L1
Use in ELT: Not a Skeleton, but a Bone of Contention
Costas Gabrielatos
Introduction
I read Luke Prodromou’s article ‘From Mother Tongue to Other Tongue’ (TESOL Greece Newsletter 67) with great interest,
as the issue of the effective use of L1 in foreign language teaching has been a
central one for me. I also found useful the outline of recent attitudes towards
the utility and use of L1 in the classroom. I think it is essential for ELT
professionals to have a historical perspective of attitudes, approaches and
methods which have influenced ELT decisions and practices worldwide.
I agree that teachers should not
treat the use of L1 by themselves or learners as a sin, and that L1 does have a
place in ELT methodology. Still, I believe that learners and teachers alike
need to be made aware of the limitations and pitfalls of L1 use in the
classroom, as unprincipled use of L1 can have long-lasting negative effects on
the learners’ awareness and production of the target language.
Specific comments
In my response, I am going to address a number of specific points made
in the article (Prodromou, 2000).
It is not clear what Prodromou means by ‘until recently’. Howatt (1984)
refers to a number of attitudes, approaches and methods which advocate or
reject the use of L1 in ELT, as well as to the debate on the subject in various
language teaching publications. For the use of L1 in language teaching were the
proponents of the Grammar Translation ‘method’ (the first ‘grammar translation’
course was published in 1783) and Pendergast (around 1860), whereas against L1
use were the proponents of the Direct Method, particularly as interpreted by
Berlitz (around 1878). Moderate views were expressed by the Reform Movement
(Vietor, 1882/1886), and Palmer (mid 1910s to late 1920s). Therefore, it seems
that L1 has never been “a skeleton in the cupboard” (Prodromou, 2000: 7);
rather it has been a bone of contention for more than two centuries.
“The
use and abuse of the mother tongue in the classroom … cuts across fundamental
issues in ELT such as the respective roles of native and non-native speaker
teachers of English and the place of the target culture and local culture in
the learning process” (p. 7).
Prodromou seems to agree with the ELT professionals who campaign for the
emancipation of L1 cultures from an L2 hegemony in terms of both language norms
and culture (e.g. Canagarajan, 1999; Phillipson, 1992) - an attitude which I
also share.
Canagarajan (1999: 56) mentions
that “the English language has had a history of imposition for political and
material reasons in most periphery communities, often in competition with
native languages. It is still deeply implicated in struggles for dominance
against other languages, with conflicting implications for the construction of
identity, community, and culture of the local people”, and characterises
L2-only practices as “oppressive” (op. cit.: 125).
Also, Phillipson’s discussion of
the “monolingual fallacy” (185-193) makes it evident that monolingual English
education was first used in the primary and secondary schools of former British
colonies. In such contexts the monolingual approach has been criticised because
it “legitimates the ignoring of local languages and the cultural universe that
these languages mediate” (op. cit.: 254).
There is one significant point.
These views refer to ELT in countries where English was or has been (one of)
the official or dominant language(s). I can understand that in such contexts
conserving the (other) native language(s) and culture(s) is of paramount
importance. Nevertheless, in the European context where English is learned for
educational and/or occupational purposes, the danger of losing one’s language
and/or culture to an imported one is far from imminent. That an increasing
number of learners of English also learn another foreign language further
diminishes the ‘danger’. On the contrary, a much higher proportion of the
learners’ time is spent in contact with the L1 than English.
What is indeed relevant to the
European context is the fact that “the monolingual fallacy ensures that
speakers of centre-based Englishes can market themselves as teachers in
periphery communities without having acquired any proficiency in the local
languages” (Canagarajan, 1999: 126). Still, important as it may be, the issue
of empowerment of non-native ELT professionals is independent of the issue of
whether and how L1 should be used in ELT.
“The
skeleton has been there all the time, we just haven’t wanted to talk about it -
because perhaps we have not had the psycholinguistic or pedagogic framework in
which to do so.” (p. 7)
“If
the L1 helps facilitate learning then we use it” (p.
8)
In actual fact, ELT professionals have had a number of helpful
frameworks at their disposal. A Semantic
comparison of the native and target languages can reveal a number of
differences in which the two cultures encode meaning in terms of vocabulary
(e.g. different collocations) and grammar (e.g. different expression of time).
A Pragmatic comparison can reveal
differences in areas such as communication conventions, the status of
explicitness or conciseness, or the ways in which attitudes are expressed in
the two cultures (e.g. politeness, irony). A comparison at the Discourse level can reveal differences
in areas such as information structure (for a concise comparison of Greek and
English see Gabrielatos, 1998). According to the Psycholinguistic perspective “failure to provoke educational
conditions for the development of cognitive-academic proficiency in L1 as well
as initial literacy in the L1 may invalidate efforts to build up such skills in
L2” (Phillipson, 1992: 191; see also Howatt, 1984: 296-297). Finally, there is Interlanguage theory (introduced by Selinker in 1972) and a great number of other
SLA theories which were influenced by the notion of interlanguage (see Ellis,
1994, chapters 9 & 10). Interlanguage is the “system of implicit knowledge
that the learner develops and systematically amends over time” (op. cit.: 354).
Interlanguage “is thought to be distinct from both the learner’s first language
and from the target language” (McLaughlin, 1987: 60). In fact, one of the
central issues in the different views of interlanguage and the respective
theories is the nature and extent of L1 influence on a learner’s interlanguage (Ellis, 1994).
The use of L1 in ELT seems to
have been in and out of fashion exactly because views on the subject did not
make explicit use of existing frameworks. What is more, “there are too many
parameters involved in language teaching/ learning for success or failure to be
attributed only to the procedures
and materials used.” (Gabrielatos, 2001: 12), so it is extremely difficult, if
not impossible, for a teacher to evaluate with any degree of accuracy the
effectiveness of a single technique (in our case use of L1). Therefore
principled teachers would be wise to refer to and use frameworks which enable
them to “formulate helpful questions, interpret their teaching experience and
draw conclusions” (op. cit.: 16).
“The
learner journeys back and forth within [the L1 and L2 cultures] in search of a
‘third place’ – in other words, the interaction between one culture and
another” (p. 8).
“In
the context of English as an international language … the bilingual/bicultural
teacher (this includes native-speaker teachers of English who are au fait with
the language and culture they are in) are in a position to enrich the process
of learning by using the mother tongue as a resource, and by using the culture
which the mother tongue embodies they can facilitate the progress of their
students towards the other tongue, the other culture” (p.
12).
As I see it, the point is not for learners to find a ‘third place’ in
terms of language and culture, but to “appropriate” the target language, as
Prodromou (2000: 8) also mentions. In appropriating the new language learners
use “the discourses, codes and grammar of English in terms of their own
traditions and needs” (Canagarajan, 1999: 174). Successful appropriation will
help learners to use English “not as slaves, but as agents; … not mechanically
and diffidently, but creatively and critically” (op. cit.: 176). In other
words, the general objective of ELT should be to enable learners to be
themselves, to project their own personality through the use of the new
language.
True, one of the ways in which
such a goal can be achieved is contrasting the two languages and cultures. But
effective contrast cannot be expected to be achieved automatically merely by
teachers and learners switching from one language to another whenever this
feels appropriate or convenient. Teachers need to be knowledgeable about the
similarities and differences between the learners’ native language and the
target language at the semantic, morphosyntactic, pragmatic and discourse level
(see also Kramsch, 1992: 148), as well as be aware of the opportunities and
pitfalls of L1 use in ELT and proceed according to principled frameworks (see
Gabrielatos, 1998).
There is an additional reason
for teachers to be cautious of the use of L1. Learners tend to rely on their
existing language knowledge (L1 and any other languages they can use) to help
them understand the logic and organisation principles behind the target
language. Uncritical use of L1 in the classroom (translation in particular)
will reinforce this tendency. L1 use in the classroom needs to be handled with
care exactly because it exerts a powerful influence on the learning process, as
it seems that learners tend to treat it as the obvious starting point when
learning a new language, and is a popular communication strategy (Ellis, 1985:
180-189). It is not a coincidence that a large number of the mistakes made by
non-native users of English (particularly at elementary and intermediate
levels) tend to be the result of word-for-word translation, and transfer of
cultural norms and communication conventions (e.g. Either she comes or not, I won’t speak to her. Late midday = ÁñãÜ ôï ìåóçìÝñé. What do you want? = Ôß èÝëåôå;).
Finally, the proposed blend of
the two cultures/ languages seems to point towards the teaching/ learning of
what has been termed lately ‘English as an international language’. Such an
international variety of English is defined by Phillipson as “the language used
by non-native speakers of English of different nationalities for restricted
communication purposes and which bears traces of their mother tongue” (1992:
244). How legitimate is it to set such a goal for EFL teaching? We need to keep
in mind that language expresses a culture, “it embodies the efforts of a language
community to conceptualise and interpret the world, as well as human experience
and relations. As a result, language reflects the complex ‘personality’ of such
a community. Therefore, language can only be interpreted and learned with
reference to a specific cultural context” (Gabrielatos, 1998: 21). Of course,
such a line of thinking presupposes that language learning is accompanied by
awareness-raising regarding a (number of) specific English-speaking culture(s)
(e.g. Australia, Britain, Canada, USA), and poses the attendant question of
choice of the cultures and varieties to be represented in ELT materials.
Conclusion
My experience has shown that an either/or attitude to L1 use in ELT is
not helpful. A more constructive range of questions is ‘what for’, ‘when’ and
‘to what extent’. Any views on the utility of L1 in ELT should not be
influenced only by sociopolitical issues (particularly ones relevant to context
dissimilar to our own), but also take into account insights from Linguistics
and Applied Linguistics. What is more, we should not expect an umbrella answer
in terms of age and level of learners, or type and stage of lesson. Rather,
principled ELT professionals (Gabrielatos, 2001: 16) should make decisions
based on awareness of the nature of both the L1 and the target language (and
the respective cultures), knowledge of alternative frameworks, as well as the
idiosyncrasies of their particular teaching/ learning context.
References
Canagarajah, A. S. 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Gabrielatos, C. 2001. ‘Shopping at the ELT Supermarket:
Principled Decisions and Practices.’ ELT
News 144.
Gabrielatos, C. 1998. ‘Translation Impossibilities:
Problems and Opportunities for TEFL.’ TESOL Greece Newsletter 60.
Howatt, A.P.R. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second-Language Learning. Edward Arnold.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Prodromou, L. 2000. ‘From Mother Tongue to Other
Tongue.’ TESOL Greece Newsletter 67.
Costas Gabrielatos is a language teacher educator, EFL/ESP teacher and ELT author. He is currently lecturer in Applied Linguistics & ELT at the University of Indianapolis Athens. He holds an MPhil in English & Applied Linguistics (Cambridge), an RSA/Cambridge Diploma with distinction, and a BA in Economics (Athens). E-mail: cgabrielatos@yahoo.com.