The Role of First Language in the Acquisition of Second Language 

Sampath Pushpa Kumara
Senior Lecturer
English Language Teaching Unit
University of Sri Jayewardenepura
Sri Lanka
sampath@sjp.ac.lk

The role of first language (L1) in the second language (L2) classroom is an increasingly important area that requires more research. Second language acquisition (SLA) researchers investigate the role of L1 and teacher perceptions of L1 use in the L2 classroom. However, research that examines the impact of using L1 in L2 classroom is limited. Therefore, interactive discussions on the use of L1 in an adult L2 classroom would be useful to identify if L1 can be an integral part of a second language pedagogy or not. 

Traditionally, it has been believed that target language can and should be taught in the target language only. However, findings of more recent classroom-based research suggest that second language (L2) learners’ first language (L1) plays a facilitative role in the language classroom. More importantly, learners seem to hold positive perceptions of the incorporation of their first language in the second language classroom. In spite of empirical findings supporting the positive use of learners’ first language in the second language classroom and learners’ apparent need to use their L1 in the L2 classroom, some teachers insist on monolingual instruction and seem to hold reservations regarding the potential of learners’ first language in the second language classroom. The theory underlying the banishment of L1 seems to be based on both ill-founded second language acquisition (SLA) theories and political, ideological and commercial reasons. The politically motivated prejudices and ill-founded SLA theories have been promoted by Western scholars. English language teachers around the world who embrace the methodological practices generally informed by Western scholars tend to discourage the use of first language in the L2 classroom. In Sri Lanka too, the use of first language is viewed negatively in the English language classrooms. This trend seems to prevent methodologists from developing a theoretical and methodological framework that allows teachers and learners to make strategic use of their shared first language as a classroom resource. 

There is evidence in SLA literature supporting positive use of learners’ first language in the second language classroom. Piper (2001,p.75) points out that the native language of English learners is a resource that can be effectively used to eliminate target language errors by “…simply pointing out a difference between an English and a native language structure.” Cinamon (1994,p.74) too argues that the native language of L2 learners is a ‘major resource’ that can be used to sort out concepts. According to Dagiima (2009), mother tongue comparisons help learners compare the different aspects of the two languages and acquire vocabulary of foreign languages in a relatively short time. Similarly, Hummel (2010), among others, claim that translation equivalents help learners look across linguistic systems and learn the new target language structures. Thus, researchers highlight the advantageous role that L2 learners’ L1 plays in the L2 classroom. Learners too seem to hold positive views regarding the use of their L1 in the L2 classroom. For instance, findings of study by Chavez (2003) suggest that learners hold positive perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. 

Some second language teaching methods and approaches also allow the use of learners’ first language in the second language classroom. According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), learners’ first language plays different roles in grammar translation method, community language learning, suggestopedia, silent way and communicative language teaching. Further, Willis and Willis (2007,p.220) point out the important role that learners’ L1 plays in task-based pedagogy. Dodson’s bilingual method (Dodson,1967) too encourages the use of L1 in the process of SLA. Despite methodological support from some second language teaching methods and approaches, positive learner perceptions and empirical support for the inclusion of learners’ first language in the second language classroom, the monolingual instruction where English is exclusively used in teaching English has traditionally been seen as the norm (Pennycook,1994,p.136). On one hand, this monolingual assumption seems to be based on ill-founded SLA theories as elaborated below.

As Cook (2001) points out, those who advocate monolingual approach usually develop their arguments around three claims:

• L2 learning should be based on L1 learning principles.
• Successful L2 acquisition depends on keeping the L2 separate and distinct from the learner’s L1.
• Exposure to as much L2 as possible ensures better learning. The use of LI for classroom interaction deprives the students of the only true experience of the L2 that they may ever encounter (Cook,2001,p.409)

The first claim pointed out by Cook suggests that second language acquisition is driven by the same processes that guide first language acquisition. Advocates of this claim argue that L1 learner does not depend on another language to learn his L1 and as such L2 learner too does not need the facility of another language to acquire L2. Therefore, the use of translation, interpretation, native language equivalents etc. in the process of SLA is simply dismissed. However, sociocultural theory of second language learning claims that LI plays a key role as a mediating device in helping learners to mediate with each other, and with themselves, in the process of mastering the target language (Lantolf,2000,p.87-88). Cognitive theories including theory of language transfer also highlight the important role that L2 learners’ L1 plays in the process of SLA. These theoretical views question the argument that second language acquisition is driven by the same processes that guide first language acquisition.

Arguments are developed by Dodson (1967,p.59) and Pennycook (1994,p.136), among others, to show the differences between L1 and L2 learner status. For instance, Pennycook (1994,p.136) points out that the arguments developed on the basis that the child learns the oral language before written language and as such adult L2 learner too can master the oral language before written language is baseless. He points out that this comparison trivializes both the L2 learner and the learning process. Therefore, the argument on the basis that L1 learners do not have the facility of another language to learn their first language and as such L2 learning is also possible without using the learner’s L1 tends to be invalid. 

The above arguments can further be used to question the view that successful L2 acquisition depends on keeping the L2 separate and distinct from the learner’s L1, because if new linguistic knowledge is said to be built upon the first one and second language learning is said to be an interaction between L1 and L2 as pointed out above, can L2 learners keep their new language separate and distinct from their first language as Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982,p.296), among others, argue studies on interlanguage, error analysis and language transfer/cross linguistic influence too question the validity of arguments developed on the basis that second language learner’s L2 should be kept entirely separate and distinct from his L1. 

The claim that the more exposure to English the better the result appears to be a valid argument developed by those who advocate monolingual instruction. However, Pachler and Field (2001,p.85), among others, argue that more exposure to the target language does not necessarily ensure better learning. Therefore, it can be concluded that pedagogy that encourages monolingualism is partially based on ill-founded, unexamined SLA theories.  

On the other hand, the theory underlying the banishment of L1 in the L2 classroom seems to be inspired by commercial, political, and ideological purposes as claimed by Phillipson (1992) and Cook (2010,p.155). 

As elaborated above, it is clear that the theory underlying the banishment of the L1 is based on political, economic and ideological reasons and ill-founded SLA theories. Therefore, contrary to what SLA literature reports, the use of students’ own language has remained the norm in many educational contexts (Hall and Cook,2012). However, denying a role for learners’ L1 in mainstream literature seems to have prevented methodologists from developing a learner-centred theoretical framework for constructive use of learners’ L1 in the second language classroom. In particular, there remains a lack of engagement at a broader theoretical or methodological level within ELT to find ‘appropriate ratio’ of L1 use. Therefore, classroom research by teachers themselves could be the way forward to understanding the role and ‘appropriate ratio’ of L1 in the L2 classroom.

References 

Chavez, M. (2003). The Diglossic Foreign-language Classroom: Learners’ Views on L1 and L2 Functions. In C. Blyth (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of foreign-language classrooms: Contributions of the native, near-native, and the non-native speaker (pp. 163–208). Boston: Heinle.

Cinamon, D. (1994). Bilingualism and Oracy. In: Brindley, S., ed. 1994. Teaching English. London: Routledge. Ch.8.

Cook, V. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold.
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dagiima, S. (2009). Enrichment of Students’ Vocabulary in Teaching Foreign Languages. [Electronic version]. The Modern Language Journal, E-proceedings of the International Online Language Conference (IOLC) 32 – 37.

Dodson, C.J.,(1967). Language Teaching and the Bilingual Method. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd.

Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S., (1982). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Second Language Learning as a Mediated Process. [Electronic version]. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79 – 96.

Pachler, N and Field, K. (2001). Learning to Teach Modern Foreign Languages in the Secondary School. London: Routledge.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman.

Phillipson, R.L.H. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piper, T.(2001). And Then There Were Two: Children and Second Language Learning. Ontario: Pippin Publishing.

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S.,(2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.