General statement

It was suggested that L1 use helps students understand and learn more effectively

On the other hand, for those who support judicious use of L1 (e.g., Macaro, 2009), L1 serves
important pedagogical functions in TL L1 IS GOOD (GENERAL STATEMENT)classrooms (e.g., content
transmission and classroom management) (Canagarajah, 1995)

From being considered an interference to the mastering of L2, it is being argued that LI can actively
promote the more effective acquisition of L2—L1 IS GOOD (GENERAL STATEMENT)PROMOTE
ACQUISTION

L2 development might best be supported by some kind of judicious use of the L1

-L1 IS GOOD (GENERAL STATEMENT)---JUDICIOUS USE

In terms of the functions of LI use, a nearly unlimited variety are reported: 2002), for example,
contrasting gram- matical forms between the two languages, trans- lating words or phrases, giving
explanations, providing procedural instructions for tasks, prompting L2 learner utterances, offering
social asides, and managing behaviour. Indeed, our search has found no study reporting a function
that is always delivered by the teacher in the L2 and never in the LI.

It seems likely that learners will benefit from activities that draw their attention to features of their
L1, 1 PRO

In sum, the debate that has taken place over the last two decades has introduced a change from the
exclusion of L1 to a more balanced view that sees some value in the use of L1 in FL
teaching.GENERAL STATEMENT---DEBATE IS SHIFTING TOWARDS L1

Linguistic benefits

Grim (2010) examined the functions of L1 use in teachers’ L2 speech and found the teachers
employed the L1 for metalinguistic explanation, class management or discipline, empathy/solidarity,
and task instruction. Generally, these strategies play a role in the students’ level of comprehension and
proficiency
In developing writing skills, Stapa & Abdul Majid (2006) recommended the use of L1 before writing

or composing in L2 particularly among low-level proficiency ESL learners. Their study may have focused

on the context of building ideas in essay writing but it has demonstrated, to a certain extent, the positive

effects of using L1 in the writing of L2. PROS IN WRITING Stapa, S., & Abdul Majid, A. (2006). The use
of first language in limited English proficiency classes: Good,

bad or ugly? Retrieved from Jurnal E-Bangi: pkukmweb.ukm.my/e-bangi/papers/2006/sitihami.pdf

Mukattash (2003) and Ça_rı (2013) remarked that this would improve learning of vocabulary and the recall
of the meanings of words learnt.

They added that through this way, students would be given room for comparing between L1 and L2.PROS
ON VOCABULARY

Cognitive benefit
and it facilitates cognitive processing when learning the TL (Jiang, 2004) Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic
transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(3), 416e432. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00238.x. 1 PROS.
Yet another compelling reason to develop and test L2 activities that make L1 connections is the wide
recognition of the role L1 plays in L2 processing (Bialystok, 2001). Studies of the bilingual lexicon indicate that
in the early stages of L2 acquisition, learners process L2 input via links to L1 forms; that is, L2 words are
subconsciously ‘translated’ (Talamas, Kroll, & Dufour, 1999).--- TALAMAS, A, KROLL, J. F., & DUFOUR, R. (1999).
From form to meaning: Stages in the acquisition of second-language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
2(1), 45–58. PROS----L1 INFLUENCES L2 PROCESSING

Eventually, language learners become more able to make direct L2 form-meaning connections, but L2 input
consistently continues to activate L1 associations even in very proficient bilinguals (Spivey & Marian, 1999).

Put simply: regardless of the extent to which the language teacher avoids using the L1 in class, it is still always
there in the minds of the learners (see also Cohen, 1998; Cook, 2001; Kern, 1994)ALTHOUGH TEACHERS
AVOID, IT’S ALWAYS ON STUDENT’S MIND

For example, Macaro, argues that excluding L1 use from the classroom may “deprive learners of an
important tool for language learning” (Macaro, 532)PROS
Macaro (2005: 75) argues that research on cognition highlights issues associated with limitations of components
of working memory with regard to both capacity and duration and suggests that the use of the L1 particularly
among learners with less advanced proficiency levels can

lighten the cognitive load on working memory. - Macaro, E. 2005. Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: a
communication and learning strategy. In Non- Rolstad (2005) further enhance Cummins’ notion of the CUP in terms
of knowledge transfer and, rather than talking about knowledge being transferred between the L1 and the L2,
favour the notion that both languages have access to the same knowledge stock

Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession, ed. E. Llurda, 63–84. Boston, MA:
Springer.

Cummins (1983, 2000) also continues to argue in favour of the interdependency of language proficiency in
general and, in particular, between the L1 and the L2. In proposing a Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP),
he argues that a high level of proficiency in the L1 will have a positive effect on the acquisition of the L2 and a
level of proficiency in the L2 will help in the development of the L1, as skills, concepts and ideas learned in one
language can be transferred to the other language ----Cummins, J. 1983. Bilingualism and special education:
programs and pedagogical issues. Learning

Disability Quarterly 6, no. 4: 373–86.

Other studies also suggest that a shared L1 can function as a ‘psychological tool’ (Cook 2001; Storch and
Wigglesworth 2003: 760), emphasising that it can provide language learners with additional cognitive support,
in line with Macaro’s (2005) perspective discussed

previously with regard to the relationship between the use of the L1, cognition and working memory. Acting as
a ‘psychological tool’ in this sense, the use of the L1 can prevent cognitive overload while completing tasks
through an L2.

Psychological benefits
Motiovations
They also mention that some use of L1 could sustain students’ motivation in TL classrooms (Dickson,
1996) Dickson, P. (1996). Using the target language: A view from the classroom. UK: National
Foundation for Educational Research. and to engage students (de la Campa & Nassaji, 2009). 3 PROS

Anxiety
significant negative relationship between TL use and anxiety ANXIETY

Auerbach has pointed out that the use of students' native language can increase their openness to
learning English by reducing the degree of language and culture shock (1993: 16)---L1 IS GOOD
BECAUSE IT REDUCES CULTURE SHOCK (AUDEBACGH---PRIMARY CITATION)

The advantages of using L1 to assist L2 learning according to these studies include the
reduction of learning anxiety among students in the language classroom, which helps
facilitate L2 learning (Varshney, & Rolin-Ianziti, 2006). Such lowering of student’s anxiety
is considered contributes to the enhancement of students’ confidence level and willingness to
explore new things during the process of learning (Shabir, 2017). One reason for this as
stated by Shabir in his study in 2017 is that students’ native language can be utilized for
clarifications of difficult concepts or ideas, which is deemed as important for learners,
especially beginner learners who have less linguistic resources to explain their
confusion.REDUCE ANXIETY (PLEASE PARAPHRASE THIS ONE CAREFULLY)
While some researchers view complete usage of L2 in the classroom as the most effective language
teaching method, others have advocated the use of L1 as this may play a facilitating role in
translations, students’ development, understanding of the L2 and hence lower anxiety.
Schweers (1999) and Stern (1992) had recommended the integration of L1 in L2 classes as it would help

students in better self-expression and to improve classroom dynamics.

Finally, Brooks-Lewis (2009), reporting on a study conducted in an introductory English course for Spanish
speakers in Mexico, concludes that facilitating the use of the L1 during the course made the experience more
meaningful and enjoyable and less anxiety-provoking for the participants--------------------- Brooks-Lewis, K.
(2009). Adult learners' perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and
learning. Applied Linguistics, 30(2),

216e235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn051
Scott and de la Fuente (2008) support this view and report that participants in a study of the role of the L1 in
consciousness-raising, form-focused grammar tasks, which required the learners to discuss particular
grammatical structures and articulate

a grammatical rule, benefited from being allowed to use their shared L1 in that they approached tasks in a more
collaborative and coherent manner-------------Scott, V. and M. de la Fuente. 2008. What’s the problem? L2 learners’
use of the L1 during consciousness-

raising form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal 92, no. 1: 100–13.
Translanguaging ND SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY

Further, from more recent critical ecological perspectives (e.g., Kramsch, 2009; van Lier, 2004), the
bench mark for learner performance is not the native speaker of the target language but the
thinking, feeling, emergent bilingual/multilingual (Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 1993, 2009; Turnbull &
Dailey O'Cain, 2009a). From this perspective, research aims to understand situated discursive
practice, or languaging (Garcia, 2007, 2009), with interest in languaging about language (Swain,
2006; Swain et al., 2009) and translanguaging, or discursive practices where two or more languages
intersect in fluid and contextualised ways (Creese & Black ledge, 2010; Garcia, 2007). (THIS IS THE
LINK TO TRANSLANGUAGING)