Arguments against L1 Use
Second language (L2) research consistently emphasizes the significance of providing L2 learners with an L2-rich learning environment (Duff & Polio, 1990; Ellis, 2005; Hendrickson, 1991; Krashen & Terrell, 1983; Turnbull, 2001). In an effort to achieve maximum levels of L2 input, proponents of an L2-rich approach to L2 education generally stress the importance of minimizing, or at the extreme, prohibiting the use of the first language (L1) in the L2 class. The main justification for such extremes is based on the notion that students will acquire an L2 more successfully and more quickly without the negative interference of the learners’ L1 (Ellis, 2005; Ruiz-Funes, 2002; Turnbull, 2001).
Several authors also contend that the L2 should be acquired in the same manner as the L1, without the influence of another language interfering in the process (Gouin, 1892). Scholars assert that the success of a learner’s acquisition of an L2 requires complete immersion in the language. Students need to see, hear, speak, read and write in the L2 in order to become proficient in the language (Jespersen, 1956). And, by association, any methods employing the L1 need not be used; including translation (Gouin, 1892; Jespersen, 1956).
Finally, L1 use is recorded to produce various limitations to L2 acquisition; limiting the spontaneity of L2 production, and diminishing levels of confidence and motivation in learning the L2 (Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008). Without constant L2 input, students will possibly begin to use the L1 as a crutch, thus creating a barrier to their acquisition of the L2.
Several authors also contend that the L2 should be acquired in the same manner as the L1, without the influence of another language interfering in the process (Gouin, 1892). Scholars assert that the success of a learner’s acquisition of an L2 requires complete immersion in the language. Students need to see, hear, speak, read and write in the L2 in order to become proficient in the language (Jespersen, 1956). And, by association, any methods employing the L1 need not be used; including translation (Gouin, 1892; Jespersen, 1956).
Finally, L1 use is recorded to produce various limitations to L2 acquisition; limiting the spontaneity of L2 production, and diminishing levels of confidence and motivation in learning the L2 (Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008). Without constant L2 input, students will possibly begin to use the L1 as a crutch, thus creating a barrier to their acquisition of the L2.