the first language as central in language learning but mainly as a source of interference with the development of habits in L2. In the sixties Chomsky's innatist views downplayed the centrality of the mother tongue but considered it interfered with the learner's inner Language Acquisition Device. In the seventies Interlanguage Theory also assigned a negative effect to the first language in that it may interfere or disrupt a naturally predetermined acquisition process. Advocates of the Monitor Model saw no place for L1 use in the classroom but asserted that L1 subject-matter instruction can facilitate L2 acquisition in making L2 input more comprehensible. In the early eighties Interactionists, primarily concerned with negotiation of meaning , assigned no apparent role to the use of L1 and early communicative language teaching in the mid eighties tended to adopt an English-only approach to language teaching. It was with the emergence of studies on the role of form-focused instruction that more positive attitudes towards the pedagogic use of the mother tongue started to appear. Form-focused instruction research Early communicative language learning, with its focus almost entirely on meaning, began to be contested by studies on the role of form-focused instruction and explicit language knowledge. Some believed that 'learners who receive formal instruction generally outperform those who do not' (Ellis 1990:13). Studies suggested that 'instruction that focuses primarily on meaning but allows for a focus on form within meaningful contexts works best' (Lightbown and Spada 1999). In addition, longitudinal studies of second language immersion programmes revealed