К. ф. н. Мищенко В.Я., к. п. н. Говорун А.В.

Национальный университет “Юридическая академия Украины

имени Ярослава Мудрого”, Украина

Teaching a Foreign (Second) Language in Post-Communicative Paradigm: Re-evaluation of First Language Use

The overwhelming majority of textbooks and syllabuses offered to foreign/second language (FL/L2) learners as well as abundant literature on methods of FL/L2 teaching manifest an undisputable predominance of the Communicative Approach in the field. However, in recent years, criticism of this approach has been voiced, which indicates a certain tendency towards a change of the paradigm.

The term “Communicative Approach” denotes a wide range of ideas from various sources which have come to be accepted as 'good practice' by many contemporary teachers. The ideas began to emerge in the late 1960s due to the recognition of inadequacy of traditional grammar-translation methods and also of 'structural' methods. Traditional academic syllabuses assumed that the learner's goal was in-depth mastery of target language and emphasized meaningless drills and repetition, which failed to prepare the student for a real-life communication. However, less academic learners needed a more immediate 'pay-off' in terms of usefulness for practical purposes. They needed to be able to survive in a variety of everyday situations in a foreign country. Thus, the main idea that is laid as foundation of communicative paradigm is that communication always has a social purpose (to find out something or to make somebody behave in a certain way) and the language is a medium of communication.

One should admit that some other methods (the Direct method and the Audio-Lingual method) are aimed at teaching language for communication too. However, each of them has its own way to achieve this goal. While the Direct method tries to establish a direct link between the target language and meaning by exposing students to a rich variety of structural and lexical items being taught and the Audio-Lingual method insists on mastery of structural patterns through imitation and repetition, the Communicative Approach stands out with its emphasis not only on linguistic forms and meaning but also on functions. It claims that since language is used for performing a variety of functions such as apologizing, requesting, thanking, inviting, etc. understanding of language functions is really necessary. Learners are supposed to know that a function can be realized by different forms or that a form can serve different functions. What is important, learners must draw on this knowledge to choose the most appropriate form to fulfill the function intended. So, though the Communicative Approach is not the first to put forward the idea of teaching a second/foreign language for communication, it is definitely the first to advocate the learning of language functions to gain communicative competence.

Within the Communicative Approach communicative competence is developed through a whole spectrum of techniques and practices. In the classroom opportunities are provided for learners to use the target language in a communicative way for meaningful activities. As in first language acquisition, emphasis is on meaning (messages learners are creating or tasks they are completing) rather than form (correctness of language and language structure). Real-life situations are rehearsed through role-plays, simulations, surveys, projects, playlets – all producing spontaneity and improvisation. Spontaneous and improvised practice helps to make minds more flexible and inspire confidence in coping with unforeseen, unanticipated problems, when it may be necessary to 'go off at tangents', use different registers and alternative ways of saying things. Thus, active modes of learning, including pairwork and group-work, are often exploited. Priority is given to oral and listening skills. Learners do not just hear the teacher but have personal contact themselves with language, practicing sounds themselves, trying sentence patterns and getting chance to make mistakes and learn from doing so. As errors are a natural part of learning language, constant correction is unnecessary and even counter-productive. Correction should be discreet and noted by the teacher in order not to interrupt learners talking and expressing their selves creatively and spontaneously; as a result, form of language becomes secondary. It is considered that language analysis and grammar explanation may be helpful, but extensive experience of target language is preferable. Students need to hear plenty said on the topic in the foreign language at regular and recurrent intervals in order to assimilate it but not just passively acquire certain lexical items. Communicative approach seeks to use authentic resources, more interesting and motivating. In the foreign language classroom authentic texts serve as partial substitute for community of native speaker. Newspaper and magazine articles, poems, manuals, recipes, telephone directories, videos, news bulletins, discussion programmes - all can be exploited in variety of ways. The target language is also used as normal medium for classroom management and instruction, which reflects naturalistic language acquisition.

The fact that the Communicative Approach has gained so much popularity does not mean that it has advantages only and cannot be subject to criticism. The features that may seem to be its strong points turn out to entail serious shortcomings. For example, exposure to meaningful input alone (i.e., natural language leaning) does not develop competence sufficient for communication. In the Communicative paradigm, the notional/functional syllabus is based on functional equivalence between the first and second languages, not word to word or linguistic similarity. Since communicative tasks are designed to achieve functional goals such as greeting, asking directions, etc. (e.g., comprehensive input: [16], outcomes from the tasks tend to lack grammatical correctness. Thus, a communicative approach alone may also have limitations in teaching or learning academic or professional language, not providing opportunities to develop accuracy in language use [9]. The approach was also not able to serve as a basis which learners can apply to generate more expressions (e.g., [3], [8]).

In recent years, the necessity for integration of explicit instruction into communicative approaches has become obvious. N. Ellis [7] suggested that grammar teaching can enhance learner proficiency and accuracy and assist learners to acquire the syntactic system of the language. Brown [2] and Larsen-Freeman [10] discuss the need for grammar teaching along with communicative tasks. Doughty and Williams [6] discuss how „focus on form‟ instruction should be integrated into language teaching.

Language use has also become to be seen as a more holistic activity. Language is not only understood as a communication instrument, but also reflects the context in which it is used, such as speakers’ own culture, and the sociolinguistic nature of the context (e.g., [13]).

First language (L1) use in foreign/second language instruction has been re-evaluated and now is seen as potentially beneficial rather than harmful.

Most widely-recognized methods presuppose that the first language should by all possible means be avoided in foreign language classrooms (e.g., the Direct Method: L2 should be taught in L2, Audiolingualism: L2 pattern drills without L1 instruction, Natural Approach: exposure to L2). This idea is based on the assumption that L1 interferes with L2, and the influence is all negative. In order to prevent and override undesirable effects L2 should be directly internalized by the metalinguistic devices.

Yet, there exists a different view, supported by cognitive research findings, that learners cannot be completely insulated from the influence of their L1, and the contact between the two languages is inevitable.

Learning takes place when the subject matter can be meaningfully related to something that is already known. Learners’ knowledge/cognition is built in their first language. In other words, ideas and meanings are attached to particular language use or expression of L1, or new ideas or meanings can be constructed from them. Thus, when people try to understand ideas or meaning in a new L2/FL language, L1 will naturally play a major role in their comprehension. Even if the languages are distinct in theory, in practice they are interwoven in terms of phonology, vocabulary, syntax and processing [5]. This effect, referred to as transfer, is a key factor to be taken into account and one which is not to be avoided but positively welcomed. For example, according to the current view of vocabulary storage in the brain [12], bilinguals access one common storage system containing both L1 and L2 vocabulary. L1 is considered to assist learners’ comprehension (e.g., in cognitive process models such as the Connectionist model: [12] by creating more networks between nodes (ideational representation and words) in their long term memory. Thus, as far as vocabulary acquisition is concerned, it is unlikely that the learner takes in the items of L2 per se and only subsequently in the process of interlanguage development relates them to L1. The input is made comprehensible sometimes by reference to context, but sometimes solely by invoking L1 equivalents. Therefore many authors consider explicit instruction and translation to be more appropriate than incidental learning (especially when dealing with terms, collocations, and formulaic expressions) and emphasize the importance of L1 and L2 contrast in language awareness.

Contrastive Analysis, originally intended to anticipate negative interferences and make monolingual teaching more effective, has proved to be a most useful means that facilitates understanding of linguistic structure. Quite long ago Von Elek and Oscarsson [17: 116] in their method comparison research came to a conclusion that “in the teaching of foreign grammar to adults, such techniques as grammatical explanations, deductive presentations of the subject matter, translation, the use of the native language and Contrastive Analysis are jointly superior to the combination of techniques constituting the implicit method”.

Translation as a means of instruction deserves special attention. Language learners naturally translate between L1 and L2/FL constantly [18], [4]. Asking learners to translate in class between their L2/FL and L1 not only embraces this natural tendency but also promotes the act of translating as an efficient technique to learn L2/FL. When the learners translate wrongly or inappropriately, they at least notice some connections need adjustment even if they cannot see exactly what is missing or to be adjusted. Being advanced learners, they can pay more focused attention to those marked items when they appear in the text again [14]. In other words, instead of working on eradicating errors in language output each time (as in AudioLingual pattern practice), act of translating uses errors to its advantage by working at a higher cognitive level – language system level.

Translation activities also offer golden opportunities for language learning in terms of focus on form theory [6], [11]. The act of translating, by its nature, requires very careful attention to both form and meaning in the source language in order to “transfer” the meaning into other forms in another language. When learners are translating, they can see what makes sense and what does not. When their comprehension or production in L2/FL does not make sense to them, they can go into details of the language. For example, they may explore not only words, but sub-word level such as morphology, or beyond words and sentences, and their inquiry may extend to non-linguistic, cultural issues. Translation activities set up learning circumstances which generate cognitive processes (noticing, hypothesis forming and testing, and metatalk) which enable learners to acquire new and consolidate existing knowledge [15].

Another benefit can be derived from L1 use when the teacher faced with mixed-level class has to adapt reading and listening activities to suit strong and weak students. Following the equation “text level of challenge + task level of support = student success” [1: 59] in situations with long complex texts the teacher may apply tiered-task asking weak students to produce answers or render the contents in L1 and strong students – in L2.

The significance of student success should not be underestimated. The previous successful experience gives the feeling of self-efficacy, which influences the learner’s expectancy of future performance, emotional reactions and task choices. If you think you can accomplish something, you are likely to want to try it; if you think you are likely to fail or not to be very good at something your motivation may suffer. In EFL teaching context the use of translation and L1 makes the tasks manageable and students’ judgments of their performance positive.

One more reason for L1 use in classrooms relates to fostering positive affective environment. If L2 is spoken throughout the lesson and students are not allowed to refer to what is familiar, the class seems less real. The students are pretend native speakers of L2 rather than true L2 users [5]. Using student’s mother tongue creates a kind of safety in teaching; the classroom atmosphere becomes harmonious, honest and supportive.

References:

1. Bowler, B. and Parminter, S. (2002). Mixed-level teaching: tiered tasks and bias tasks. – In J.C. Richards & W.A. Renandya (eds); Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge; CUP – 48-62.

2. Brown, H.D. (1994).Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

3. Brumfit, C. (1981). Notional syllabuses revisited: A Response. Applied Linguistics 2, 90-92.

4. Cook, G. (2007). A thing of the future: translation in language learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17.3, 396-401.

5. Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching. – New York, London: Arnold.

6. Doughty, C., Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1-11.

7. Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 91-126.

8. Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In E.Hinkel & S. Fotos (eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, publishers, 17-34.

9. Hinkel, E., Fotos, S. (2002). From theory to practice: A teacher’s view. In E. Hinkel, E & S. Fotos (eds), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1-15.

10. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 279-295.

11. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology, In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39-52.

12. Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and learning a second language: a review of recent research. London, New York: Continuum.

13. Niemeir, S. (2004). Linguistic and cultural relativity – Reconsidered for the foreign language classroom. In M. Achard & S. Niemeir (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berline: Mouton de Gruyter, 95-118.

14. Schmidt, R. (1998). Attention. In C. Doughty, C & J. Williams (eds.), 3-32.

15. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensive input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input and second language acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235-253.

16. Swain, M., Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16.3, 370-391.

17. Von Elek, T. and Oscarsson, M. (1973). Teaching foreign language grammar to adults: A comparative study. In M. Achard & S. Niemeir (eds.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Berline: Mouton de Gruyter, 95-118.

18. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). The deep structure of discourse and the use of translation. In H. G. Widdowson. (ed.), Explorations in applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 98-108.