Opponents of L1 use

Not all researchers in the field of SLA are in agreement with respect to L1 use in the classroom. On the contrary, some believe that the exclusive use of the TL is what contributes most to L2 acquisition. This section will consequently provide a summation of justifications for which many researchers contend that use of the LI should not form a part of the classroom foreign language learning experience.

On this side, Carroll (1975) and Krashen (1982) have emphasized the importance of comprehensible input, which implicitly negates a place for the L1, as an essential mechanism for acquiring the grammar and vocabulary of the L2. This argument permeates the literature as can be seen by (Duff & Polio, 1994, 1990; Chambers, 1991; Atkinson, 1987, among others). As Chambers (1991) emphatically comments, “the natural use of the target language for virtually all communication is a sure sign of a good language course” (p. 27). Therefore, the long held notion that input in the TL forms the foundation for L2 acquisition remains central to the argument that the L1 should not be a part of the L2 classroom learning experience.

In addition, advocates of exclusive L2 use often worry that the TL is not considered the “real” language so long as the L1 is present in the classroom. Rather, the L2 becomes the “classroom” language. Demonstrating this notion, Duff & Polio (1994) observe “the problematic

but pervasive tendency in FL classes for English (the L1) to be the vehicle for meaningful communication, with the target language reserved for more mechanical, grammatical drills” (p. 322). Similarly, according to MacDonald (1993) the target language should be used all the time because if not, the students do not have the opportunity to see how the TL can be used to accomplish real communicative functions. Although Turnbull (2001) sees a place for limited L1 use in the classroom, he shares MacDonald’s (1993) opinion that the teacher should employ maximum use of the TL so that students see the immediate utility of the TL instead of at some distant moment in the future. Further, these researchers surmise that it is not necessary that the students understand everything that the teachers say, but changing to the L1 undermines the learning process (MacDonald, 1993; Chambers, 1991, among others). For these reasons, many researchers warn against use of the L1 arguing that without its use “learners are enabled to see that the language is not only the object of study but also an effective medium for conducting the normal business of the classroom” (Chambers, 1991, p. 27).

In contrast to the pro-L1 attitude regarding motivation and instructor language use (see section 2.3.1), MacDonald (1993) argues that the presence of the L1 can have negative consequences for student motivation in that students will use the L1 as a crutch. Indeed, MacDonald (1993) worries that if time is allotted for students to ask questions or obtain clarification in the L1, then time spent in the L2 may not be beneficial as students might not pay as much attention knowing they will shortly receive reinforcement of the same information in the L1. Swain (1986) affirms, students tend to “ignore the language they do not understand [and] if the same or related message is typically given in both languages, then there is no motivation to try to figure out what is being said” (p. 106). Thus, it is suggested that teachers should use the L2

so that the students feel accomplishment and enjoyment at seeing that they are capable of understanding and using the target language, which will help in language acquisition.

Another reason for which some instructors and researchers have remained steadfast in the L2-only dogma is due to the fact that L1 use is either largely ignored in methodology or such methodologies do not explicitly comment about its use. As a result, according to Atkinson (1987), “the implication, one assumes, is often that it has no role to play” (p. 241). Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) expand on this notion with reference to the situation at their particular university (University of Queensland) where no written rule existed regarding use of the L1 in L2 classes. According to the authors, it was simply assumed that teachers were aware that use of the L1 was “strongly discouraged” in language courses (p. 405). Indeed many teacher training programs and university language departments do not specifically comment on the use of the L1. This fact has resulted in the assumption that the L1 should not form a part of L2 curriculum. In their study quantifying teacher TL use across different university classrooms Duff & Polio (1990) found a high variability of L2 use in the classroom. In clear support of maximum TL use, they conclude their discussion of this finding by suggesting ways teachers can increase the L2 component, rather than enhancing the L1 use that is already evidently employed. Related to this assumed notion that the L1 should be avoided is the accompanying instructor guilt associated with L1 use. Indeed it has been indicated that instructors often feel as though they are “making an admission of professional misconduct in ‘confessing’ to low levels of FL use” (Cook, 2001, p. 405). This guilt is yet another reason for which many teachers try to exclude the L1 from the language classroom.

Another recent branch of the L1 discussion that has received increasingly more attention is that of the perceptions and beliefs that students feel towards its use in the L2 classroom. Since

this study includes qualitative methods to explore student opinions about L1 and TL use, a description of findings from previous literature regarding this topic will be presented in the following section.