the role of the first language

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:33 am

I was doing my job, and not really a research, so I can't be sure of measurements and figures.

Yes, I can remember that I was happier with the results in the case of the students whose L1 I didn't know.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:35 am

I think it totally depends on the students you're teaching. I've taught teenagers in Spain and France who are just too lazy to work in English once they twig that I speak their L1. I've taught Spanish to adults in the UK who preferred not to have instruction in English, while others preferred explanations in English to reassure them that they'd understood. On other occasions I've explained an activity in L2 and then asked someone to explain, in L1, what I've just asked them to do. And in a monolingual class whose language you know, you can waste a lot of class time explaining items of vocab in L2, when they weren't meant to be the main focus of your lesson, when you could simply give a translation and move on.

In other words, whether or not to use L1 in the classroom is definitely a case of horses for courses.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:41 am

Okay, I buy the idea of using L1 (sometimes) to teach vocabulary.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:42 am

Joanna0501 wrote:What is the role of the first language in second language aquisition? What's its practical worth to language teachers?

Here are some reasons for using the L1 in class:

Mainstream methodology, on the other hand, has had an ambivalent approach, coming down neither on one side nor the other but maintaining an “it depends” attitude.

Depends on what? The risk of creating L1 dependence is obviously valid, but there are also strong arguments for using the L1 if the teacher is able to do so:
It can prevent time being wasted on tortuous explanations and instructions, when it could be better spent on language practice. With beginners, it may even allow the teacher to use activities which would be impossible to explain otherwise...

Continued here:
http://eltnotebook.blogspot.com/2006/11 ... sroom.html

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:43 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:Okay, I buy the idea of using L1 (sometimes) to teach vocabulary.

Things are looking up!

vex · Post by **vex** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:45 am

The role of first language is quite important. Krashen's theory and his best days are way back right now. Noone believes such things any more.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:22 am

What aspects of Krashen's theory does nobody believe any more?

And which bits did serious linguists believe in the first place?

Jimbobob · Post by **Jimbobob** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:34 am

I'm pretty sure Krashen stated a bunch of stuff about only comprehensible input leading to aquisition, the ZPD, and scaffolding, that the Frank Smith lover in me completely agreed with.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:42 am

Stephen Jones wrote: And which bits did serious linguists believe in the first place?

Didn't you believe in (odd phrase) any of it?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:51 pm

I was taught Korean that way, and it was really tortuous for me. I hated the method and made it very clear to my teachers and school. But it does seem to work for children, perhaps because they aren't set in their ways and can easily immerse themselves without much ado, analysis, questions, or an obsessesion about being in control; the're used to major adjustments in every area of their life at their age — they have no choice but to be passive about them and just accept everything on a platter.
We adults, on the other hand, are used to being in control of our lives and environment, and this method works only when allowed to bypass our analytical prowess. It may work on certain personalities, such as on those who learn best through auditory input versus visual — the creative types as opposed to the analytical types, i.e., the more child-like adults.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember Krashen stating or admitting the theory's limitations on adults.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:29 pm

the creative types as opposed to the analytical types, i.e., the more child-like adults.

Being creative is synonymous with being child-like? Since when?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:30 pm

I always believed Krashen promoted excellent pedagogy, but spoiled things by junk theory. His attempt to rope in Chomsky in his support is particularly pathetic, given that Chomsky stated he did not see why his theories should necessarily have any effect at all on second language learning.

Nevertheless "Comprehensible Input" is here to stay, and Krashen deserves respect for emphasizing what ought to have been obvious. The order of teaching grammatical concepts based on the morpheme studies is worth following, even if they are proven only to apply to a sub-set of languages.

Equally, Krashen is right to point out that knowing a grammar rule and internalizing it in production are two different things. Explicit grammar does serve the purpose of increasing comprehension, but often doesn't convert to correct output.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:37 pm

His attempt to rope in Chomsky in his support is particularly pathetic

You love those extreme adverb-adjective compounds, eh, Stevie?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:46 am

metal56 wrote:Being creative is synonymous with being child-like? Since when?

Hm, I must have introduced an element of psychology, which European linguists don't consider science, which may be part of the reason they abhor Chomsky. If that is so, do you mean to say that there aren't really innate personality differences and that everyone is just a product of their environment? Does that mean that one method of teaching must necesssarily fit all if it be legitimate? Another words, if Krashen's theory doesn't work systematically for all humans, then is it wrong in toto? Well, let me explain what I mean and observed in the class I was in.
The difference between the analytic and creative person, generally speaking (we all have shades of each, and some probably tend towards one than the other) is that one of them relies on logic to underpin his or her opinions and the other relies on feelings, or subjective experience. Since children haven't fully developed their capacity to think logically (although some have), I consider them, more or less, to be acting on their emotions more often than their logic. That's why I made the connection. Certainly artists can be (and, I hope, strive to be) logical, but to be a good creative artist requires being in touch with feelings, maximizing emotions, and masterfully representing them.
I guess I noticed how some of the students in our language class, some just out of high school, acted like kids, didn't study at all, or even care much. These individuals, I noticed, seemed to thrive under this kind of instruction. They picked up on oral cues and became fluent speakers (or they sounded fluent to me) within a short amount of time. I and other academic-minded individuals, however, had to take the book home and study it. Class time didn't seem to help a bit. I was lost all the time.
This was why I made the comparison.

Teacher Discussion Forums

the role of the first language

Re: the role of the first language