This article delves into the controversial practice of utilizing a student’s first language (L1) as a teaching resource in second language (L2) learning environments. Initially, strategies such as code-switching/code-mixing and translanguaging were considered signs of poor linguistic ability. There was a strong push towards using only the target language in foreign language education, aiming to limit the first language’s interference and foster a deeper immersion in the new language. However, later research has shown the benefits of incorporating the first language in bilingual education and language learning processes. It’s argued that a student’s knowledge in their native language can actually support their comprehension of a second language, suggesting that transferring certain linguistic or conceptual knowledge from L1 to L2 can be advantageous. This perspective encourages the strategic use of this knowledge transfer in teaching methods. Moreover, the text points to positive results from various studies on the positive impact of L1 usage in L2 classrooms. These insights pave the way for further exploration into the application of the first language in adult English as a Second Language (ESL)/English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education, particularly regarding providing corrective feedback.

High-quality implementation of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (cross-border M&As) is an important pathway for emerging-market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) to enhance their international competitiveness. However, in comparison to developed countries, cross-border M&As by EMNEs are often prohibited by the liability of origin caused by negative political coverage. How and why negative political coverage affect the completion of cross-border M&As by EMNEs? What are the contextual constraints that moderate the impact of negative political coverage on cross-border M&As completion? Based on the “liability of origin” theory, this paper addresses these questions using data from the Zephyr database on cross-border M&As by EMNEs in the United States from 2016 to June 2021 and employing a logit model for estimation. The research findings are as follows: (1) Negative political coverage leads to negative perceptions of emerging market countries by host country stakeholders, creating the liability of origin and stigmatizing the corporate nationality, thereby reducing the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (2) Increasing geographical distance leads to information asymmetry, reinforcing the negative impact of negative political coverage on the completion of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (3) Relevant mergers and acquisitions exacerbate the negative effect of negative political coverage on the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs. (4) Being a publicly traded firm and having successful experience in cross-border M&As both intensify the negative impact of negative political coverage on the success rate of cross-border M&As by EMNEs.