The role of L1 in SLA

Some interesting background

The field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) experienced a period of being dominated by the L2-centred theories, which claimed that the new or target language should be the only medium of instruction without reference to the default linguistic system or own language (Hall & Cook, 2012). In this regard, in the past century, most emergent theoretical accounts feature the privileged role of a monolingual L2 in SLA. One of the starting points is Krashen’s (1982) proposed distinction between learning and acquisition, the latter of which was believed to be a more accurate method. According to this theory, L2 acquisition is similar to, if not the same as, L1 acquisition which happens naturally, implicitly, and unconsciously. Afterwards, SLA represents a group of non-native language users striving to acquire the language of native speakers (Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007), which boosts the ‘monolingual orientation of SLA’ (Firth & Wagner, 1997)recognising native-like proficiency as the ultimate aim. This approach experienced several decades of development, leading to a more psycholinguistic account from the perspective of the memory system. It is argued that language acquisition happens in the implicit memory (or procedural memory) rather than the declarative memory system (Rebuschat, 2015; Williams, 2009). To compare, another line of research considers the use and potential benefits of students’ first language in SLA. Following this line, this short post, as a counterargument against this monolingual orientation, will analyse the facilitative role of L1 in SLA.

In the late 20^th century, the rise of bi/multilingualism questioned the core of the monolingual orientation, that is, whether the ultimate aim of L2 acquisition is native-like competence. Cook (2001, p. 407) demonstrated that ‘L1 children achieve native speaker competence in one language; L2 users achieve competence in more than one language’, which connects to his Multicompetence Model. It is argued that L1 is an inextricable element in L2 learners’ linguistic repertoire (ibid.). It has to be noted that the inextricability does not harbour negative connotations but shows a natural and neutral stance. The psycholinguistic research also emphasised the shared processing mechanism of first and foreign languages in bi/multilingual minds (Nicol, 2001). Considering the fact that L1 connections are much stronger than their L2/LX counterparts (Cummins, 2007), the development of L2 proficiency is somewhat dependent on L1. The sociocultural perspective also mentioned the role of L1-mediated input during social interaction (Lantolf, 2000).

Pedagogical Perspective

The monolingual orientation entails a similar pedagogical development in the field of SLA, such as communicative language teaching (CLT) pedagogy. Since its birth, CLT and similar approaches have been advocating the maximisation of L2 exposure which relegates L1 use to a sinful act (de la Fuente & Goldenberg, 2022). From an interactional view of language, it is believed that L2 development is achieved through error correction (Dekeyser, 1993), modified output (Gass & Madden, 1985), and interactional input (Long, 1981). However, monolingual processing of L2 stimuli is impossible because the students innately bring at least one language to the class and cannot ‘switch off’ the first language(s) (Widdowson, 2003, p. 149). In other words, L1 use is inevitable in SLA regardless of the strategies, pedagogies, and mediums of instruction. Therefore, the scholars started to reconceptualise the SLA classroom as a bi/multilingual context instead of a monolingual environment (de la Fuente & Goldenberg, 2022; Edstrom, 2006). It falls into the line of research that investigates the existence and intentions of both teachers’ and students’ utilisation of L1 (e.g., Nakatsukasa & Loewen, 2015). This section will thus discuss the pedagogical use, reasons, and expectations/aims of L1 in SLA.

Teachers’ use of L1

One of the very first studies in this respect is Duff and Polio (1990) who reported that the native L2 teachers in their sample used the students’ L1 for an average of 32.1% of the contact. To explore the reasons behind it, they conducted a follow-up study which observed the six primary intentions of teachers’ use of L1, including (1) unfamiliar vocabulary, (2) instruction on grammatical rules, (3) facilitation of comprehension, (4) rapport building, (5) administrative use of L1, and (6) classroom management (Polio & Duff, 1994). Similarly, Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) reanalysed these themes and categorised them into three core aspects, including L2-L1 translation, L2-L1 comparison (or meta-linguistic awareness), and L1-based classroom management. To further modify the structure of this phenomenon, a significant distinction is made between linguistic intention (i.e., the core objective of SLA) and framework intention (e.g., classroom management) when examining L1 use (Kim & Elder, 2005).

Based on my personal teaching practice, these findings are accurate in most aspects. Concerning linguistic intention, the use of L1 sometimes is necessary for the students to retrieve similar concepts from their world knowledge which can then be connected to the new L2 stimulus. Although other approaches can certainly achieve the same goal (e.g., Total Physical Response, TPR), they are by no means as efficient as translanguaging, especially when the target input is an abstract concept. For example, when I would like to explain the concept of infinity, a monolingual approach represents a redundant relearning of a counter-embodiment philosophical idea which can be easily accessed in L1. Through the Chinese translation of infinity (无限, wú xìan, lit. none restriction), a series of other related lexicons such as limitless can be explained at the same time. Nevertheless, in my own experience, the usefulness of L1 for framework intention may not be as valid as what the researchers claimed to be. In an EFL context (e.g., China), I realised that the use of English (i.e., a prestigious language) is an influential way to build a more separated teacher-student distance which to some extent benefits classroom management. To compare, the use of L1 sometimes triggered students’ interest in repeating this marked linguistic input or even having small talks with me.

Therefore, I would suggest that, despite the reliability of the previous theoretical accounts, we have to situate these models in specific linguistic and social contexts where the roles of L1 and L2 are dynamic.

Students’ Use of L1

In terms of students’ use of L1, following a Vygotskyan approach or sociocultural view of L2 learners, it is found that the learners of Spanish would employ their L1 for what the researchers coded as ‘metatalk’ to discuss the L2 task requirement (Brooks & Donato, 1994). Antón and Dicamilla (1999) contributed to this line of research by analysing the social-cognitive functions of L1 in collaborative L2 tasks, revealing how speakers used L1 to scaffold the L2 learning process. In the recent decade, they revisited this claim and attempted to quantify these specific functions observed in the collaborative L2 tasks (DiCamilla & Antón, 2012). Four core functions were identified with examples provided to support these themes as follows (ibid., p. 177):

Table 1: Category of L1 functions (adapted from DiCamilla & Antón, 2012)

However, although clear models like this were proposed and discussed, most studies have not offered an explanation as to whether, how, and why the use of L1 in SLA is advantageous (or more advantageous). Also, in real practice, there is nearly no guidance on how to choose a particular linguistic system (Levine, 2014). In my own experience, I do realise that my own use of L1 (let alone students’ use) sometimes is not based on my pedagogical principles or awareness. During my own L2 learning path, I have attended numerous EMI classes with Chinese-speaking peers. In most student-student interactions, Chinese remains the main if not the only channel of communication. It does not denote the insufficient proficiency of the students but the lack of a regulated system of code choosing. If the students start a conversation in Chinese (L1), they usually will not switch to English without proper reminding. I have checked with some of my students about it, and many of them reported that the active change of code seems to be self-assertive which is a trait usually misunderstood to be aggressive in Chinese culture.

To conclude, researchers in the field of SLA have provided evidence that excluding L1 use in L2 learning is nearly impossible with well-defined models outlining the presence and purposes of this phenomenon. Nevertheless, they usually cannot directly address the ultimate question we would like to answer, that is, how the (strategic) use of L1 can facilitate SLA as well as or even better than a maximal L2 pedagogy. The next section will therefore review the empirical results which observed the positive effects of L1 use in SLA.

Empirical Perspective

The applied linguistic research in the recent decades principally addresses three core questions in L1 use, including (1) whether L1 governs the L2 processing, especially at the initial stage (Nicol, 2001), (2) whether L1 use raises meta-linguistic awareness (Widdowson, 2003), and (3) whether L1 use is an economic approach which optimises the cognitive and linguistic processing (Kern, 1994).

L1-governed L2 processing

Most studies in this line follow a rather Chomskyan approach or Universal Grammar approach which prioritises the role of L1 in any additional language acquisition. In some extreme versions of it, it is claimed that L2 is never a process of accumulating new linguistic presentations but mapping new forms into old L1-governed conception (cf. Alonso & Rothman, 2017). From a more practical perspective, scholarly attention has been paid to examine whether L1-mediated input will happen no matter what the medium of instruction is (de la Fuente & Goldenberg, 2022). The effects of L1-mediated input, although insufficiently tested, have been examined in some exploratory studies. For instance, Razavi et al.(2022) ascertain that the embracement (rather than avoidance and degradation) of L1-mediated metacognition-related input can facilitate the L2 learners to outperform their counterparts who receive L2-exclusive education.

Meta-linguistic Awareness

The earliest study I am aware of is Kupferborg and Olshtain (1996) who explored the role of contrastive input between the home and foreign languages in SLA. Focusing on meta-linguistic awareness, based on 137 intermediate-level L2 learners, they found that contrastive input can accelerate students’ acquisition of challenging L2 structures. Beyond structures and declarative rules, at the discourse level, Ammar et al. (2010) observed a positive relationship between meta-linguistic awareness raised by contrastive input and students’ competence in judging and formulating L2 questions. Unfortunately, I personally do not have enough personal experience that can validate this statement. Although I have worked in both English-only and bilingual teaching contexts, the students enrolled in English-only classes are typically more proficient than their counterparts at the beginning of the course, which poses an innate self-selection bias.

A more psycholinguistic take on this issue is about how meta-linguistic awareness acts as a new interface in language processing. In two recent articles, it is verified that the integration of explicit L1 instruction will benefit both online and offline processing of the L2 system (McManus & Marsden, 2017, 2018). They hypothesised that the integration of L1 use facilitates the form-meaning mapping process which not only helps the students to be more sensitive to the target lexicons but the underlying mechanism behind grammatical acceptability. In a quasi-experiment, when given corrective feedback with explicit meta-linguistic information, the students perform better in both recognition and production tasks (de la Fuente, 2015). Together with the similar finding using online think-aloud protecols, they hypothesised that students’ L1 offered an extra cognitive scaffolding (i.e., high meta-linguistic awareness) in processing complicated L2 structures.

Optimisation of Linguistic Processing in Mind

This line of research mainly discusses the source of transfer in L3 acquisition (e.g., transferring L2 knowledge to L3 can be more cognitively demanding, (Angelovska & Hahn, 2017). Nevertheless, the underlying assumption here is the same, namely the more economical use of L1 compared to exclusive L2/LX processing. One previous study conducted by Scott and de la Fuente (2008) assessed the use of L1 in grammar-related problem-solving. In these form-focused tasks, the students showed boosted performance in stimulated recall tests, based on which the author suggested that the exclusion of L1 represents a higher cognitive demand in L2 tasks.

Based on my own learning experience, the facilitation of L1 indeed exists but the higher cognitive demand is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not to argue against the usefulness of L1 validated in these above-mentioned articles. Differently, I would like to discuss this issue in terms of a non-linguistic aspect of L2 acquisition, that is, the willingness to communicate. I have experienced a transit from Chinese to English as the medium of instruction in my learning trajectory. Although the onset of EMI is challenging and cognitively demanding, the target scenario (i.e., L2 communication) is even more complex. Therefore, the avoidance of L1 prepared me for an L2-only context. In future teaching, I will attempt to strategically distribute the use of L1 and L2 in my pedagogy, so that the more meta-cognitive level can benefit from L1 use while the interpersonal and linguistic levels are not negatively impacted.

Summary

In conclusion, this post has argued against the monolingual orientation, by reviewing the important literature and providing personal experiences. Two main perspectives were taken including pedagogical and empirical alike. In terms of pedagogy, the presence and purposes of L1 use were analysed, leading to a critical reflection on the lack of appropriate guidance in how and when L1 can be used. Concerning empirical findings, the present post mainly reviewed three categories of studies arguing for the L1-governed L2 processing, the usefulness of L1 in meta-linguistic awareness raising, and the economic approach of relying on L1. It is believed that L1 use in SLA can be beneficial if proper instruction and strategy can be integrated into the pedagogy. This conclusion requires the practitioners to actively and repeatedly reflect on their choice of the linguistic system during L2 teaching.

References

Alonso, J. G., & Rothman, J. (2017). Coming of age in L3 initial stages transfer models: Deriving developmental predictions and looking towards the future. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 683–697.

Ammar, A., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: Does it matter? Language Awareness, 19(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658411003746612

Angelovska, T., & Hahn, A. (2017). L3 Syntactic Transfer: Models, new developments and implications. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Antón, M., & Dicamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-Cognitive Functions of L1 Collaborative Interaction in the L2 Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00018

Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan Approaches to Understanding Foreign Language Learner Discourse during Communicative Tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/344508

Cook, V. (2001). Using the First Language in the Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), Article 2.

de la Fuente, M. J. (2015). Explicit corrective feedback and computer-based, form-focused instruction: The role of L1 in promoting awareness of L2 forms. In A Psycholinguistic Approach to Technology and Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513674-012

de la Fuente, M. J., & Goldenberg, C. (2022). Understanding the role of the first language (L1) in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Effects of using a principled approach to L1 in the beginner foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 943–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820921882

Dekeyser, R. M. (1993). The Effect of Error Correction on L2 Grammar Knowledge and Oral Proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501–514.

DiCamilla, F. J., & Antón, M. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 160–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2011.00302.x

Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How Much Foreign Language Is There in the Foreign Language Classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1990.tb02561.x

Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 Use in the L2 Classroom: One Teacher’s Self-Evaluation. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 63(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1353/cml.2007.0002

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x

Gass, S. M., & Madden, C. G. (1985). Input in Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067

Kern, R. G. (1994). The Role of Mental Translation in Second Language Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 441–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013450

Kim, S. H. O., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr173oa

Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2007). Three Fundamental Concepts in Second Language Acquisition and Their Relevance in Multilingual Contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 907–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00677.x

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Prentice-Hall.

Kupferborg, I., & Olshtain, E. (1996). Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition of difficult L2 forms. Language Awareness, 5(3–4), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1996.9959904

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (1st edition). OUP Oxford.

Levine, G. S. (2014). Principles for code choice in the foreign language classroom: A focus on grammaring. Language Teaching, 47(3), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000498

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, Interaction, and Second-Language Acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x

McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION CAN IMPROVE L2 ONLINE AND OFFLINE PERFORMANCE. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 459–492. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600022X

McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2018). ONLINE AND OFFLINE EFFECTS OF L1 PRACTICE IN L2 GRAMMAR LEARNING: A PARTIAL REPLICATION. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000171

Nakatsukasa, K., & Loewen, S. (2015). A teacher’s first language use in form-focused episodes in Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541737

Nicol, J. L. (2001). One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing. Explaining Linguistics. Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers’ Language Use in University Foreign Language Classrooms: A Qualitative Analysis of English and Target Language Alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02045.x

Razavi, G.-S., Fakhri Alamdari, E., & Ahmadian, M. (2022). EFL Listening, Metacognitive Awareness, and Motivation: The Magic of L1-Mediated Metacognitive Intervention. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022-09895-3

Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher Use of Learners’ Native Language in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 402–426. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.3.402

Scott, V. M., & de la Fuente, M. J. (2008). What’s the Problem? L2 Learners’ Use of the L1 During Consciousness-Raising, Form-Focused Tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00689.x

Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. OUP Oxford.

Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 319–353.