12.1 Introduction
Many native Chinese teachers assume that, as with the acquisition of their own language (in so far as they have any memory of it), Chinese language instruction can, and should, in fact, be carried out entirely in the target language – Chinese. Use of their pupils' native language (say, English) in class is, in this view, entirely unnecessary. What such a policy fails to recognise is that language acquisition and language learning involve quite different cognitive processes.Footnote 1 Learning a second language is inevitably mediated by processes of cognition and habituation, both of which are suffused with one's native language. For this reason, we argue that, in the initial stages of instruction (at least), teachers should be encouraged to make use of students' first language in situations where it is, arguably, most effective, i.e., in managing classroom activities and giving other kinds of instruction; in explaining or analysing language; in performing comparative or error analysis; and so on.
To completely disregard the learner's first language in foreign language instruction inhibits the learner's initiative, suppresses those abstract thinking skills that are crucial for effective and efficient learning, and hinders the learner's understanding of the target language. Moreover, the ability to translate back and forth between languages is a characteristic of bilinguals, and it seems unlikely that suppressing this process during the early stages of instruction could have benefits, short or long term. Therefore, teachers who provide perfect models of the target language but whose knowledge of pupils' native language is minimal fulfil only half the requirement. The ideal teacher is bilingual: able to model the target language at the requisite levels, and able to deliver instruction in the pupils' native language with an appropriate level of precision.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say, but if the judicious use of the native language at early levels of spoken language instruction is, indeed, shown to be beneficial, then the bilingual model needs to be considered. In some cases, where sufficiently bilingual teachers are not easily available, a complementary team comprising a ‘base-native’ (whose native language is that of the learners) and a ‘target-native’ (whose native language is the target language) may be required.
This hybrid teacher model is, in fact, implicit in the division of classes into ‘act’ and ‘fact’ which is a feature of many language programmes. ‘Act’ classes deal with performance and are conducted predominantly in the target language; ‘fact’ classes deal with analysis and are conducted primarily in the language of the learners – or, in the case of mixed populations of learners, in a language (such as English) which is well understood by all. So long as there is a clear boundary between the two functions, act and fact can be applied within a single class: a period of analysis can precede intensive practice; or – perhaps even more effectively – learners can prepare material on their own ahead of time, perform it in class in the target language and then, with the teacher, discuss or analyse what they have done in their native language. Through the perspectives of bilingualism and the social function of language, this chapter further discusses the rationale for the establishment of such a hybrid teacher model.
12.2 The Characteristics of Bilingualism
12.2.1 The Bilingual Memory Representation
In the field of psycholinguistics, the notion of bilingual memory has been developed to represent how the brains of bilingual learners function and how they store and organise the two languages. The bilingual memory comprises two levels, namely the conceptual and the lexical level. The underlying level of conceptual representation is shared, while that of the lexical level of each language is isolated.
The asymmetrical model of bilingual memory, as advocated by Kroll and Stewart (Reference Kroll and Stewart1994), has already been seen in Figure 6.2. In the bilingual memory, lexical and conceptual links operate concurrently. In the learning of a second language, it is reasoned, the link between the lexical realisation of the first language and the conceptual level (indicated by the solid diagonal arrow) is stronger than that between the second language and the conceptual level (dotted diagonal arrow). Similarly, the lexical link from second language to first (solid horizontal arrow) is stronger than that from first language to second (dotted horizontal arrow). The strength of the various linkages changes with the increasing proficiency of the learner.
This model leads us to two conclusions. Firstly, there are fundamental differences between first language acquisition and second language learning. Acquiring a first language proceeds subliminally and involves what is presumably a complementary process of delineating concepts and associating them with sounds, a process that is intimately bound up in the development of thinking. Learning a second language is, to some degree, a self-conscious process that has to be mediated by the language (and thought processes) already in place. In other words, the learning of a second language will inevitably be conceptualised in terms of the first; lexical, grammatical, semantic and pragmatic structures encountered in the second language will be mapped onto those of the first. Learners will use their first language to help them comprehend concepts expressed in the second. When second language learners have progressed to a higher level of learning, the impact of their first language may be reduced, but it will never be eliminated. Hence, in the initial stage of learning a second language, it is in accordance with second language learners' cognitive development to use their base language to assist them in mastering the target language.
The second implication of the model is that the abilities of even the most successful second language learners will be skewed towards their first language. This skewing is most clearly observed in the bilingual's ability to translate between languages. With the exception of those who acquire two languages simultaneously in childhood, bilinguals do not have equivalent translation abilities in both languages. The concepts of ‘receptive translation’ and ‘productive translation’ will be discussed in greater depth below.
12.2.2 Degrees of Bilingual Ability
A person who can utilise two languages has bilingual ability. However, only very exceptionally does a person possess equivalent proficiency in two languages.
Firstly, bilingual ability includes at least the following four components:
1. the ability to produce and understand the first language [A];
2. the ability to produce and understand the second language [B];
3. the ability to translate from the second language [B] to the first [A];
4. the ability to translate from the first language [A] to the second [B].
We can then use the equation [AB]=[[A]+[B]+[B→A]+[A→B]] to denote the composition of maximal bilingual ability. It is worth noting that second language ability is not the same as full bilingual ability. A person is fully bilingual only when able to perform translation ‘in both directions’: receptive translation ([B→A]) and productive translation ([A→B]).
Secondly, there are different levels to the four components of bilingual ability. When learners are at the initial stages of learning, bilingual abilities tend to be skewed towards the receptive skills. This is particularly true for translation. It is easier to perform receptive translation [B→A] than productive [A→B]. At intermediate levels of language learning, productive translation will improve, but judgements of usage (language intuition) will remain unreliable. Even at advanced levels of language learning, productive translation (into the second language) will lag behind receptive.
Bilingual abilities are not static: they evolve with time, but they will remain skewed in favour of translation out of the second language into the first. Encountering actual language in a wide range of contexts will, of course, improve intuitions about usage; but ultimately, the indelible experience of acquiring a first language (in childhood) does not seem to be reproducible in the learning of a second.
12.3 The Social Function of Language
12.3.1 First Language as the Dominant Language
Generally speaking, the first language is the dominant language that is used for thinking and daily social communication. One can be bilingual, but as noted above, it is exceptional for a person's proficiency in two languages to achieve absolute and complete equivalence. Citing Singapore as an example, although most Chinese Singaporeans are bilingual, individuals almost always exhibit dominance in one of their languages. This dominant language is usually the one used for most informal daily communication, especially among family members and regular acquaintances. It is also the language of thought, in so far as language can be identified in inner processes.
12.3.2 Getting Added Value from a Second Language
Since the dominant language is usually one's first language, the second language can be considered to have an auxiliary or value-added function. It is not the language for ordinary intimate social communication. Rather, a second language is used in those contexts which make the dominant language inappropriate, in work settings perhaps, or in formal presentations to mixed audiences. Ultimately, getting full value from a second language requires high levels of ability that include a degree of productive translation ability ([A→B]) as well as the less demanding receptive version ([B→A]).
12.4 The Two Categories of Bilingual Educators
12.4.1 The Base-Native Teacher
The base-native teacher has the same native language as her students (or, in the case of bilingual classes, the native language presupposed by the teaching materials, and by the education system as a whole). In other words, the base-native teacher belongs to the A1/B2 category. The base-native teacher not only shares the same native language as the pupils, she has herself learned the target language and is particularly sensitive to the problems of learning: which sounds are problematic for native speakers, which grammatical patterns are most subject to interference, which pragmatic issues are of most concern and so on. The base-native speaker is in a particularly good position to guide her students because she has had to deal with the same issues herself.
However, as noted above, productive translation (out of one's native language) will be relatively more difficult to perform than receptive (into one's native language). A base-native teacher may have well-developed bilingual ability, but, even so, she will lack the ability to produce confidently and accurately the second, non-native language. In normal circumstances, her receptive skills will be stronger than her productive skills ([B→A] > [A→B]).
The base-native teacher is therefore more suited to playing the role of interpreter, teaching and explaining the factual component of the target language. In the initial stages of learning a second language, regardless of whether the focus is on speech or writing, if comprehension is crucial then explanation and analysis has to be carried out in the learner's native language – the language most fully controlled by base-native teachers.
The base-native can – and should – intersperse explanation with examples (of target language structures and usage) where necessary, but the scaffolding that supports language learning – analysis, discussion and strategy – can only be carried out effectively in the pupils' first language. Jorden and Walton (Reference 200Jorden and Walton1987:123) shared similar views when they mentioned that ‘the base-native linguist, who shares the students' mind-set and who knows through personal experience what it means to be a foreigner in the target culture, plays a vital role in analysing and explaining, and in making decisions related to situations, pacing, ordering, and levels of difficulty’.
12.4.2 The Target-Native Teacher
Base-native teachers are bilingual: they are not teaching their native language. This is not necessarily the case for target-native teachers, though.Footnote 2 Target-natives whose audience is diverse – teachers for the British Council, for example, or for the Chinese Hanban – are less likely to have studied the language of their students. They often move from country to country teaching their native language without having the time to acquire the native languages of their students. A target-native teacher who has no knowledge of the native language of his students will find it difficult to comprehend the mind-set of the learner or the difficulties encountered in learning the second language. This is a severe handicap.
A target-native who is at least partially bilingual will be the mirror image of his students. Rather than being an A1/B2 type of learner, he will be an A2/B1 learner – speaking the target language natively, but qualifying as a learner of the students' native language. Although he has never studied the target language – his native language – he has studied his students' native language as a second language, and is therefore in a position to analyse and compare the two languages and provide useful guidance. Target-native teachers who are, to some degree, bilingual will be strong in their ability to model the target language and perform translation into the target language; but they will be weak in translating out of the target language into their students' native language; i.e. [A→B] > [B→A].
Hence, although target-native teachers have a better grasp of the target language [B] than base-native teachers, their teaching of language concepts may not be as effective as that of base-native teachers. This is why Jorden and Walton (Reference 200Jorden and Walton1987) and Halliday (Reference Halliday2014) advocated deploying base-native teachers to teach factual material, particularly at foundation levels of language learning. When it comes to practice in using the language, however, target-native teachers have a clear advantage in being able to model – and critique – subtleties of usage. Arguably, this division of labour should not be limited to just foundation levels of learning. For although it is possible to make language the topic of discussion at advanced levels and thus perform analysis and comparison in the target language, the problem of translation makes base-target natives a useful resource at all levels.
12.5 The Hybrid Teacher Model
In summary, base-native and target-native teachers complement each other to form an ideal team for the teaching of a second language: base-native teachers + target-native teachers = teaching team for second language teaching.
In reality, many scholars – who are successful second language learners themselves – recognise the value of the hybrid teacher mode. For instance, Jorden and Walton (Reference 200Jorden and Walton1987:121–2) explicitly noted the following points in tackling the challenges of second language teaching:
the ideal foreign language program uses a team of instructors. The fact component is handled by base-natives thoroughly trained in the analysis of the target language and culture and able to describe it in terms that are meaningful to the learners. After all, base-native instructors have followed the exact same route that the student will follow, originally learning the target as a foreign language. Only they know what it is to be a foreigner in the target culture. The act component is handled by target-natives – who are also professionals thoroughly trained to fill this role. They are the models of the student's target. From them, students are able to observe at close hand – and interact with – living examples of the language and culture they are studying.
In order to help adult non-native academics better learn Chinese, Halliday (Reference Halliday2014:3) was also of the view that ‘beginners should preferably be taught by speakers of their own language (e.g. English), not by native speakers of Chinese’ and that ‘native speakers come in later, when the students have mastered the essentials of the learning task and can recognise and take advantage of the native speakers' superior knowledge’. Kubler (as cited in Chen Reference Chen2011) held similar views. He recommended that rather than rushing off to Taiwan or mainland China to study Chinese, foreign students should learn the basics of the language in their own country first. He suggested one or two years of language study at home before going abroad. He also felt it preferable that at the beginning levels, the whole class speak the same first language, and that teachers have some knowledge of that language so that they can anticipate difficulties and find ways to alleviate them.
The hybrid teacher model certainly requires further in-depth discussion and research. A number of issues come to mind: requiring a degree of bilingualism would reduce the pool of eligible teachers; collaboration between schools, or even internationally, could resolve the difficulty of finding both base-natives and target-natives; and class size, developmental stage, as well as logistical issues would have to be reconsidered. Nevertheless, at a time when internationalisation is all in vogue and formal language learning is much in demand, the likely benefits of the hybrid teaching model deserve further exploration. In particular, we should consider how such a model might be incorporated into the training programmes for teachers of Chinese as an international language.
