L1 in the L2 Classroom. Yeah or Nay?
Dave Alton, Turkey
Dave Alton holds a BA (Hons)degree in Sociology from Massey University, New Zealand; a Diploma in Sports Studies from Otago University, New Zealand; the Trinity College of London TESOL Certificate; and the DELTA. He has been teaching ESL for 9 years in China, Cambodia, the UK and Turkey and has wide experience in most areas of ESL teaching. He is currently teaching spoken English at Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, southern Turkey.
His main teaching interests are: spoken English; pronunciation; vocabulary teaching and learning; writing. E-mail: altonmcsherry@yahoo.com
Menu
The issue
Why do students revert to L1?
Research findings from the literature
Translation, reconstruction and noticing
How could you do a classroom experiment?....
My results
Using these results
Conclusion
References
L1 use in the L2 classroom. A teacher dilemma. Asset, minor or major nuisance or even a disruptor of L2 learning?
But actually, how many of us get the choice in students’ L1 use anyway? My lower level classes, particularly teenagers’ classes, tend to employ L1 as a natural default from L2 regardless. (Sound familiar?) The question isn’t “how can I stop it?” It’s “can I stop it interfering with English learning or even turn it to advantage?” I’ve always had a hunch that, sometime appearances notwithstanding, most learners do want to learn and speak English (it’s students’ main aim here in Turkey). They don’t want to gratuitously revert to L1.
Perhaps many of us haven’t arrived at coherent positions on this question and are left either being swept along with the tide or scrambling to resist it. We need a principled position to base sound classroom practice on.
It came time to try and put the issue to bed one way or the other with my own research.
To state the obvious, because they can’t say what they want to say in L2; they continually make frustrating accuracy mistakes and don’t understand why. They think that understanding (receptive knowledge) automatically means being able to speak (productive knowledge), but as teachers we know it doesn’t. ‘’ I can understand but I can’t speak ‘’ is a frequent lament here, and maybe where you are too. (They expect and accept lexis mistakes and we work away on those).
Against my expectations research findings seemed to view L1 use in the L2 classroom under certain conditions positively.
Learners bring a wealth of language knowledge to L2 learning and are not a tabula rasa. (1). Bilingualism is the norm internationally and L1 influences (new knowledge being related to previous knowledge) don’t stop people becoming fully bilingual and multilingual(2). L1 is learners’ most solid and far reaching store of language learning and there is a natural L1/L2 interplay inherent in second language acquisition.(3). Therefore it seems logical to anchor new knowledge in existing knowledge and use students’ first language to establish L1/L2 relations in their brains. (4).
One survey (5) uncovered widespread (if sometimes covert) L2 to L1 translation among language learners and another found that it was natural and inevitable in and out of class (6). Translation into L1 of text containing a recently learned language item reinforces structural, conceptual and sociolinguistic L1/L2 differences (7) and teachers, learners and researchers so engaged report positive results (8) because ‘’ the L2 knowledge that is being created is connected with .... their L1 knowledge. ‘’(9).
Sounds reasonable, but how to operationalise it and employ L1 in the service of L2 acquisition? Several writers saw translation/reconstruction as the gateway and noticing as the mechanism.
This involves translation from L2 to L1, reconstruction of the now-L1 text back into L2 (by a different person or persons) and learner matching of the reconstructed L2 texts with the original. This “ ... may prompt ... learners to consciously recognise some of their linguistic problems “ and what they “ ... need to discover about their L2.” (10).
“ Translation is the supreme test of knowledge of two languages “ (11) and there is evidence that translation into L1 of text containing a recently learned L2 language item reinforces structural, conceptual and sociolinguistic L1/L2 differences (12) and teachers, learners and researchers so engaged report positive results (13). Specifically, students stand to notice that there are syntactic differences (eg. Turkish syntax is subject/object/verb), that words often aren’t exact translations and that they, the learners, are trying to express L1 thought patterns, concepts, meanings and forms in English (in Turkey, trying to speak Turkish ...... in English) and there are definite limits to how far this works!
(For a fuller discussion on translation see Stefan Rather: “ I think that when ... Translation in the English classroom – some considerations.” HLT magazine. Year 8, Issue 6, November 2006.)
- Provide two short English texts, 4 lines max each. Each should deal with a different target grammar point (I used correct use of past simple and present perfect in the one text and of past simple and past perfect in the other), both of which students should have previously learned. If it’s been a while, review them first. There should be no vocabulary or other complicating problems. Easy material from a previous successful lesson is ideal.
- Divide the class into groups A and B, with pairs in each group.
- Groups A and B each need a different text with different target tenses to translate into their L1.
- The 2 groups, working in pairs within each group,now translate their texts into their L1..
- The groups then swap translations and re-translate the L1 script they receive from another pair in the other group back into English.
- Each pair in each group then retrieves its original L2 to L1 translation and compares this script with the their one emerging from the L2→L1→L2 journey.
- In a post-translation survey, ask students in pairs to answer questions you provide to force noticing of the similarities and differences between English and L1 forms and functions of the target tenses. Finish with a whole class discussion to subject the pairs work and conclusions to class-wide scrutiny.
(My suggestions: keep the exercise moving along; circulate, actively monitor and ask the pairs questions in English while they’re working on points 4-6. This is to counter students becoming just too comfortable with and habituated to classroom L1 use. Insist that the point 7 exercises are conducted in English and pre-teach required vocabulary if necessary.)
These indicated principally that:
- S’s had heightened their awareness of the differing English and Turkish verb forms, principally that the present perfect form doesn’t exist in Turkish but the function exists and is discharged by past simple.
- S’s admitted to heightened awareness of the need to move toward speaking English .... in English (not Turkish), and of the need to decrease their previously unwitting attempts to speak Turkish .... in English. Among other things, for them that meant improved spoken grammar accuracy. They also expressed greater awareness of Turkish/English form and function similarities and differences.
So students appreciated the point of grammar and accuracy speaking exercises more and I have since employed them more, referring to L1 where it’s helpful.
L1/L2 translation has vocabulary applications too eg. with occupation-specific vocabulary where appropriate texts are unavailable, why not identify the L1 word and use Google translate (with any necessary adjustments)? It saves a lot of time.
Double translation offers additional benefits too. First, grammar is tied in with meaning, and isn’t just another boring textbook exercise. Second, teacher acknowledgement of L1 affirms the students and their culture as equals and decreases any feelings of inadequacy or even fear in the face of a native English speaker and their language. This can be a live issue here in southern Turkey. Third, the exercise engages higher level processing skills (google “ Bloom’s taxonomy”), which deepen learning. Finally, the exercise is learner-centred and communicative.
Apart from some teenagers, who go to English classes (or anywhere else) primarily to socialise, my students want to speak English and only revert to L1 when they can’t communicate in L2, so why not hitch L1 to L2 learning? Subject to English being the default setting that’s normally used and to which all classroom activities are anchored, we needn’t fear L1 use.
Besides, L1 seems ineradicable, especially at low levels, where in my classes it often threatens to degenerate into runaway (ie. 100%) Turkish. If our boat’s being blown toward rocks before an L1 wind why not grab the tiller, hove to starboard and begin tacking across the wind toward our desired landfall- the placid cove of speaking English? Try it.
A final thought. L1 incorporation has always been a “fire brigade” position for me – damp down the L1 blaze before it gets out of control. However, it might be interesting to teach a whole carefully-designed L2 course with L1 as a significant, supporting legitimate component using the L1/L2 contrasts to illuminate L2. Has anyone tried it?
Swan 1985 in Atkinson David. The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELTJ 41/4. 1987.
Beardsmore 1993 in Vaezi and Mirzaei. The effect of using translation from L1 to L2 as a teaching technique on the improvement of EFL learners’ linguistic accuracy – focus on form. HLT mag. Year 9; Issue 5; September 2007.
Clanfield Lindsay and Foord Duncan. Using L1 in the classroom. In Defense of L1 in the secondary and adult classroom. HLTmag Jan 03.
Davies, Maria Gonzalez. Humanising translation activities: tackling a secret practice. HLTmag. Year 4, issue 4, July 02.
Danchev 1982 in Harbord John. The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELTJ 46/4, 1992).
Atkinson David. The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELTJ 41/4. 1987.
Auerbach in Vaezi and Mirzaei op cit.
Cook 1992, in Vaezi and Mirzaei op cit.
Swain and Lapkin, 1995, in Thornbury 1997: Reformulation and Reconstruction: tasks that promote noticing. English Language Teaching Journal 1997, 51/ 4, 326-325.
Cunningham 1929 in Atkinson 1987, op cit..
Atkinson 1987, op cit.
Auerbach in Vaezi and Mirzaei, op cit.
Please check the How the Motivate your Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Building Positive Group Dynamics course at Pilgrims website.
|
