JAITS

ArticleThe Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

Yoshie Ochi
(Ehime University)
This study argues for use of learners’ first language (L1) to facilitate learners’ second
language (L2) output in the classroom by students through Interpreting Training Methods(ITM). The activity of producing the target language may raise learners’ consciousness andimprove performance on the target language. In particular, the positive use of L1 throughITM may bring to their attention what they need to do to enable successful L2 output andalso lower learning anxiety to increase their motivation for L2 output. To test student
performance in the target language and investigate the effectiveness of ITM in English
education, thirty-three Japanese high school students participated in this research projectthrough output task activities and follow-up interviews. The result shows that L1 taskcomprehension seems to facilitate L2 output removing learning anxiety that often arises when
students try to communicate in the L2.

1. Introduction
There have been many pedagogic approaches to English as Second Language (ESL) which
discourage students from use of their first language in the classroom, such as the Natural
Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983), the Direct Method (Cook, 1999) and the Total PhysicalResponse approach (Asher, 1977). The basic assumption is that more language acquisition willtake place if learners do not depend on their L1, or if they do not translate (Ellis, 1984).
However, Japan has a long tradition of foreign language learning called yakudoku, a teaching
method in which English is translated into Japanese word by word. However, the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2003) issued an Action Plan to
Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities” proposing that, in order to improve English classes,
teachers should conduct classes “principally” in English and introduce many activities wherestudents can communicate with each other in English. Since that time, many English teachers
have felt guilty using L1, admitting the importance of using the L2 exclusively in class. But,
while recognizing the importance of teaching English for communication proposed by MEXT,OCHI Yoshie, “The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production,” Interpreting and Translation Studies,
No.9. pages 123-140. © by the Japan Association for Interpreting and Translation Studies.

123

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

English teachers still feel the need to primarily conduct non-communicative activities forgrammar-oriented entrance examinations for university.
By using the Interpreting Training Method (ITM) I have made a breakthrough for the
dilemma of grammar-teaching and communicative language teaching. These methods I use in
the class include quick response practice, shadowing, summarization, and sight translation.
Quick-response practice is one of the methods used by professional interpreters who have toacquire technical terms in a short period of time. In the class, students listen to Japanese words
or phrases and say the corresponding expressions in English on the spot and vice versa using
Japanese as the medium immediately after listening. Shadowing is immediate verbatim
repetition of the input in the same language. Summarization is to give a brief statement of what
the students learned in English. Sight translation is a special type of simultaneous interpreting,which is the rendition of a written text at sight. In the class, this method is used to put English
passages into Japanese and Japanese into English verbally, sense group by sense group.

In

Ochi (2005), it is said:
The major aim of my practice is to enhance students’ ability in the acquisition oflistening, speaking, reading, and writing skills through the methods. A two-year
implementation proved that there are a lot of benefits, bringing energy, vitality, changes,
interaction and concentration into the classroom activities. (p.203)
It is learned that through my trial use of ITM mentioned above in senior high school
English classes, L1 plays an important role in making sense of the meaning of the text students
are learning, raising consciousness, organizing the ideas they are going to speak about in L2,
retaining what they have learned, and decreasing learning anxiety. According to Gardner and
MacIntyre (1993), learning anxiety is the unpleasant feeling that occurs when the learner is
supposed to perform in a second or foreign language. In addition, these methods provide
students with many opportunities to achieve target language production using pair-work
activities. Currently, few studies explore the multifaceted role that L1 plays in L2 output insecondary school in Japan. Due to the fact that current literature discussing L1 use to facilitate
L2 output does not address the use of ITM, the present paper will investigate the efficacy of
employing ITM through L1 to enhance L2 input.
The research questions to be investigated in this paper are the following:
1. Does the use of learners’ L1 remove learning anxiety and result in improved output in
L2?
124

The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

2. How does L1 enhance the L2 oral output process?
The goal of my research is to examine what roles interpreting training methods play on L2
output in the English class. My project intends to do so by comparing the English output ofstudents making use of L1 compared to those who do not.
2. Review of Literature
The five main areas of literature related to my project that are worth review are: the use oflearners’ and teachers’ L1 for L2 output, learning anxiety, the study of human memory,
yakudoku method, and output theories.
2.1 The Use of Learners’ and Teachers’ L1 for L2 Output
Many research efforts have been directed toward the issue of using the L1 in foreign language
learning over a few decades. Previous researchers found benefits in using the students’ L1(Cook, 2001; Hosoda, 2000; Liu et al., 2004). According to their claims, the major benefits ofusing L1 in class are: facilitating learning and communication and enhancing the affective
environment and the motivation for learning. Considering the goal of SLA, teachers can utilize
the L1 as a tool or necessary scaffolding which is gradually removed over time, a time-efficient
strategy and effective with students whose L2 proficiency is low (Liu et al., 2004), and as abridge between the L1 and the L2, providing a more comprehensible and comfortable learning
environment (Auerbach, 1993).
In addition, Cook (1997) referred to the two languages in which the L2 meanings do notexist separately from the L1 meanings in the learner’s mind. Auerbach (1993) reexamined thepolicy of English only in the ESL classroom, and suggested that teachers were able to use L1 asa bridge between the L1 and the L2, providing a more comprehensible and comfortable learning
environment. Cole (1998) questioned whether or not to use students’ first language (L1) inforeign language classes, a relevant issue in culturally homogeneous environments such as
Japan, where the majority is monolingual. He suggested that a teacher’s skills would develop
with regular consideration of when and how to use L1.
2.2 Learning Anxiety
According to Gardner and MacIntyre (1993), learning anxiety is the unpleasant feeling that
occurs when a learner is supposed to perform in a second or foreign language. Oxford (1999)
states, “harmful anxiety can be related to plummeting motivation, negative attitudes and beliefs,
and language performance difficulties” (p.60). Therefore, it is essential that we consider the roleof anxiety in order to create a successful learning setting.
125

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

Another factor which negatively correlates with anxiety is self-esteem, which is “based on
feelings of efficacy, a sense of interacting effectively with one’s own environment” (Oxford,
1999 p.62). She also lists lack of tolerance of ambiguity as a factor that correlates with anxiety.
Moreover, Dörnyei (2001) states “people with a low sense of self-efficacy in a given domain
perceive difficult tasks as personal threats; they dwell on their own personal deficiencies and the
obstacles they encounter rather than concentrating on how to perform the task successfully”(p.87).
It is essential to remove affective barriers and decrease anxiety that could negatively
impact on students’ motivation. In addition, eliminating ambiguity has an influence on enabling
students to communicate orally in their L2; they may or may not be ready to do this willingly
depending on how much they can tolerate feelings of ambiguousness that arise with negotiating
for meaning in communication.
2.3 Yakudoku Method
In Japan, the L2-only approach has not necessarily been mainstream in the EFL context. Japan
has a long tradition of foreign language learning through a method called yakudoku. In thismethod, English is translated into Japanese word by word, and the resulting translation isreordered to match Japanese word order, which is often identified with the goal of studying
English itself. This method, however, has been criticized for several reasons. First, Hino (1987)
observed that Japanese students of English tend to use the word “yakusu” (translate)synonymously with “yomu” (read), which suggests that yakusu may even be the goal of reading
a foreign language itself. Second, the method has adverse effects on the four language skills –reading, listening, speaking, and writing. It has been said that students who have been trained
only in yakudoku tend not to speak and listen to English well, no matter how long they study
English through this method. Third, this habit limits the speed at which the student reads. For
these reasons, yakudoku practices definitely lack opportunities for students to practice L2 output.
If L1 can facilitate comprehension (Auerbach, 1993), then, we can promote L2 output, improve
speed of comprehension, and raise listening ability, making use of the L1.
2.4 The Study of Human Memory
In the field of Psycholinguistics and Cognitive Psychology, researchers have identified fivebasic memory stages: acquisition, registration, storage, access, and transfer (Baddeley, 1997).
The process of acquisition consists of exposure to the stimulus and selective intake and is also
highly dependent upon exposure and experience (Baddeley, 1997). It is likely that one of theinterpreting training methods, quick-response practice, is based on the former strategy, andmakes use of the strategy positively. And, sight translation has something to do with both in that
126

The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

the student is exposed to L2 or L1 input and makes oral output in L2 or L1.
For information to be stored effectively into long-term memory, Robinson (1995) argues
that the processing of information to the long-term memory from working memory involves
encoding that is dependent upon additional processes known as rehearsal. He identifies two
types of rehearsal: a data-driven process known as maintenance rehearsal, and a conceptually
driven process known as elaborative rehearsal. The former one converts oral input into
phonological form through the phonological loop and leads to long-term memory (Baddeley,1997). Robinson (1995) found that the latter one, on the other hand, involves a non-automaticlearning process and establishes connections between the information in short-term memory andlong-term memory. What has been noticed while teaching through interpreting training methods
is these methods are reasonable ways of making use of these two types of rehearsal.
2.5 Output Theories
These language processes and the practice of making utterances of the target language in theinterpreting process are consistent with the claim made by Swain (1985) that what students needis not only comprehensible input, but also comprehensible output in L2 if they are to be both
fluent and accurate in the target language.
Since the Output Hypothesis was first proposed, Swain (1993, 1995) has extended thescope and identified the following three functions of output. First, output has ahypothesis-testing function. Producing output is potentially a way of testing one’s hypothesis
about the target language. Second, output may have a metalinguistic function. It is claimed that“as learners reflect upon their own target language use, their output serves a metalinguistic
function, enabling them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge” (Swain, 1995, p. 126).
That is to say, output may require the learner to engage in more syntactic processing thancomprehensible input. Finally, output may serve a “noticing/triggering” function.
The methods previously discussed do have an impact on facilitating learning andcommunication and enhancing the affective environment and the motivation for learning. They
can fill the pedagogic void created by dependence on traditional yakudoku methods and makesense of the output-hypothesis. If L1 can facilitate comprehension (Auerbach, 1993), then, we
can promote L2 output, improve the speed of comprehension, and raise the listening ability,
making use of the L1. As will be shown with this study, the effect on output in English using L1
needs to be studied fully in order to better understand issues involving learners’ cognitive
processes.
3. Research Hypothesis
For this study, the two research questions mentioned before have been formulated as three127

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

research hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1
The experimental group in this study, which is allowed to make use of learner’s L1, would be
more successful at organizing L1 written input (Appendix A), into L2 oral output than thecontrol group, which is not allowed to use their L1.
Hypothesis 2
The experimental group would retain and organize the information they are supposed to convey
through L2 output better than the control group.
Hypothesis 3
The experimental group would show more facility with use of expressions than the control
group in the use of the target form on L2 output through the lowering of learning anxiety andthe increased familiarity with the expectations of the task at hand.
4. The Study
4.1 Method
4.1.1 Setting and Participants
The subjects of the study were first year students at a private girls’ high school. They learned
English through ITM (See p. 124) for about ten months from mid-April in 2006 to the end of
February in 2007. The study was conducted at the end of January. The participants were 33
Japanese first-year female students of high school who were in my reading class. The students
in the class were divided into two groups according to the results of the final term exams of thehigh school, which were mainly English reading comprehension tests designed by the author.
The group’s average English score were almost equal at the start of the study. The participants
were assigned to an experimental group with 17 participants (EG, n=17) who were given an
English passage and Japanese translation of a passage to be used for the project, and a control
group with 18 participants (CG, n=18) who were given only an English version of the passage.
Based on their term examination scores, the subjects of each group were assigned to highand low reading ability groups. Students with the scores over 65% were assigned to the higher
group, and those under 65% are assigned to the lower group.
4.1.2 Survey Instrument
In order to investigate what roles ITM plays on L2 output and the role that L1 plays in helping
learners promote output in L2, I compared L2 output amongst an experimental group that used
128

The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

an English passage (Appendix A), which was taken from the Eiken third level writing test andJapanese translation of the passage, and a control group with only an English passage. The
Eiken test is a standardized English proficiency test commonly administered in Japan. And, thethird level of Eiken is the level of a junior high school graduate. The topic of the passage isabout an interesting festival in Italy called the Battle of the Oranges.
To measure the quality of information the participants conveyed and its accuracy formeasuring L2 output, the scale used was based on the public version of IELTS (Hughes, 2002, p.
87) on the International English Language Testing System. Based on the objective of thisresearch, the category of ‘Grammatical accuracy’ (Scored 1 to 8) was used (see Table 1). The
total number of important items that the students needed to carry is 16. For example, the first
item was that “a town in Italy has a festival,” or some variant. Points given are the following:one (1—2 items), two (3—4 items), three (5—6 items), four (7—8 items), five (9—10 items),six (11—12 items), seven (13—14 items), and eight (15—16 items). The maximum score of thetest was 16 points.

TABLE 1
Grammatical accuracy

Scale Used to Measure Accuracy(Score 1 to 8 points)

Few grammatical inaccuracies; occasional imperfect control or avoidance of difficult

Points8patterns.
Some inaccuracy, but developing control of major patterns, though often unable to sustain

6

coherence in longer or complex speech.
Syntax is fragmented with frequent inaccuracies. Basic sentence patterns may be evident,

4

but delivered in telegraph style with some confusion evident.
Almost all grammatical patterns inaccurate, except for a few short, stock phrases.

129

2

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

4.1.3 Procedures
The data was collected from all the students of my reading class at the end of January in 2007
after school individually and consisted of the following two analyses: recording of student
output in L2, and an output task interview. The experimental group was given a Japanesetranslation of the passage and allowed to refer to the Japanese translation while reading thepassage. Then, after eight minutes, the passage was taken away, and they were told to reportorally everything they could remember from the passage in English. The control group simply
read the passage for eight minutes and reported orally in English what they read in English.
Immediately after finishing the task, each participant was called upon for a retrospective
interview for approximately 10 minutes in Japanese. The student output in English andinterviews in Japanese were tape-recorded and transcribed, and all reported instances of output
in English were tabulated. From the transcriptions, the number of content items conveyed werecounted, and the accuracy of their output was assessed.
Interviews in Japanese were also tabulated. The interviews include three questions 1) what
procedures they used to comprehend and organize the story 2) how they retained the story 3)
what the most difficult and the easiest part of the task was. To estimate the relative degree towhich Japanese support was associated with output in English, the investigator examined thetranscripts, scored them, and coded the follow-up interviews by discerning what specificexamples of language learning anxieties were experienced by the participants.
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Frequency of English output with accuracy
The English output was measured using the IELTS scale, and the number of items of content
participants produced orally, previously explained in the data analysis section. One example
from each group and the points they recieved are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2Group

Example of L2 Output – Display of Various Ratings Given

Level

English Output

Accuracy
Items(Total)130

The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

EG

High

There are… there is a special festival in a little town of Ivrea in Italy. There7

are many parties and parades. And people make special food, too. At last7

three days they have a battle of oranges. They threw oranges at each other.

(14/16)In the little town people start this battle to remember the battle that
happened 800 years ago. A ruler of the town was a very bad man then. So
people of this town decided to fight him. People only had stones to threw at
him and his soldiers. They fought hard and won. Now the battle of oranges
is only for fun but they enjoy it. Every year a lot of visitors come to see thisbattle and some even join a team of battle of oranges. If they don’t want tothrew oranges, they have to wear a special red hats. After festival people intown have to clean up the town, but they enjoy it.

Low

Every year a little town in Italy has a interesting festival. They are party and4

eat special food. The town is called Ivrea. “うー、えーと” (Um, well.)2

People, people, people is proud of this festival.

(6/16)CGHigh

The Ivrea is an Italian town. They have very interesting festival named

6‘Festival of Ivrea’. Most interesting part is battle of orange. They throw the7oranges each other in the street. They start this festival 800 years ago. In(13/16)

1194, this time ruler was very bad man. One day people of Ivrea decided tofight with to him. They had only stone. They fought hard and they got thewin. Now battle is only fun, they only threw oranges. Many people comes
this town to see this festival through all over the world. After festival
garbage in the street, and they clean up this. They proud this festival andenjoy this festival.

Low

Every year little town in Italy has a interesting festival called…. Town is4called Ivrea. Its festival is called the battle of oranges. “もうわかりませ1ん” (I can not do any more.)(5/16)*EG: experimental group*CG: control group

Table 3 below reports the raw totals of the scores of four subgroups. The experimentalgroup was given a Japanese translation of the passage and allowed to refer to the Japanesetranslation while reading the passage. The control group simply read the passage for eightminutes and reported orally in English what they read in English. Both groups were divided intohigh and low ability groups. Table 3 represents the raw scores, the mean, the standard deviation
131『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)(SD), and the range of marks for each group.
TABLE 3

Raw Scores of Each Student out of the Four Subgroups
EG (High)

CG (High)

EG (Low)

CG (low)

(n=8)

(n=8)

(n=9)

(n=8)

9

8

9

7

15

11

7

11

8

12

7

5

12

13

6

2

9

10

8

4

11

8

4

4

9

7

7

3

8

6

7

2

6
Mean

10.125

9.375

6.777

4.750

SD

2.416

2.504

1.394

2.964

Range

8-15

6-13

4-9

2-11

EG: experimental group

CG: control group(mark range : 0-16)

The Cohen’s d was used to assess if there were significant differences of mean scores ofeach group. The results are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Cohen's d results-Four Subgroups

Group

N

M

SD

d-value

Effect size

EG (HI).

8

10.125

2.416

0.30

0.15

CG(HI)

8

9.375

2.504

EG(LO)

9

6.777

1.394

0.88

0.40

CG(LO)

8

4.750

2.964

Note: Cohen’s d was used
EG: experimental group

CG: control group(mark range : 0-16)

The mean of performance of the EG was higher than that of CG. I found results of 0.30 for the132The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

high learners, which shows a modest effect. As for the low learners, results were 0.88, a strong
effect. The difference was statistically significant for the low group students. As can be seen in
Table 4, both high ability groups were found to be almost identical in both the means and SD.
As for the result of low ability groups, the superiority of the EG mean score over CG meanscore would lead us to speculate that the scaffolding by L1 promotes the L2 output especiallyfor the students whose L2 ability is low. This suggests that the outcome is consistent with what
Cook (2001), Hosoda (2000), and Liu et al. (2004) claim, which is the major benefits of using
L1 in class are: facilitating learning and communication, and enhancing the affective
environment and the motivation for learning. Teachers can utilize the L1 as a tool or necessary
scaffolding gradually removed over time, a time-efficient strategy and effective with students
whose L2 proficiency is low (Liu et al., 2004), and as a bridge between the L1 and the L2,
providing a more comprehensible and comfortable learning environment (Auerbach, 1993).
However, because of the small sample size of the study, the validity of this speculation should
be examined empirically in a more detailed fashion in future research.
4.2.2 The role of L1 for L2 output: Qualitative Results
The qualitative results from participants’ comments in the interviews showed that the primaryfunctional benefit of L1 use is that it facilitated semantic processing. One participant (low CG)
remarked, “I can understand the passage to some extent, but my comprehension is too vague tomake L2 output.” Another participant (low EG) stated, “when I tried to understand the passage
referring to L1, it became clear enough to make L2 output.” A third participant (low CG) stated,“I did not understand until I translated and thought about the sentence in Japanese, then it
became clear. Then I tried to memorize the story in English. It took time to do two processes so
I lost my concentration to make L2 output.” Still another learner (high CG) said, “Even though I
am totally familiar with all the words except the name of the town and I could have read it inEnglish, I was not able to retain the gist well or express it well in English.” Other learner (lowEG) stated, “Japanese helped me to concentrate long enough for meaning to be internalize andget the gist better so I managed to make L2 output using another expressions I know.”
It is important to note in these comments that L1 appears to serve as a means ofmaintaining concentration long enough for getting ready for the oral recall task. The
participants’ comments explain temporary storage inefficiency in their L2 as Service (1989)
claims that the length of phonologically encoded word strings able to be retained in working
memory may be reduced in a second language context. The use of Japanese, therefore, may
reduce the load placed on cognitive resources. Such an outcome would explain comments suchas “it was too long a sentence for me to retain the story in English.”
It is observed that when participants found the words they were not able to pronounce
133

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

during the oral recall task, their function of comprehension seemed to stop and make it difficult
to start getting ready for the English output. For example, many students seemed to havestopped their operations when they found it difficult to pronounce the name of a little town
‘Ivrea.’ This indicates that the words participants cannot pronounce hamper their retention andresult in poor output.
4.2.3 The role of L1 for L2 output: The Procedures and Learning Anxiety
How did participants comprehend and organize the story, removing learning anxiety? While
comprehending and organizing the story for L2 oral output, the five principal factors of learning
anxiety identified through the analysis were nervousness, forgetting, vagueness, time
constraints, and loss of concentration. Table 5 summarizes subjects’ comments about learning
anxieties that they felt during the performance.
TFABLE 5

Reported Learning Anxieties from the Four Subgroups
EG (High)

CG (High)

EG (Low)

CG (low)

Learning Anxiety

(n=8)

(n=8)

(n=9)

(n=8)

Nervousness

2 (25%)

6 (75%)

5 (56%)

7 (88%)

Forgetting

4 (50%)

6 (75%)

5 (56%)

7 (88%)

Vagueness

0 ( 0%)

6 (75%)

2 (22%)

7 (88%)

Time constraints

3 (38%)

5 (63%)

5 (56%)

7 (88%)

Loss of concentration

1 (13%)

1 (13%)

0 ( 0%)

3 (38%)

The comments by the high ability EG were divided into two types. One type reported thatthey made use of L1 scaffolding to comprehend and organize the story they wanted to makethrough L2 output and felt no learning anxieties. For example, one student said, “It was too longfor me to remember in English. Japanese helped me retain the gist of the story so that I was able
to use another expression I knew when I forgot English expressions, while another student
reported, “With the support of Japanese, I was able to remember English efficiently.” This typeaccounts for 50% among the EG high ability group. On the other hand, another stated, “Thepassage itself was easy enough to read in English and remember in English without L1
scaffolding though I made English output while thinking in Japanese.” Another participant who
didn’t support L1 scaffolding said, “Sometimes Japanese disturbed me as I concentrated on
memorizing just in English although I need Japanese.” Another student who has a high ability ofreading comprehension reported, “It’s rather efficient to memorize in English because thepassage was not so difficult. But I used Japanese to remember the story.” Still another134

The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

participant stated, “Though L1 helped me remember the story, it took too long to read Japanese,so I didn’t have enough time to practice expressing in English.”
The high ability CG made different comments. All the participants agreed that Japanese
scaffolding is necessary to produce L2 output. For example, some participants said, “I tried toretain the story just in English but couldn’t retain the flow of the story in English. This is an
example of forgetting and vagueness. With the help of Japanese, I could have built up theparagraph.” Another participant reported, “I can’t figure out another way to say because of thevagueness. I tried to translate the passage into Japanese, and then I got ready for the English
output based on my L1 comprehension.” Six out of eight students reported that they were afraidof forgetting the story and felt insecure because of their vague comprehension. As a result they
became nervous and had no confidence in their L2 oral output.
Both of the low ability groups reported more learning anxiety than those of the highability groups. Both low ability groups made comments in a similar way. All the students except
one (89%) reported that L1 scaffolding was very helpful to reduce the insecurity and gained
confidence to make L2 output. Their comments showed that Japanese was imperative tocomprehend and remember the story. One student said, “I just can do word level memorization,
but it was difficult to remember the sentences.” Another said, “It is impossible to make English
output without Japanese. Japanese helped me to reduce the insecurity that I feel when reading in
English.” Several participants had similar comments, saying, “I was not able to grasp the flowof the story in English.” Another who used L1 and L2 separately said, “At first I had tounderstand the passage, and tried to memorize in English. Eight minutes was not enough.” Thisis an example of time constraints.
Seven out of eight participants from the low ability CG reported they became painfully
nervous when they found unfamiliar words and structures and were not able to understand themeaning of the sentences. They felt uncertainty and lost their concentration, and therefore
started to feel time constraints. On the other hand, all the low ability EG who are allowed tofacilitate their L1 said when they were unable to comprehend a passage, they would often go
back and check the meaning in L1 which gave them a little more confidence to communicate intheir L2. Yet, they were afraid of forgetting the story.
These comments illustrate how the participants optimize their short-term retention byusing their L1. Their L1 may allow the participants to establish a mental scratch pad where
meanings can be assembled in the L1. The learners also have greater confidence for the oral
recall task by making the input more friendly and familiar. Their L1 seems to facilitate
comprehension to remove learning anxiety that often arise in reading the L2. Thus, L1
scaffolding may offer an affective boost to some students, who try to make L2 oral output.

135

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

5. Discussion
To summarize the major findings of this study in terms of the research questions set at the outset,
the research question argued that learners’ L1 removes learning anxiety and results in improved
performance on the output in L2. This question was partially answered. The way in which L1
seems to facilitate the output in L2 is to remove learning anxiety that often arises when students
try to make L2 oral output. By making the input more familiar, the participants have greater
confidence in their ability to comprehend and make output in L2. The low ability experimentalgroup participants were able to make better output in L2 in their immediately subsequent
production than that of the low control group. This suggests that from their output, their input
was converted into easier and more familiar expressions, enhancing the participants’ confidence
in their English output. For example, one student used the expression “there was a bad ruler,”instead of the expression of the passage “the ruler of the town was a very bad man.” It, however,appears that the more advanced a participant was in the target language, the less facilitated their
output was by their L1 scaffolding. It suggests a developmental trend where learners rely less on
L1 scaffolding as they become familiar with the target language. So, for these types ofparticipants it could be valuable to remove the L1 scaffolding for that level of comprehension.
From the research, in terms of temporary storage in working memory, some of thecomments the students made show that L2 words are rehearsed less efficiently than L1 words(Cook, 1986). As far as this research is concerned, two factors contribute to storage inefficiency
in L2 output. First, inexperienced L2 learners may have difficulty comprehending andunderstanding semantic clusters. As a result, they may translate word-by-word and just store
words in working memory, which places a burden on memory capacity, producing poor output.
Second, Japanese scaffolding may allow the learner to establish a mental scratch pad, wherephrase-level and discourse-level meaning can be retained. This would explain comments such as“Japanese helped me retain the gist of the story so that I was able to use other expressions I
knew when I forgot English expressions,” and “With the support of Japanese, I was able toremember English efficiently.”
The findings of this study lead to several implications for L2 instruction. First, as thisstudy provides some evidence that Japanese learners use Japanese scaffolding to successfully
store and increase L2 output, language teachers might be encouraged to look favorably upon L1
as an effective tool. Learners particularly at lower levels of English competence might beadvised to use L1 to grasp the gist of stories, to clarify vocabulary and grammatical rules, and toconvert the input into a more familiar form. Second, though this study does not aim at
advocating Japanese use as an absolutely effective method, the finding of this study partially
supports the greater comprehension in learners’ L1 than in learners’ L2. If teachers could
provide students with opportunities to keep L2 in their minds and use L2 as much as possible,
136

The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

L1 comprehension checks through ITM might accelerate learners’ second language learning.
Finally, choosing teaching material should be considered based on two points. One is thematerial aiming at L2 output should be appropriate for the students according to their
vocabulary knowledge.
There are limitations with this study. One limitation is that the difficulty of the text canhave an effect on the extent to which L1 is used and benefited from. The passage was takenfrom Eiken third level writing test, which is the level of junior high school graduate. So I
expected that the participants had no difficulty reproducing the content in L2. The result was
rather different. Just recognizing contents is one thing and expressing another. Perhaps variationin difficulty of the passage would prompt a different output result. Another limitation is thesmall sample size of the study. The generality of the results from this study is distorted by thesmall sample size, and more focused studies are needed to support the claims made here. The
other limitation is that there was no investigation of how well the students read in their native
language, Japanese. It could be argued that the students who have difficulty keeping the mainidea in their minds in their native language would be those who have difficulty in producing
output in target language.
6. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of output in English through interpreting
training methods, focusing on Japanese scaffolding for L2 output. Two research questions wereposed: 1) Does learners’ L1 remove learning anxiety and result in improved performance on the
output in L2?

2) How does L1 enhance the L2 oral output process? I have investigatedwhether use of learners L1 removes learning anxiety and whether L1 enhances the L2 oral
output process. I have found that the difference between experimental and control groups interms of assessment was not significant, but that both higher and lower ability subgroups in theexperimental group reported less learning anxieties than the control group.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. The students’ use of the L1 in foreign
language learning played an important role in facilitating output in L2, and enhancing theaffective environment and the motivation for speaking in L2. Considering the goal of SLA, bothteachers and students can utilize the L1 as a tool or necessary scaffolding for consolidating
meaning and retaining contextual information. For the students whose L2 proficiency is low, theL1 use in foreign language learning is effective and a time-efficient strategy. As Auerbach(1993) indicates, the students’ L1 use can be a bridge between the L1 and the L2, providing amore comprehensible and comfortable learning environment.
Considering the role the native language plays in L2 output is a significant objective inthe development of a theory of L2 output. It is hoped that further research exploring the assorted137

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

ways in which L1 has an influence on L2 output process through interpreting training methods
will shed light on the questions raised in this study.
………………………………………….

【著者紹介】
越智美江（OCHI Yoshie）愛媛大学非常勤講師、聖カタリナ女子高等学校教諭。コロンビア大学
大学院（英語教育学）修了。研究領域は「英語教育」、「通訳教育」、「自律学習」、「認知言語学」など。著作には『TOEIC150 点アップを目指す通訳訓練法』2009 年大阪教育図書、「Autonomous
learning through interpreting training method and extensive reading during asadoku」『JALT LD forum』（2006）などがある。連絡先：yoshieochi@hotmail.com

References
Asher, J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’s guidebook.
Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Production.
Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1),9-32.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice (Rev. ed.). Hove: Psychology Press.
Cole, S. (1998). The use of L1 in communicative English classrooms. The Language

Teacher, 22(12), 11-13.
Cook, V. J. (1986). Do second language learners have a cognitive deficit? In V. Cook (Ed.),
Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 73-79). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Cook, V. J. (1997). The consequences of bilingualism for cognitive processing. In A. de Groot & J. F.
Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 279-299) Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, V. J. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33,
185-209.
Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language
Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 57 (3), 403-420.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second
language learning. Language Learning, 43, 157-194.
Hino, N. (1987). TOEFL de 650-ten: Watashi no eigoshugyou. [TOEFL at 650 points: My English
138

The Role of L1 in Facilitating L2 Production

training]. Tokyo: Nanundo.
Hosoda, Y. (2000). Teacher codeswitching in the EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 22(1), 69-93.
Hughes, R. (2002). Teaching and researching speaking. London: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. San
Francisco, CA: The Alemany Press.
Liu, D., Ahn, G., Baek, K., & Han, N. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code
switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605-638.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2003). An action plan to cultivate“Japanese with English abilities”. Retrieved December 17, 2006, from<http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/15/03/03033101/001.pdf>
Ochi, Y. (2005). Koukou ni okeru tuyakukunrennhou wo toriireta genngokyouiku no kouka to tenbou[The effectiveness and the prospect of interpreting training methods in high school]. The
Journal of the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies, 5, 203-224.
Oxford, R. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect inlanguage learning (pp.58-67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45,
283-331.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.
3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Service, E. (1989). Phonological coding in working memory and foreign language learning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input andcomprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The CanadianModern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

139

『通訳翻訳研究』No.9 (2009)

Appendix A

The Battle of the Oranges
Every year, a little town in Italy has a very interesting festival. The town is called Ivrea, andits festival is called the Carnival of Ivrea. There are many parades and parties, and people makespecial food, too. But the most exiting part of the festival is the Battle of the Oranges. For the last
three days of the festival, teams of people throw oranges at each other in the streets of the town.
People started the Carnival of Ivrea to remember a battle that happened more than 800 years
ago. In 1194, the ruler of the town was a very bad man. One day, the people of Ivrea decided to fighthim. They only had stones to throw at the ruler and his soldiers, but the people fought hard and won
the battle.
Now the battle is just for fun, so people don’t throw stones anymore. Many teams take part in
the orange battles, and each one has its own special uniform. Some teams ride on carts which arepulled by horses. The others have to walk, and they throw oranges at the teams on the carts.
Thousands of visitors come to see the orange battles, and some even join a team. People who only
want to watch have to wear special red hats. If they don’t, everyone throws oranges at them, too.
After the festival, there are a lot of oranges to clean up. But the people of Ivrea enjoy their
festival and are proud of its long and interesting history.

140