Shall We Forget About L1 When Teaching English?

Year 2016, , 5 - 14, 01.06.2016

Aynur Yürekli Kaynardağ

https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_0000000231

Abstract

The use of students’ mother tongue in foreign language classrooms has been an issue for many years; yet, without concrete agreement among teachers and scholars who are involved. Particularly, with the rise in communicative language teaching approaches, the tendency has moved towards monolingual teaching, by minimizing or banning the L1 completely. However, most of the time, the teaching and learning context, student profile and the tasks that the students are engaged in have been ignored, and decisions about monolingual and bilingual language teaching have been made. This paper briefly outlines six current studies investigating college students’ use of L1 by making reference to the context and the task in which they are involved. After determining the functions of L1 use by students, the paper makes some suggestions about alternative ways to maximize target language use, especially in areas concerning within group communication, lack of language proficiency and classroom management procedures

Keywords

Mother Tongue, Language Acquisition, Monolingual, Bilingual

İngilizce Öğretiminde Anadilimizi Unutmalı mıyız?

Abstract

Yıllardır süregelen ve net bir sonuca bağlanamayan yabancı dil öğretiminde anadil kullanımının yeri, özellikle iletişimsel eğitim yaklaşımları ile birlikte daha da fazla sorgulanır hale gelmiştir. Ancak öğrenme ortamı, yabancı dilin ikinci bir dil mi yabancı dil olarak mı öğretildiği veya öğrenme hedeflerinin eğitim ortamına göre nasıl değişiklik gösterdiği, sınıf içinde “tekdillilik” veya “ikidillilik” kararları verilirken göz ardı edilmiştir. Bu çalışma, yabancı dil öğrenme sürecinde öğrencilerin ne zaman anadile başvurmalarının dil eğitimine katkısı olacağı, hangi durumlarda ise öğrenim sürecine ket vuracağı ile ilgili bir alan taramasıdır. Öğrenme ortamı, öğrenci grubu özellikleri ve araştırmada ele alınan öğrenme etkinliği baz alınarak analiz edilen altı çalışmanın bulguları sonucunda, ana dil kullanımının hangi durumlarda ve hangi iletişimsel işlevler doğrultusunda kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Belirlenen işlevler arasında öne çıkan grup-içi iletişim ihtiyaçları, dilbilgisel yetersizlikler ve sınıfyönetimi bazlı kullanımlar düşünülerek anadil kullanımını en aza indirgemek için uygulanabilecek önerilerde bulunulmuştur

Keywords

Anadil, Dil Edinimi, Tekdillilik, İkidillilik

References

• Carless, D. (2007). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal 62 (4), 331–338.
• Cenoz, J. (2007). The acquisition of pragmatic competence and multilingualism in foreign language contexts. In E.Alco´n Soler and M. P. Safont Jorda` (eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
• De la Campa, J., Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose and reasons for using L1 in L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annals 42 (4), 742-759.
• Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. ELT Journal 50 (4), 303–11.
• Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese university EFL classroom. JALT Journal 31( 1), 63-80.
• Greggio, S., and Gil, G. (2007). Teacher’s and learners’ use of code switching in the English as a foreign language classroom: a qualitative study. Linguagem & Ensino 10 (2), 371-393.
• Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom, ELT Journal 46 (4), 350-355.
• Khati, A. R. (2011). When and why of mother tongue use in English classrooms. Journal of NELTA 16 (1-2), 42-51.
• Latsanyphone, S. and Bouangeune, S. (2009) . Using L1 in teaching vocabulary to low English proficiency level students: A case study at the University of Laos. English Language Teaching Journal , 2 (3), 186-193.
• Leeming, P. (2011). Japanese high school students’ use of L1during pair-work. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 21 (3), 360-382.
• Levine, G. 2003. Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal 87(3), 343–64.
• Littlewood, W. and Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching 44 (1), 64–77.
• Liu, D., Ahn, G. S., Baek, K. S. and Han, N.O. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly 38 (4), 605–638.
• Macaro, E. (2005). Code switching in the L2 classroom: a communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: NY Springer.
• McMillan, B. and Rivers, D. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System 39, 251-263.
• Sali, P. (2014). An analysis of the teachers’ use of L1 in Turkish EFL classrooms. System 42, 308–318.
• Üstünel, E. and P. Seedhouse. (2005). Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 302-325.
• Wang, W. and Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 11(3), 225–246.
• Weijena, D., Bergha, H., Rijlaarsdamb, G. and Sandersa, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing Volume 18(4), 235–250.
• Sampson, A. (2012). Learner code-switching versus English only. ELT Journal Volume 66(3), 293-303.