The Use of L1 in Communicative English Classrooms (2024)

The question of whether or not to use students' first language (L1) inforeign language classes is especially relevant in culturally hom*ogeneousenvironments such as Japan, where the majority are monolingual. Modern teachingmethodologies tend to overlook the use of L1. In this paper I will: (1)review the literature on language teaching and the use of L1, (2) discusswhen and when not to use L1, and (3) consider the pros and cons of nativeEnglish speaking teachers' fluency in L1.

L1 and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Mixed Views

There is little to show that the advocates of communicative pedagogyaddress the use of L1 (Atkinson, 1993; Harmer, 1983). Swan (1985) claimsmother tongue interference hampers L2 (English) acquisition, yet, he alsosays direct translations can be easier than using L1. In literature on CommunicativeLanguage Teaching (CLT), there is a curious absence of discussion of theuse of L1:

If . . . the mother tongue is a central element in the process of learning a foreign language, why is it so conspicuously absent from the theory and methodology of CLT? Why is so little attention paid, in this and other respects, to what learners already know? (p. 96)

Even during my RSA (Royal Society of Arts) training in Australia,whichfocussed on CLT and all-L2 instruction, there was no discussion of the meritsof using L1. In reality, the current "use only L2" trend may havemore to do with commercial expediency and low-level L1 competence amongnative-English speaking teachers than ideal pedagogy (Weschler, 1997).

Despite the absences noted above, more attention is currently being givento L1 use and its place in CLT. More coursebooks are recommending controlleduse of L1. The Headway series (Soars & Soars, 1996) utilizes translationsof sentence structures to contrast the grammar of L1 and L2.

Weschler's (1997) hybrid of CLT and the grammar-translation method, whichhe calls the "Functional-Translation Method," emphasizes the socialmeaning of everyday language and makes use of students' L1 for comparativeanalysis of L2. Chapman (1958), an early defender of L1, wrote, "Thereis no open Method with a capital M which excels all others. . .plain commonsenseshould indicate that the mother-tongue has its place among these methods"(p. 34). He lists the do's and don'ts of L1 use which is a precursor oflater lists.

Willis (1981), in a language teacher's coursebook that includes phraselists for non-native teachers, emphasizes the teacher's role in maintainingEnglish as the language of instruction and communication. However, she acknowledgesthat "occasionally L1 may still be useful" (p. xiv).

Atkinson (1993) integrates communicative methodology with selective andlimited use of L1 and noted:

It is impossible to talk of a 'right balance' or a perfect model for using L1--it's not that simple. L1 can be a valuable resource if it is used at appropriate times and in appropriate ways. (p. 2).

The struggle to avoid L1 at all costs can lead to bizarre behavior: Onecan end up being a contortionist trying to explain the meaning of a languageitem where a simple translation would save time and anguish. Further, learninga language is a difficult and often frustrating process for many learners,particularly at low levels. One hundred-per-cent direct method can be especiallyfrustrating--limited use of the L1 can have a powerful, positive effecthere. According to Atkinson (1993), "For many learners (in particularadults and teenagers), occasional use of the L1 gives them the opportunityto show that they are intelligent, sophisticated people" ( p.13).

The consensus among these researchers is that English should be the primarymedium of instruction. Within this realm, however, there is definitely aplace for L1. The following section will show when and how L1 can be successfullyimplemented.

The Basics of Using L1

L1 is most useful at beginning and low levels. If students have littleor no knowledge of the target language, L1 can be used to introduce themajor differences between L1 and L2, and the main grammatical characteristicsof L2 that they should be aware of. This gives them a head start and savesa lot of guessing. Later on, comparative analysis of L1 and L2 can illustratehow basic utterances like "What's the matter?" can't be directlytranslated (Weschler, 1997). Weschler (1997) shows how, in creative informationgap activities, students can learn many of these utterances which conveyideas that are useful to them.

Students in monolingual classrooms often have common training in L1 whichmay benefit them in learning a new language. A teacher can exploit theirstudents' previous L1 learning experience to increase their understandingof L2. For example, if students understand the concept of a noun, it ismuch simpler to translate the word "noun" than to describe itin L2. A teacher without that knowledge (of their students' learning experience)is more likely to teach the students what they already know about language.CLT doesn't necessarily take into account the students' training in L1 orL2 and therefore, as a method, doesn't exploit their ability to analyzea new language.

Yamamoto-Wilson (1997) looked closely at Japanese and English grammarand explained how two languages can have divergent principal branching directions,which can make acquisition of one of them as a second language more challenging.He points to the failure of teachers to make meaningful connections betweenL1 and L2 as a probable contributor to the high failure rate of L2 learnersin contrast to the success of children acquiring their mother tongue (p.9).

Lee (1965) has shown how some teacher knowledge of L1 is also valuablefor understanding learner's mistakes caused by L1 interference. For example,the knowledge that Japanese is a syllabic language would explain why Japaneselearners expand consonant clusters into full syllables, turning "McDonalds"into "Makudonarudo." The knowing teacher can then tailor the syllabusto focus on consonant clusters.

Questions to consider in using L1 at low levels are whether activitiesshould be limited in their complexity so that L1 is not needed for instruction,or whether some activities justify its use because of their communicative/funvalue. In large, multi-level classes, the logistics and preparatory instructionsfor activities can be very time consuming. It is surprising how far a littleL1 can go in these situations towards making an enjoyable task possible.Large classes put a greater strain on communication because there is lessopportunity for feedback. In small classes there is less justification forusing L1. Willis (1981) advocates a liberal approach to using L1:

There are times when it is preferable and more economical as far as time is concerned to drop English for a few seconds. . . For example. . . to explain the meaning or use of a new word. . . to explain the aims of your lesson. . .as a check of your students' understanding. . . and to discuss the main ideas after a reading (p. xiv).

Weschler (1997) suggests using L1 for warm-up brainstorming. Abstractwords or expressions difficult to explain (or demonstrate using Total PhysicalResponse) in L2 are better translated. At advanced levels, there is muchless tendency to "fall back" into L1 and translation may savetime. Sometimes discussion in L1 of lesson aims and areas of difficultycan motivate students. Atkinson (1993) advocates providing "L1 problemclinics" (p. 18) to discuss points the students haven't understood.

When Not to Use L1

During speaking activities there is very little justification for usingL1. In creative exercises and games, L1 is largely inappropriate unlessthe instructions lead to frustration. So too at the listening stage unlessthe activity requires complicated instructions or there is culturally unfamiliarcontent that is vital to comprehension. In pronunciation drills L1 is inappropriateexcept for explaining abstract vocabulary.

The ability to define words and describe things is a useful tool forlanguage learners and they should master it. It is surprising that conversationtexts rarely teach this essential learner's language. If a word is simpleenough it is worth taking the time to define it in L2. When students continueusing L1 to explain simple vocabulary or to get out of trouble instead ofusing "Help" language, they are using too much L1. Japanese shouldnot be used to save students' embarrassment at miscomprehension and otherwiseplacate fears of failure or compensate for lack of motivation. If the classisn't communicating, demonstrate strategies for overcoming difficulties:"I'm sorry, I don't know the answer," or "What do you mean?"These skills need to be emphasized, since without them, banning L1 can bevery difficult (Weschler, 1997).

During tense moments, it can be helpful to use L1 to relax students.However, overuse of L1 in these or other circ*mstances challenges the verypurpose of the class and the integrity of those involved.

Teachers' Fluency in L1

Some language instructors who are fluent in the student's L1 try to concealit. Others maintain an "acknowledged pretense" of inability. Regardlessof your L1 level, consistently demonstrating that you are not prepared touse L1, you can show your genuine desire for students to acquire the targetlanguage. Evidence shows that students' expectations of teachers' abilityin L1 are less well-informed at elementary levels if the student is an inexperiencedlanguage learner than advanced levels (Calderbank, 1997). Teachers willfind for themselves when L1 is genuinely needed and beneficial. By regularlyconsidering when and how to use L1, and the circ*mstances under which itwill facilitate student learning without making it an onerous experience,teachers can provide a safe and stimulating environment for language learning.

Keeping a list of useful phrases is a good start. I divided my list intofour areas: a) administrative language; (b) grammar expressions; (c) helplanguage (also called emergency or survival English): and (d) explanatorylanguage for instructions (Table 1; see also Chinen, 1995).

Explanatory Language and Instructions

Note: Romaji based on Association for Japanese Language Teaching (AJALT)format

Atkinson (1993, p.106) recommends using L1 only if the teacher's levelis higher than that of the students. The best advice for native Englishspeaker teachers might be to avoid L1 only if the students' level of Englishis significantly higher than the teachers' L1 level. However, a teacher'sdetermination to see English used whenever possible is more important thanhis or her competency in L1.

Conclusion

This paper has shown that adult students in monolingual English languageclasses can benefit from appropriate use of L1 despite the fact that CLTmethodology does not fully recognize the value of L1 as a resource. L1 maybe used from introductory to upper-intermediate levels on a decreasing scale.At lower levels, translating individual words, explaining grammar use, andfacilitating complex instructions can save time and anguish, especiallyfor mature students.

Although fluent L1 speaking teachers are better placed to teach Englishto monolingual classes at all levels, non-fluent teachers are not significantlydisadvantaged, especially at higher levels. Non-fluent L1 speaking teachersare advised to build a generic list of useful L2 that can be translatedinto L1. They would do well to study up on the characteristics of the L1and to learn how to use some of it. With regular consideration of when andhow to use L1, a teachers' skills will develop.

Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching monolingual classes.London: Longman.

Calderbank, A. (1997). Using student's L1: Does it affecttask performance? or The end of the monolingual classroom. IATEFL GISIGNewsletter 4, 7-10.

Chapman, L. R. H. (1958). Teaching English to beginners.London : Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd.

Chinen, C. (1995). Teaching and facilitating the use ofemergency English in the conversation class. The Language Teacher, 19(4),10-11.

Harmer, J. (1983). The practice of English language teaching.Essex: Longman.

Lee, W.R. (1965). The linguistic context of language teaching.In H. B. Allen (Ed.),Teaching English as a second language (pp. 78-102).New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Soars, J. & Soars, L. (1996). Headway preintermediatestudent book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach.English Language Teaching Journal, 39(2), 95-101.

Weschler, R. (1997, November). Uses of Japanese in theEnglish classroom: Introducing the Functional-Translation Method. TheInternet TESL Journal. [Online.] Available: <http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/>.

Willis, J. (1981). Teaching English through English.Essex: Longman.

Yamamoto-Wilson, J. R. (1997). Can a knowledge of Japanesehelp our EFL teaching? The Language Teacher, 21(1), 6-9.