Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
.
The English language is the international language par excellence (Phillipson 1992, p.
6). Although it cannot boast the same number of native speakers as other languages, it
is the most widely studied foreign language in the world. Moreover, it has a dominant
position in all domains of life, be it business, technology, science or education. What
are the developments that have led to English assuming the position of “global
language” (Crystal 1997) and how does it remain so? This paper will provide a brief
summary of these developments from an historical perspective, showing how English
has spread across the globe. Then language teaching methodology will be considered
including how the different methodologies have subtly removed the First Language
(L1) from the classroom. It is argued that this has reinforced the already strong
position of English by creating the notion of the English-only approach to EFL.
Finally arguments for and against the English-only approach are presented.
A brief look at historical factors that have influenced the spread of English
The spread of English around the world dates back to the late sixteenth century when
the first expeditions started leaving the British Isles in search of new areas to settle,
namely the New World in North America. Although few in number at first,
1
arrived throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Though these
settlers came from a variety of countries, “within one or two generations of arrival,
most of these immigrant families had come to speak English, through a natural
Throughout the same time, British world exploration also established settlements in
the Southern Hemisphere, namely in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.
In South Asia, during the years 1765 to 1947 when Britain maintained sovereign rule,
the subcontinent” (Crystal 2003, p. 47). The expansion of British colonial power and
the emergence of the United States as the leading economic power of the 20th century,
therefore, explain the world position of English today (Crystal 2003, p. 59).
The 20th Century saw unprecedented growth on a global scale in technology, transport
and communications. Moreover, following two world wars, the need for greater
International organizations, such as the United Nations and UNICEF, needed to find
some linguistic common ground to facilitate communication. Whilst it was usual for a
held a prominent place. Today there is debate over the possibility of further reducing
Crystal provides data of the 12,500 International organizations in the world in 1995-
2
sample of 500 of these organizations, 85% made official use of English (French was
the next with 49%). Of particular significance in this sample is the fact that “one third
of this number of organizations use only English to carry on their affairs” (Crystal
2003, p. 88).
academic and business communities and it is here that the adoption of a single lingua
franca is most in evidence” (Crystal 2003, p. 13). Many areas of international affairs
are in English such as aviation, science, international aid agencies, the World Bank,
media and popular culture. These domains rely on technology, led by computers and
Developments in Education
English, therefore, has penetrated all walks of life. And the field of Education is no
exception. Not only are more and more courses now using English as the medium of
instruction (Crystal 2003), but also English Language Teaching itself has become a
booming industry. Phillipson (1992, p. 6) indicates that “The spread of English has
not been left to chance, and language pedagogy has played a part in this process”. It
developed and changed over time and to what extent they have influenced the status
addressed the role of L1 in the classroom. In the case of EFL teaching this has led to
the notion of the English-only classroom, where the students’ L1 should be more or
less absent.
3
Shifts in Language Teaching Pedagogy – the Devaluation of the L1
the rules of a language, had been the preferred method in foreign language teaching.
Though this method has clearly been superseded, it still has a place today in the
teaching of classical languages such as Latin or Ancient Greek. In this method the
class is conducted in the L1 of the students and there is little time given to real
Towards the end of the 19th Century a major shift in the focus of second language
teaching and learning began, this being the preference towards spoken language rather
As research into second language teaching began to accelerate, new methods were
developed. The Direct Method, which first appeared in the late 19th Century, was
based on the notion that L2 learning was the same as L1 acquisition. Therefore, as
without any use of the L1 allowed. Although this method was discredited when it
failed in public education (Brown 1994, as cited in Miles 2004), Cook (2001, p. 402)
states that most teaching methods since “have adopted this Direct Method avoidance
of the L1”.
The Audiolingual Method, which gained acceptance in the 1950’s and 1960’s, was
very clear about the role of the L1 in second language acquisition. It listed as one of
4
its five basic tenets that “the native language should be banned from the classroom”
In 1981 Krashen presented the Monitor Theory, based on his research into second
language acquisition and learning. This work includes not only an explanation of the
theory, but also detailed information on making the transition from theory to practice,
which Krashen describes as “an ‘ideal’ second language teaching program” (1981, p.
100). Yet for the most part, any mention of the L1 is related to negative factors such
as ‘interference’ and ‘errors’. There is no mention of any positive role of the L1 in the
classroom.
There have been, however, some methods that did make suggestions for the L1.
Terrell (1977, p. 331), in providing classroom guidelines for the Natural Approach,
suggests that students should be allowed to respond in both the L1 and L2 “to rapidly
teaching today, one of the major characteristics, is that “judicious use of the native
curious absence of discussion on the use of the L1, both in the theory and the
methodology (Cole 1998). Cook (2001, p. 410), summarizes the current situation in
5
saying that “recent methods do not so much forbid the L1 as ignore its existence
altogether”.
It is important to note that these methodologies were not developed exclusively for
the purpose of English Language instruction. They are equally relevant to all foreign
Spanish in Korea are all likely to be taught using some of the prevailing ideas of
However, the interpretation of these methodologies has led to a belief in the field of
EFL, that the L1 should be absent from the classroom. This belief does not exist in the
field of LOTE.
A good example is The Makerere Report (1961, cited in Philipson 1992, p. 66), which
stated that “the ideal teacher should be the native English speaker” and that “if other
languages are used, English standards will drop”. This notion still remains in place in
many EFL institutions around the world hiring ‘native speakers only’ where the need
to speak the local language is not a requirement. For such teachers it is often easier to
ignore the local language than to try to incorporate it into lessons. Thus the English-
only approach to EFL classrooms became the norm. And it is an easy approach to
In recent years the term ‘immersion’ has also been used to support the English-only
approach to the classroom. However, as Bostwick indicates, “in most cases the term is
misused” (2005, p. 1). He continues that immersion programs can only be labelled as
6
such if “English is not the subject of instruction, rather it is the medium through
The English-only approach is also widely incorporated in the EFL textbooks that are
widely available today. Textbook producers try to stick to mainstream content that has
an international market audience, even when this might not be in the best interests of
students. Most teaching manuals also fail to mention any classroom use of the L1
(Halliwell and Jones 1991, as cited in Cook 2001, p. 403). Weschler (1997, p. 7)
states that the “anti-L1 trend has more to do with the economic rationalism of
‘Economic means’ also influence how and where textbooks and other publications in
English are distributed. This, according to Baugh and Cable, leads to the situation
where “in most developing countries communications in English are superior to those
in vernacular languages” (2002, p. 6). They demonstrate this with an example from
Tanzania, where “the unavailability of textbooks in Swahili has slowed the effort to
Canagarajah (1999, p. 85) refers to “the textbook and its hidden curriculum”, and
provides a Sri Lankan example where a course book donated to Universities by the
7
The global dominance of English, and the emergence of the USA as the world’s
superpower have created the need to provide effective English language instruction
across the globe. Academics have devised methodologies that should lead to linguistic
proficiency. Yet along the way the notion was created that we should teach in an
English-only context. Until recently, little research has been conducted into this area.
It seems that the English-only approach has simply evolved over time without any
real critical thinking into the issue, particularly in the EFL teaching context.
An English-only approach does have merit when there is no common language in the
classroom, as in the ESL context. In this case English would assume the role of the
three main arguments for the English-only approach (Cook 2001) have questionable
validity.
The first argument is that we should try and imitate as much as possible the L1
learning experience. We all learn our first language without the use of another
8
language and so when we learn a second language, we should similarly try to learn it
in the same natural way without ‘falling back’ on our existing L1.
This has its merits when the class consists of young learners, but when considering
adults learners, there are many arguments against this. Adults, unlike children,
Therefore, to try and force adults to learn a second language in the same way as a
argument’. This means that the L1 and L2 should be kept in separate compartments in
the brain. One has all the L1 information and the other contains all the L2
information. The argument is that if they are not kept separate, ‘interference’ from the
9
However, research is showing that the brain does not process language as separate
entities. Cook (2001, p. 404) indicates that, “learning an L2 is not just the adding of
rooms to your house by building an extension out the back. It is the rebuilding of
internal walls”. He adds that teaching that works with the ‘fact of life’ that L1 and L2
are part of the same system, is “more likely to be successful than teaching that works
against it”.
The third argument against use of the L1 in the L2 states that, “students will not be
convinced that the L2 is a viable and effective means of communication if the teacher
It is true that the vast majority of the lesson should be conducted in the target
language. However this argument seems to say that any ‘slip’ into the L1 will cause
the students to suddenly fall back into predominantly using their L1. New research
shows that this is simply not the case. Students who are allowed to use the L1 use it to
help them work out the L2 at lower levels. However, as their proficiency improves,
their reliance on the L1 diminishes and they naturally move into the L2 (Upton and
Lee-Thompson 2001). Indeed, a recent study by Mason (2003) highlights the benefits
reading program for three semesters. One group wrote brief summaries of
what they read in Japanese, another wrote their summaries in English and a
third wrote summaries in English that were corrected, and they then rewrote
the summaries… Mason concluded that the group that wrote the summaries in
10
Japanese was the most efficient, in terms of amount of English acquired and
the total time devoted to English (Mason 2003, cited in Krashen 2004, p. 2).
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper is to bring the topic of L1 use in the foreign language
classroom to the fore. As already indicated, very little research has been conducted
into the field, although it seems that interest is growing. Supporters of L1 use in the
classroom offer a wide range of suggestions for improving teaching and learning and
believe that the benefits far outweigh any supposed disadvantages. However, as has
been outlined, there is a long history of dominance of the English language and this
has manifested itself in the form of an English-only approach to the EFL classroom.
The prevailing methodologies have failed to provide any guidance for teachers to use.
Thus, L1 use in the classroom is commonly linked with such negative aspects as
interference and error analysis. Teacher’s books also routinely avoid mentioning the
topic. As interest grows the question should no longer be whether English-only is the
correct approach, but to what extent we can help our students by including their L1.
References
Baugh, A.C. & Cable, T. (2002). A History of the English Language. Fifth edition.
11
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the First Language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern
Heinle.
12
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Terrell, T.D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning.
Upton, T. A. & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the First Language in Second
Weschler R. (1997). Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English Classroom: The Internet
13