Aspects of the Use of Learners’ Mother Tongue in Foreign Language Teaching Contents: introduction chapter I mother tongue in education

CHAPTER II THE INFLUENCE OF MOTHER TONGUE IN THE LEARNING OF ENGLISH
2.1 Mother Tongue in English Language teaching
The use of the mother tongue (L1) in English language teaching (L2) has always been a controversial issue for teachers and researchers in the field. When it comes to the English language teaching to children (ELTC) context, the issue becomes even more complex, making it necessary to discuss and analyze its use in the classroom. The objective of this article is to investigate the patterns of use of the mother tongue (L1) in English (L2) teaching for children, through the analysis of questionnaires applied by teachers involved in this teaching context.
The interest in English language teaching to children (ELTC) in Brazil has grown significantly in recent years (TONELLI, 2005; ROCHA, 2007; SANTOS, 2009; COLOMBO, 2014; AGRA 2016) and, as a consequence the number of research involving this teaching context has reached visibility. Among so many challenges and particularities that surround this teaching context, some still do not receive enough attention, as it is the case of the usage of mother tongue in ELTC what might justify a reduced number of literature published about it. The need of this research arose during the teaching practicum internship of the first author under the co-teaching of the second, in which the patterns of use of the mother tongue led us to think about whether to use it or not in the classroom. The question “To use or not to use the L1 (mother tongue) in L2 (target language) classrooms?” has always been a controversial topic among teachers and researchers. Mother tongue is the native language that a person has learned from birth. Linguistically speaking, the mother tongue is the language spoken by the care-takers thus, this language is the primary language of the child. The role of the L1 in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classes has been debated among applied linguists and, as pointed out by Cristovão (1997) and Seccato (2010), every teacher during his\her career will question at least once the use of L1 in L2 classes. The concepts of teaching a foreign language3 have changed throughout time. According to Brown (2001, p. 18), “For centuries, there were few if any theoretical foundations of language learning upon which to base teaching methodology”. The author explains that As other languages began to be taught in educational institutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Classical Method was adopted as the chief means for teaching foreign languages. Little thought was given to teaching someone how to speak the language; after all, languages were not being taught primarily to learn oral/aural communication, but to learn for the sake of being ‘scholarly’ or, in some instances, for gaining a reading proficiency in a foreign language. Since there was little if any theoretical research on second language acquisition in general or on the acquisition of reading proficiency, foreign languages were taught as any other skill was taught (BROWN, 2001, p. 18). Hence, the teaching was conducted based on translation and the use of the L1 was the same as L2 in the classroom, especially because language teaching placed emphasis on the written word above the spoken word. In the nineteenth century, the Classical Method came to be known as the Grammar Translation Method (BROWN, 2001). The prevalence of this Method led to students' inability to use the EFL fluently. Consequently, the use of the L1 in the EFL classroom started to be seen as uncommunicative, boring, pointless and irrelevant (HARMER, 2002). In other words, this method was challenged for doing ''virtually nothing to enhance students' communication ability in the language'' (BROWN, 2001, p. 16). Later in the 19th century the Direct Method and Audio-lingual Method emerged, defended by B.F. Skinner (1957) and Leonard Bloomfield (1933), among other authors. Such methods emphasized not only the understanding of words but rather the acquisition of structures and patterns that were repeated and tested until the responses given by the students became automatic. These methods also claimed that the use of the L1 should be banned in the EFL classrooms because, according to them, L1 and L2 are different systems, and must not be linked to avoid learning interference, as defended by Ellis (1997). From the 60’s to now, the communicative approach, which was originally developed by Dell Hymes (1972), has been frequently used in L2 classes. This acquisition-focused approach sees communicative competence progressing through three stages: aural comprehension, early speech production, and speech activities, all fostering "natural" language acquisition, much as a child would learn his/her native tongue. Now the classroom becomes more student-centered with the teacher allowing for students to output the language more often on their own. Some authors as Krashen (1987), Duff and Polio (1990) as well as Ellis (1997) believe on the importance of the target language use for the L2 acquisition. On the other hand, some researches claim that language classes have witnessed a positive change following the recognition that some learners use the L1 as a communicative strategy to learn and use the L2 (JAMES, 1998; ODLIN, 1989; COOK, 2001). In fact, a relatively new teaching method which deliberately uses the L1 in teaching EFL has appeared. It is the New Concurrent Method which requires teachers to balance the use of the L1 and L2. Here, the use of the L1 might be possible in four areas: introducing concepts, reviewing a previous lesson, capturing learners' attention and praising them. In summary, it is possible to see that the use of the L1 was from over used in the Grammar-translation Method, to banned in Direct and Audio Lingual approaches and now, in days of communicative learning process, it is still debated. When it comes to the ELTC context, it is even more difficult to know how much of the mother tongue should be used. Taking this in consideration, the objective of this paper is to investigate the patterns of use of L1 in EFL classrooms for children through the analysis of a qualitative questionnaire, answered anonymously by teachers from the ELTC context, in which they exposed their beliefs and practical uses of the L1 on the learning and teaching process. First, we present the literature review in which the research was based on, evidencing the different positions of the authors on this controversial teaching topic at the present. Then, we present the methodology used, followed by the analysis and discussion of the data gathered from the participants’ answers to the questionnaire. Finally, the paper is concluded by presenting the results obtained and the final considerations.
“The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource?”, Atkinson (1987) argues that very little attention is given to the use of the native language in the EFL classrooms and that the gap in methodological literature about it is presumably partly responsible for the uneasiness which many teachers, experienced and inexperienced, feel about using or not using native language in the classroom. Considering the historical of teaching EFL approaches presented in the introduction of this paper, it is possible to notice that there is a pendulous movement when it comes to the use of the mother tongue, passing through the overuse to its prohibition. Although the pros and cons of using L1 to teach L2 have been neglected and ignored for a long time, in the last decades the interest in studying and researching it has been growing significantly (ATKINSON, 1987; COOK, 2001; CRISTOVÃO, 1996; among others). The main arguments against using the mother tongue have been that it does not encourage learners to use the foreign language and that when the teacher uses the mother tongue it deprives the learners of input in the target language. According to Ellis (1997) L1 should be avoided in the classroom because of the “transfer”, term that refers to the influence that the mother tongue has on the learning process of L2, for instance the avoidance of structures on L2 that have no equivalent structure on L1. This is what Ellis (1997) calls negative transfer and points that the habits of L1 prevent the students from learning the habits of L2. Another argument for the exclusion of L1 in EFL classrooms is the conception that the first one just can be learned by its exclusive use. This is the idea defended by Krashen (1987) in his second language acquisition theory. According to this author the learner needs to be maximally exposed to L2 in order to the acquisition process be well succeed. Cook (2001) points out that the avoidance of the L1 lies behind many teaching techniques, in fact most of teaching manuals consider this avoidance as so obvious that no classroom use of the L1 is ever mentioned, or if it is mentioned is in the list of problems in the classroom. However, several benefits of using L1 mother tongue have been proposed in literature and many researches as Atkinson (1987), Cook (2001), Cristovão (1996) point the advantages of the use of L1 as a facilitator for learning the L2. Butzkamm (2003) states that the use of L1 helps students to gain reliance and feel a friendly atmosphere in the classroom and Auerbach (1993) affirms that the use of L1 can reduce the affective barrier and alleviate the cultural shock and, consequently, contribute on L2 learning process. Tang (2002, p. 39) claims that the L1 serves a "supportive and facilitating role in the classroom", and not that it is the primary language of communication From the author’s point of view, the L1 use also allows students to become more aware of the similarities and differences between cultures and linguistic structures, and thus may improve the accuracy of translations. According to Harbord (1992) through L1 we learn to think, to communicate and to acquire intuitive knowledge of universal grammar. In accordance with this idea Deller (2003) claims that L1 should be used as a resource to diagnose differences and similarities among two languages; to encourage spontaneity and fluency in order to have a beneficial effect on group dynamics and receive a meaningful feedback from the students. Duff (1989, p. 6) defends the importance of L1 saying that “We all have a mother tongue, or first language. This shapes our way of thinking and to some extent our use of the foreign language”. Atkinson (1987) affirms that in the moments that the learner cannot express himself using L2, the use of L1 allows him to communicate. Harbord (1992) names these actions as an Affectivehumanistic approach and argues that when these approaches are used to teach, it is emphasized the need to reduce anxiety4 in early stages of language learning by allowing some use of the mother tongue. Bloor (1995) points out that the forms of interaction in the classroom must be seen as a natural process and should not cause tension in order to create a comfortable and safe environment of learning. Thus, it is clear for these researches that the use of L1 allays the language anxiety. According to Cook (2001), if there is no over-riding obligation to avoid the L1, each use can be looked at on its merits. One factor to consider is efficiency: can something be done more effectively through the L1? A second factor is learning: will L2 learning be helped by using the L1 alongside the L2? The third factor is naturalness: do the participants feel more comfortable about some functions or topics in the first language rather than the second? The fourth factor is external relevance: will use of both languages help the students to master specific L2 uses they may need in the world beyond the classroom? In fact, the pros and cons arguments presented above are plausible and directly related to the teacher practice, what brings us to a third option that seems more reasonable to our everyday teaching context: the use of L1 as a beneficial resource on teaching learning process, however with important restrictions to its use. The over use of the mother tongue can harm the acquisition of L2, Pacek (2003), believes that the overuse of L1 provokes an error transference of L1 to L2 and constant translation can result in a believe that there is always a perfect equivalence between the two languages and the use of constant translation, for instance is an evidence of problems in communication. Another point of view is highlighted by Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) who have studied the reasons for code switching, which is when the teacher switches from L1 to L2 or vice versa during the class. This code switching could happen to fulfill a linguistic need or for social/psychological purposes such as call students’ attention, express emotions, change the subject etc. Cristovão (1996) states that L1 is the language that represents the knowledge of the student about the world, however if the student uses this language without restrictions for unlimited time, he is harming his own learning. Thus, the teacher should have the role to distinguish the circumstances and effects of the L1 use, and in order to do that should become the ethnographer of his/her own work. Cristovão (1996) also points that L1 can co-build L2 not just as a strategy to associate lexical items and structures, but also as an instrument of conciseness of the teacher on teaching L2 process and the transformations of the social relations in the classroom. For Hawks (2001), the mother tongue use should be selective and not seen as an easy option, and Mello (2004) points out that precautions must be taken because if two languages are being used to teach the same subject, there is a decrease on student’s motivation to comprehend what is being taught in L2, after all depending on the teachers’ language choice the student creates the believe that he can always appeal to the mother tongue. In order to help teachers with this difficult language choice, some authors suggest some moments when the use of L1 is acceptable and can make part of the teaching learning process. Atkinson (1987) suggests that in order to determine the quantity of L1 use in the classroom teacher must consider factors as: the students background (if they are used to L2 in the classroom), level of the language knowledge (higher the level, lower the use of L1), stage of the course (the closer the relationship with the teacher, the easier to conduct the class on L1), the part of the lesson (L1 can be more useful on the beginning of the class, for instance). Cook (2001) considers as appropriate use of L1 when teacher is conveying meaning and organizing the class. Atkinson (1987) agrees and includes: a) To convey meaning; b) Check comprehension; c) Give instructions on basic levels; d) Explain methodology; e) Testing vocabulary; f) Develop periphrastic strategies. Auerbach (1993) points out moments of: a) negotiation of subjects; b) Classroom organization; c) Linguistic analysis, d) Grammar rules explanation; e) Intercultural issues discussions f) Instructions; g) Error clarification. One interesting fact that research highlight is that although most of teachers see the use of L1 as a threat on EFL classrooms, they do use it. According to Deller (2003) and Gil and Greggio (2005), most of language teachers relate the use of L1 to translation or grammar based method, but Atkinson (1987) argues that the same teachers that condemn L1, use it in their classes. THE USE OF L1 IN ELTC When the discussion about the L1 usage is related to ELTC context, it becomes even more complex because children learn L2 in different ways and require different analysis of the influence of the use of L1 in the classroom. According to Cameron (2001), some differences in teaching English to very young learners are immediately obvious: children are more enthusiastic and lively learners; however they also lose interest more quickly and are less able to keep themselves motivated on tasks they don't understand or find it difficult. Another characteristic is that children do not have the same access as older learners to meta-language that teachers can use to explain grammar or discourse for instance. Very young learners often seem less embarrassed than adults and this lack of inhibition seems to help them to reproduce a new language. Rocha (2007) claims that children do not present an uniform manner to learn a language and following this idea, Cameron (2001) and Brown (2001) conclude that teaching English to children transcends a selection of activities to be used in the classroom, it is about a process that requires the development of abilities and specific knowledge of the teacher in order to be able to develop the children’s intellectual, take in consideration the short focus that the students have, the affective factors involved and to use the language in a meaningful purpose. Tonelli and Tutida (2014) present some challenges to be overcome and knowledge to be mastered when teaching English to children. They claim that this is a specific context and requires a special attention. According to Rocha (2007, p. 283) 5 during the teaching/learning process of the ELTC there are important aspects to be taken into consideration, such as the intellectual development of the child; the adequacy of the process to the child’s focus of attention (generally short); the stimulus of all the child’s senses during the process; the respect to the affective factors in teaching and, finally, the authentic and significant usage of language. In the ELTC context it is very important to think about the language choice that teachers make in their classes. In many situations teachers are required to use only foreign language in their classroom, or they fell they should do, but in practice according to Cameron (2001) research and anecdotal evidence suggests that most teachers who share their pupils first language use a mixture of L1 and L2, and it is important to look at this evidences to find patterns of this language choice in order to develop the principle of “deliberate language choice” in which choice is guided by the overarching goal of fostering the children's foreign language learning. The author suggests that “this enable us to move away from the simple but impractical guideline 'use only the target language' to more subtle and helpful principles for language choice” Cameron (2001, p. 199). The same author concludes that teachers should use as much as possible of the target language and ensure that the use of the L1 supports the children's language learning. There is a gap between policy and practice around using L2 and some reasons are pointed by Cameron (2001) as the fact that teachers do not feel sufficiently confident or competent to use the foreign language for the full range of functions a class involves. This would have to include a large repertoire of language for classroom management and organization, discipline, feedback, chatting informally etc. And also, asking for foreign language use only places teachers in a continual struggle against natural communication, if the teacher share the same mother tongue as the child, it seems unnatural and even frightening to the students to use only L2. Pennington (1995) held a research with eight English teachers and came up with some patterns for L1 use in their classes, they are: a) explaining aspects of the foreign language; b) translating words\sentences; c) giving instructions; d) checking understanding; e) eliciting language; f) focusing pupils attention; g) testing ; h) talking about learning; i) giving feedback; j) disciplining control; k) informal talk with pupils. The same author, in her paper makes a distinction between compensatory and strategic uses of the two languages available to teachers. In compensatory use, teachers may adopt L1 in an attempt to compensate problems they perceive with their pupils' language level or ability, or discipline and motivation, and also the teacher’s lack of confidence, preparation or language proficiency. The strategic motivations that Pennington suggests are related to creating and maintaining levels of formality and informality in classroom discourse, and structuring and controlling lessons and behaviors. Cameron argues that the choice of language adds and creates a context in which language is to be learnt. This learning context includes the attitudes and values that pupils are encouraged to take when learning the foreign language and involves interpersonal factors, that according to Graumann (1990) can be divided in to 3 sub factors: a) Alignment – the teacher’s choice of language can convey to pupils a sense of how much their teacher is on their side or wishes to distance himself from the pupil’s concerns; b) Emphasis – may serve to emphasize the importance of what is being said or the seriousness of the discipline language; c) Evaluation – a teacher who uses foreign language only for content of a lesson reinforces the idea that L2 is a subject of a study and not a mean of communication.

2.2 Pros and cons of mother tongue in English teaching

This chapter attempts to provide a picture of the core aspects related to the role and use of the mother tongue in teaching English as a foreign language. Over the last decades there have been various shifts to and from the use of the mother tongue in teaching a foreign language. The opinions are divided; some teachers view the first language as a hindrance while others consider it a useful resource. Students’ perceptions regarding this pedagogical issue are often overlooked. On the one hand, the advocates of the monolingual approach claim that the classroom should be an English-only environment where the foreign language has to be the only language used. On the other hand, the supporters of the bilingual approach seriously question this opinion considering the first language as an instructional tool and, therefore, a view of how and when to use the mother tongue in the classroom has become the main subject for debate. Studies have shown that sixty percents of today’s world population is multilingual. In fact, this is not a characteristic specific only to our modern society. It is known that throughout history foreign language learning has always been an important practical concern and language teaching methods have evolved over the years.
Five hundred years ago Latin was the most widely studied foreign language, but later in the sixteenth century it was replaced by French, English and Italian as a result of political changes that occurred in Europe. Nowadays, English has become a global language as it facilitates the communication between people all over the world and that is why its various areas have been widely investigated especially those of teaching and learning English as a foreign language.
In modern foreign language classroom, where the emphasis is put on authentic situational contexts it seems that the only use of English is widely supported. This has lead to a controversy among English language teaching professionals. The opinions are divided. Researchers such as Chaudron (1988), Camerom (2001) sustain that the use of the mother tongue should be prohibited because students learn English only through English and not by the use of their first language.On the other hand, “a number of researchers (Lai: 1996, Cole: 1998, Critchley:1999, Schweers: 1999, Burden: 2001, Tang 2002) have argued that code switching can be a useful tool in assisting English language teaching and learning process. (Badrul Hisham Ahmad & Kamaruzaman Jusoff, 2009: 50)
Many language teachers confront themselves with the question of whether to use or not the students’ mother tongue when teaching English as a foreign language. Sometimes, when they have to resort to the learners’ mother tongue they have feelings of guilt because “their training has discouraged them from using it at all in class. But this supposed prohibition was an over-strong reaction to some traditional teaching styles in which teachers used only L1 to explain and discuss language, and learners hardly got to hear or use only English.” (Scrivener, 2005: 300)
During the late nineteenth century and in the twentieth century the use of the mother tongue in the classroom was considered a bad thing because it was believed that learners should have maximum exposure to the target language. This is explained because of the arrival of the Direct Method which considers “vitally important that only the target language should be used in the classroom. (Harmer, 2009: 63)
Moreover, Harmer points out that this tendency “came about too because teachers from English-speaking countries were travelling the world teaching people whose first language they themselves could not speak.” (2009: 132) Sometimes, methodological reasons determined teachers to use only English because they were teaching multilingual classes and English became not only the focus of learning, but also the medium of instruction. A multilingual class is one where students have a mixture of first language and a monolingual class is one where all the students speak the same language, other than English. Nowadays more and more English language teaching professionals are being convinced that the first language is playing a facilitating role in the second and foreign language classroom especially when the English standard of students has gone down in the past decades.
An overview of language teaching methods focusing on L1 use in L2 teaching.We can distinguish several successive methods used in teaching English as a foreign language and all of them illustrate that the use of the mother tongue is one of the biggest controversies in the history of language pedagogy.The Grammar Translation Method is one of the oldest methods used by teachers all over the world. It developed in the 18^th century and was introduced as a way of teaching modern languages to school children. Its principles and techniques are similar to those used for teaching classical languages such as Greek and Latin. It perceived language as an intellectual performance and its main goal was to help Then, the late 19^th century was characterised by a mass development of the commerce and travels between the European countries and this change influenced the way foreign languages were taught. Those were no more learnt with the aim of reading literature in its original forms, but with the purpose of communicating. This led to the arrival of the Direct Method which was preoccupied with the spoken language and “translation was abandoned in favour of the teacher and the students speaking together, relating the grammatical forms they were studying to objects and pictures, etc. in order to establish their meaning” (Harmer, 2009: 63). However, in the early 20^th century its popularity began to decline, but it morphed into other methods such as the Audiolingualism and the Communicative Approach.
Nowadays, many foreign language teachers are quite critical about the use of translation in their classes pretending that it is out of fashion. Some teachers consider it to be boring and to take to much class time whereas others believe that by using this method the learners learn about the language rather than how to use it and they don’t have the opportunity to develop listening and speaking skills. Moreover, it is claimed that translation encourages learners to think in terms of two languages rather than just one and that it tends to use difficult or out of date literary material. Atkinson (1993) comments on these criticisms in a “positive and helpful way” pretending that this method is doom to fail, unless the teacher knows how to use it in his/her advantage. He points that “there is no need for students to spend a large amount of class time doing individual, silent translation” and gives the teachers a lot of examples of interesting translation activities. (Atkinson, 1993: 54) Moreover, he adds that “some translation activities can be done almost completely as oral activities. And many written activities can be done at home and then discussed in class. (1993: 54)
Additionally, he argues that there is no need to use only literary texts for translation but a wide range of texts “from those written by the teacher or found in the coursebook to road signs, messages, letters, poems, songs, graffiti, etc. (1993: 55)
Atkinson underlines the following benefits of using translation activities: learners are forced o think about meaning and not just to acquire mechanically certain structures; they have the opportunity to think comparatively and this helps them to become aware of the differences between their mother tongue and the English language and they will be able to avoid all sorts of “typical mistakes”; students are “encouraged to take risks rather than avoid them”, having to think of ways of saying “difficult things” in other languages. He concludes that translation is a real life activity because “if the students need English in their jobs they may well have to spend some time translating.” ( Atkinson, 1993: 53-54).Recently, methodologists have paid a lot of attention on the role of the mother tongue in teaching a foreign language and a lot of studies have been carried out around the world in order to develop post-communicative methods which treat L1 as a classroom resource.
Teaching English through English is one of the most wide spread principles used when teaching English as a foreign language. Methodologists such as Krashen (1981), Chaudron (1988) are pivotal advocates of the only L2 use in the classroom.
Firstly, they agree that a foreign language is acquired through exposure. Cook considers that English must be not only the teaching content, but also the medium of instruction and what the teacher does or says represents for the students opportunities to get in contact with the target language. She adds that “using the L1 for classroom management and instructions deprives the students of genuine examples of language use.” (Cook, 1991: 6 qtd. by Lai Mee-ling: 1996: 91) This point of view is also shared by Chaudron who states that “in a typical language classroom the common belief is that the fullest competence in the target language is achieved by means of the teacher providing a rich target environment, in which not only instructions and drills are executed in the target language, but also disciplinary and management operations.” (Chaudron. 1988: 1)
The supporters of this approach consider that the process of learning a foreign language is identical to that of learning the mother tongue and that is why they pretend that it is vital for the students to be totally exposed to an L2 environment. Gatenby, one of the founding fathers of ELT states that “what is essential is that the language being studied should be as far as possible the sole medium of communication in any given environment.” (Gatenby, 1965: 14 qtd by Philipson, 1992: 185)
Harmer also agrees that giving to the students instructions in L1 “reduces their exposure to a type of English that is an ideal source of language for students’ acquisition.” He underlies the fact that “the teacher is a principal source of useful comprehensible input, then the more time we spend speaking English, the better.” (Harmer, 2009: 134)
Secondly, methodologists such as Krashen consider that the first language is a source of errors in the learners’ second language acquisition adding that the researches he has made conducted him to the conclusion that “a high amount of first language influence is found in situationswhere translation exercises are frequent.” Moreover, he points out that the use of the first language is an indicator of the low acquisition of the second language, “if so, it can be eliminated or at least reduced by natural intake and language use.” (Krashen, 1981: 66) Thirdly, it has been argued that the best teacher of English is a native speaker because “he/she possesses greater facility in demonstrating fluent, idiomatically appropriate language, in appreciating the cultural connotations of the language, and in being the final arbiter of the acceptability of any given sample of the language and this makes him intrinsically better qualified than non-native.” (Philipson, 1992: 194)
Philipson presents in his book the five key tenants of the monolingual approach: “English is best taught monolingually, the ideal teacher of English is a native speaker, the earlier English is taught, the better the results, the more English is taught, the better the results, and if other languages are used much, standards of English will drop.” ( Philipson, 1992: 185) Therefore, the supporters of the monolingual theory strongly claim that the teaching of English as a foreign or second language should be entirely through the medium of English which has to be the only language permitted in the classroom.
Over the last few years there has been a gradual movement from the “English only dogma” that has long been a part of the teaching of English as a foreign language and now there are many methodologists that support the use of the students’ first language in the classroom. It has been argued that code-switching can be a useful tool in assisting English language teaching and many researchers disagree with the principles formulated by the supporters of the monolingual approach.
Atkinson (1987) strongly agrees with the use of the mother tongue when teaching a foreign language especially in monolingual classes suggesting a series of activities where teachers can use the L1 without over-using it. He pretends that it is a “humanistic approach” to permit learners to use their first language because it helps them “to say what they really want to say” and it is very effective because teachers don’t spend too much time explaining things that students don’t understand. (Atkinson, 1987: 242)
Wilkins talks about the translations exercises and suggests that they can be sometimes useful especially when the target language causes confusion and ambiguity, but he also warns teachers against overusing the mother tongue and that is why they have to consider carefully if the use of L1 is justified. (Wilkins, 1974 paraphrased by Lai Mee-ling, 1996: 92)
Prodromou (2002) claims that if a teacher uses his/her students’ first language when teaching English he/she is able to bring the learners cultural background knowledge into the class.
Aurbuch (1988 paraphrased by Mufeed Jadallah & Fuad Hasan, ) enhances the positive role of the mother tongue in second language classes and points out the following contexts where it can be used: language analysis, class management, presenting grammar rules, giving instructions or prompts, explaining errors and checking for comprehension.
Medgyes (1992) doesn’t agree with the fact that native speakers are the best qualified teachers and considers that non-native teachers prove to be better because “during their own learning process they have acquired abundant knowledge about and insight into how the English language works, which might be presumed to make better informants than their native colleagues.” (Medgyes, 1992: 39 qtd. by David Barker, 2003) This point of view is also shared by Atkinson (1993) who considers that, on the one hand, non-native teachers of English are often better at explaining points of grammar and they also have a better idea than many native speakers of how English works. On the other hand, they are language learners themselves and they’ve already learnt English as a foreign language. Therefore, they have experienced the difficulties which their students have, they understand those difficulties and can better help the students to overpass them. Moreover, he considers that the knowledge of the L1 is an important tool for the teacher because many of the errors the students make have their causes in the first language and if the teachers know the students’ mother tongue, they know which aspects of English to concentrate on in their teaching. (Atkinson, 1993: 7-8)
Furthermore, Harmer points out that there is no need to ban the use of the first language when teaching English and other foreign languages because “it seems highly probable that our identity is shaped to some extent by the language or languages we learn as children our natural inclination to communication in our mother tongue is non-negotiable, it is just part of what makes us ‘us’, even if this is sometimes politically uncomfortable.” (Harmer, 2009: 132)
Thus, the mother tongue will always be present in the students’ mind whether the teacher likes it or not as Cook also confirms “L2 users have L1 permanently present in their minds. Every activity the student carries out visibly in the L2 also involves the invisible L1 From a multi-competence perspective, all teaching activities are cross-lingual.” (Cook, 1999 qtd. by Forman, 2005: 67)
Moreover, as Harmer (2009) and Atkinson (1993) confirm there is nothing wrong in it because the fact that the students make comparisons between the two languages has a positive implication since it will help them to understand certain classes of errors if the teacher is able to show them such differences. Ross Forman points out in her thesis “Teaching EFL in Thailand: A Bilingual Study” that foreign language teachers often confronted with several concerned when they tried to use the L2 as the main language for giving instructions. They arrived at the conclusion that the limited classroom time was not efficiently used, that the students with a small baggage of knowledge were disadvantaged and one having lost the thread of L2 discourse, they became discouraged, and the only use of L2 restricted the capacity to explore cultural issues. (Foreman, 2005: 64) Some methodologists draw attention to the socio-affective impact of L1 use. Harmer, for example, considers that the students and the teachers can use the L1 “to keep the social atmosphere of the class in good repairit is very useful when the teacher and the students exchange jokes or discuss about aspects of their lives.” (Harmer, 2009: 133-134) Canagarajah also points out that the L1 is a resource that can be used by the teachers to “heighten /reduce their authority/solidarity with students. (Canagarajah, 1999: 142 paraphrased by Foreman, 2005: 68)
Jane Willis who supports the monolingual approach considers that even with a class of beginners it is possible to teach entirely in English because at this level gestures and tone voice are at first more important than the actual use of words. In fact, if they get used to hear only English during their lessons they will learn not only the specific language items that are being taught, but also “they will be practicing unconsciously a number of skills, learning how to listen, to pick out key words and beginning to think in English for themselves, reducing the amount of influence from their mother tongue.” (Willis, 1981: 1) Although she strongly pretends that English should be taught through English, she also considers that there are times when it is preferable to use the L1. Willis pretends that a teacher can use the students’ mother tongue to explain the meaning of a new word if it would take too much time to explain it in English; to explain the aims of the lesson or the next activity so that “everyone knows what they are learning and when they can use it”; to check the students’ understanding after the presentation stage. She also adds that the teacher can let his/her students who have a lower or an intermediate level to discuss the main ideas of a reading text in L1, but only if the lesson’s aim is to improve reading skills. (Willis, 1981: 1)
Cole (1988) also agrees with the thought that the use of the first language is very useful at the beginning levels because it helps to create a more secure atmosphere in class.
Weschler (1997) also arrived at this conclusion in his study about the use of Japanese when teaching English considering that it can supply the student with the essential sense of need to learn the language as well as the tools to do so effectively.
Schweers (1999) in his research on the use of Spanish in English classes at the University of Puerto Rico points out that the use of the first language helps students to feel more comfortable, less tensed and less lost and it has made learning of English appear to be less of a threat to their vernacular. Therefore, students learn that the two languages coexist. He also arrives at the conclusion that the use of Spanish has led to positive attitudes towards the process of learning English and better yet, encourages students to learn more English.

CONCLUSION

There is no use to deny the importance of students’ mother tongue in their learning of a foreign language. Even if there are methodologists that strongly claim that the English or another foreign language has to be the only medium of communication in the L2 classrooms, there are many researchers, teachers, and learners who see a role for L1 and support its use considering it a very useful resource only if it is not overused.
In fact, there is no rule that a teacher should never use L1 in L2 learning, nor is there any excuse for using L1 most of the time. The teacher always has to find a right balance between English and the L1 taking into consideration many factors such as the students’ previous experience, their level of proficiency, the stage of the course or of the lesson. But the teacher always has to remember that English must be the main language of the classroom and if he/she decides to use the mother tongue, its use has to be justified.
Therefore, when not used excessively, L1 is beneficial in L2 classroom. It can be very useful in managing the class: in eliciting language, checking for comprehension, giving complex instructions, in discussions of classroom methodology, in setting up pair or group work, explaining grammar concepts, correcting errors, explaining abstract vocabulary, resolving individual areas of difficulty, in discussions of cross cultural issues, in solving behavioural problems, in reducing inhibition or affective blocks to L2 production.
The use of L1 in L2 teaching is very productive especially at low levels when learning a foreign language can be a stressful and frustrating process and researchers have proved that a limited use of the L1 can have a positive effect because students’ anxiety can be minimized, they feel less intimidated and freer to express their ideas. Therefore, through L1 students experience faster L2 acquisition.
This study investigated teachers’ and students’ perceptions on using Turkish in EFL classrooms. Questionnaires and interviews were used to collect the data. Questionnaires were given by the researcher to the students and teachers at EUL. 105 student participants took part in this study and five student participants were interviewed. There were 19 questions in the questionnaire to collect the data. Furthermore, 25 teacher participants took part in this study and 5 teacher participants were interviewed. There were 23 questions in the questionnaire to collect the data. In this study, the researcher aimed to find out students’ and teachers’ perceptions of using Turkish in EFL classrooms. In addition to that, the researcher aimed to analyze the research questions below: 1. How often do EFL teachers use Turkish in the EFL classrooms? 2. To what degree does the use of Turkish help students improve language learning? 3. What do EFL students think about the use of the Turkish in EFL classrooms? 4. In what situations can use of L1 be useful? The findings of the first research question indicated that most of the EFL teachers thought that Turkish should sometimes be used in language classrooms. Although they support the use of English, they do not deny the possible advantages of the use of Turkish. The second research question investigated to what degree the use of Turkish helped students improve language learning. According to the results, the use of Turkish can help students improve language learning. When the students have difficulty understanding what the teacher is saying, Turkish plays a mediating role. Thus the students feel comfortable. Turkish also prevents the students from losing their motivation. However, it has to be stressed that the excessive use of the mother tongue. Also the results of the study showed that both teachers and students had similar perceptions on the excessive use of the mother tongue makes the students dependent on Turkish. So Turkish should be seen as a benefit to use when it is necessary. The third research question explored the perceptions of EFL students on the use of Turkish in EFL classrooms. Most students supported the use of Turkish in language classrooms. They pointed out that if students do not understand, the teachers should explain the subject in Turkish. It is seen that they want explanations in Turkish in order to comprehend what the teacher is saying. The fourth research question revealed that the students and teachers agreed that the mother tongue should be used when it is necessary. The teachers indicated that Turkish can be useful to help students understand the meaning of a word and to explain difficult grammar concepts. Also the students had similar perceptions on the use of Turkish. Similarly, they preferred to use of Turkish to ask the meaning of the words. The complete avoidance of using Turkish was not supported by the majority of the students and the teachers. Moreover, the findings of students’ questionnaire and interviews revealed that using Turkish in EFL classrooms plays a mediating role in language classrooms. While the students support that Turkish should be usually used, the teachers support that it should sometimes be used in language classrooms. They do not advocate avoiding the use of Turkish completely. At the same time, they do not support the use of Turkish more than English. In other words, they are all aware of the advantages and disadvantages of overusing Turkish in language classrooms. Valuable contributions of L1 cannot be regarded. According to the studies, L1 can be used as a mediating tool when it is used appropriately. However, L2 has to be encouraged by the teachers. As mentioned before, teachers have to be careful on encouraging students to use L2. They have to motivate the students to use L2 in the classroom. Besides, teachers should support students’ learning of L2 by using effective teaching methods and techniques. On the other hand, it is recommended that English language teachers use L1 in order to help students understand the meaning of unknown vocabulary and to explain difficult grammar concepts. In classes where there are no international students, use of L1 in the situations mentioned above can save instruction time, thus, teachers can spend more time on communicative activities in which students can use the language they intend to learn
The debate over the use of L1 in foreign language teaching hasn’t been settled yet. On the one hand there are teachers who reject the use of L1 or fail to recognize any significant potential in it and on the other hand, there are those who massively overuse it. Both are abusing a resource of great importance. My view consists of using the target language as the medium of instruction when possible and switching to the mother tongue when it is really necessary. A rational and judicious use of L1 in EFL classes can only be advantageous. L1 use must be tuned up with effective target language teaching, taking into consideration the learners’ mother tongue and cultural background and using them to the best of their interest. Most important, we must remember that students’ errors are a precious resource for the teacher, which inform him about the state of his pupils’ interlanguage. This is why it is so important to avoid negative marking, where the student simply learns that if he makes an error he will lose points. The foreign language teacher should use the students’ mother tongue only in certain situations, for example:
• When comparing English grammar with the mother tongue’s grammar;
• Beginners will probably progress at a quicker pace if the use of the mother tongue is allowed in the classroom;
• Translation exercises may also be the perfect practice when there is a grammar point that is causing trouble to the students.

REFERENCES:

1.Atkinson, D. (1987), “The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected
resource?”, ELT Journal, 41(4): 241-247.
2. Auerbach, E. (1993), “Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom”,
TESOL Quarterly, 27(1): 1-18
3. Butzkamm, W. (2003), “We only learn language once. The role of the
mother tongue in FL classrooms: death of dogma”, Language Learning
Journal.
4. Carless, D. (2008), “Student Use of the Mother Tongue in the task- based
classroom”, ELT Journal.
5. Chastain, K. (1988) Developing second-language skills: Theory and Practice (3rd ed.)
6. Hair, J. F. Jr., Money, A. H., Samouel, P. and Page, M. (2007), Research
Methods for Business, John Wiley & Son Ltd.
7. Harbord, J. (1992), “The Use of the Mother Tongue in the Classroom”,
ELT Journal.
8. Jones, H. (2010), “First Language Communication in the Second
Language Classroom.
9.Lewis, K. A. B. (2009), “Adult Learners’ Perceptions of the Incorporation
of their L1 in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning”, Applied Linguistics.
10. Suppawan, S. & Chuchchart, A. (2010). Multidimensional Instruction Model for Comprehensive Academic Writing Capability Development: The Integrative Approach. Journal of Behavioral Science.

Internet sites:

1.http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/4/241.full.pdf (accessed 6.6.2012).
2.http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/
3.http://cilt.ittmfl.org.uk/modules/teaching/1a/paper1a4.pdf(accessed 6.6.2012)
4. http://nativelanguageuse.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/4/5/4045990/roleofnativ
ela nguage.pdf (accessed 6.6.2012).
5. http://Education.uz

1^ Atkinson, “The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource?”, ELT Journal, 41(4): 241-247 D. (1987),.