论文部分内容阅读
【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 L1’s 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）. Simon’s （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， Lado’s contrastive analysis （CA） emerged to overcome L1 interference by focusing on different structures between languages （Mitchell， Myles
【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 L1’s 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）. Simon’s （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， Lado’s contrastive analysis （CA） emerged to overcome L1 interference by focusing on different structures between languages （Mitchell， Myles