{"id":3962,"date":"2013-05-01T11:00:51","date_gmt":"2013-05-01T11:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.eltweekly.com\/elt-newsletter\/?p=3962"},"modified":"2013-05-01T11:00:51","modified_gmt":"2013-05-01T11:00:51","slug":"rehabilitating-the-contrastive-analysis-through-the-use-of-first-language-in-the-english-language-classroom-by-shivani","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eltweekly.humbeestudio.xyz\/?p=3962","title":{"rendered":"‘Rehabilitating the Contrastive Analysis through the Use of First language in the English Language Classroom’ by Shivani"},"content":{"rendered":"

Abstract<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Throughout much of the history of research into second language acquisition (SLA), the role of learners\u2019 first language (L1) in the second language (L2) learning has been a hotly debated issue. Different viewpoints are but a mere reflection of the different methodological shifts in English Language Teaching (ELT). I believe that L1 of the learner should be treated as an ally in the process of second language teaching and that it should be consciously used in the form of contrastive analysis instead of being avoided at all costs. In this paper, I recommend using the results of contrastive studies for explicit contrastive comparisons in the classroom. This paper begins with the discussion of the different viewpoints on the use of L1 in ELT. After this, some of the most-recognized ELT approaches and methods are discussed. Finally, it elucidates the role of contrastive analysis to facilitate the second language learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n

The first language (L1) has long been considered the villain in second language (L2) learning, the major cause of a learner\u2019s problems with the new language. Krashen (1981) suggests that the knowledge of the first language is a source of errors in learners\u2019 L2 performance, so there should be an English environment in the English language classroom. Ellis (1984) argued that L1 should be used as little as possible. In recent years, however, most of the research endorses the use of the first language as it facilitates the learning process of the second language (Cummins 2007, Garc\u00eda 2008 and Kang 2012). It has been pointed out that depending on the learners\u2019 target language proficiency level, the extent of first language use in the classroom should be determined without affecting the learners\u2019 opportunity for the exposure to the target language.<\/span><\/p>\n

The use of first language as a linguistic resource in the classroom can encourage and enhance students\u2019 positive attitude toward their first language, their belief in themselves and their capabilities to achieve higher learning in academic areas as well as second language and literacy. One of the main assumptions of my approach is that the first language of the learner is a very powerful factor in second- language acquisition and one which cannot be eliminated from the process of learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

Intuitively, a good number of teachers feel partly based on their own experiences as learners of a second language, that the first language of the learner has an active and beneficial role to play in instructed second language acquisition\/learning. Learners do not construct rules in a vacuum; rather they work with whatever information is at their disposal. This includes knowledge of their L1. The L1 can be viewed as a kind of \u2018input from inside\u2019 (Ellis, 2003). And yet, for some of us, there seems to be a generalised feeling of guilt that we are acting counter to the principles of good teaching when we use the learners\u2019 first language as a tool to facilitate learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is little doubt that what the language learner already knows is the first language, through which, more or less consciously, s\/he tries to perceive and assimilate the elements of the target language. Utilizing and controlling this tendency instead of ignoring or fighting it will go a long way towards facilitating learning a second language as Weschler (1997) pointed out;<\/span><\/p>\n

No matter how much a teacher wish it weren\u2019t so, so-called \u2018interference\u2019 will always plague any learner who has ever leaned one language before another. The term itself has a negative connotation, but need not; better to think of the inevitable influence of the L1 on the L2 as a potential aid or tool. For those who advocate teaching the student to \u2018 think directly\u2019 in the target language, an interesting philosophical question would be, \u201cOnce having learned to think in one language, is it even possible not to think in that language?<\/span><\/p>\n

The question then suggests itself whether it isn\u2019t better to use this habitual transfer in some way rather than desperately try to fight and eradicate it, or even to deny its existence.\u00a0 Using contrastive analysis in the classroom would go a long way towards controlling this powerful tendency and making an ally of what has long been considered our greatest enemy. A classical experiment carried out by Lester (1932) with four groups of subjects differently instructed and made aware of the existence of interference from interpolated activities demonstrated very clearly that the subjects who were warned and shown where the interference would appear and who were also instructed how to fight it did incomparably better on the retesting of the learned material than the subjects who were not so instructed. It follows that warning the learner of the language interference, showing clearly and in advance where it may appear and what s\/he should keep in mind to curb it, may greatly facilitate second language learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

The first language of the learners has long been considered a lower language and a source of errors. This view is now being criticized because ESL\/ EFL teachers have become aware of the significance of L1. Vivian Cook (2001) writes about the first language in ESL classes as \u201ca door that has been firmly shut in language teaching for over a hundred years.\u201d When students come to the classroom they don\u2019t come out of the blue; they come \u201cloaded\u201d with their native language and a cultural heritage that nobody must deny or underestimate.<\/span><\/p>\n

English teachers working with monolingual students at lower levels of English proficiency find prohibition of the first language practically impossible. So instead of looking at the students\u2019 native language and cultural background as inferior or a source of errors, they must be used as a tool to maximize foreign language learning.\u00a0 The first language represents a powerful resource that can be used in a number of ways to enhance learning but it must always be used in a principled way.<\/span><\/p>\n

When learners use first language structures in second language performance, they in effect plug lexical items (vocabulary) of the second language into the surface structure of the first language. In other words, they \u201cthink\u201d in the first language and use words from the second language, much as one would handle word-for-word translation (Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982). Students may feel frustrated and tend to believe that their identity is jeopardized if their first language is made degenerate. Further, the use of L1 frees learners from psychological barriers like embarrassment or nervousness and offers them mental comfort. It also creates a kind of rapport between the teacher and the learners and the learners are motivated to interact with the teacher independently. The first language provides a new dimension to the class and makes it pupil friendly and lively.<\/span><\/p>\n

A Brief Review of Literature on the Use of L1<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The cross-linguistic influence has had a rather unique history in second language acquisition, research and practice. It was presumed to be the only source of syntactic errors in adult second-language performance (Lado 1957). The monolingual principle refers to exclusive use of the target language as instructional language to enable learners to think in target language, with minimal interference from the first language (Howatt 1984<\/span><\/a>). For years, English-only has been a default position of ELT pedagogy. Due to a variety of reasons, for example, a concern over students’ maximum exposure to English or a perceived lack of target language competence on the part of non-native teachers, or sometimes even sheer necessity when a teacher does not share the same linguistic background with learners, the monolingual principle has become a taken-for-granted dogma in language instruction. At policy level (Littlewood and Yu 2011<\/span><\/a>), teachers are advised by national curricula to either “ban the L1 from classroom” or “minimize” it as “the L1 is not something to be utilized in teaching but to be set aside” (Cook 2001<\/span><\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Harmer (2007b), a serious objection to the use (especially the over-use) of the students\u2019 L1 is that it restricts the learners\u2019 exposure to the target language. It is possible, for example, to make use of their first language when we give instructions, but this will reduce their exposure to a type of English which is \u2018an ideal source of language for student acquisition\u2019 (Harbord 1992). Indeed if the teacher is a principal source of useful comprehensible input, then the more time we spend speaking English, the better.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is one typical situation where the use of the L1 seems counter-productive. This is when the teacher encourages the learners to use English in communicative speaking tasks, whose purpose, after all, is to give the learners opportunities to communicate in English. The teacher may understand the students\u2019 natural inclination to communicate in the best way they can (i.e. in their first language), but it will be meaningless for the purpose of the activity that the teacher asks them to engage in (Harmer 2007b).<\/span><\/p>\n

Agreeing with the idea of Harbord (1992) that English is \u2018an ideal source of language for student acquisition\u2019, Cook (2001) believes that learners of English should be exposed to an English using environment as much as possible. Krashen (1986), a pivotal advocate of the only-L2 use in the language classroom, continues this idea by stating that \u201ccomprehensible input is the only causative variable in second language acquisition\u201d. He means, \u201cSuccess in a foreign language can be attributed to input alone\u201d (Brown 2000).<\/span><\/p>\n

The supporters of the monolingual approach also indicate that the major impediment to L2 learning is interference from L1 knowledge (Cook, 2001). Krashen (1981), in his \u2018Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning\u2019, suggests that the first language knowledge is a source of errors in learners\u2019 L2 performance. He also reports, \u201cA high amount of first language influence is found in situations \u2026 where translation exercises are frequent\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite this popular belief and common practice, avoidance of L1 in L2 classrooms, according to <\/span>Cook (2001)<\/span><\/a> “has no straightforward theoretical rationale”. On the contrary, empirical research in recent years has proved that the first language is the most important ally a foreign\/second language can have. A number of authors have talked about the potential pedagogical benefits of carrying out contrastive analysis of grammars. Both Atkinson (1987) and Harbord (1992) present similar views. Atkinson proposes a simple explanation or demonstration of the rule followed by a translation exercise in those cases where L1 and L2 differ structurally.<\/span><\/p>\n

Schweers (1999), in a report of the outcome of his research on the use of the first language in English classes, concludes that \u2018a second language can be learned through raising awareness to the similarities and differences between the L1 and L2\u2019. James (1980) makes reference to contrastive teaching<\/span> <\/i>as a valid technique to impart (students with) \u2018packaged information, in a form easily assimilated as knowledge, about the intricacies of L2 systems\u2019. The case is built stronger when we consider SLA research on the effect of formal and explicit instruction in the classroom. It is generally accepted that instruction that focuses on language form can both speed up the rate of language development and raise the ultimate level of the learners\u2019 attainment (Willis (1996).<\/span><\/p>\n

Atkinson (1987), in his discussion about the general advantages of native language use, claims that to let learners use their L1 is \u201ca humanistic approach\u201d which allows them to \u201csay what they really want to say sometimes\u201d. In terms of learner autonomy and evaluation, Ellis (2003) proposes that L1 allows students to give ongoing feedback about the course and their experiences of learning much more fluently than they will if they are only using English. \u201cIn the process of discovery and creation\u201d, \u201cthe effect of the mother tongue on learning L2\u201d is also \u201cfacilitatory\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is evident that non-native speakers account for the vast majority of teachers of English all over the world. These teachers\u2019 English is usually not good enough to carry out English-only teaching in the classroom. For this reason, insistence on the monolingual approach may result in their reduced ability to communicate and consequently their reduced teaching performance. According to Nunan and Lamb (1996), in most foreign language contexts, using the students\u2019 first language to give brief explanations of grammar and lexis, as well as for explaining procedures and routines, can greatly facilitate the management of learning.<\/span><\/p>\n

The study of second language acquisition has been very much affected by changes and trends found not only in linguistics but also in the field of psychology. For example, earlier, the dominant school in American psychology was behaviourism. Behaviourist believed that only externally observable behaviour was psychologically relevant for the study and that internal mechanism responsible for that behaviour could not be investigated scientifically. The linguists influenced by behaviourists believed that Language itself consisted of externally conditioned habits. According to this approach, learning a second language consisted of the acquisition of a new set of habits. (Fries 1945) Learning a second language, therefore, meant overcoming a habit formed when the first language was acquired and replacing it, or at least overcoming its influence, when learning the second language. The set of habits that made up the first language was seen as interfering with the acquisition of a new set. Contrastive analysis is based on this school of thought.<\/span><\/p>\n

Universal Grammar and the Role of L1 in Second Language Acquisition<\/b><\/p>\n

Universal grammar (UG) consists of a set of unconscious constraints that let us decide whether a sentence is correctly formed. This mental grammar is not necessarily the same for all languages. But according to Chomskyian theorists, the process by which, in any given language, certain sentences are perceived as correct while others are not, is universal and independent of meaning. The UG may be said to consist of a set of limitations or parameters for language. Different languages set their parameters differently, thereby creating the characteristic grammar for that language.<\/span><\/p>\n

The potential of this theory can be seen for investigating the process of second language acquisition. The acquisition of a second language is complicated by the fact that two languages are now confounding the picture, and it may be difficult to identify clearly the influence of first language, second language and UG constraints.<\/span><\/p>\n

The L2 learner possesses a grammar of a first language incorporating the principles of Universal Grammar and specifying a particular set of values for its parameters. Two possibilities for L2 learning need to be considered: the learner might have access to Universal Grammar either directly or indirectly through the first language. In a way this rephrases the debate about the relationship of first and second language learning\u2014whether L2 learners start from scratch, or depend upon their first language. Chomsky himself has queried the importance of the LI as a mediator: ‘While it may be true that “once some language is available, acquisition of others is relatively easy”, it nevertheless remains a very serious problem\u2014not significantly different from the problem of explaining first language acquisition\u2014to account for this fact’ (Chomsky 1969).<\/span><\/p>\n

The question of whether learners have access to UG is, indirectly, related to the question of what role the L1 plays, as one route to UG is through the L1. It is not surprising, therefore, that UG researchers also remonstrate disagreement regarding the role L1 plays in activating UG principles and parameters, both in initial L2 state and in subsequent development. Wakabayashi (qtd in Ellis 2008) provided a useful summary of the main positions:<\/span><\/p>\n