Historical Reasons For The Expansion Of The English Language And Its Implications For The Efl Classroom.

Historical reasons for the expansion of the English language and its implications for the EFL classroom.

Alison von Dietze and Hans von Dietze

Abstract . The English language is the international language par excellence (Phillipson 1992, p. 6). Although it cannot boast the same number of native speakers as other languages, it is the most widely studied foreign language in the world. Moreover, it has a dominant position in all domains of life, be it business, technology, science or education. What are the developments that have led to English assuming the position of “global language” (Crystal 1997) and how does it remain so? This paper will provide a brief summary of these developments from an historical perspective, showing how English has spread across the globe. Then language teaching methodology will be considered including how the different methodologies have subtly removed the First Language (L1) from the classroom. It is argued that this has reinforced the already strong position of English by creating the notion of the English-only approach to EFL. Finally arguments for and against the English-only approach are presented.

A brief look at historical factors that have influenced the spread of English

The spread of English around the world dates back to the late sixteenth century when the first expeditions started leaving the British Isles in search of new areas to settle, namely the New World in North America. Although few in number at first, settlements were established at an increasing rate as new shiploads of immigrants

1

arrived throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Though these settlers came from a variety of countries, “within one or two generations of arrival, most of these immigrant families had come to speak English, through a natural process of assimilation” (Crystal 2003, p. 35).

Throughout the same time, British world exploration also established settlements in the Southern Hemisphere, namely in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. In South Asia, during the years 1765 to 1947 when Britain maintained sovereign rule, “English gradually became the medium of administration and education throughout the subcontinent” (Crystal 2003, p. 47). The expansion of British colonial power and the emergence of the United States as the leading economic power of the 20th century, therefore, explain the world position of English today (Crystal 2003, p. 59).

Developments in Industry and Trade

The 20th Century saw unprecedented growth on a global scale in technology, transport and communications. Moreover, following two world wars, the need for greater political understanding and dialogue between nations was of particular importance. International organizations, such as the United Nations and UNICEF, needed to find some linguistic common ground to facilitate communication. Whilst it was usual for a small number of languages to be designated as ‘official languages’, English invariably held a prominent place. Today there is debate over the possibility of further reducing the number of these official languages in multinational organizations (Crystal 2003). Crystal provides data of the 12,500 International organizations in the world in 199596 highlighting which languages they use in an official or working capacity. In a

2

sample of 500 of these organizations, 85% made official use of English (French was the next with 49%). Of particular significance in this sample is the fact that “one third of this number of organizations use only English to carry on their affairs” (Crystal 2003, p. 88).

“The need for a global language is particularly appreciated by the international academic and business communities and it is here that the adoption of a single lingua franca is most in evidence” (Crystal 2003, p. 13). Many areas of international affairs are in English such as aviation, science, international aid agencies, the World Bank, media and popular culture. These domains rely on technology, led by computers and the internet, which is also dominated by the English language.

Developments in Education

English, therefore, has penetrated all walks of life. And the field of Education is no exception. Not only are more and more courses now using English as the medium of instruction (Crystal 2003), but also English Language Teaching itself has become a booming industry. Phillipson (1992, p. 6) indicates that “The spread of English has not been left to chance, and language pedagogy has played a part in this process”. It is, therefore, relevant to examine how language teaching methodologies have developed and changed over time and to what extent they have influenced the status of English. Of particular importance is the manner in which the methodologies have addressed the role of L1 in the classroom. In the case of EFL teaching this has led to the notion of the English-only classroom, where the students’ L1 should be more or less absent.

3

Shifts in Language Teaching Pedagogy – the Devaluation of the L1 Traditionally, the Grammar-Translation Method, which focussed on structure and on the rules of a language, had been the preferred method in foreign language teaching. Though this method has clearly been superseded, it still has a place today in the teaching of classical languages such as Latin or Ancient Greek. In this method the class is conducted in the L1 of the students and there is little time given to real communicative use of the target language.

Towards the end of the 19th Century a major shift in the focus of second language teaching and learning began, this being the preference towards spoken language rather than written language.

As research into second language teaching began to accelerate, new methods were developed. The Direct Method, which first appeared in the late 19th Century, was based on the notion that L2 learning was the same as L1 acquisition. Therefore, as with L1 acquisition, students were taught the L2 as a completely separate system without any use of the L1 allowed. Although this method was discredited when it failed in public education (Brown 1994, as cited in Miles 2004), Cook (2001, p. 402) states that most teaching methods since “have adopted this Direct Method avoidance of the L1”.

The Audiolingual Method, which gained acceptance in the 1950’s and 1960’s, was very clear about the role of the L1 in second language acquisition. It listed as one of

4

its five basic tenets that “the native language should be banned from the classroom” and that “a cultural island should be maintained” without reference to L1 (Chastain 1976, as cited in Hadley 2001, p. 111).

In 1981 Krashen presented the Monitor Theory, based on his research into second language acquisition and learning. This work includes not only an explanation of the theory, but also detailed information on making the transition from theory to practice, which Krashen describes as “an ‘ideal’ second language teaching program” (1981, p. 100). Yet for the most part, any mention of the L1 is related to negative factors such as ‘interference’ and ‘errors’. There is no mention of any positive role of the L1 in the classroom.

There have been, however, some methods that did make suggestions for the L1. Terrell (1977, p. 331), in providing classroom guidelines for the Natural Approach, suggests that students should be allowed to respond in both the L1 and L2 “to rapidly expand [the students’] listening comprehension abilities to a wide variety of topics and still be comfortable in the communication process”.

In the literature on Communicative Language Teaching, which has come to dominate teaching today, one of the major characteristics, is that “judicious use of the native language is acceptable where feasible” (Hadley 2001, p. 117). However, there is no further explanation of how to implement this in the classroom. Indeed, there is a curious absence of discussion on the use of the L1, both in the theory and the methodology (Cole 1998). Cook (2001, p. 410), summarizes the current situation in

5

saying that “recent methods do not so much forbid the L1 as ignore its existence altogether”.

Different Interpretations of the Language Teaching Methodologies

It is important to note that these methodologies were not developed exclusively for the purpose of English Language instruction. They are equally relevant to all foreign language instruction. Thus students learning French in England or those learning Spanish in Korea are all likely to be taught using some of the prevailing ideas of language teaching and learning. Communicative Language Teaching also dominates the field of Languages other than English (LOTE). However, the interpretation of these methodologies has led to a belief in the field of EFL, that the L1 should be absent from the classroom. This belief does not exist in the field of LOTE. A good example is The Makerere Report (1961, cited in Philipson 1992, p. 66), which stated that “the ideal teacher should be the native English speaker” and that “if other languages are used, English standards will drop”. This notion still remains in place in many EFL institutions around the world hiring ‘native speakers only’ where the need to speak the local language is not a requirement. For such teachers it is often easier to ignore the local language than to try to incorporate it into lessons. Thus the Englishonly approach to EFL classrooms became the norm. And it is an easy approach to justify since it is ‘supported’ by the literature. In recent years the term ‘immersion’ has also been used to support the English-only approach to the classroom. However, as Bostwick indicates, “in most cases the term is misused” (2005, p. 1). He continues that immersion programs can only be labelled as

6

such if “English is not the subject of instruction, rather it is the medium through which a majority of the school’s academic content is taught” (2005, p. 1).

The Role of Textbooks

The English-only approach is also widely incorporated in the EFL textbooks that are widely available today. Textbook producers try to stick to mainstream content that has an international market audience, even when this might not be in the best interests of students. Most teaching manuals also fail to mention any classroom use of the L1 (Halliwell and Jones 1991, as cited in Cook 2001, p. 403). Weschler (1997, p. 7) states that the “anti-L1 trend has more to do with the economic rationalism of textbook producers than any ideal teaching pedagogy”.

‘Economic means’ also influence how and where textbooks and other publications in English are distributed. This, according to Baugh and Cable, leads to the situation where “in most developing countries communications in English are superior to those in vernacular languages” (2002, p. 6). They demonstrate this with an example from Tanzania, where “the unavailability of textbooks in Swahili has slowed the effort to establish that language as the language of education” (2002, p. 7).

Canagarajah (1999, p. 85) refers to “the textbook and its hidden curriculum”, and provides a Sri Lankan example where a course book donated to Universities by the Asia Foundation reinforced “the dominance of ‘standard English’, by ignoring the existence of indigenous Englishes in the periphery”.

7

The global dominance of English, and the emergence of the USA as the world’s superpower have created the need to provide effective English language instruction across the globe. Academics have devised methodologies that should lead to linguistic proficiency. Yet along the way the notion was created that we should teach in an English-only context. Until recently, little research has been conducted into this area. It seems that the English-only approach has simply evolved over time without any real critical thinking into the issue, particularly in the EFL teaching context.

Arguments for and against the English-only approach

An English-only approach does have merit when there is no common language in the classroom, as in the ESL context. In this case English would assume the role of the language of communication. In predominantly monolingual classrooms however, the three main arguments for the English-only approach (Cook 2001) have questionable validity.

The first argument is that we should try and imitate as much as possible the L1 learning experience. We all learn our first language without the use of another

8

language and so when we learn a second language, we should similarly try to learn it in the same natural way without ‘falling back’ on our existing L1.

This has its merits when the class consists of young learners, but when considering adults learners, there are many arguments against this. Adults, unlike children,

- are able to think in abstract terms - already have fully functional L1 - have a set of assumptions based on their experience of the world - ‘learns’ a language as opposed to a child who ‘acquires’ language naturally - are more afraid of making mistakes - have a set of learner beliefs, which may or may not be correct

Therefore, to try and force adults to learn a second language in the same way as a child learns a first language is often inappropriate.

The second argument for an English-only approach is the ‘compartmentalisation argument’. This means that the L1 and L2 should be kept in separate compartments in the brain. One has all the L1 information and the other contains all the L2 information. The argument is that if they are not kept separate, ‘interference’ from the L1 will occur. Therefore, teachers feel inclined to go to extreme lengths to explain a word meaning without ‘resorting’ to the dreaded L1 in the hope of building up a completely unaffected, new L2.

9

However, research is showing that the brain does not process language as separate entities. Cook (2001, p. 404) indicates that, “learning an L2 is not just the adding of rooms to your house by building an extension out the back. It is the rebuilding of internal walls”. He adds that teaching that works with the ‘fact of life’ that L1 and L2 are part of the same system, is “more likely to be successful than teaching that works against it”.

The third argument against use of the L1 in the L2 states that, “students will not be convinced that the L2 is a viable and effective means of communication if the teacher does not promote it as such” (Cook 2001, p. 401).

It is true that the vast majority of the lesson should be conducted in the target language. However this argument seems to say that any ‘slip’ into the L1 will cause the students to suddenly fall back into predominantly using their L1. New research shows that this is simply not the case. Students who are allowed to use the L1 use it to help them work out the L2 at lower levels. However, as their proficiency improves, their reliance on the L1 diminishes and they naturally move into the L2 (Upton and Lee-Thompson 2001). Indeed, a recent study by Mason (2003) highlights the benefits of allowing students to use their first language.

Three groups of adult EFL students participated in an extensive English reading program for three semesters. One group wrote brief summaries of what they read in Japanese, another wrote their summaries in English and a third wrote summaries in English that were corrected, and they then rewrote the summaries… Mason concluded that the group that wrote the summaries in

10

Japanese was the most efficient, in terms of amount of English acquired and the total time devoted to English (Mason 2003, cited in Krashen 2004, p. 2).

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is to bring the topic of L1 use in the foreign language classroom to the fore. As already indicated, very little research has been conducted into the field, although it seems that interest is growing. Supporters of L1 use in the classroom offer a wide range of suggestions for improving teaching and learning and believe that the benefits far outweigh any supposed disadvantages. However, as has been outlined, there is a long history of dominance of the English language and this has manifested itself in the form of an English-only approach to the EFL classroom. The prevailing methodologies have failed to provide any guidance for teachers to use. Thus, L1 use in the classroom is commonly linked with such negative aspects as interference and error analysis. Teacher’s books also routinely avoid mentioning the topic. As interest grows the question should no longer be whether English-only is the correct approach, but to what extent we can help our students by including their L1.

References Baugh, A.C. & Cable, T. (2002). A History of the English Language. Fifth edition. Pearson Education Inc. Prentice Hall.

Bostwick, M. (2001). English Language Immersion in a Japanese School. In D. Christian & F. Genesee (eds.), Bilingual Education. Alexandra: TESOL. 11

Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cole, S. (1998). The Use of L1 in Communicative English Classrooms. The Language Teacher Online, 22, 12, 1-6.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the First Language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 3, 402-423.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press

Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Third Edition. Heinle & Heinle.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon Press Inc.

Krashen, S. (2004). Why support a delayed-gratification approach to language education? The Language Teacher Online, 28, 7, 3-7.

Miles, R. (2004). Evaluating the Use of L1 in the English Language Classroom, University of Birmingham, Dissertation, http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/ resources/essays/Milesdiss.pdf. ([Accessed 15th July 2006]).

12

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Terrell, T.D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. Modern Language Journal, 61, 325-337.

Upton, T. A. & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the First Language in Second Language Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 469-495. Cambridge University Press.

Weschler R. (1997). Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English Classroom: The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, 11.

13