The role of native language in English language teaching classrooms

¶ … first language (L1) in the second language EFL classroom (L2). The study provides a brief historical background of the use of native or target language for a classroom teaching. The literatures are also reviewed to enhance to a greater understanding on the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Theoretical arguments are provided to support or against the use of monolingual or bilingual approach in a teaching environment. While some scholars believe that monolingual approach is the best to teaching, some scholars support bilingual approach.

There is a growing debate among scholars, academicians and professionals whether a classroom teaching of ELT (English language teaching) should exclude or include native language (LI) and the issue has led leading to a long-term controversy. (Brown, 2000). Supporters of monolingual approach argue that instructors should avoid using L1 in the classroom environment. At the end of the 19th century, supporters of the Direct Method banned the use native language. However the positive role of native language in classrooms has been recently acknowledged on the ground that native language is a rich resource in the classroom environment and if used judiciously can enhance a greater understanding of learning and teaching of a target language. (Cook, 2001). However, there is still no positive agreement on the exact role of both L1 and L2. The review of the literature provides the historical overview of the debate.

1.Historical Review

The idea of avoiding the native language or mother tongue in classroom language teaching dated back to several centuries. "The development of ELT as a casual career for young people visiting Europe encouraged teachers to make a virtue of the necessity of using only English." (Harbord, 1992 p 350). Moreover, the growth of the training movement of British-based teacher with the need to train teachers working in multilingual classes reinforces the avoidance of mother tongue. Over the years, the effect avoidance of mother tongue in classroom has made vast majority of non-native speakers, who constitute majority of language teachers to feel guilty in their ability to teach with their mother tongue or native language in an English classroom environment. Many non-native speakers have tried to switch to all and only English classroom, only to discover that they are inadequately equipped with L2 (second language or target language of learning) strategies. At the same time, in some part of world, there has been a growth of a movement about the influx of unqualified native speakers aiming for classroom teaching with the aim of earning money. The consequence has made many companies or schools to shield away from employing native speakers whether qualified or not. (Harbord, 1992). However, Brooks-Lewis (2009) point out that the debate about using L1 in EFL teaching has arisen with varying level of intensity. While the inclusion of L1 has been theoretical verified, justified and pedagogically accepted, however, the exclusion is based on unexamined assumption.

Historically, teaching a foreign language is always based on the understanding that teaching should be taught by student's first language. In 1590, there was an introduction of double translation to make learners be conscious of the resources and structure of his or her own language. However, in the early 18th century, the concept of using mother tongue was challenged based on the strict instruction from parents that not a word of the [L1] must be spoken in schools. However, at the end of 19th century, there was a growing movement to opposition to L1 in the classroom. In the 19th century, there was a Direct Method attempt to build observation in language learning and making the second language similar to first language. The approach of Direct Method is to teach grammar inductively and introduce oral communication progressively where classroom instruction is based uniquely on the target language. (Richards, & Rodgers, 2001). At that period, the Direct Method was successful in private schools, however, its implementation in public secondary schools was challenging because its successful implementation only required native speakers. The drawback of the approach made the Direct Method to decline in 1920s. Between 1920s and 1930s, the Reform Movement served as the basis of teaching technique, which later gave birth to the "British approach to teaching English as a foreign language." (Richards, & Rodgers, 2001, p 2).

The paper provides a greater understanding of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis to reveal the historical overview of the debate whether the use of ELT should include or exclude students of L1.

Role of transfer in Language Learning (L2)

A concept transfer is derived from the Latin word "transferre," which means to "to carry," or to copy or impress from one place to the other. A technology transfer refers to carry-over technology from one location to other location. Transfer also refers to carry over of skills in one application to another application. A linguistic transfer refers to ability of learners to carry over their L1 to assist them learning their target languages. (Liu, 2001). Typically, L1-based linguistic transfer is divided into positive and negative transfer. While there is no attack in a linguistic positive transfer, however, linguistic negative transfer is erroneous.

Kope-na, (2008) differentiates between transfer and interference by pointing out that transfer has the positive or negative influence of L1 on L2. On the other hand, interference denotes negative transfer between L1 and L2. Typically, transfer refers as incorporation of elements or features from one language to the other. In cross-linguistic studies, transfer is primarily responsible for error occurrence that partially responsible for learners' errors. (Lado, 1957). In a similar manner, Jain (1974) argues that transfers are source of errors. Despite the defect identified in transfer, the L1 transfer still contributes to structural formulation in L2 acquisition. Typically, transfer is similar to borrowing, which assists in acquisition of L2 new words. Moreover, transfer influences speech production of learners. For example, L1 influences the speeches on many immigrants in the United States. (Krashen & Scarcella, 1978).

Origin of transfer in language starts from the Lado's (1957) Contrastive Analysis hypothesis who proposed that L2 learners rely almost entirely on their L1 in the process of learning target language. Lado (1957) further argued that structural difference of two languages would results in language interference and influence from the L1 would have effects on the acquisition of L2. The concept of transfer is central to CA hypothesis. The positive transfer refers to a cordial relationship between L1 and L2.

In this case, learners will face a little or no difficult in the acquisition of L2. On the other hand, negative transfer occurs when there is a sort of dissonance or disturbances between the L1 and L2. In this situation, a learner may face much more challenges in the acquisition of L2 and it may take longer time for learners to acquire L2 because of the difficulty and newness of the L2 structure. (Turnbull, & Dailey-O'Cain, 2009).

Chongqing, (2009) points out that positive transfer occurs when L1 is used in the production L2 utterances; in this case, the role of transfer is positive and facilitative. On the other hand, the negative transfer is inhibitive when the knowledge of L1 is inhibitive to the acquisition of L2. Kope-na, (2008) differentiate between positive and negative transfer by pointing out that positive transfer occurs when items of L1 is present in L2 making learners to face no or little difficulties in learning L2. For example, plural forms are marked as '-es' and '-s' in Spanish and English. Thus, Spanish should be able to learn English plurals perfectly. Moreover, there are thousands of similar words between English and Spanish, which facilitates positive transfer from L1 to L2. As being revealed in Table 1, the word "active" in English refers to "activo (a)" in Spanish. Similarity of many words between English and Spanish facilitates positive transfer for learners, which makes acquisition of new L2 structure to be easier. Contrarily, negative transfer occurs when there is no correlation between L1 and L2 making acquisition of some structure of L2 to be much more challenging for learners.

Table 1

English

Spanish

active activo (a)

admire (to)

admirar adult adulto banana, platano brilliant brillante contract contrato company compania diamond diamante natural

Source: Cognates (2010).

Jyun-Gwang, (2000) argues that the role of L1 knowledge and its relationships to L2 has been an important issue in the acquisition of L2. The author investigates the impact of L1 on L2 proficiency among Chinese students learning English in the United States. The study investigates pattern of writing and speaking English, and the results reveal that L1 impact on the L2 acquisition is positive at early stage of learning, however, decline as learners' proficiency in English increases.

Hongqin, (2009) support this argument of previous authors by pointing out that L1 strongly influences L2 acquisition. However, the effect of L1 on acquisition of L2 could be both negatively or positively. The concept of transfer refers to the carryover of knowledge or performances of L1 to L2. For example, in phonology, English has a low tone; however, Chinese language is a tone language. There is also a lot of morpheme that do not exist in Chinese making Chinese learners meeting several difficulties in learning English as a second language. Thus, the L1 transfer to L2 is generally difficult between English and Chinese. Typically, every syllable of the Chinese language character has its unique tone, and which plays an important role in changing and distinguishing meaning. On the other hand, English is an intonation language with falling and rising intonation. (Timor, 2012).

Moreover, there is a significant difference between Chinese and English with regard to syntax. The negative transfer always results in syntax between Chinese and English because of the difference in sentence, ways of expression and word order. For example, Chinese always put attributes before modifiers; however, there is a distinction between post-modifiers and pre-modifiers in English. Generally, Chinese students face difficulties in mastering the usage of the post-modifiers. However, there is a general interference of L1 in SLA, and this covers every aspect of language.

Similar to negative transfer that occurs in L1 towards L2, there is also a positive transfer of L1 to L2 in all aspects of languages. Different languages have common attributes and close connection to human thinking. Languages also have common features of expression, thus, there exists a core rules among all languages. Typically, a universal language has a close connection with L2, and in the learning process, anyone having an understanding of universal language, when starting to learn L2, will use the acquire knowledge of language to improve efficient learning of target language. Thus, L1 background of learners generally laid a foundation for an effective learning of second language. A great understanding of L1 facilitates a greater understanding of L2. (Turnbull, & Dailey-O'Cain, 2009).

Moreover, world languages have some common underlying principles, and learners having an understanding of the underlying principles will definitely use the systematic knowledge of L1 to understand the L2. The benefit of applying L1 into L2 is that it lower learners anxiety, and strengthens learners confidence towards learning the L2, which generally stimulates enthusiasm in learning L2. (Cook, 2005).

The literature reviews the monolingual and bi-lingual approach to enhance a greater understanding of use the target and official language.

2. Monolingual Approach

Monolingual approach is the use of target language only for instructions, response and questions. In other world, monolingual is the condition of speaking only one language. Krieken et al. (2012) points the monolingual approach is the use of only the target language as a means of instructing, informing and asking questions. In monolingual classrooms, teachers are particularly asked to speak the language of the students.

Cummins, (2010) points out that there is a still a debate on the best assumption for the classroom instruction, and the assumption is that the target language, monolingual approach should be used for the classroom instruction without recourse to student's L1. However, "research evidence provides minimal support for this assumption'. (Cummins, 2010 p 221). According to Cummins (2010), empirical evidence does not support the monolingual instructional principle. Typically, the assumption of monolingual instruction focuses on the following: "Instruction should be carried out exclusively in the target language without recourse to students' L1." (Cummins, 2010 p 221). "Translation between L1 and L2 has no place in the teaching of language or Literacy" (Cummins, 2010 p 221).

History

The Direct Method that promotes the use of monolingual approach to teaching English Language showing that monolingual approach is an only ideal for communication and teaching in classroom. Typically, the monolingual approach dominated the teaching in 20th century, the approach affected many generations of students and teachers, and its use remained unchallenged for many decades. However, some group of people started questioning the major reason behind L1 avoidance, and they interpreted that its avoidance lacked pedagogical justifications. Auerbach (1993) claims that the use of L2 exclusively is a form of linguistic imperialism that is imposed on classroom globally. However, lack of evidence to support the issue makes the use of L2 to continuing dominating the world. Macaro (2001) justifies teaching entirely with the use of L2 because it allows learners to develop their in-built language system. (Yildiz, 2012).

The first monolingual English dictionary started in 1604 when Robert Cawdey provided a table of alphabetical hard English borrowed from Latin, Hebrew, Latin, French and Greek. These hard English words were collected to assist Gentlewomen, Ladies, and other unskillful individual of English.

Cawdey softened some of these hard words:

Alchimie: the art of turning metals into gold.

Alien: a stranger

Alienate: to withdraw the mind, estrange, or, to make a thing for another thing.

Allegorie: a misticall speech, or similitude.

Allegiance: obedience of a subject.

Allusion: pointing and meaning of another matter.

Allude: to speak one thing that stops and provides resemblance and respects to another.

Altercation: wrangling, debate, or contention

Altitude: height

Amaritude: bitterness

Ambage: long circumstance of the words. (Krieken, & Erickson, 2012).

The paper provides series of arguments in of using L1 only or monolingual approach.

Arguments in favor of the Monolingual or L1 only Approach.

There has been an ongoing controversy over whether or not the L1 should be the only acceptable method of a classroom instruction. The use of monolingual approach has long been accepted policy for the ELT (English language teaching). However, current thinking reveals that L1 use can enhance learning ability of L2, which assist learners to achieve bilingual approach. (McMillan, 2011, Butzkamm and Caldwell, 2009). However, the use of L1 or monolingual approach "English only" "continues to enjoy hegemonic status in some teaching contexts, with students and teachers being prevented or dissuaded from using the students' L1 in ways that are, in fact, pedagogically principled." (McMillan, 2011, p 251). While there is widespread opposition to L1 Only or monolingual approach to teaching, however, many ESL (English as a second language), educators in the United States continue to view English as the only acceptable medium of classroom discussion. Although, exclusive of English language as a medium of classroom discussion has been regarded as a natural practice, however, the rational to justify English only is neither pedagogically nor conclusively sound.

Copland, Neokleous, (2010) argue that language should kept separate for the implementation of teaching and learning, and teachers should avoid code switching in class because the use of code switching is a bad habit. Teachers should also follow institutional and government guidelines regarding the use of monolingual in classroom environments. However, many groups of people have decried linguistic repression and opposing the U.S. English Only political agenda. However, English Only movement still insists that learners should use only English as a sole medium of teaching instruction and communication. Teachers use elaborate devises such as penalty system, games, and signal to ensure that students desist from using their L1. The justification of this approach is that L1 will impede successful students' acquisition of English. (Auerbach, 1993).

Cook (2001) supports the argument on the reexamination of L1 in the language teaching classroom and point out the L1 use is very critical for effective language teaching, and the authors suggests that it is time to open the door for the systematic use of L1. For more than a century years, the use of L1 in a classroom teaching was banned. Recently, many teachers have advocated for the use of L1 in teaching based that it assists in impacting effective knowledge on learners. A preliminary assumption of language teaching is to enhance both internal and external goals relating to the target language. The external goal is to assist learners to use language for practical communication effectively and efficiently. The internal goal is to promote learners' learning skills. (Department of Education, 1990). Within the educational context, language-teaching methodology should be able to deliver multiple goals. (Atkinson, 1987).

During the 20th century, there were rules that showed the teaching methodology of English should be based on spoken English rather than written English. The rules also stated that teachers should avoid the explicit use of grammar in language teaching. The teaching methodology during the time affected many generations of teachers and students. ( Levine, 2003). The outcome of this tradition led to the discouragement of L1 in classroom teaching, and the result of the rules was the ban of the use of L1 classroom. The monolingual teaching remains the bedrock of 20th century leading to the direct avoidance of L1 in classrooms. (Stern, 1992).

Despite the argument in against the use of L1, many teachers believe that the use of L1 in the classroom facilitates learning. Cook (2001) provides several benefits that learners could derive from the use of L. 1 only in the classroom. The argument reveals that the use of L1 can assist teacher to maximize learning objectives. (Carless, 2007).

Abdul-Rahman, (2006) supports the argument by pointing out that the use of LI only as a learning method has been a controversial issue. A review of literatures identifies two opposing views: Those who believe that L2 should be an exclusive classroom instruction and call for the abolition of L1. (Ellis, 2005, Copland, & Neokleous, 2010). The author believes that using monolingual approach in the classroom will deprive student's valuable opportunities to negotiate, and listen. Recently, some language educators have gradually moving away from monolingual approach for the classroom English instruction. (Cook, 2008, Alshammari, 2011). ).

McMillan, & Rivers, (2011) point out that some language educators believe that learners L1 is counterproductive towards the L2 learning process. However, some language educators believe that the use of L1 can serve as important communicative, social and cognitive functions. In Japan, overuse of the L. 1 as sole means of instruction has been considered a barrier to effective learning in many secondary school level classrooms. Typically, education officials are making a gradual approach in encouraging teachers adopting a more communicative approach and moving beyond a traditional grammar-translation approach. (Harbord, 1992). However, the methodology has achieved a limited success. Several factors have been attributed to these problems. First, Japanese English teachers lack a communicative ability and Japanese English learners continuing suffering from inferiority complex based on their TOEFL scores being at the lowest compared to international standard. (Clark, 2009, Stewart, 2009).

However, Cummins, (2010) argues that avoidance of L1 in the language classroom teaching is being considered as effective approach to learn key features of CLT (Communicative Language Teaching), which also assists in keeping up with natural and direct teaching methods. A major theoretical argument that underlies monolingual or "L1 only" is L1=L2 hypothesis that holds that L2 learning approach should be based on the strategy children acquire L1. Butzkamm, & Caldwell,( 2009) argue that the best approach to learn L2 is to develop bilingual using the skills already acquired in one language to progress in other language.

Contrary to the argument of L1-L2 hypothesis; however, L1 plays an important roles in communicative, cognitive as well as social functions in L2 learning. Based on the cognitive perspective, a leaner is able to L1 knowledge to predict on the best way to approach a target language. Cook (2001) argues that learners should take advantages of L1-L2 connections to highlight similarities and differences between the two languages. However, some teachers still believe that the use of L1 in the language classroom instruction is counterproductive to the English learning process. (Macaro,2009).

Baron, (1990) points out that the use of English Only during the 20th century was an outcome of the American civilization and the movement made oral English to gain a favor over native language, making English only to become an only approach to ESL classroom instruction for adult learners.( Khati, 2011). During the period, the ESL instruction focused on teaching practical English such as making a purchase, opening a bank account, asking for directions, and visiting the doctors. Henry Goldberger was among the supporters of English Only who developed adult ESL instruction that focused on teaching exclusively practical English and warned that English should focus on using English Only as a method of classroom instruction in order to form national cliques. To enhance effectiveness of monolingual approach, the educational institutions instituted speech test, and those who were unable to pass speech tests were deprived from licenses. Typically, many states in the United States mandate teachers to be the U.S. citizens. Baron (1990) identifies a shortcoming of this effort by pointing out that L1 is a perquisite in delivering an effective English language classroom teaching. "The efforts to homogenize the language of the teaching corps, school teachers remained by and large monolingual English speakers untrained in any methodology to teach English to non-Anglophones and unable to empathize with the non-Anglophone student" (Baron, 1990, p. 162).

Auerbach, (1993) point out that researchers, learners and practitioners consistently reveal that incorporating learners L1 in the classroom teaching delivers positive results. One of the benefits is that it attracts students who had limited L1 literacy to participate in the learning program. Many students who dropped out from monolingual ESL classes believed that incorporating L1 in classroom class was the best method to retain students. Other benefit of using L1 in the ESL classroom is that it reduces barrier to English acquisition, which effectively enhance rapid progress in learning ESL. (Lucas, & KatzSource, 1994).

Storch, & Aldosari, (2010) favor the use L1 in teaching L2 learners. The authors point out that many Korean learners of English language are reluctant to speak English (L2) when they are in group with other fellow Korean. (Kang, 2005) However, Odlin, (1989) believes that incorporating of the L1 in the L2 classroom teaching is problematic. The author argues that cross-linguistic transfer is problematic by pointing out that the L1 cannot assist in the acquisition of L2.

However, many experience and novice teacher believe that the use of L1 in L2 teaching facilitates positive outcome and has been a constructive tool in both class management and teaching. Brooks-Lewis (2009) demonstrates that learners appreciate the use of L1 in L2 learning classes. (Macaro, 2001).

Bilingual

Shortcomings identified in the use of bring about the bilingual approach. Copland et al. (2010) believe that there is a contradiction in the use of monolingual approach or L1 only. Typically, there is a general complexity and contradiction in the use of L1 only in an English classroom environment, and many teachers conclude that the use of L1 in collaboration with L2 assists learners to better exploit available learning resources.

Bilingual approach is the use of the country's official language for questions, instructions and responses. Butler, & Hakuta, (2006) define bilingual as a group of people of individual obtaining knowledge with more than one language. However, bilingualism is a socio-cultural and complex psychological linguistic behavior having multi-dimensional aspects. Bilingual is defined as individual having "native-like control of two languages."(Butler, & Hakuta, 2006, p 115). However, this definition of bilingualism allows early learners of L2 to be classified as bilingual. A fair definition of bilingual refers to individual having a degree of proficiency in two languages. A broader definition of bilingual refers to the advantages of incorporating a development process in the acquisition of second language. On the other hand, the bilingual definition is often refers to ability of an individual to retain a knowledge of two knowledge and use them for daily life activities. (Caldwell, 2011).

The bilingual approach has been put forward based on the criticism centered against monolingual approach. Turnbull, & Dailey-O'Cain (2009) argue that the use L1 facilitate learning of the L2, which consequently facilitate the learning and comprehension of the L2. Moreover, the use of the L1 enhances comprehensive input as well as the production of L2. Macaro (2002) argues that teachers can achieve both pedagogical and language functions using the L1 within a very short time and still achieve advantages in the target language. Typically, the use of L1 and L2 at the same time in a classroom environment can facilitate rapid development of L2. The language interdependence model reveals that interrelation between L. 1 and L2 facilitate proficiency in L2. (Macaro, 2005). Essentially, cognitive benefits are that it assists students who face challenges in learning languages to achieve language proficiency. Moreover, the use of first language in conjunction to the target language facilitates production of second language. (Rivers, 2010).

The study discusses the code switch to enhance a greater understanding on the infuence L1 into L2 teaching.

Code Switching

Code switching refers to the process of inserting a short phrases or sentences of one language into another language. In other words, code switching is the process of incorporating materials of bilingual in a communication. However, rapid switching from L1 to the L2 is a strong characteristic of code switching.

Typically, code switching is part of the bilingual characteristics and not a sign of language deficiency. Many people fluent in bilingual sometimes switch to their L1. Moreover, code switching serves as an important identity related function in both bilingual communication and conversation. Code switching also assists in retaining multicultural and multilingual knowledge. (DeFina, 2007),

Macaro, (2009) argue that code switching assists learners to develop a strong linguistic knowledge such as vocabulary without affecting learner's linguistic skills. Theoretical underpining has supported the use code switching because it facilitates effect of L1 into L2. Cognitive processing theory reveals that there is a similarity between the way language and information system store and process information. Both language and information system use both long-term and working memory to process information. (Ellis, 2005). Cognitive processing theory argues that both T1 and T2 are contained in a similar store. Thus, both L1 and L2 are activated in long-term memory when a bilingual speaker processes target or native language. Since there is a strong connection between L. And L2, ignoring the L1 when processing the L2 is just like ignoring an essential tool in a learning process. (Sampson, 2011).

Sociological theory also supports L1facilitative effect. The theory reveals that private speech and inner voice are very critical in the way an individual thinks and acts, which are always being reflected in L1. The naturalistic code switching is the third theory having facilitative effect on L1. Code switching assists teachers to effective put information across the learners in a classroom. (Lindholm-Leary, 2001) .

Reference

Abdul-Rahman, Q.T. (2006). Teachers' and Students' Practices and Attitudes Toward Arabic (L1) Use in ELT.in Partial Fulfillment of Master of Arts, American University of Sharjah.

Alshammari, M.M. (2011). The Use Of The Mother Tongue In Saudi EFL Classrooms. Journal of International Education Research, 95-102.

Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9-32.

Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELTJournal, 241-247.

Baron, D. (1990). The English only question: An official language for Americans? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Brooks-Lewis, K.A. (2009). Adult Learners' Perceptions of the Incorporation of their L1 in Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, Applied Linguistics 30(2): 216 -- 235.

Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. San Francisco: Longman.

Brown, H.D. (1980) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall Regents.

Butzkamm, W., Caldwell, J.A.W.,( 2009). The Bilingual Reform: a Paradigm Shift in Foreign Language Teaching. Narr, Tubingen

Butler, Y.G. & Hakuta, K. (2006). Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisition in The Handbook of Bilingualism. UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Caldwell, W.B. (2011). The Bilingual Reform: A Paradigm Shift in Foreign. ELT Journal, 117-119.

Carless, D. (2007). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal, 331-338.

Clark, G., (2009). What's Wrong with the Way English Is Taught in Japan? The Japan Times. February 5. 2009.

Cognates (2010).Spanish to English Transitional Reading: Teacher's Manual. Baltimore, MD.

Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2010). L1 to teach L2: complexities and contradictions. ELT Journal, 1-11.

Cook, V.J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 57(3), 184-206.

Cook, V. (2008). Second language Learning and language teaching. London: Hodder Education.

Cook, V., (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 user. In: Llurda, E. (Ed.), Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. Springer, New York, pp. 47-61.

Cummins, J. (2010). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto.

Department of Education (1990). Modern Foreign Language for ages 11 to 16.london, Welsh office.

DeFina, A. (2007) Code-switching and the construction of ethnic identity in a community of practice. Language in Society 36, 371 -- 392.

Dulay, H.C., Burt, M.K., & Krashen, S.D. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2):209-224.

Ellis, N. (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305 -- 352.

Gramley, S. & Gramley, V.(eds) (2008), Bielefeld Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, pp. 51-60.

GruyterKrashen, S. & Scarcella, R.. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance [J]. In Language Learning 9,(4):409-419.

Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal Volume, 46/4.

Hongqin, S.R. (2009). The Role of the First Language in Second Language Acquisition, RTVU ELT Express .

Kang, S. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277 -- 92.

Khati, A.R. (2011). When and Why of Mother Tongue Use in English CLassrooms. Journal of NELTA, 42-51.

Krieken, R.V. & Erickson, G.(2012). Mono- or Bilingual Approaches in Language Testing? A matter of Validity. Department of Education and Special Education.

Levine, G.S. (2003). Student and Instructor Beliefs and Attitudes about Target Language Use, First Language Use, and Anxiety: Report of a Questionnaire Study. The Modern Language Journal, 343-364.

Liu, S. (2001). Studies on Transfer in Second Language Acquisition, Guangxi Normal University Journal, 3:1-29.

Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001) Dual Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Lucas, T., & KatzSource, A. (1994). Reframing the Debate: The Roles of Native Languages in English-Only Programs for LanguageMinority Students. TESOL Quarterly, 537-561.

Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers' code switching in foreign la nguage classrooms: Theories and decision making. Modern Language Journal, 85, 531-548.

Macaro, E., (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring 'optimal' use. In: Turnbull, M., Dailey-O'Cain, J. (Eds.), First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp. 35e49Sampson, A. (2011). Learner code-switching vs. English only. ELT Journal, 293-303.

Jain, M.P. (1974). Error analysis: source, cause and significance [C]. In Richards, J. (ed.) [A]. 1974:189.

Jyun-Gwang, C.F. (2000).The Role of First Language Transfer and Second Language Proficiency in the writing of Chinese learners of English as a Second Language. Pennsylvania, Dissertations Publishing.

KOPE-NA, P. (2008). Interlingual and Intralingua Errors in L2 Speakers of English. A Thesis in Partial Fulfillment of Master Degree at the Masaryk University of Information System.

Krieken, R.V. & Erickson, G.(2012). Mono- or Bilingual Approaches in Language Testing? A matter of Validity. Department of Education and Special Education

Krzeszowski, T.P. (1990) Contrasting Languages: the Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin:Mouton de