Introduction

In the recent old ages, the function and the sum of utilizing mother lingua in a foreign linguistic communication schoolroom had been strongly debated all over the universe. There has been an issue between many research workers and linguistics on whether first linguistic communication ( L1 ) should or should non be used in an ESL category and whether L1 helps or interferes 2nd linguistic communication ( L2 ) larning advancement. Some schools have introduced an “ English merely ” policy to pupils who want to larn English with the belief that L1 hinders foreign linguistic communication larning. On the contrary, there have been suggestions that L1 provides support and drama of import functions in L2 acquisition.

It can be seen that the reactions against the usage of L1 in L2 schoolroom have become less critical than earlier. In states where foreign linguistic communication scholars do non talk the same linguistic communication, they are from assorted states and speak assorted female parent linguas, using L1 in category is hard for Native English instructor. So, there is a inquiry on whether it helps better pupils ‘ larning L2 in category or it should be minimized every bit much as possible. Even in the instance of homogenous category, the pupils are in the same degree and they need to show their thoughts in L2 ; hence, should n’t the teacher speak merely L2? That depends on the intents and the degrees of pupils and research workers are seeking to reply these inquiries.

In Vietnam, there are many schools which employed the “ English merely ” policy in schoolroom, Vietnamese pupils and instructors who enrolled these categories can non utilize Vietnamese in learning and larning. The inquiry of whether this policy helps better pupils ‘ accomplishments in larning English or non has non been investigated yet. On my ain instruction experience in many universities and foreign linguistic communication centres in Vietnam, utilizing L1 in an ESL schoolroom depend on the pupils ‘ degrees. It can be besides different from instructors. This inquiry will be investigated in my following essay. In this essay, we ‘ll take a deep expression in some surveies of linguistic communication research workers for farther information.

Findingss

Under the conflict of those who approved utilizing L1 in an ESL category, Juliane C. de la Campa & A ; Hossein Nassaji ( 2009 ) , has stated their sentiments in the survey “ The Amount, Purpose and Reasons for Using L1 in L2 Classroom ” .

Harmonizing to this research, there are 14 intents of utilizing L1, but the frequences of these intents are varied. As can be seen, the four chief intents are: interlingual rendition, administrative issues, personal remark, and teacher as bilingual. ( Juliane, 751 ) In this research, readers can clearly see the different grounds of the experient teacher and the novitiate. The inexperient teacher tends to utilize L1 for interlingual rendition ( 41,8 % ) about twice the experient teacher ( 21.6 % ) . However, the per centum of the novitiate teacher ( 12.5 % ) utilizing L1 for administrative issues higher about so times than the experient teacher ( 1.2 % ) . The experient teacher uses well more ( 19.9 % ) than the novitiate ( 4.6 % ) on personal remark to “ admit pupils ‘ attempts and therefore actuate them in their acquisition ” ( Juliane, 751 ) . Based on the figures, it can be seen that novice teacher uses L1 in schoolroom for administrative issues most.

In add-on, through the interview and stimulated callback informations, the teachers revealed some remarks for readers. “ Foreign linguistic communication context, pupils ‘ low proficiency degree, apparatus of German categories at the University, Students ‘ aims for learning German, Acoustic layout of schoolroom, Speed of discourse ” are counted as the chief grounds. ( Juliane, 755 ) This survey besides revealed different intents of utilizing L1 between the novitiate and experient teachers. For illustration, novice teacher believed that interlingual rendition was an effectual scheme. The experient teacher used L1 for making a comfy schoolroom environment. It suggest that “ they used L1 non merely for L2 acquisition intents but besides for doing the acquisition environment gratifying so that pupils become motivated to prosecute with L2 ” ( Juliane, 755 ) .

Yuxiu and Adams investigated this influences of Madarin-Chinese ( L1 ) on English ( L2 ) based on the similarities and differences of the semantics and morphology constructions of those two linguistic communications. This gives us some new thoughts because “ it is really common for English instructors in Harbin to happen some syntactic mistakes which are similar to or even the same as the construction of Mandarin. ” ( Yuxiu and Adams, 191 ) . Through the incompatible survey of analysing Mandarin and English, there are six types of common mistakes found. These are “ immaterial verb to be, deficiency of understanding, incorrect persnal pronoun instance, capable skip, predicate skip, mistakes of adverbial arrangement ” . ( Yuxiu and Adams, 2008 ) They happened normally when linguistic communication was transfered and straight translated from pupils ‘ female parent lingua into a 2nd linguistic communication. He gave us the illustration sentence “ I really like you ” as a common mistake from scholars when they translated word-by- word from a Mandarin Chinese into English. Interestingly, many teachers in this survey found that most of the clip they used L1 to interpret into L2 and that was the common ground for utilizing L1 in schoolroom. Yuxui and Adams besides found that “ the figure of these common mistakes made by the first twelvemonth pupils exceeds those by the senior pupils ” ( p. 222 ) . In the research of Juliane ( 2009 ) , the novitiate teacher tends to utilize more L1 in schoolroom than the experience, ( alsmost twice ) ( p. 751 ) . This consequence made me inquire whether at the get downing phase of larning a 2nd linguistic communication, would L1 interfer L2 larning advancement? Yuxiu and Adams agreed and stated “ the influence of L1 on the acquisition of English gets reduced when pupils get into higher proficiency degrees of English ” , ( Yuxiu and Adams,223 ) . In my sentiment, lingua franca influences and mistake devising when larning a linguistic communication are natural and inevitable, instructors should analyse to happen out the pupil ‘s troubles and aid pupils non to reiterate these mistakes any more.

In comparing with the old survey of Juliane ( 2009 ) , Saricoban examined the intermediate pupils, non at beginner degree on the inquiry “ Should native linguistic communication be allowed in foreign linguistic communication categories? ” The Numberss of pupils here is 96, a big category from different sections at Ufuk University ( Saricoban, 168 ) . He used the questionnaire to happen out the demand to utilize Turkish in English schoolroom. It was considered as “ a common job among all Turkish scholars of English ” ( Saricoban, 169 ) and largely pupils used Turkish “ to understand a hard grammar point ” , “ to look into for vocabulary comprehension ” , or when they join “ a treatment about a recent event ” and “ they get stuck seeking to grok a point ” . In the research, there are 81,2 % pupils have positive attitudes towards utilizing Turkish. In the antonym with the survey of Ana & A ; Kerrie, ( 2009 ) , the respondents here think that “ it is about ever appropriate to utilize Turkish ( their native linguistic communication ) in their English lessons ” ( Saricoban, 170 ) .

In the findings of this research, over half of the respondents agreed that they switched their mark linguistic communication to utilize Turkish in category for some schoolroom direction issues, motive, proving, mistake rectification, metalinguistic utilizations and interlingual rendition. ( Saricoban, 170 ) There are some understandings with the survey of Juliane and Hossein, 2009, Classroom direction issues and interlingual rendition are necessary to utilize female parent lingua to learn a mark linguistic communication. However, half of the teachers prefer to utilize L1 in proving and half do non. This can be an deduction that “ in proving processs the foreign linguistic communication must inescapably be used merely because we test non merely their lingual and linguistic communication accomplishments, but besides their comprehension of the inquiries themselves. ” ( Saricoban, 171 ) In the treatment to increase utilizing foreign linguistic communication, the writer believed that if L1 is used excessively much in category, the pupils will acquire used to it and they become to disregard or even see unusual when hearing the mark linguistic communication ( L2 ) . This would cut down the benefits of pupils. ( Saricoban, 175 ) We can see clearly the writer ‘s point of position that we should minimise utilizing L1 and maximise L2 input to increase the benefits and advancement of larning L2 in category.

Anna and Kerrie had agreed in his survey in 2009 that “ although L1 usage was uncommon in the categories observed, the first linguistic communication can function as an of import pedagogical tool. ” ( Ana & A ; Kerrie, 87 )

In this survey, teacher seldom used Spanish ( Student ‘s L1 ) in categories but largely used in household. Furthermore, in the university classes, “ Spanish was spoken on occasion and briefly by the pupils in off-the-record conversations, but was non used by the teacher at all during the clip ” , ( Ana and Kerrie, 92 ) . We can see that the pupils barely of all time used their female parent lingua in larning a 2nd linguistic communication and the teachers strongly believed in utilizing mark linguistic communication in instruction.

Teachers who took the study agreed the intents of utilizing L1 were interlingual rendition of a word or phrase ( 73 % ) , comparing the L1 and L2 differences, giving undertakings ( 16 % ) , or making a positive and welcoming environment for pupils ( 45 % ) , “ sometimes an teacher will fall in in this pre- or post- lesson chew the fating in Spanish ” ( Ana and Kerrie, 93 ) . These intents can be considered as one of the natural passage from informal to formal linguistic communication of acquisition and instruction. Furthermore, there was a belief that “ utilizing native linguistic communications slows pupil ‘s advancement in English ( Ana and Kerrie, 93 ) which reasoned for teacher restriction in utilizing L1 in category.

Now, allow ‘s take a expression on the survey that Yuri and Eleni had conducted in a Korean School, located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam on “ Students ‘ and Teachers ‘ Use of and Attitudes to L1 in the EFL Classroom ” . The respondents in this research were grouped into three degrees: novice, intermediate and advanced pupils. This graduated table is wider than other surveies and this has some betterments because Yuri and Eleni had examined by using the questionnaires, interviews and observations on participants ‘ attitudes.

Obviously, other research workers have discussed on the function of L1, but non clearly stated the effects of it every bit good as the differences between Native and Non Native Teachers. On the findings of this research, Yuri and Eleni ( p. 58 ) stated that “ L1 plays a supportive function in the linguistic communication schoolroom, particularly in the early phases, and more significantly in Reading and Writing ” . Furthermore, readers can see one positive consequence on his findings “ L1 was found utile for explicating the significance of words and grammar accounts but in appropriate in pair-work and group-work activities. ” Yuri and Eleni ( p. 58 ) He besides indicated different attitudes between Native and Non Native English Teacher on linguistic communication acquisition. “ Native English Talking Teachers ( NESTSs ) tend to believe that an English merely policy benefits the linguistic communication learners the most, but the Korean English Teachers ( Non NESTSs ) have a inclination to utilize excessively much Korean and depend on the grammar interlingual rendition method. ” Yuri and Eleni ( p. 59 )

As 2nd new point in this research, the research workers examined both Teachers and Students ‘ attitudes on how to utilize L1 efficaciously in schoolroom and the interaction of pupils. The novice and intermediate pupils thought that “ more English usage benefits listening and talking accomplishments ” and advanced pupils believed “ Korean should be avoided every bit much as possible except in state of affairss in which they struggle to understand ” ( p. 66 ) . This is the similar point with Saricoban ‘s thoughts that we should minimise the usage of female parent lingua every bit much as possible.

Lai Ping Florence, ( 2009 ) , Attitudes of grownup Chinese-background scholars and an ESL instructor towards L1 Use in an AMEP category in Australia

Alternatively of giving an tantamount direction to explicate hard vocabulary significance or grammar constructions, get downing linguistic communication scholars may inquire inquiries and communicate with the instructors in their first linguistic communication when happening unsuccessful in their look. They prefer larning in a bilingual category and this implied positive attitude towards utilizing L1. The research has found out some grounds which

Hary Meyer, ( 2008 ) , The pedagogical Deductions of L1 Use in the L2 Classroom

Let ‘s travel on Nipponese people learn English as a 2nd linguistic communication. On the contrary with those above researches Hary has done a survey which supported maximising L2 ‘s utilizations in category. Hary stated that L2 would assist scholars at Cultural Identity, Classroom direction, Comprehension cheques, Learner Preferences, Student Requests for Clarification, Language Anxiety, Code Switching, Consciousness Raising, Loanwords ( Japan ) . In this survey, Hary believed that it would break when the teacher is a native talker of L2 and he besides speaks pupil ‘s L1. It shows that “ the teacher can aslo be a theoretical account of person who successfully learned another linguistic communication. ” ( Hary, 149 ) . The thought “ Learner Preferences ” is some how new to readers. Through old acquisition experiences, pupils will reason their ain most peculiar sort of direction. Though, I think it ‘s true and helpful to pupils. They ‘ll cognize

Restrictions and Suggestions for Further Research

( Juliane ) The findings in this survey showed that the two teachers used L1 as an imporatant tool in their instruction methods. Some of the grounds were based on their personal beliefs and differed from different teachers in other categories. In this survey, one of the obvious restrictions is the “ little sample size ” . With merely two teachers interviewed, the consequences can non be considered as an grounds for German scholars. Furthermore, the novitiate teacher was a practicum pupil from Germany, with merely two hebdomad experience of learning can non be counted as other instructors of German. There are 8 exchange pupils who do non portion English as the first linguistic communication in two categories. Therefore, if the instructors speak English as L1 in this category to learn German, will it impact on those eight pupils? The pupils ‘ age varied and readers do non cognize about their degrees are novice or intermediate. This may do confusion to readers because pupils ‘ degrees of larning a foreign linguistic communication could consequence to the sum of utilizing L1.

Second, because the survey focused on the instructors ‘ belief of utilizing L1 in schoolroom, the recording devices did non recorded pupil parts to the lessons. And the pupils ‘ interaction in schoolroom had evidently high impacts on instructors. This could be examined in farther research.

Finally, this survey merely examined the sum and intent of utilizing L1 in schoolroom, future research could reply the inquiry that whether L1 usage has any effects on linguistic communication acquisition.

( Ana & A ; Kerrie ) The research chiefly discussed about the grounds and the intents that teachers used L1 in category to learn grownups ESL schoolroom. However, readers do non cognize about their age and their degrees of English, whether they ‘re at intermediate or at novice. As researched by Juliane, 2009, the degrees of pupils ‘ linguistic communication proficiency had some impacts on teachers ‘ determination of utilizing L1 in category. The schoolrooms are located in the country that straddles the U.S.- Mexico boundary line where there is a high rate of Spanish-English bilingualism. It is utile when scholars know both languages a small. But it can be a disadvantage for teachers to learn their speech pattern or word uses.

The research has been successfully created an “ English merely ” environment for scholars here. The school policy has purely focused on this policy. However, it could merely be done in the schoolroom. Outside the schoolrooms, “ conversations among pupils before and after category are by and large in Spanish. Sometimes an teacher will fall in in this pre- or post- lesson chew the fating in Spanish. ” ( Ana and Kerrie, 93 )

Discussion and recommendations

( Yuri ) In this survey, native English instructors tend non to utilize L1 in schoolroom, even though it can take to student confusion or misconstruing on linguistic communication acquisition, they believed that the more L2 input, the more learning advancement. Furthermore, there are troubles when Korean people learn English in Vietnam, they are influenced by L3 lingual and cultural environments ( Vietnamese ) . In order to avoid these interventions, it is advised that 2nd linguistic communication scholars should utilize every bit much as mark linguistic communication in schoolroom as possible.

There should be more future research on measuring the environment and advancement of scholars in a bigger population categories from other states. In this survey, research workers do non discussed about the age of the pupils here. This may do confusion because younger age scholars tend to larn foreign linguistic communication faster.

Discussion and recommendations

( Yuxiu ) In this research, readers can see that Yuxiu and Adams has contributed an interesting survey to the inquiry of L1 influences on L2 larning advancement under the facet of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. However, this research was conducted on merely two little groups of first twelvemonth and senior pupils indiscriminately. Futher research should be conducted with a larger Numberss of pupils on different topographic points. Furthermore, the pupils were choosen indiscriminately, readers do non cognize the existent advancement of these pupils. To do the information more dependable, instructors should learn one category for a long clip to see their advancement in larning English when their languagage proficiency gained.