【Abstract】In this paper， a critical and comparative review of extensive research of second language acquisition on L1 use in L2 classroomis presented. The ultimate aim is to synthesize empirically and theoretically sound datato raise practitioners and policy makers awareness of their practice of L1 use. Coupled with the literary evidence， it is argued that neither L2 only nor L1 mediation classroom is favourable. EFL teachers should prioritize the context and learners and then provide sufficient underpinnings for their decision.

【Key words】 Critical review; L1 use; L2 classroom; EFL teacher

【作者簡介】周雅玲（1994.09-），女，四川大学锦江学院外国语学院，大学英语教师，研究方向：第二语言习得。

1. Introduction

At the beginning of the twentieth century， the dominant pedagogy remained determinately monolingual. Yet， code switching could still be widely observed in ELT classroom discourse， and researchers later demonstrate code-switching as a positive communicative and pedagogical strategy for language learning （Sert， 2005）.Due to L1s contentious role in L2 classroom， a critical review of the literature is exigent to provide critical and pedagogicalreferences for EFL shareholders.

2. The negative view of L1 use

The formulation of the principles for the monolingual classroom in 1961 as well as the emergency of the Direct Method made L2 become the underlying tenet for most EFL teachers， which are considered as a reflection of British colonial and neo-colonial policies rather than for “pedagogical effectiveness” （Auevrach， 1993， pp. 13-14）. Simons （2001， p. 314）“classroom politics”criticized the hegemony and imperialism control from native-speakerism and culturism and encouragedcultural and linguistic diversity. Whereas monolingual approach as an unchallenged norm is taken for granted （Cook， 2005）.To name only a few as an example， Hong Kong fundamental school curriculum Guide （2004， cited in Pemberton 2011）： “teachers should teach English through English and encourage learners to interact with one another in English”. On this basis， even though some teachers agree to L1 use， they have to stick to the methodological prescription.

Admittedly， SLA theories elaborate on L2 only ideology. In the 1950s， behaviourist learning theory suggested that L1 habits would intervene L2 learning. The negative influence of L1 was prominent， aspointed by Corder （1981， p. 1） that “error and impediment for L2 learning mainly result from the interference of L1”. Thereby， Lados contrastive analysis （CA） emerged to overcome L1 interference by focusing on different structures between languages （Mitchell， Myles & Marsden， 2004）. Behaviourism was later challenged by Chomskys generative view of language learning that language acquisition device （LAD） ensures language learning rather than linguistic environment （ibid）. Additionally， the criticism of CA proved that the L1 interference error had not occurred as predicted， implying the possible positive transfer.

Nevertheless， Dulay and Burt （cited in Du2016， p. 17） adopted a new term “general processing strategies” attributing factors like motivation， anxiety and learners environment to the impediment， which declared that L2 acquisition process is similar to L1 acquisition. Accordingly， it is agreed that L2 should follow the L1 learning process rather than by virtue of L1， i.e.， maximizing the target language input. The same point has been made by Krashens input hypothesis that L2 acquisition would only be realized where there is comprehensible input （i.e. input is beyond the current competence， i+1）. Though how to determine the level of i and i+1 and the circular claim are frowned upon， Swain （2005） puts forward “comprehensible output” as an important supplement to determine successful language learning. For this reason， the more conscious L2 input and output could enable learners to acquire the language.

Incidentally， L1 use cannot be always guaranteed given different circumstances. Schools mainly employ NESTs who are unable to speak L1; teachers cannot accommodate the wide variety of learners first languages; one-size-fits-all products make L1 use unavailable （Cook， 2001）.Although recently more NNESTs join in the teaching workforce and linguistic expertsstart to acknowledge customizing materials for local context with an integration of learners first languages and cultures， it is still impractical to develop context-specific materials， because of various pitfalls of quality， time and organization （Howard & Major， 2004）.Furthermore，learners claim that they are not likely to engage in class when L2 is always followed by translation（Sert，2005）， which might also result in poor academic performance due to limited exposure to target language speech. Besides， learners classroom response is in sync with teachers initiation （i.e. if the teacher asks questions in L2， learners tend to respond in L2， and vice versa） （Akerblom，2012）. Taken together， these beliefs underpin the exclusion of the L1.

3. The development of L1 use

In 1985， Ellis alleged that L1 had an advantageous role in SLA， which spurred extensive research on that in more than two decades. Auerbachs （1993） empirical studyjustifiedthe positive function of L1 use in the L2 classroom， and Schweers （1999， p.1） echoed that “there appears to be an increasing conviction that L1 has a necessary and facilitating role in L2”. In 2001， an unprecedented framework proposed by Macaro （2000） including virtual， maximal and optimal L1/L2 use sheds a great light on SLA. Optimal position suggests that L1 and L2 should go hand in hand to maximize the learning.Lins （1999） classroom observations in Hong Kong adds substantially to this understanding. Classroom B， where learners are equipped with limited English capital， turns out to be a failure by adhering to L2 only policy. Conversely， the teacher in classroom D， where learners are from similar socio-economical context， overlooks the policy and uses Cantonese （L1） to give direction， explain grammatical points with more success.

Much literature warrants L1 inclusion. Behaviourist learning theory considered L1 as an impediment， but it is now acknowledged as a positive resource for learners interlanguage development， as Sert （2005） mentioned that the transfer occurs both consciously and subconsciously to bridge the gaps of L2 incompetence， and Krashen （2003） considered it as the first stage for language acquisition.Despite CA lost ground due to practical experiments， the significance of comparison cannot be ignored. For one thing， Cummins （2007） opined that comparing the languages can enhance learners linguistic awareness. For another， “contrastive metalinguistic input” （CMI） supported the claim that cognitive comparison can facilitate L2 acquisition （Kupferberg， 1999， p. 212）. Essentially， learners claim that they are interested in the relationships between the L2 and L1. On this basis， linguistic experts are more confident with L1 use.

Also， L1 use is intriguing regarding cognition development. Provided that learners are not well-developed to perform target language skills， their cognitive system would not function at the peak in the immersion classroom （Cummins， 2007）. Examples can be seen from those lower proficiency level learners that they resort to thinking in L1 as an efficient strategy for literacy development （Baker， 2001）. Cook （2001） agreed and elucidated that code switching may provide shortcuts within the learning process. Despite this， the argument for L1 use goes for socio-cultural theory. For Vygotskian， language is a psychological tool of mediation （at both inter-mental and intra-mental level）. Inter-mentally， L1 has a “scaffolding” function which can assist learners to work effectively in the ZPD. Intra-mentally， L1 can mediate our mind in the form of private speech， especially for cognitively complex L2 task， through which cognitive processing load would be reduced.Vygotsky （1986） further pointed out that when learning a new language， learners dont return to the world of objects or past linguistic development， but use native language as a mediator. For the reasons of social and cognitive function， L1 should be permitted to use in the classroom.

At the beginning of 21st century， language-nonselective view of bilingualism and multilingualism holds sway. Per this view， languages in our brain are compound and interrelated rather than separate （cited in Madri?an， 2014， pp. 54-55）， which is verifiedby Thierry and Wus （2007） brain scanning experiment. Meanwhile， Cummins （2007） proposed a common underlying proficiency model， suggesting that languages in bilingual and multilingual learners head work dependently through the same processing system， which indicates that L1 is the starting point for L2 learning （Baker， 2001）. Among increasing empirical studies， Stoltz opines that code switching not only mirrors the naturalistic discourse， but helps learners to learn L2 quickly， and Harmer （2001， cited in Akerblom， 2012， p. 8）expresses his consent that “when we learn L2 we use translation unconsciously…this is because we make sense of new linguistic world through the linguistic world we are already familiar with.”Accordingly， L1 can be used for grammar explanation and complex procedural instruction. Except that， empirical studies further reveal functions of code-switching for discipline and the way to build the relationship with learners and to check learners comprehension by transferring intended meaning （Macaro， 2000; Asert， 2005）.All in all， code switching would not degrade but upgrade the performance.

4. Teaching implication

Turnbull argues that if teachers are “permitted” to use L1， it might lead to overuse of L1 （Turnbull & Arnett 2002， p. 207）， while Harmer （2007） evinces thatas long as L2 is the predominate language， L1 will be a facilitating tool.Nonetheless，Lin （1999， p. 410） addressed： “what matters is not whether a teacher uses L1 or L2， but rather how a teacher uses either language to connect with students and help them transform their attitudes， disposition， skills and self-imaging”. For instance， compared with previously mentioned classroom B， given the prestigious socioeconomic and family background ofclassroom A，the English-only instruction yields successful results. Hence， learners cultural habitus should be valued. Moreover， Vygotsky makes a strong claim that learning involves “a unity of affective and intellectual processes”， so no matter L1 or L2， it is important for the teacher to make clear of their expectation for learners， which is the basis for efficient learning （cited in Swain & Lapkin， 2000， p. 116）.

With this in mind， some EFL teachers still take language use as a thorny problem， due to an ideological issue that in the same class some advanced learners believe L1 use is a waste of time and would slow the language acquisition process， yet beginning-level learners prefer bilingual classroom， claiming it can facilitate their understanding （Hopkins， cited Auerbach， 1993， pp. 23-24）. Traditionally， it is the teacher who decides when and how to use L1， but currently learner-centred classroom upholds the shared authority in class by making teachers as a facilitator and letting learners regulate their learning through classroom discussion and negotiation （Du， 2016）， thereby it is more favourable to hand over the decision-making power on language use to students to mitigatethe conflict.

5. Conclusion

This essay is neither for a total negation of traditional L2 only classroom nor for complete L1 mediation classroom. Rather， I hope EFL teachers， in light of the arguments， use rationales and research to justify and legitimize classroom practice to maximize the achievement of their goals. In particular， despite the fact that some published empirical studies show that certain classrooms are more productive by means of a specific practice， EFL practitioners should be open-minded to take context and learners into consideration to discover stance that works best rather than follows suit.

Reference：

[1]Akerblom， J. （2012）. The use of L1 and L2 in the language classroom.Examensarbetet，15， 61-90.

[2]Auerbach， E. R. （1993）. Reexamining English Only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly，27 （1）， 9–32.

[3]Baker， C. （2001）. Cognitive theories of bilingualism and the curriculum. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

[4]Cook， V. J. （2001）. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review， 57 （3）， 403-423.

[5]Cook， V. J. （2005）. Basing teaching on the L2 user. In Non-native language teachers. Springer.

[6]Corder， S.（1981）. Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford University Press.

[7]Cummins， J. （2007）. Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics， 10（2）， 221-240.

[8]Du， Y. （2016）. The Use of First and Second Language in Chinese University EFL Classrooms. The University of Edinburgh.

[9]Ellis， R. （1985）. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University.

[10]Harmer， J. （2007）. How to teach English. Essex. Pearson Education， Ltd.

[11]Howard， J.， & Major， J. （2004）. Guidelines for designing effective English language teaching materials.The TESOL Journal， 12，50-58.

[12]Krashen， S.D. （2003）. Explorations in language acquisition and use. Heinemann.

[13]Kupferberg， I. （1999）. The cognitive turn of contrastive analysis： Empirical evidence. Language Awareness， 8（3）， 210–222.

[14]Lin， A. M.Y. （1999）. DoingEnglishlessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds？TESOL quarterly， 33（3）， 393-412.

[15]Macaro， E. （2000）. Issues in target language teaching. Issues in modern foreign language teaching.Routledge.

[16]Madri?an， M.S. （2014）. The Use of First Language in the Second-Language Classroom： A Support for Second Language Acquisition. Education and Learning Research Journal，50-66.

[17]Mitchell， R. Myles， F.， & Marsden， E. （2004）. Second Language Learning Theories. 2nd edition. Routledge.

[18]Pemberton， R. （2011）. To What extent should be use L1 in the L2 classroom？ viewed 25 January 2017.

[19]Schweers Jr， C.W. （1999）. Using L1 in the L2 classroom. In English teaching forum， 37（ 2）， 6-9.

[20]Sert， O. （2005）. The Functions of Code-Switching in ELT Classrooms.Online Submission， 11（8）.

[21]Simon， D. L. （2001）. Towards a new understanding of codeswitching in the foreign language classroom. Mouton de Gruyter.

[22]Swain， M. （2005）. The output hypothesis： Theory and research. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning， 1， 471-483.

[23]Swain， M.，& Lapkin， S. （2000）. Task-based language learning： The uses of first language use.Language Teaching Research， 4（3）， 251–274.

[24]Thierry， G.， & Wu， Y.J. （2007）. Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences， 104（30）， 12530-12535.

[25]Turnbull， M.， & Arnett， K. （2002）.Teachers uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual review of applied linguistics， 22， 204-218.