Over on the Forum a few days ago James asked Eric a question about use of L1 by the students in our CI classrooms:
Eric, you said a while ago in a comment on the blog that in the natural method L1 is allowed for responses. That got me thinking. You rightly pointed out that we know that output doesn’t lead to acquisition. We are afraid of L1 in class, then, not because it’s a lost opportunity for output but because it’s a lost opportunity for input. If there is too much L1 flying around, not enough input is happening. Is that right?
Eric responded:
That’s right. My understanding is that in Natural Approach and in immersion schools students can speak English, but are encouraged to respond in L2.
My opinion is that we don’t allow L1, because it would introduce too much unfamiliar language. Another concern is that students would then start using too much L1, which is a classroom management problem. Maybe the 2-word English suggestion rule solves both those potential pitfalls. The “needs hypothesis” that says we have to be in a situation in which we have to output in L2 in order to acquire is heavily criticized by Krashen who tells the narrative of threatening to push someone out of a helicopter unless they started to speak German.
I don’t see why “code-switching” would be harmful to the brain – we do it naturally anyways when we are novices – we link L2 to L1. You get enough reps focused on meaning and the kids will acquire it and be able to go from L2 to concept and eventually not be translating in their heads. In a TCI beginner class there isn’t much space for students to be talking anyway – mainly only allowing for yes/no and 1-word answers.
So, to me, no harm is being done to students by allowing them to speak in the L1. Perhaps even allowing beginners to use L1 where they don’t have the L2 makes subsequent CI more personalized and compelling.
Here is my opinion on this topic:
My take on this is that the topic is complex but that in the end the students should not be allowed L1. I agree with Eric about it becoming, very rapidly every day, a classroom management problem. I am the one who suggested, about eight years ago, that Blaine was too strict in not allowing L1 and I started saying that two words should be allowed. I was wrong. It’s not just the classroom management issue. I do see the unconscious mind being jarred by too many interruptions. I believe this stuff works precisely because we get an L2 flow going. I don’t like the idea that we force kids’ minds to go back and forth from the unconscious to the conscious mind. I really respect the unconscious mechanism that alone brings acquisition.
The downside is that people love to express themselves in groups. But that is not enough of a reason in my view to allow any L1. When a word slips in the side or whatever, and can be ignored, it’s not such a disaster, but I am afraid that the culture of “a few words” in L1 is just not good. I dropped the experiment with a few words of L1 about four years ago and never looked back.
The crazy part for me was I was more of a culprit than the kids. Not good modeling. But then I came up with the Ten Minute Deal and that is what saved me.