















































 
 
  

 

21 
 
 

p-ISSN: 2722-399X;  e-ISSN: 2722-1857 
SiLeT, Vol. 2, No. 3, December: 21-32 

©2021 Studies in Learning  
and Teaching 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
Homepage: https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 
Email: silet@scie-journal.com 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: 
Approaches and Challenges 

*N S Y Dassanayake1 
1Department of Languages, Faculty of Social Sciences and Languages, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Sri 

Lanka 

Article Info  ABSTRACT  

Article history: 

Received September 16, 2021 
Revised September 24, 2021 
Accepted September 26, 2021 
Available Online December 30, 2021 

Traditional perspectives on monolingual education and total 
immersion have been substituted by more novel approaches to 
multilingual education such as translanguaging and partial 
immersion where the learners’ language repertoire is paid adequate 
respect. The present study investigates the role of L1 and L2 in 
teaching Chinese in Sri Lanka using 42 adult Chinese language 
learners in Sri Lanka as informants and a structured questionnaire 
was used as the main data collection tool. The informants have a 
highly divided perspective towards the use of L1 and L2 in the 
classroom. Most students have favored English instruction 
considering its efficacy in career prospects and Sinhala for 
convenience of comprehension. Considering the existing situation of 
Chinese language textbooks, language policy, and recent trends in 
multilingualism in Sri Lanka, total immersion is less likely to bring 
optimal effectiveness in teaching Chinese. The present study 
suggests that partial immersion and translanguaging would be more 
constructive for Sri Lankan students if cautiously handled with less 
hindrance to the delivery of target language content and its accuracy. 
A multilingual approach would, on one hand, offer a safe space for 
students to communicate while penetrating cross-cultural barriers 
through cultivation of culture-sensitivity. 

Keywords: 

Immersion  
Multilingualism  
Sri Lanka  
Teaching Chinese  
Translanguaging 

 
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet  

INTRODUCTION  
Exclusive use of mother tongue and L2 in language programs has been an issue of controversy 
for over decades. According to McMillan & Turnbull (2009), exclusive use of target language can 
result in over-reliance on cognates and over simplification of language. Findings of the 
TARCLINDY1  research project (Macaro, 1997) conclude that there are three distinctive personal 
theories of teachers regarding the first language use. Some teachers tend to believe that second 
language could only be learnt through that language while some others believed that exclusive 
use of second language is nearly impossible due to unavailability of the perfect learning 
conditions in second language classroom. The third belief is that there is considerable value in 
use of first language in second language learning.  (Macaro, 2009) Language transfer and code-
switching in immersion programs are perceived by different researchers in the language field in 
different perspectives.  

Most commonly used instruction languages of Chinese language programs in Sri Lanka are 
Sinhala and English, the former being the mother tongue of a majority of students and the latter 
being the second language. Chinese, Sinhala and English belong to three different language 

 
1 TARCLINDY: Abbreviation of target language, collaborative learning and independent learning. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1586183902
http://u.lipi.go.id/1587708325
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
mailto:silet@scie-journal.com
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

22 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

families and there are significant differences between their linguistic systems and features. 
Although issues of L1 and L2 transfer on Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan students have been 
major concerns, they neither have been paid adequate consideration, neither have they been 
systematically studied. The present study aims to explore the boundaries and efficiency of using 
L1, L2 and the target language individually and as combinations for instruction in Chinese 
language programs in Sri Lanka.  

RESEARCH METHODS  
The study has utilized multiple approaches to examine the optimal use of each instruction 
language which includes both qualitative and quantitative methods.  

Key Informants 
42 adult Chinese language students in Sri Lanka were randomly selected for the study as primary 
informants who were from different language and social backgrounds. The diversity of social 
and linguistic backgrounds of the informants was considered as a positive factor to obtain a wider 
stance on the multilingual background of Sri Lankan Chinese language students.  

Data Collection Tools 
A questionnaire was used as the primary data collection tool and the questionnaire was designed 
on google forms and all primary data were collected online. The questionnaire consisted of three 
parts of which the first part was concerned on the multilingual competencies and skills of the 
students and the second part was dedicated for their opinion on the preferred medium of 
instruction of each aspect of teaching. The third part consisted of two multiple choice questions 
which questioned the reasons for the preference of instruction language.  

Analysis Methods 
The responses collected through google forms were first transferred into an excel spreadsheet 
and then each variable and respective data were entered in SPSS. Analysis function was used to 
calculate percentages, mean values and standard deviation.  
A comprehensive survey of literature was conducted parallelly to establish and refine the 
theoretical framework for the study.   

REVIEW OF LITERATURE  
Multilingualism and Second Language Learning 
According to the 2012 special Eurobarometer report on Europeans and their languages, more 
than 88% of Europe believe that knowing languages other than their mother tongue is very useful. 
67% of the Europeans believe that English one of the two most important languages for 
themselves and 98% of the Europeans believe that mastering foreign languages is useful for the 
future of their children. Dramatic expansion of cross-cultural contact through digital platforms 
and immigration in the recent decades have resulted in new language contacts creating 
multilingual environments all over the world. The interest in multilingualism and multilingual 
literacy have grown rapidly in last two decades along with significant linguistic, cultural and 
demographic changes prompted by globalization, transnational population flow, technological 
advancements and changes in regional political and economic landscapes. (Martin-Jones et al., 
2015) 

Multilingualism could be defined in terms of language policy, lifestyle, cultural context, 
politics etc. different approaches. In some cases, multilingualism connects with language policies 
and language planning. No matter how linguistically diverse a community may be, most 
countries limit the number of official languages to a small number of languages. What language 
is used in public services, schools, courts and congress is decided by language policies of the 
administration. (Maher, 2017) The introduction of English Education in the nineteenth century as 
a result of colonialism had profound and long-term impacts on Sri Lanka’s language policies and 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

23 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

practice. (Coperehewa, 2011) English still remains largely a colonial aristocratic symbol in Sri 
Lanka thus limiting its stakeholders mostly to the elite community. 

Dominant languages are the greatest threat on multilingualism. According to Casanova & 
Jones (2013) the notion of “equity” among languages however true it may be in an absolute sense, 
is completely false in reality. Among millions of live and extinct languages, there have always 
been the ones that were more “prestigious” than the other or others. Their proposition is testified 
by many incidents of dominant languages devouring the less popular ones all over the world. 
For example, Sinhala language of Sri Lanka consists of a considerable number of luxury loans 
from English which has resulted in expelling the native forms from daily vernacular. Code 
switching and code mixing has also resulted in undermining native language vocabulary.  
Speaking of language diversity by region, Asia accounts for the highest percentage value in terms 
of number of languages. 32% of world’s languages are of Asian origin. (Coulmas, 2017) East Asia 
is one of the most linguistically diverse regions in the world in terms of number of languages as 
well as their linguistic features. The Asian continent region consists of five major regions, namely 
South Asia, Southeastern Asia, Central Asia, East Asia and Western Asia. The languages in 
concern in this study mainly are of South Asian and East Asian origin and primary attention will 
be drawn towards multilingualism of these regions. According to Gottlieb & Chen (2013), 
characterization of East Asian languages including Japanese and Korean have been largely 
influenced by Chinese. Despite Japan and Korea being a largely monolingual territories for a long 
time, Japanese and Korean have largely been influenced by Chinese over long cultural contacts.  

Chinese language remains the most popular East Asian language and is spoken by one fifth 
of the world population (Law et al., 2009). Chinese language by itself is diverse with its wide 
variety of dialects. Chinese consists of seven major dialects, namely Mandarin in the north, 
Cantonese Yue in south, Wu in Shanghai region, Xiang, Gan Kejia and Min. (Taylor & Taylor, 
1995) Chinese is widely contributed to creating multilingual environments in East Asian and 
South East Asian countries making a wide impact on the multilingualism and language policies 
of Singapore, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia etc. countries. Many of these countries have 
Chinese language immersion programs in Chinese schools specially meant to cater for overseas 
Chinese children who the Chinese refer to as Huaren 2. Pasaribu & Suprapto (2020) discusses the 
language issues faced by foreign students in Taiwan and claim that although there is English 
instruction in the Chinese class, there is always the need to resort to Chinese outside class which 
is not easy due to the language competency barriers.  

The quadrilingual teaching model in Singapore in one hand is implicit of Singapore’s diverse 
multilingualism and on the other hand its pedagogical implications could be of much use for 
developing multilingual instruction models. Although the language requirements at individual 
level remain bilingual in Singapore, it would be more accurate to describe the language policy of 
Singapore as a quadrilingual model because all four official languages are treated as equal players 
in the national agenda. (Silver & Bokhorst-Heng, 2016) Equality among languages is a core 
principle of Singapore’s language policy. According to Rappa & Wee (2006) the widespread use 
of English is less problematic since there are no privileged languages in Singapore and all 
languages are treated as equally important. 

China has largely been a monolingual territory at least until the reform and opening up 
policy of Deng Xiaoping in 1978. However, this does not necessarily mean that Chinese language 
has not had contacts and influences from other languages. Efforts towards multilingualism in 
China has more been multi-dialectical rather than multilingual with several different mutually 
unintelligible dialects spread all over China. Cantonese one of the most distinctive and widely 
spoken dialects in China has had a wide influence within and outside China. However, the 
language policies in China after the Reform and Opening Up movement in 1978 were more 

 
2 Huaren 华人: The term used by Chinese people to refer to people of Chinese origin living in overseas territories. 
There are special benchmarks prepared for measuring the Chinese language skills of this overseas Chinese people 

which is different from Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (TCFL). 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

24 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

directed towards promotion and standardization of Putonghua, the major dialect. (Liang, 2014) 
Along with these reformations, the requirement for equipping the Chinese community with 
international languages to cope with the globalized trade became imperative. Language policy 
reformations in China shifted its focus from regional dialects to international languages. Out of 
all the dramatic transformations occurred in China in the last few decades, one of the significant 
changes was the embracing and promotion of English both at school level and after school level. 
(Pan, 2014). 

The second most important topic related to the present research is multilingualism in South 
Asia. Most South Asian languages belong to the Indo-Aryan or Dravidian language families and 
few other languages of Tibeto-Burman and Munda families. As Kachru et al.  (2008) suggests, 
diffusion, mutual contact and convergence are essential characteristics of South Asian languages 
in their historical and functional contexts. Colonial occupation of Portuguese, Dutch and English 
was a decisive factor on characterization of Multilingualism in South Asian context. As 
Kudchedkar (2002) narrates although English ruled nearly two hundred years their language is 
ruling much longer than that and it doesn’t look like leaving the territory. The situation is much 
similar in most South Asian countries including Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. During the 
British colonial era, only those who could afford to go to English taught schools had the privilege 
of learning English and it prevented the children of lower social class from receiving 
comprehensive English education.  (Karunaratne, 2009) However, English has already secured 
its prestigious position in the India, Sri Lanka etc. South Asian countries that English is no more 
considered as a qualification but as a prerequisite for employment. 

It is important to pay specific attention to the language situation of the country in question 
in this research. The Indian subcontinent had been multilinguistic from thousands of years ago 
and its influence has been high on the language situation in Sri Lanka. The first Indian settlers of 
Sri Lanka lead by Vijaya were of Western Indian origin and preferably spoke a dialect of that 
region. Soon after the first settlements trade and commerce were established with Eastern parts 
of India and new immigrants preferably spoke an Eastern Indian dialect. (Geiger, 1995) Along 
with the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka in 1st Century, Sanskrit and Pali became popular 
in Sri Lanka. Dravidian languages, mainly Tamil have also been an important language largely 
spoken in the Northern and Eastern parts of Sri Lanka. In addition to Colonial English, many 
other foreign languages became popular in Sri Lanka including French, German etc. Indo-
European languages and Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc. East Asian languages. Hindi is the most 
widely taught South Asian foreign language in Sri Lanka.  

Cross-linguistic Transfer and Foreign Language learning  
According to Odlin and Yu (2016), even when only two languages are in contact, cross-linguistic 
influence may occur in different ways. Typically, language transfer mostly involves divergences 
between source and target language which result in negative transfer. Cross-linguistic influence 
is inevitable in a multilinguistic environment and it is a decisive factor in the pedagogy of second 
language and foreign language. Existing approaches to interlanguage transfer are highly 
restricted, which mostly involve interaction between two languages. The presence of more than 
two linguistic systems in the speakers’ mind is essential for interlanguage transfer to occur. 
(Angelis & Selinker, 2001) The traditional hypothesis that transfer only occurs from mother 
tongue to second and third languages has been overshadowed by novel approaches to transfer 
which have validated that transfer is a two-way process and could occur between L2 and L3 too.  

Language transfer could be perceived from its impact on the recipient language as positive 
and negative transfer. Wang & Garigliano (1992) define positive transfer as transfer which makes 
learning easier as in Chinese and English syntax which can facilitate acquisition of Chinese 
grammar. Negative transfer is defined as transfer which leads to ‘error’ or ‘inappropriate form’ 
in target language acquisition. According to Ellis (1994), the degree of difficulty in L2 learning is 
dependent on the extent of differences between native language and target language patterns. 
Learning is made easy in cases where the two are identical through positive transfer but negative 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

25 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

transfer is likely to occur in cases where there are differences between the native language 
patterns and the target language patterns.  
Influence of L1 or the mother tongue has been a key topic of discussion in second and foreign 
language learning. Vainikka & Young-Scholten (2006) suggest that the extent to which L1 
influences the acquisition of syntactic structures of L2 throughout development is an unresolved 
issue. However, the influence of mother tongue cannot be considered the only influential factor 
on foreign language learning.  According to Angelovska & Hahn (2012) although first language 
has been considered as the main source of transfer on acquisition of other languages, it cannot be 
concluded that the first language is necessarily the major source or an inevitable source of 
transfer. Mother tongue influence has to be more carefully analyzed in contexts as South Asia 
where English as a second language is highly influential in foreign language learning.  

The use of mother tongue in second and foreign language learning has been a controversial 
topic throughout the history of second and foreign language research. Some scholars perceive the 
use of mother tongue as a destructive influence in second and foreign language acquisition while 
there are many others who perceive it as an asset. According to Ali et al., (2015) despite the 
prejudice against the use of L1 for teaching foreign languages, both empirical and theoretical 
findings demonstrate that L1 could be a “precious source” in assisting teachers to improve target 
language skills. Krashen (1981) has discussed first language influence from different perspectives 
and claim that first language influence is strongest in environments where “acquisition is poor” 
and its influence is weaker in bound morphology.     

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
Survey Results 
The primary informants of the present study were a group of 42 Chinese language students of 
diverse language levels. Diversity of linguistic background was considered as a positive factor 
since this would provide a clearer picture of the preferred instruction language. 71.4% of the 
informants were in the age group between 20-29, 21.4% were under age 19 and the rest were in 
the age group between 30-39. The first section of the questionnaire was aimed at drawing 
information on the linguistic background of the students. To the question on what languages the 
informants were speaking, 100% of the students have answered that they were able to speak 
Sinhala and 72.4% students have answered that they are able to speak in English. Sri Lanka’s 
third language Tamil was spoken only by 6.9% students and Korean, Japanese and Hindi were 
spoken by only one student each. 
 

Table 1. Language proficiency levels of informants and most convenient language 

 
Proficiency Level 

Language 

Sinhala  English Chinese 

Language proficiency levels Highly Proficient 90.47% 21.42% 4.76% 

Good 9.52% 52.3% 33.33% 

Working Knowledge 0% 23.8% 52.38% 

Poor 0% 0% 2.38% 

Very Poor 0% 0% 0% 

n  42 42 42 

mean  1.0952 2.0238 2.5952 

Most convenient language  83.33% 16.66% 0% 

 
 
 
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

26 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Table 2. Language skills of informants 

Language Skill n 
Sinhala English Chinese 

% mean std.dev % mean std.dev % mean std.dev 

Understand 42 100 1.00 0.00 90.47 0.90 0.29  73.80 0.74 0.44 
Speak 42 78.57 0.78 0.41 83.33 0.83 0.37 59.52 0.60  0.49 
Read 42 78.57 0.78 0.41 78.57 0.78 0.41 73.80 0.74 0.44 
Write 42 61.9 0.61 0.49 61.90 0.61 0.49 57.14 0.57 0.50 

  

Table 1 and Table 2 give a clear picture of the language competencies and language skills of 
the informants. Most students claim to be highly proficient in their mother tongue and nearly 
50% of the students claim to possess working knowledge in English. Only 4.76% of the informants 
have claimed that they are highly proficient in Chinese language and a majority (85.68%) have 
claimed that they possess either good or working knowledge in Chinese. With regard to the 
language skills of the students, reading and comprehension skills of the students are relatively 
higher than speaking and writing. The overall mean value of reading and comprehension skills 
of the students in all three languages is higher ([Comprehension 1.00+0.90+0.74] +[Reading 
0.78+0.78+0.74] /6=0.82) in contrast to that of speaking and writing ([Speaking 
0.78+0.83+0.60]+[Writing 0.61+0.61+0.57]/6=0.66). Except for 16.66% students who have selected 
English as the most convenient language to communicate all others have selected Sinhala as the 
most convenient language to communicate.  

Table 3. Medium of instruction: existing situation and preference 

Medium of instruction 
Preferred language of 
instruction 

Prevailing language 
instruction in the classroom 

Only Chinese instruction 2.4% 2.4% 
Chinese Sinhala bilingual instruction 45.2% 47.6% 
Chinese English bilingual instruction 45.2% 47.6% 
All explanations in Sinhala 4.8% 2.4% 
All explanations in English 2.4% 0% 
n 42 42 
Mean 2.59 2.50 
Std.Dev 0.73 0.59 

 
From the table 3 it is evident that the preferred medium of instruction is quite debatable 

among the students. Except for 4 students all other students have resorted for Chinese-Sinhala 
bilingual instruction or Chinese-English bilingual instruction. The prevailing situation with 
regard to the medium of instruction in the Sri Lankan Chinese language classroom has only 
catered the expectations of only some students. Specifically referring to the informants of this 
study, only nearly half of them have been satisfied about the medium of instruction in the Chinese 
language classroom while the other half preferred another medium of instruction. 

Table 4. Medium of instruction: existing situation and preference 

Response % Mean Std. Dev 

I want to improve my English along with Chinese 61 .59 .49 
I think English translations will be more useful in future career 68.3 .66 .47 
English examples are easier to understand 31.7 .30 .46 
I don't want English instructions in the classroom 0 .00 .00 
English explanations are more suitable for Chinese words 24.4 .23 .43 

 
To the question in which areas do the students need mother tongue (Sinhala) explanations 

in the Chinese classroom 47.6% of the students have answered that they need Sinhala 
explanations for grammar and 31% of the students have responded that they need Sinhala 
instructions for translation methods. The question was limited to single choice thus limiting the 
responses to the most preferred aspect. 9.5% informants have chosen that they need Sinhala 
instructions for new word meanings and 7.1% have prioritized text.      

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

27 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

According to table 3 the strongest reason behind the preference of English language 
instruction is students’ perception of English as a necessary aptitude for future career prospects. 
61.3% informants have responded that they prefer English instruction since it would improve 
their English alongside Chinese. 31.7% students have claimed that it is easier to comprehend 
English examples and 24.4% informants have claimed that English examples are more suitable 
for Chinese words. None of the informants have responded that they do not need English 
language instruction in the classroom which implies that all the informants are in favour of at 
least some incorporation of English language in the Chinese language classroom. 

 
Table 5. Students' opinion on sinhala medium instruction 

Response % Mean Std. Dev 

I can easily understand Sinhala meanings 92.7 .90 .29 
I find English and Chinese instructions difficult to understand 12.2 .11 .32 
I want to improve my Sinhala language 0 .00 .00 
I don't want Sinhala instructions in the class 7.3 .07 .26 

 
Responses on the use of Sinhala language in the classroom show that most students prefer 

Sinhala instruction for ease of comprehension. However, unlike on English instruction where 
none of the students are against it, 7.3% students have responded that they do not need Sinhala 
medium instruction in the Chinese language class. 12.2% students have responded that they 
prefer Sinhala instructions because they find English instructions difficult to comprehend. 

Discussion 
Few important inferences could be drawn from the data analysis. A majority of students have 
either preferred bilingual or trilingual instruction in the classroom where their mother tongue 
Sinhala or English is expected to involve in instructions, descriptions and clarifications of 
linguistic elements of the target language. In a broader sense, the informants seem to have a 
positive attitude towards cross-linguistic transfer from their mother tongue and second language. 
Nevertheless, the informants’ preference of instruction language appears to be highly 
controversial since L1 and L2 both are perceived as the preferred language of instruction by 
nearly 50% of the students each. This has to be analysed in relation to the multilinguistic situation 
in Sri Lanka. As emphasized in a previous section, Sinhala as the mother tongue of a majority of 
population and English as official second language of the country at large are the most spoken 
languages in Sri Lanka.  

The informants’ preference of Sinhala as medium of instruction is justifiable since its natural 
of any foreign language learner to seek for help from their mother tongue for convenience but the 
reasons behind students’ preference of English as medium of instruction is worth investigating 
further. According to the English Impact 2018 report by the British Council and Ministry of 
Education in Sri Lanka, a majority of the sample students’ (58.2%) are in level A1 of CEFR3  and 
second largest group (29.2%) are in level A2 of CEFR. The report further demonstrates that the 
receptive skills are much higher than productive skills of Sri Lankan students. 39.6% students are 
at level B1 of CEFR in reading while 56.1% are at A2 in reading.  (Shepherd & Ainsworth, 2018) 
Although these are relatively low numbers and as Liyanage (2019) claims, the bilingual education 
in Sri Lanka remains an ‘unrealized policy objective’, the demand and motivation for learning 
English are still growing rapidly. According to the analysis of the responses in the present study, 
668% of the informants have responded that they believe English translations to be useful for 
their future career prospects while 61% of the students have responded that they need English 
language instruction in the Chinese classroom because they need to improve their English 
language alongside Chinese.  

A considerable number of Indic loanwords were borrowed into Chinese along with the sutra 
translations from Sanskrit, Gandhari, Magadhan etc. Indic languages. According to Yu (2008) 

 
3 CEFR - Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

28 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Buddhist sutra translations facilitated the emergence of 佛教混合汉语 fójiào hùnhé hànyǔ 
“Buddhist Hybrid Chinese”.  The aforementioned “Buddhist Hybrid Chinese” consists of a large 
number of transliterations which are phonologically similar to their original words in Indo-Aryan 
languages. Similarly, Sinhala also consists of a substantial number of loanwords from Indic 
languages most of which are of Buddhist origin. These two parallel processes have resulted in 
phonological similarities between Buddhist loanwords in Chinese and Sinhala since both 
languages have borrowed from the similar source languages. How this relates to teaching 
Chinese in Sri Lanka is that these phonological and semantic similarities could be utilized in 
teaching Chinese phonetics and word formation strategies. Otherwise stated, Indic loanwords in 
Chinese and their Sinhala counterparts could be utilized in positive transfer to assist language 
acquisition. Therefore, although mother tongue is traditionally viewed as a negative influence on 
second and foreign language acquisition, its positive impact could not be totally neglected.  

Three key questions arise in choosing between the most effective method of instruction for 
Chinese language classroom in Sri Lanka.  

i. Is total immersion going to be an option? 
ii. Would students be more benefitted by a bilingual model or a trilingual model? 
iii. To which extent does mother tongue and English could be utilized in the classroom? 
Although immersion is a widely used method of teaching, and proven effective in many 

contexts, it is a question whether immersion may prove similarly effective in every context. 
Immersion programs may vary depending on the proportion of instructional time spent in the 
target language and the age of students in which immersion instruction begins. There are total 
and partial immersion programs which use different proportions of target and native languages. 
(Siegel et al., 2010) In a context as in Sri Lanka, where transfer from L2 is as influential as transfer 
from L1, total immersion would be less effective. Majority of TCFL textbooks used in Sri Lanka 
are designed using English as the instruction language which makes the involvement of English 
an inevitable factor. Although this is a matter of preparing context-oriented textbooks and study 
material using native language for TCFL in Sri Lanka, using English at least to some extent is 
unavoidable in order to grapple with the present situation. Secondly, one of the key issues in 
teaching forms and structures of Chinese language is finding Sinhala equivalents for technical 
terms. Counterparts for Chinese grammatical terms such as ‘predicate’, ‘complement’, ‘aspect 
particle’ are either unavailable in Sinhala or even if available students are hardly familiar with 
them compared with their English equivalents.  

Although English is considered as L2 in the Sri Lankan context and language policy and 
planning differs much from Singapore, English language situation in Sri Lanka is much similar 
to that of in Singapore. As stated by (Goh, 2020) the dominance of English language extends well 
beyond education in Singapore to almost every formal domain including politics, law, business, 
technology and public administration. Despite language policy and planning efforts in Sri Lanka 
still remain much less effective in ameliorating English literacy at large, the role of English 
extends well beyond functioning as a lingua franca. Analysis of key informants’ responses prove 
that preference for English language instruction is much higher than Sinhala and are mostly 
aimed at career development. The reasons for preference of Sinhala language appear to be aimed 
at convenience in learning. Both these factors have to be carefully analysed when deciding on the 
medium of instruction and the proportion and extent of using L1 and L2 in the classroom. When 
we accumulate the data from relevant literature and the informants, it could be concluded that 
total immersion is less likely to be an option for teaching Chinese in Sri Lanka. Ahaddin et al. 
(2020) have investigated into the possibility of using peer instruction in classroom and claim that 
peer instruction has a high impact on enhancing the critical thinking skills of students. This could 
be a viable solution for language students since peer instruction would preferably drive away 
any linguistic barriers which occur in teacher instruction and provide a safe space for students to 
communicate in languages they are familiar with.  

Translanguaging has been a topic of discussion which has emerged as an extension of 
bilingual programs. Translanguaging offers the learner a wider space to use the languages they 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

29 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

are competent with beyond the borders of bilingualism. According to García & Kleyn (2016), in 
translanguaging all the language features of students’ repertoires are acknowledged, valued and 
deployed in learning. Translanguaging could also be considered as a workable solution for 
teaching Chinese in Sri Lanka where L1 and L2 are considered as equally important as the new 
language.  To the question how translanguaging differs from code-switching and code-mixing 
Lin (2020) concludes, despite translanguaging at surface level sounds similar to code-switching 
and code-mixing, the term refers to a more ‘dynamic’ and ‘fluid’ view of language. According to 
Wang (2018) translanguaging is a phenomenon that respects superdiverse multilingual social 
conditions and accepts all resourceful semiotic and linguistic inventions of teachers and students. 

A translanguaging model could make L1, L2 and the target language inclusive in the 
classroom which will benefit bilingual and multilingual learners by providing them a safe space 
to communicate freely in the language classroom. The core issue, however, would be how 
translanguaging could be integrated into Chinese language classroom of Sri Lanka. Age, 
linguistic diversity, bilingual/multilingual competency levels, class strength etc. factors have to 
be considered before deciding on medium(s) of instruction. For example, in a classroom with a 
majority of low English competency adult learners, translanguaging would be impractical and 
would have to resort to a bilingual model. At the same time, the amount of contact hours allocated 
for a programme also become a crucial factor since translanguaging would be more time 
consuming which may hinder the delivery of adequate target language content.  

While translanguaging could be an option for students who learn Chinese from early ages, a 
different approach will have to be taken for adult learners who follow Chinese for professional 
and academic purposes. Therefore, the extent of using L1 and L2 have to be considered for adult 
learners who learn Chinese for short courses and for undergraduate programmes. A majority of 
the informants who have participated in the present study are adult learners between the ages of 
20-39 except for 14% of the informants who are under age 19. According to Carder (2007), mother-
tongue proficiency is a crucial factor behind successful mastery of L2. As previously emphasized, 
although mother-tongue immersion has been a controversial issue for over decades, its positive 
impacts on L2 and foreign language acquisition cannot be totally neglected. A partial immersion 
approach using either L1 or L2 or both depending on the context would be more appropriate for 
these two types of programmes. However, educators have to ensure that L1 and L2 do not act as 
negative transfer agents in classroom hindering the accuracy of target language acquisition.  

In translanguaging and partial immersion the teacher has to have a considerable competency, 
fluency and accuracy in all the languages used in the classroom including a fair knowledge of the 
language systems of the languages. Chinese being a tonal language of Sino-Tibetan language 
family has to be handled with extra sensitivity to its culture and terminology. Bernaus (2007) 
claim that Language awareness can never be dissociated from cultural awareness and language 
learners should have multidimensional cultural awareness in multicultural, pluricultural and 
intercultural aspects while Kim (2020) claim that an adequate account of culture is essential to 
create language pedagogy that supports more effective intercultural communication. Culture-
loaded words are a key element of culture-sensitive content of a language. According to Yuewu 
& Qin (2015), culture-loaded words are the words, idioms and expressions which incorporate 
specific cultural meanings. Familiarization with this content is of paramount importance for 
teachers in order to incorporate culture-sensitivity into a multilingual classroom.  

CONCLUSION  
Although teaching Chinese in Sri Lanka has drawn much attention during the past few years 
with the growing demand for Chinese competency in the job market, little has been studied on 
the role of L1 and L2 in the Chinese language classroom which has led to inconsistency of the 
medium of instruction. The results of the present study also reveal that the students’ perspective 
on the medium of instruction is highly divided. Despite the traditional negative stance on the use 
of L1 and L2 in the teaching foreign languages, there is much theoretical and empirical evidence 
to support the fact that they could be constructively utilized in teaching foreign languages. While 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

30 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

the present study suggests that total immersion would not bring much success into the Chinese 
language classroom in Sri Lanka, the extents and proportions of using L1 and/or L2 in the 
classroom is to be decided after careful consideration of the age, L1 and L2 competency, time 
duration etc. factors. The present study has only analyzed medium of instruction from a 
multilingual perspective and further research on this could be conducted from a plurilingual 
perspective. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  
I express my sincere gratitude to the key informants of the study for their sincerity in providing 
their valuable data for this study.  

REFERENCES 
Ahaddin, M. A.,  Jatmiko, B., Supardi, Z.A.I.  The improvement of critical thinking skills of 

primary school students through guided inquiry learning models with integrated peer 
instructions. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i2.39 

Ali, S., Namaghi, O., Norouzi , S. (2015). First language use in teaching a foreign Language: 
Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings. US-China Foreign Language, 13(9). 
https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2015.09.001 

Angelis, G. D., & Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in 
the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-Linguistic Influence 
in Third Language Acquisition, 42–58. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595509-004 

Angelovska, T., Hahn, A. (2012). Written L3 (English): Transfer phenomena of L2 (German) 
lexical and syntactic properties. In D. Gabrys-Barker (Eds.), Second Language Learning and 
Teaching, 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29557-7_2 

Carder, M. (2007). Bilingualism in international schools: A model for enriching language education. 
Multilingual Matters. 

Casanova, P., & Jones, M. (2013). What is a dominant language? Giacomo Leopardi: Theoretician 
of linguistic inequality. New Literary History, 44(3), 379-399. 
https://doi:10.1353/nlh.2013.0028  

Coperehewa, S. (2011). Colonialism and problems of language policy: Formulation of a colonial 
language policy in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Advanced Social Studies, 1(1). 
https://doi.org/10.4038/sljass.v1i1.3814 

Coulmas, F. (2017). An introduction to multilingualism language in a changing world. Oxford 
University Press. 

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press. 
European Commission. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their Languages. 
García O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom 

moments. Routledge. 
Geiger, W. (1995). A grammar of the Sinhalese language. Asian Educational Services. 
Goh, Y.-S. (2020). Teaching Chinese as an international language: A Singapore perspective. Cambridge 

University Press. 
Gottlieb, N., & Chen, P. (2013). Language planning and language policy: East Asian perspectives. 

Routledge. 
Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Sridhar, S. N. (2008). Introduction. In Language in South Asia. 

Introduction. Cambridge University Press. 
Karunaratne, I. M. (2009). Teaching of English: A sociological study. APH Pub. Corp. 
Kim, D. (2020). Learning language, learning culture: Teaching language to the whole student. 

ECNU Review of Education, 3(3), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120936693 
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon. 
Kudchedkar, S. (2002). Readings in English language teaching in India. Orient Blackswan. 
Law, S.-P., Weekes, B., & Wong, A. M.-Y. (2009). Language disorders in speakers of Chinese. 

Multilingual Matters. 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i2.39
https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2015.09.001
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595509-004
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29557-7_2
https://doi:10.1353/nlh.2013.0028
https://doi.org/10.4038/sljass.v1i1.3814
https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120936693


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

31 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Liang, S. (2014). Language attitudes and identities in multilingual China: A Linguistic ethnography. 
Springer. 

Lin, A. M. Y. (2020). Introduction: Translanguaging and translanguaging pedagogies. In V. Vaish 
(Eds.), Translanguaging in multilingual English classrooms: An Asian perspective and contexts (p. 
3). Springer Nature. 

Liyanage, I. (2019). Language education policy in Sri Lanka. In A. Kirkpatrick & A. L. Liddicoat 
(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 399-413). 
Routledge. 

Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Multilingual Matters. 
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring 

‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O'Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign 
language learning, 35–49. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691972-005 

Maher, J. C. (2017). Multilingualism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. 
Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2015). The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. 

Routledge. 
McMillan, B., Turnbull, M. (2009). Teachers’ use of the first language in French immersion: 

Revisiting a core principle. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O'Cain (Eds.), First language use in 
second and foreign language learning, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691972-004 

Mercè, B.  (2007). Plurilingual and pluricultural awareness in language teacher education: A training kit. 
Council of Europe.  

Pan, L. (2014). English as a global language in China: Deconstructing the ideological discourses of English 
in language education. Springer. 

Pasaribu, M. A., & Suprapto, N. (2020). Experiences in Chinese class for Indonesian elementary 
students in Taiwan. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 1(1). 
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i1.19 

Rappa, A. L., & Wee, L. (2006). Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia Malaysia, the 
Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Springer Science Business Media, Inc. 

Shepherd, E., Ainsworth, V. (2018). English impact: An evaluation of English language capability Sri 
Lanka. British Council. 

Siegel, L., Pei, M., Qiang, H., Zhao, W., & Zhao, L. (2010). Teaching English to Chinese-speaking 
children. In E. Knell (Ed.), Revisiting the Chinese learner. Springer. 

Silver, R. E., & Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. (2016). Overarching themes, bilingual dreams and 
multilingual landscapes: Quadrilingual education in Singapore. In R. E. Silver & W. D. 
Bokhorst-Heng (Eds.), Quadrilingual education in Singapore pedagogical innovation in language 
education. Springer Singapore. 

Taylor, I., & Taylor, M. M. (1995). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean and Japanese. Benjamins. 
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2006). The roots of syntax and how they grow:. The roots of 

syntax and how they grow: Organic grammar, the basic variety and processability theory. In 
B. D. Schwartz, & S. Unsworth (Eds.), Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition: In honor of 
Bonnie D. Schwartz. J. Benjamins Pub. Co. 

Wang, D. (2018). Multilingualism and translanguaging in Chinese language classrooms. Palgrave 
Macmillan. 

Wang Y., & Garigliano R. (1992) An intelligent language tutoring system for handling errors 
caused by transfer. Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) 1992, Montréal, Canada, 395-404. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55606-0_47 

Yu, L., & Odlin, T. (2016). New perspectives on transfer in second language learning. Multilingual 
Matters. 

Yu, W. (2008). The influence of Buddhist words on Chinese [佛教词语对汉语的影响]. Journal of 
Baicheng Normal College, 22(1), 68. 

Yuewu, L., & Qin, Y. (2015). An investigation into the culture-loaded words learning by English 
majors in a vocational college in China. English Language Teaching, 8(8). 

 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691972-005
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691972-004
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i1.19
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55606-0_47


Optimal Use of L1 and L2 in Teaching Chinese to Sri Lankan Students: Approaches and Challenges 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78 

 

32 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Author (s): 

*Noel Sampath Yasasri Dassanayake (Corresponding Author) 
Department of Languages, Faculty of Social Sciences and Languages, 
Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, 
4/5, Amuthagoda Factory Watta, Hidellana, Ratnapura, Sri Lanka  
Email: noel@ssl.sab.ac.lk 
 

 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.78
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
mailto:noel@ssl.sab.ac.lk

