|
PLAN:
Key Concepts and Theories Multi-competence Theory Key Concepts and Theories
The relationship between L1 and L2 is an age-old controversy and remains unresolved and highly debated among policy-makers, curriculum designers, teachers and teacher educators in second language education (Butzkamm 2003, 2011; Butzkamm and Caldwell 2009; Levine 2011; Lin 2013; Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain 2009). There have been several rounds of discussions on the relationship between the first language and the second language. The ebb and flow of the role L1 plays in L2 classrooms aligns with the renewal of language learning theories and upgrading of popular teaching methodologies.
Origins of Monolingual Principle
Krashen’s (1985) Comprehensive Input Hypothesis serves as the primary bedrock for the monolingual approach. The theory argues that exposure of students to a flood of comprehensive L2 inputs will guarantee the mastery of L2. Furthermore, the use of L1 will reduce the level of exposure to the L2 input. A further theoretical rationale for the monolingual principle is drawn from Swain’s (1985) Output Hypothesis, which argues that comprehensive input alone will not ensure mastery of the L2. Students need to produce L2 output (speak and write) as much as possible in order to master it. Monolingual principle supporters refer to the two theories to reinforce their idea that both teachers’ input and students’ output in L2 classroom must always and only be in the L2 (Macaro 2005).
L2 acquisition is equivalent to L1 acquisition. This hypothesis argues that L2 should be the only language available when it is acquired since L1 was the only language present during the L1 acquisition (Ellis 1986). It is believed that children were only able to successfully learn their mother tongue due to being free from the disturbance of other languages. Therefore, the idea is that successful L2 teaching should be based on the same principles and characteristics of L1 acquisition. This idea is also the founding principle for the Natural Method, which is built around the observation of child language learning (Richards and Rodgers 2014: 11). However, this comparison is questionable as L2 students are usually adults who have more mature minds, greater social development and a larger short-term memory capacity, many differences from L1-only young children.
L2 acquisition has nothing to do with L1. The hypothesis argues that L2 acquisition happens solely through L2 and is not linked to the L1. L1 in fact is seen as the major problem in the process of acquiring the L2 due to its negative transfer to the learning of the L2. The most impactful theory is the Contrastive Analysis (Lado 1957), which suggests to teachers that they should never translate the L2 words into a students’ L1. Instead, they should exhaust all other alternative methods such as to mime its meaning or show pictures in the long-term hope that this builds up the L2 as a separate system (Cook 2001). In fact, many studies have proven that L1 and L2 are interwoven in people’s minds in terms of vocabulary, syntax, phonology and pragmatics. As Stern (1992: 282) puts it, the L1-L2 connection is an indisputable fact of life.
One of the most widely known criticisms of monolingualism came from Phillipson’s (1992). His Five Tenets described the common assumptions about English language teaching and learning. These were that (1) English is best taught monolingually. (2) The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker. (3) The earlier English is taught, the better the results. (4) The more English is taught, the better the results. (5) If other languages are used much, the standard of English will drop. These prevailing tenets hold that English teaching should be entirely through the medium of English, and therefore, the only language permitted in the English classroom should be English. Though groundless, these assumptions are firmly subscribed to by many second language teachers. The discouragement of L1 use in the classroom originates from tradition, anecdotes, assumptions and unproven beliefs. Many teachers have unconsciously implemented and reinforced the monolingual principle in classroom teaching. Cook (2001) argued that these assumptions have affected many generations of foreign language teachers and students and are taken for granted as the foundation of language teaching.
There are stronger or weaker forms in discouraging L1 use in the L2 classroom (Cook 2001). The stronger one is to completely ‘ban’ the L1 from the L2 classroom. This is often practised in circumstances where teachers do not speak the students’ L1 or students share no common languages. Some school teachers have even devised a penalty system to ensure that students did not use their L1 (Auerbach 1993). Early works extolled the practices of fining students for using their L1. One teacher warned his/her students that ‘this is an English-only classroom. If you speak Spanish or Cantonese or Mandarin or Vietnamese or Russian or Farsi, you will pay me 25 cents. I can get rich’ (Weinberg 1990). The weaker one is to ‘minimize’ the use of the L1 in the classroom as it is still seen as a negative influence. L1 is not a linguistic resource to be utilised in teaching but something to be set aside. For many L2 researchers and educators, any notion of L1 use in foreign language teaching and learning connotes the fearful grammar-translation methods. However, teaching bilingually and multilingually does not mean a return to obsolete teaching methods, but instead ‘a standpoint which accepts the thinking, feeling, and artistic life of a person which is very much rooted in their mother tongue’ (Piasecka 1988: 97). That is to say, at the initial stages of learning a new language, it is best done through the mother tongue.
The monolingual approach also achieved its dominance status due to political and ideological campaigns. The English Only Movement (Wiley and Lukes 1996) in the USA convinced many language school administrators, teacher educators, policy-makers, teachers and students to use English as the sole instructional language in all English language programmes. When the English language became associated with patriotism in the Americanization Movement during the first quarter of the last century, English-only became the norm in English classes for immigrants, refugees, international students and so on (Wang 2016). Such linguistic purism has served to justify the legitimacy and correctness of being monolingual and created a monolingual environment for teaching.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
