Blog Entry #5

Auerbach, Elsa Roberts. "Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom." TESOL Quarterly 27.1 (Spring 1993): 9-32.

Auerbach’s article argues against the English Only movement, claiming that “it is rooted in a particular ideological perspective, rests on unexamined assumptions, and serves to reinforce inequities in the broader social order” (9). She discusses “evidence indicating that L1 and/or bilingual options are not only effective but necessary for ESL students” and calls for “reconceptualizing the notion of expertise to legitimate the knowledge and experience of nontraditional experts from the communities of the learners” (9).

Auerbach acknowledges the background of language policy, implying that “whether or not we support the use of learners’ L1 is not just a pedagogical matter: it is a political one” (10). She refers to Fairclough’s idea of “unconscious acceptance of institutional practices” in which “practices are unconsciously accepted as the natural and inevitable way of doing things (11). Fairclough relates this idea to his argument that “authority and power are manifested by institutional practices around language use“ (11). Auerbach uses this idea to support her argument that the use of English Only represents “the kind of taken-for-granted and naturalized everyday practice which Fairclough discusses” and that these practices should be reexamined “in light of their often invisible ideological roots, their pedagogical effectiveness, and their implications for the ESL profession as a whole” (12).

Using studies from Klassen, Gillespie, and Ballering, Auerbach writes that “the result of monolingual ESL instruction for students with minimal L1 literacy and schooling is often that, whether or not they drop out, they suffer severe consequences in terms of self-esteem” (18). In examining the use of students’ native language in ESL classes, she states that “practitioners, researchers, and learners consistently report positive results” (18). She argues that using students’ L1 is beneficial, as “it reduces affective barriers to English acquisition, serves as a natural bridge for overcoming problems of vocabulary, sentence structure, and language confidence” (19). Focusing specifically on using students’ L1 in teaching writing, she states that it is a useful technique that “provides a sense of security and validates the learners’ lived experiences, allows for the exploration of ideas and [serves] to enhance students’ ESL writing, and allows for language to be used as a meaning-making tool and for language learning to become a means of communicating ideas rather than an end in itself” (20). Equally important, she refers to Osburne, who claims that use of L1 in ESL writing is beneficial as it “develops metacognitive awareness of the writing process” (22). In closing, Auerbach calls for a reexamination of “commonly accepted everyday classroom practices” in hopes that “unveiling the mechanisms of ideological control can ultimately strengthen the field as a whole” (29).

I would recommend this article to anyone who is interested in examining both sides of the English Only debate. Auerbach clearly argues against the policy, yet gives fair testament to research that sheds positive and negative light on the issue. As she emphasizes research involving the use of L1 in ESL writing, it can be a useful resource for those interested in learning more about this topic.