results in the students' performance. Research Method and Procedure: Two exercises were given to 50 students based on the exercises in the student book, "Communication Skills II". The first exercise is of 15 pairs of sentences asking the students to join each pair of sentences together by using a relative pronoun. The students were also asked to write five sentences each about themselves using a relative pronoun in each sentence. An explanation in English was given to the students on how to use relative pronouns, and what the exercises require. The subjects: The students tested are all students studying English Communi-

cation Skills 102 at the University of Jordan from different levels, they are second, third and fourth year students from different faculties. None of them was exempted from English 101, which means they all scored less than 65% in the English placement test taken before entering the university. It is a fact that all the students mother tongue is Arabic, they speak Arabic at home and with their friends at the university. They were given sufficient time to answer the given questions. The following error categories were found in their first performance. The Intemational Phonetic Alphabet transcription was used to transliterate Arabic Sentences. The symbol V means deletion of the relafive pronoun. 1. They tend to delete a relative pronoun in two contexts. a. Where the relative clause modifies a head noun in the subject complement position. There were many girls V attended the party.
/hunaekae "idat tiaec[aernae alTiaeflae baenaet

The relative pronoun who after girls was deleted. b. When the relative clause modifies an object. I saw a woman V was looking for you.

The Use of First Language... / 77

/raeaejtu imrae?aetaen taebtiaeDu iaenk/ These errors are caused by LI interference, in this context the relative clause occurrence in Arabic is not possible, this has lead some error analysts to even think that Arabic has no relative pronouns. 2. They used personal pronouns instead of, or in addition to the relative pronouns particularly with prepositions. My mother she is a teacher, who teaches us all we need it. /?umi mu*iaelimae wae hjae aelaeti tudarisunae kulu mae naetaesahu/ This is the pen which the president writes with it. This is the pen who the president writes with it. /haeae huwas aelqaelasm aelaei jsektubu asraeisu bihi/ In the second sentence (who the president) the students make no distinction between human and non-human relative pronouns. From the Arabic sentences we conclude that the English sentences are literal translation, and the errors are caused by negative transfer from LI. 3. They used possessives with antecedent. His car which he bought is new.

found that the total number of errors in the 1st test is 692 errors. Errors for each category in the use of relative pronouns are shown in table one and table 2, and graphs 1 and 2. The categories will be represented by the following symbols throughout the tables and graphs in this paper. la: refers to relative clause modifying a head noun in the subject complement. lb: refers to relative clause modifying an object. 2a: refers to using personal pronouns instead of or in addition to the relative pronouns with a preposition. 2b: refers to using personal pronouns with a preposition, as well as mixing human and nonhuman distinction.

/saejaeraetuhu aelaeti 9/taeraehae

This deviation is mainly attributed to Arabic, in Arabic there is no constraints on the use of possessives with the antecedent. The work was collected and the errors were analyzed and categorized. It was

78 / College Student Journal

Number of errors found pre explanation in L1 Table 1:
EiTOf tytw

1 a 1b 2a 2b 3 total

149 146 100 177 120 692

Graph 1 : number of errors found pre explanation in L1

Table 2: percentage of errors in the first test, pre explanation in L1

la 1b
" ^ tb 3 total

149 146
100 177 120 692

21.53% 21.10%
14.45% 25.58% 17.34% 100.00%

graph 2: percentage of errors in the first test, pre explanation in L1

Based on our findings we can tell that students commit errors because of negative LI transfer; 100% LI neg. transfer was the

cause of these errors. These errors are referred to as interlingual errors, this happens when "an item or

The Use of First Language... / 79

structure in the second language manifests some degree of difference from, or some degree of similarity with the equivalent item or structure in the learner's first language." (Jackson, 1981:101). Another test was given to the students with sentences covering the same areas of difficulty due to LI interference. Prior to this test, the researchers explained and

compared the sentences in Arabic. The results were surprisingly different from the results found before the Arabic explanation. The results are shown in tables 3 and 4 and graphs 3 and 4. The categories are represented by the same symbols shown on page 7.

Table 3: number of errors after explanation in LI

Error typ No. of errors

1a 1b 2a 2b 3b total

48 32 17 12 31 140

Graph 3: number of errors after explanation in LI

Table 4: percentage of errors after explanation in L1 Type of error no. of error percentage of error 1a 48 34.29% 1b 32 22.86% 2a 17 12.14% 2b 12 8.57% 3b 31 22.14% total 140 100.00% Graph 4: percentage of errors after explanation in LI
1000K) 3500% 3000% 2500% 2000% 1500%1000%500%000%

80 / College Student Journal

Table 5: comparison between the results of the test before and after instruction was given in LI. error type Number of errors in test 2 Number of error in test 1

1a 1b 2a 2b 3 total

48 32 17 12 31 140

149 146 100 177 120 692

Graph 5: the difference in the students performance before and after explanation inLl

Conclusion This paper has suggested ways of introducing LI into the classroom, in order to help produce teachers who are able to operate with two language systems, capable of using the target language efficiently rather than imitating its native speakers. Bringing the positive and active role of LI may not only improve or facilitate the teaching process but also bring innovations in the existing teaching methods, and may form a wider teaching approach to language teaching. To conclude this discussion, teachers must not feel guilty when making necessary use of LI in second language teaching. LI can be deliberately and systematically used in the classroom. Some suggestions were given in the paper such as: 1. Providing instmctions and explanations. 2. Building up links between LI and L2 in the students mind.

3. Carrying out learning tasks in classrooms among the students. 4. Developing code-switching in L2 activities for later real-life use. In conclusion, learning must always be treated as there are always two languages permanently present in the students minds and teachers must always use teaching techniques and methods involving the active use of LI in teaching L2 without any guilt feeling or inhibitions about using LI. Cook (2001) stated in the strongest form that using LI has been banned or even minimized and advocated a more positive role in using LI to maximise its use in language learning. He justifies this by what he calls multi-competence, by this he means that LI is always present in the L2 leamer's mind and it would be artificial or inefficient to avoid its use.

The Use of First Language... / 81 References:

a - Periodicals Anton. M. & DiCamilla. F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of LI collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review. 54, 3. 414-442. Brooks. F.B. & Donato. R (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania. 77, 262-274. Choong Philip k. (2006). Columbia University working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, vol.6. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadians Modem Language Review, 27. 402 - 423. Cook, V. (2002) Portraits of the L2 users, Clevedon. UK: Multilingual Matters. Dedrinou, B.D. (2006): Mediation, language teaching and Testing. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Prodromou, L. (2003) The idiomatic paradox and English as a Lingua Franca. Developing an idiomatic common core. Modern English Teacher 12. 2 2 - 2 9 . Robert Burden and Marion Williams (1999) Students' Developing Conceptions of Them.selves as Language Learners. The modem Language Joumal vol. 83 issue 2, pages 193-201. b. Books: Corder, S.p. (1974). Error Analysis. In J.P.B. Allen and S.Pit Corder (EDs.) Techniques in Applied Linguistics (The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics: 3). London: Oxford University Press (Language and Language Leaming). pp. 122-154. Dodson. C.J. (1967). Language Teaching and the Bilingual Method. London: Pitman. Dodson C.J. (Ed.) (1985). Bilingual Education: Evaluation. Assessment and Methodology. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Jackson, H. (1981). Contrastive analysis as a predictor of errors, with reference to Punjabi learners of English. In Fisiak. j . (ED.), Contrastive Linguistics and the Language teacher. Oxford: Pergamon. Jacobson, R. (1990). Allocating Two Languages as a Key Feature of a Bilingual Methodology. In Jacobson & Faltis (EDs.). Language Distribution Issues in Bilingual Schooling. Clevcdon: Multilingual Matters, pp 3-17. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Marcaro. E. (1997). Target Language. Collaborative Learning and Autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Singleton. D. (1989). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor: Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Stem, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willis. J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Language Leaming. Harlow: Longman. c. Online:

Eun-young Kim (2010) Using Translation Exercises in the Communicative EFL writing classroom. ELT Jounal Advance Access published June 21, 2010. Hup:/eltj. Oxford joumals. Org. at University of Jordan.

Copyright of College Student Journal is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.