Mother Tongue Language

7/27/2019 Mother Tongue Language

1/12

THE USE OF THE FIRST L NGU GENSECOND L NGU GE LE RNING RECONSIDERED

NAJWA HANNA HALASAM A J ED A A L-M A N A S EER

University of JordanLanguage entreThis paper aims to study new techniques in second languageleaming involving the active use of the mother tongue in class- ' room situations. Several teaching methods will be discussedsuch as The Alternating Approach, The New ConcurrentMethod, and Community Language Learning method. Thesemethods of employing the first language recognise the linkbetween the two languages in the student's mind. The student'sfirst language must not be ignored and must have an active rolein class. An empirical study was conducted on 50 students study-ing English Communication Skills 102 at the University ofJordan.The aim of the test was to validate the assumption that LI usegives different and better results in the students' performance.100%negative transfer from the first language was the cause ofthe errors. Another test was conducted on the students after com-paring the sentences in Arabic and explaining the areas ofdifficulties the results were surprisingly differentKey words: Mother tongue (LI). Second Language (L2). Psy-cholinguistics. Monolingual. Bilingual. Mu lticompe tence.Compound bilingualism. English as foreign language. ESL:English as Second Language (EFL).Introduction

This paper attempts to study the use of Lea rners may also use bilingual dic -the mother tongue (LI) in Language teach- tionaries. Other educa tors e.g., Ro bertsing. The paper advocates reconsideration, (1999) have carried this so far as to sug-for which has been long adopted by Ian- gest the use of dual language texts,guage teaching experts to avoid the use of This paper suggests that it is time forthe first Language in classroom situations, second or foreign language teachers not toTh ejustifica tionfo rthisisthatL l had been hesitate and start using LI in langu ageused by Second Language (L2) learners in teaching me thods. It supports teachingm eth od s that c rea te lin ks in the min d methods that would actively employ LI inbetween the two Languages. These meth- classroom situations and may allow stuods will he discussed later in this paper. dents and teachers to use it positively. LI use is a normal psycholinguistic Langu age teaching theories had variedprocess that facilitates L2 production and throughout the twentieth century. The reallows the learners hoth to initiate and sus- were hasic assumptions that were accept-


2/12

72 College Student Journal

teachers and students. These assumptionswere taken for granted as they had laid thefoundation for language teaching in the20th century. Is some oftheseassumptionsthat spoken language is more basic thanwritten, explicit gramm ar explanation mustbe avoided, and that language must betaught and practised as a whole and not asseparate parts.The idea of multicompetence in secondor foreign language teaching has long beeniirgued as there is compound state of mindwith two gram mars. This idea will be fur-ther discussed in the paper. Vivian Cookstates that over the last century, the use ofLI in classroom situations has been con-s idered a tabo o in second lang uag eteaching. Cook (2002), advocates a more

positive approach since the first languageis always present in the user's mind, andit would be artificial to avoid its use.According to Cook the first language m ustbe used to convey grammatical forms andmeanings, instructions and in class man-agement.Eun-young Kim (2010) introduced newinnovative techniques, through the use of

gramm ar-translation learning approach . Itwas proved that this approach revealed thefact that the stude nts' first language use ina second language writing classroom canbe a positive tool for improving their writ-ing proficiency.It is to be noted that this paper does notagree with the method of translation as ateaching technique, as this is a differentmatter; although Stem (1992) approves oftranslation techniques.

DiscussionDifferent attitudes on the useof LI in teaching ESL or EFLEducators agree that using the secondor foreign language in a classroom is a pri-mary goal of instruc tion. If learners ofEnglish for example are to acquire it assecond language they must be exposed toit and use it actively in classroom situa-tions. But there has been controversy onhow much of LI should be used.

The researchers discuss the differentattitudes toward the use of LI in teachingEnglish as a foreign or second languagein classroom situations.The m ain tendency by most educatorsis complete banning of LI in EFL class-

room situatio ns. They believe that thesecond language m ust be used w ithout anylimitations inside the classroom and insocial environments where L2 could bepractised outside the classroom s. In thiscase the more L2 was spoken the betterthe students performances would be.Reasons to avoid LI in the classroom

The discussion assum es a teacher shar-ing LI with the students. No t a singlerespondent expressed any pedagogical val-ues in a teacher referring to the learner'sown language. Macaro (1997, p29).The first argument is that L2 should bebased on the characteristics of LI acqui-sition, since monolingual LI children donoth veanother language to rely on. teach-ing L2 should be based on thecharacteristics of LI acquisition.Singleton (1989) argued that L2 learn-


3/12

The Use of First Langu age / 73minds, greater social development and larg-er short term memory capacity.Dodson (1985) points out that reasonsfor avoiding LI which are based on LIacquisition is not convincing. The secondargument is that successful L2 acquisitiondepends on keeping the second languageseparate from L1. This implies coordinatebilingualism in which the two languagesform different systems in the mind.Lado (1957) calls for elimination of L Iuse since all the major problems in L2leaming come from the LI.This compartmentalisation seems to beprominent in most of the teaching meth-ods in the 20th century. The argument ofputting the two languages in two differentcompartments in the mind (compartmen-talisation) is doomed to failure since theyare connected in many way s. As Stern(1992, p. 282) puts it, the LI - L2 con-nection is an indisputable fact of life.According to Prodromou (2003) LI isuseful in L2 classroom situations as in giv-ing instmc tions, and sorting out activities.He states that useful areas for study is incontrasting the two languages such as inproverbs and idioms and comparing verb-noun collocations across the two languageshelps students understand how LI inter-ference can often give the prob lems in L2leaming.Most teaching methods since the endof the nineteenth century and throughoutthe twentieth century have banned the useof mother tongue, by using the directmethod that strongly avoids LI.The communicative language teaching

LI is strictly to give instructions andadvice. Most teachers adopting this com-municat ive approach, including mostinstructors of com munication skills at theUniversity of Jordan treat the ideal class-room as having very little to do with LI,and those that use LI in classroom situa-t ions have no support f rom theirsupervisors.Whatever the advantages of these meth-odsare,there should be no logical necessitywhy these communicative tasks shouldavoid the use of L I. Do n't ban the moth-er tongue use but encourage attempts touse the target Language. Willis (1996 ).Other possibilities in using the mothertongue in EFL or L2 situations is what hasbeen pointed out by Dedrinou (2006) it

could be for evaluating the teaching learn-ing process, for purposes of developingfiuency inL2,also for presenting the mean-ing of a new lexical item or expression andfor giving mies of usage in order to facil-itate the leaming process.Cook (2001) argues for deliberate andsystematic use of LI and he says it can beused positively for conveying meaning,explaining grammar and for organizing theclass (giving directions, providing feed-back, instmctions in tests).

Cook promotes the teaching methodsthat employ the L I , stating that LI shouldbe seen as a resource and a tool, rather thansomething to be avoided.Anton and Dicamella (1998) viewedthe use of LI as a useful psychological toolin the early stages of second languageleam ing, and they found in their study that


4/12

74 College Student Journal

Most language teaching prac t icesassume that difficulties and errors madeby foreign or second language learners inthe study of English are a result of L I inter-ference, and on the degree to which theirlanguage differs from English. For exam-ple an Arab learner of English may facemore difficulties than a German learningEnglish as both German and English areclosely related, whereas Arabic is not.The idea of compound bilingualismwith two languages and their two differentGrammars has many implications as seenby Vivian Cook (2002).

Cook sees learners and users of L2 asfundamentally different from monolingualusers of their mother tongue. He there-fore suggests that educators m ust considerand recognize this distinction.Choong (2006) reviewed Cook s (2002)and stated that Cook divides the goals intotwo broad categories the external goalswhich apply to the use of the second lan-guage outside the classroom situation, andthe internal goals are the mental processthat the learner goes through when learn-ing the second language. What should betaken into consideration here is the com-municative competence of L2 learner, ashis needs are different from those of thenative speaker.

Cook (2002) points out the importanceofth non-native speaker teacher. Studentsare more likely to identify with, and theteachers would also be able to share theexperience of learning the language andwould be able to present areas of difficul-ties and present meaning of certain idioms

Teaching methods that involve the use of LThe first step in involving these meth-ods is to give the teachers the absolutionfor using L I, even if this is against the rulesof the institution where they are teaching .The next step is to choose the teachingmethod that allows the positive use of LIwithin the classroom without feeling guiltyabout it.1 T h e A l t e r n a t i n g L a n g u a g e

Approach:The Alternating Language Methodsapproach the students learning a sec-ond or foreign language on one handand then using their L I. The impor-tant issue here is reciprocality; bothlanguages are involved withoutbeing in a classroom situation. Thishas been successfully experiencedin the Language Centre at the Uni-versity of Jordan. Multi l ingualstudents studying Arabic in Jordanhave what they call language part-n e r s , fo re ign s tud ents prac t iceArabic with the Jordanian studentswhile Jordanian students get thechance to learn English from nativespeakers in social environments. Theproof for the success of this experi-ence was in the students satisfactionand improvem ent in their oral skill.This kind of approach is limited asit requires two or more balancedgroups.

2 Methods that create links betweenLI and L2


5/12

The Use of First Lang uage / 75

guages in the same lesson and in thesame class.a. The new concurrent method.This method allows the teacher toswitch from one language to anoth-er according to par t icular rules(Jacobson 1990). The teacher canswitch when concepts are taught, orto praise and scold students. In this

case the classroom becomes real L2teaching, and not pretends it is amonolingual situation, LI can alsobe used when introducing newvocabulary that can never be under-stood by using a synonym.b. Community Language Learn ing .Students are encouraged to talk to

each other spontaneously in L2 , butwith some mediation of their L1, theteacher interferes and translates thisinto L2 , as stude nts progress theybecome less dependent onL trans-lation. This situation and methodwas adopted in several pr ivateschools in Jordan, where studentswere encouraged to use L2, but withsomeL mediation of their teacher.This method makes use of LI forgiving meaning to whole L2 sen-tences and attaches both languagesto each other.

c. Dodson s Bilingual MethodDodson (1967) in t roduced th i smethod in which the teacher reads asentence in L2 and then interprets itinto LI, but he points out that thismethod is not translation. Next, stu-dents copy what the teacher had said.The teacher tests the students under-standing by saying the sentence inLI requiring an answer in L2 . In thisbilingual method students get themeaning of the sentence as a who le.

Ways to u.se LI positively in L2teaching to convey the meaning.a. Teachers can convey and check themeaning of the 2nd language to theleamer, either for words, sentencesor certain language functions. TheAudio-Visual method used thismethod. This method recognises theclose link of the two languages inthe mind, what is also popular in thismethod is checking the com prehen-sion by using L I, this would be seennatural in L2 leaming, and its nor-mal use in the classroom.

b. Class managementAnother positive way is in organis-ing the class like in carrying outtasks, students need to know whatthey have to do in LI.Teachers can also use LI in main-t a in ing d i sc ip l ine o r t h roughindividual contact with the students.c. TestingTesting mbrics should be explained


6/12

76 / College Student Journal

Students use LI freely in classrooms,the importance of the teacher 'sknowledge of the s tudents ' LIcomes in here. The students use LIas part of the main leaming activi-ty-In group work or pair work it is quitedifficult to minimise their use of LIsince they share it. This use is nor-mal and can sustain their interactionwith one another.

d DictionariesAnother possibility of LI use is theuse of bilingual dictionaries whichis found useful in providing themeaning.

To test the validity of the m ethods thatemploy the use of LI in L2 or foreign lan-guage teaching, a test was conducted.Aims ofth test:The aim ofth test isto validate the assumption that LI use givesdifferent and better results in the students'performance.Research Method and Procedure:Two exercises were given to 50 studentsbased on the exercises in the student book, Com munication Skills II . The first exer-cise is of 15 pairs of sentences asking thestudents to join each pair of sentenc estogether by using a relative pronoun. Thestudents were also asked to write five sen-tences each about themselves using arelative pronou n in each sen tence . Anexplanation in English was given to thestudents on how to use relative pronouns,and what the exercises require.The subjects: The students tested are

cation Skills 102 at the University of Jor-dan from different levels, they are second,third and fourth year students from differ-ent faculties. None of them was exem ptedfrom English 101 , which m eans they allscored less than6 5%in the English place-ment t es t t aken before en te r ing theuniversity. It is a fact that all the studentsmother tongue is Arabic, they speak Ara-bic at home and with their friends at theuniversity. They were given sufficient timeto answer the given questions.

The following error categories w erefound in their first performance.The Intemational Phonetic Alpha-be t t ranscr ip t ion was used totransliterate Arabic Sentences.The symbol V means deletion of therelafive pronoun.

1. They tend to delete a relative pronounin two contexts.a. W here the relative clause modifiesa head noun in the subject comple-ment position.There were many girls V attended theparty./ h u n a e k a e i da t b a e n ae t

tiaec[aernae alTiaeflaeThe relative pronoun who after girlswas deleted.b. When the relative clause modifiesan object.


7/12

The Use of First Language... / 77

/raeaejtu imrae?aetaen taebtiaeDuiaenk/These errors are caused by LI interfer-ence, in this context the relative clauseoccurrence in Arabic is not possible, thishas lead some error analysts to even thinkthat Arabic has no relative pronouns.2. They used personal pronouns instead

of, or in addition to the relative pro-nouns particularly with prepositions.My mother she is a teacher, who teach-es us all we need it./?umi mu iaelimae wae hjae aelaetitudarisunae kulu mae naetaesahu/This is the pen which the presidentwrites with it.This is the pen who the president writeswith it./haeae huwas aelqaelasmaelaeijsektubuasraeisu bihi/In the second sentence who the presi-dent) the students make no distinctionbetween human and non-human relativepronouns.From the Arabic sentences we concludethat the English sentences are literal trans-lation, and the errors are caused by negativetransfer from LI.3. They used possessives with antecedent.His car which he bought is new./saejaeraetuhu aelaeti 9/taeraehae

This deviation is mainly attributed toArabic, in Arabic there is no constraintson the use of possessives with theantecedent.The work was collected and the errors

found that the total num ber of errors in the1st test is 692 errors.Errors for each category in the use ofrelative pronouns are shown in table oneand table 2, and graphs and 2.The categories will be represented bythe following symbols throughout thetables and graphs in this paper.la: refers to relative clause modifyinga head noun in the subject complement.lb : refers to relative clause modifyingan object.2a: refers to using personal pronounsinstead of or in addition to the relative pro -nouns with a preposition.2b: refers to using personal pronounswith a preposition, as well as mixinghuman and nonhuman distinction.


8/12

78 / College Student Journal

Number of errors found pre explanation in L1Table 1:

EiTOf tytwab2a2b3

t o t

4946772692

Graph :number of errors found pre explanation in L1

Table2: percentage of errors in the first test pre explanation in L1la 149 21.531b 146 21.10^ 100 14.45

177 25.583 120 17.34

total 69 2 10 0.00

graph 2: percentag e of errors in the first test pre explana tion in L1

Based on our findings we can tell that cause of these errors.


9/12

The Use of First Language... / 79structure in the second language manifestssome degree of difference from, or somedegree of similarity with the equivalentitem or structure in the learner's first lan-gua ge. (Jackson, 1981:101).Another test was given to the studentswith sentences covering the same areas ofdifficulty due to LI interference. Prior tothis test, the researchers explained and

compared the sentences in Arabic.The results were surprising ly differentfrom the results found before the Arabicexplanation.The results are shown in tables 3 and 4and graphs 3 and 4.The categories are represented by thesame symbols shown on page 7.

Table 3: number of errors after explanation in LIError typ1a1b2a2b3btotal

No.of errors4832171231140Graph 3: number of errors after explanation in L I

Table 4: percentage of errors after explanation in L1Type of error1a1b2a2b3b

total

no.of error4832171231140

percentage of error34.2922.8612.148.5722.14

100.00Graph :percentage of errors after explanation in LI

1000K)3500300025002000


10/12

8 College Student Journa lTable 5: comparison between the resultsofthe test before a nd after instruction wa s givenin LI .

error type Number of errors in test 2 umber of error in testab2a2b3

t o t

48327234

4946772692

Graph 5: the difference in the students performance before and after explanationinL l

ConclusionThis paper has suggested ways ofintro-ducing LI into the classroom, in order tohelp produce teachers who are able to oper-ate with two language systems, capable ofusing the target language efficiently ratherthan imitating its native speakers. Bring-ing the positive and active role of LI maynot only improve or facilitate the teachingprocess but also bring innovationsintheexisting teaching methods, and may forma wider teaching approach to languageteaching.To conclude this discussion, teachersmust not feel guilty when making neces-sary use of LI in second language teaching.LI can be deliberately and systematicallyused in the classroom . Some suggestions

3 . Carrying out learning tasksinclass-rooms among the students.4. Developing code-switching in L2 activ-ities for later real-life use.In conclusion , learning must always betreated as there are always two languagespermanen tly present in the students mindsand teachers must always use teachingtechniquesandmethods involvingtheactive useofL I in teaching L2 withoutany guilt feeling or inhibitions about usingL I .Cook (2001) stated in the strongest formthat using LI has been banned or even min-imized and advocated a more positive rolein using LI to max imise its use in languagelearning. ejustifies this by w hat he callsmulti-competence, by this he means that


11/12

TheUse of First Language 81

References:a- PeriodicalsAnton.M. DiCamilla.F. (1998). Socio-cogni-tive functionsof LI collaborative interactioninthe L2classroom. Canadian ModernLan-guage Review.54,3. 414-442.Brooks.F.B. Donato.R (1994). Vygotskyanapproachestounderstanding foreign languagediscourse during communicative tasks.His-pania. 77, 262-274.Choong Philip k. (2006). Columbia Universityworking papersinTESO L Applied Linguis-tics,vol.6.Cook,V.(2001). Usingthefirst languagein theclassroom. Canadians Modem LanguageReview, 27.402 - 423.Cook,V.(2002) Portraitsof the L2users, Cleve-don. UK: Multilingual Matters.Dedrinou, B.D. (2006): M ediation, languageteachingandTesting. NationalandKapodis-

trian UniversityofAthens.Prodromou,L.(2003)Theidiomatic paradoxandEnglish as aLingua Franca. Developinganidiomatic common core. Modern EnglishTeacher 12. 22-29.Robert Burdenand Marion Williams (1999)Stu-dents ' Developing ConceptionsofThem .selvesas Language Learners.Themodem LanguageJoumal vol.83issue2,pages 193-201.b . Books:Corder, S.p. (1974). Error Analysis. In J.P.B. AllenandS.PitCorder (EDs.)TechniquesinApplied Linguistics (The EdinburghCourse in Applied Linguistics: 3). London:Oxford University Press (Languageand Lan-guage Leaming). pp. 122-154.Dodson.C.J.(1967). Language Teachingand theBilingual Method. London: Pitman.DodsonC.J. (Ed.)(1985). Bilingual Education:

Evaluation. Assessment and Methodology.Cardiff: UniversityofWales Press.

Jackson,H. (1981). Contrastive analysisas a pre-dictor of errors, with reference to PunjabilearnersofEnglish.InFisiak. j (ED.),Con-trastive Linguisticsand theLanguage teacher.Oxford: Pergamon.Jacobson,R. (1990). AllocatingTwoLanguagesasa KeyFeatureof aBilingual Methodology.In Jacobson Faltis (EDs.). Language Distri-bution Issues in Bilingual Schooling.Clevcdon: Multilingual Matters,pp 3-17.Lado,R.(1957). Linguistics Across Cultures.Ann

Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press.Marcaro.E.(1997). Target La nguage. C ollabora-tive Learning and Autonomy. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.Singleton.D.(1989). Language Acquisition:TheAge Factor: Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.S tem,H.H.(1992 ). IssuesandOptionsin Lan-guage Teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Willis.J. (1996).A Framework for Task-BasedLanguage Leaming. Harlow: Longman.c . Online:Eun-young Kim(2010) U sing Translation Exer-cises in the Communicative EFL writingclassroom. ELT Jounal Advance Access pub-lished June 21 , 2010.Hup:/eltj. Oxford joumals. Org.atUniversityofJordan.


12/12

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.

Documents

Mother Tongue Language