Classroom Discourse

ISSN: 1946-3014 (Print) 1946-3022 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20

Teaching English to Young Learners: Supporting

the Case for the Bilingual Native English Speaker
Teacher

Fiona Copland & Eli Yonetsugi

To cite this article: Fiona Copland & Eli Yonetsugi (2016) Teaching English to Young Learners:
Supporting the Case for the Bilingual Native English Speaker Teacher, Classroom Discourse, 7:3,
221-238, DOI: 10.1080/19463014.2016.1192050

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2016.1192050

Published online: 30 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 889

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcdi20
Classroom Discourse, 2016
VOL. 7, NO. 3, 221–238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2016.1192050

Teaching English to Young Learners: Supporting the Case for

the Bilingual Native English Speaker Teacher
Fiona Coplanda and Eli Yonetsugib
a
School of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Scotland; bKids & Teens Department, Berlitz, Japan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The growing number of young children around the world learning L1 and L2; young learners;
English has resulted in an increase in research in the field. Many of the NESTs; classroom discourse;
studies have investigated approaches to learning and teaching, with bilingual teachers
a particular emphasis on effective pedagogies (e.g. Harley 1998; Shak
and Gardner 2008). Other studies have focused on the linguistic gains
of children (e.g. Smojver 2015) and on the complexities researching
children entails (see Pinter 2011 for an excellent overview). However,
despite calls in the literature, few studies have examined in detail
the effects on young children (ages 5–10 years) of the teacher using
different languages in the classroom, that is, L1 and L2. The study
reported here addresses this issue. Drawing on interactional data
from two NEST (native English speaker teacher) classrooms, interviews
with NESTs and homeroom teachers, and from the NESTs’ diaries,
it examines the effects of languages used by two NESTs on young
children’s learning. One NEST understands and can use the children’s
L1; the other only understands and uses L2. We will show that in the
context of the young learner classroom, teachers who know the
children’s L1 have a greater repertoire of teaching skills and so can
provide more language learning opportunities for language learning.
This reality, we believe, supports the case for employing bilingual
teachers wherever possible for the young learner classroom.

1. Introduction
The young learner classroom has become a focus of interest in the last 20 years (Copland,
Garton, and Burns 2014), although research on young learners dates back to at least the
1970s in Europe (for example, Vilke 1976). Interest is partly the result of the growing numbers
of children learning languages worldwide at increasingly young ages (Garton et al. 2011).
Many of the recent research studies have investigated approaches to learning and teaching,
with a particular emphasis on effective pedagogies (e.g. Harley 1998; Shak and Gardner
2008). Other studies have focused on the linguistic gains of children (e.g. Smojver 2015) and
on the complexities of researching children (see Pinter 2011 for an excellent overview). Few
studies, however, have examined in detail the effects on young children (ages 5–10 years)
of the teacher using different languages in the classroom – that is, first language (L1) and

CONTACT  Fiona Copland  [email protected]

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
222    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

second language (L2).1 This is despite Stern’s (1992) call for more research into classroom
language use and learning, recently reiterated by Ellis and Shintani (2013, 245):
There is a conspicuous lack of research that has investigated what effect (facilitative or debili-
tative) use of L1 had on actual learning.
The study discussed here aims to address this issue. Drawing on interactional data from two
native English speaker teacher (NEST) classrooms and from interviews with NESTs and home-
room teachers (HTs), it examines the effects of languages used by two NESTs on young
children’s learning. One NEST understands and can use the children’s L1; the other only
understands and uses the L2. We will show that in this context, the NEST who knows the
children’s L1 has a greater repertoire of teaching skills and so can provide more opportunities
for language learning. This reality, we believe, supports the case for employing bilingual
NEST teachers wherever possible for the young learner classroom.
We begin by reviewing the literature on classroom language with a view to uncovering
the main debates in the area, which we then relate to young learners.

2.  Languages in the language classroom

In a discussion at a recent IATEFL Conference,2 Scott Thornbury suggested that in today’s
English language teaching (ELT) classrooms, whatever the age of the learners, there is little
or no room for monolingual English teachers. He made this claim from three perspectives:
the psycholinguistic, the sociolinguistic and the pedagogic (see too Hall and Cook 2012).
From the psycholinguistic perspective, he argued that the notion that the two language
systems, L1 and L2, are and should be kept separate is neither accurate nor desirable, as
‘each language affects the other’ (Birdsong 2006, 22). V. Cook (2001), cited in Hall and Cook
(2012, 281), concurs and states that learning a new language necessarily entails the lan-
guages being ‘interwoven in the L2 user’s mind’. Ellis and Shintani (2013, 245), in their review
of the second language acquisition literature and its relation to pedagogy, go further when
they argue that ‘linguistic differences between the L1 and the target language do not nec-
essarily result in negative transfer … similarities can facilitate learning’. L1 in class, therefore,
will not disrupt learning the L2.
In the second, sociolinguistic, strand of his argument, Thornbury drew on the work of
Canagarajah (2013) to illustrate the point that multilingualism is the norm for most people
globally, who move between two or more languages as a matter of course in their daily lives.
Separating languages in the classroom, therefore, is neither natural nor desirable and does
not mirror the outside world. This point has been made consistently and effectively in the
literature on bilingual education, which focuses on ‘the complex language practices that
enable the education of children with plurilingual abilities’ (García and Li 2015, 5). For exam-
ple, Creese and Blackledge (2010), in their study of bilingual classes in complementary
schools in the UK, suggest that a flexible approach to using both the first and target language
(‘translanguaging’) should be adopted in language learning classrooms. In a translanguaging
classroom, learners and teachers draw on all their linguistic resources: all languages are
valued and are regarded as making different but equal contributions to language learning
and meaning making.
In the ELT world, the notion that multilingualism is the everyday reality for most people
globally has been less well made, perhaps because a good deal of the research in teaching
English as a foreign language focuses on countries where monolingualism is considered
 Classroom Discourse   223

more ‘normal’, such as Japan. Gottlieb (2005, 6) states: ‘Japanese today is spoken by most of
the 126.5 million people’. This is not to say that other languages are not native to the country
(for example, Ainu, spoken in the north) or that there are no non-Japanese residents in Japan:
as Kubota (2001) points out, in 1999, about 1.2% of the Japanese population were non-­
Japanese. However, in comparison to many countries, bilingualism is not as prevalent. It may
also be because the ELT industry is for the most part predicated on a communicative lan-
guage teaching model, where a target language only classroom is believed to be the ideal
environment for language learning. Nevertheless, other sociolinguistic aspects of classroom
languages have been discussed. For example, Brooks-Lewis (2009) introduces the notion of
scaffolding (Bruner 1975) into her discussion of teaching English to beginner students in
the Mexican university sector. Drawing on her own (negative) experiences of learning
Spanish in an L2-only classroom, she designed a programme of study that began in the
learners’ L1 and only gradually moved to the L2. Learners’ perceptions of this approach were
generally positive; they commented on how learning English was made easier through use
of the Spanish medium and through comparing English with Spanish throughout the pro-
gramme. Brooks-Lewis cites Auerbach (1993) in claiming that the use of L1 ‘reduces anxiety,
enhances the affective environment for learning, takes into account sociocultural factors,
facilitates incorporation of learners’ life experiences, and allows for learner centred curriculum
development’ (Brooks-Lewis 2009, 233).
Creese, Blackledge, and Takhi (2014, 947) also draw on sociolinguistic data to develop
their theoretical position, proposing that all language teachers should pay attention to the
‘social context, power relations, and ideologies in play’ in classrooms and the broader insti-
tution. From the perspective of language use in the classroom, it important therefore to
ensure that what happens in class is appropriate to the socio-educational environment (see
Holliday 1994; Kumaravadivelu 2001).
In discussing his third perspective – pedagogy – Thornbury argued that the learners’ L1
can be a valuable resource in the classroom for learning. He explained how, for example, a
bilingual teacher can contrast shared and new sounds in L1 and L2 in order to help learners
identify areas of difficulty, a technique not available to the monolingual teacher. Such an
approach reminds us of Batstone’s observation that ‘we use what we already know to throw
light on what we do not yet know’ – an idea that, he suggests, ‘is, of course, well established
and has a long and distinguished history’ (Batstone 2002, 221, cited in Brooks-Lewis 2009,
228).
The pedagogic value of L1 has been highlighted by a number of other researchers. For
example, Copland and Neokleous (2011, 270), in their study of private after-school provision
for teenagers in Cyprus, focus on the ‘complexities and contradictions inherent in making
decisions about L1 use’ from the teachers’ perspectives as they struggle to engage learners
who often lack motivation after a day at school. Likewise, Carless (2008, 334) notes that ‘in
order to maintain students’ attention, interest or involvement, contributions in the MT
[mother tongue] needed to be permitted’.
A number of researchers have reiterated the value of using L1 to reduce learner anxiety
(Littlewood and Yu 2011), to engage with students (Copland and Neokleous 2011; Edstrom
2006) and to develop motivation (Brooks-Lewis 2009), among other things (for a full over-
view, see Hall and Cook 2012). In terms of practical teaching activities, it is interesting that
translation as a pedagogic tool has recently re-emerged with Cook (2010) and Kelly and
Bruen (2015) calling for translation work to be re-instigated in the classroom.
224    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

Thornbury, therefore, is not alone in believing that knowing the students’ L1 is an advan-
tage for teachers. Yet his beliefs are not yet mainstream in the ELT world (other speakers at
‘The Language Debate’ favoured a more sustained approach to target language use). As
Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain pointed out as recently as 2005, a single tenet ‘has persisted
throughout the Western language pedagogy revolutions of the twentieth century and
beyond … that the use of L1 is to be avoided in the FL classroom’ (235). There are many
reasons why ‘entrenched monolingualism in ELT’ (Hall and Cook 2012, 297) is pervasive. One
prevalent view, supported by the psycholinguistic literature, is that maximum use of L2
ensures exposure to and therefore uptake of language (see, for example, Turnbull 2001).
Talking in L1, therefore, reduces the amount of time available to talk in L2 and therefore
reduces language learning opportunities. Indeed, despite seeming to evaluate L1 use in a
positive light, Ellis and Shintani (2013, 24) maintain that teachers should
maximise the use of L2 inside the classroom. Ideally this means that the L2 needs to become the
medium as well as the object of instruction, especially in a foreign language setting.
Another view is that NESTs are somehow more effective than local English teachers, as they
are able to maintain a L2-only classroom. A whole industry has grown up around the NEST,
from course books that teach ‘natural’ English (for example, the Natural English series, Gairns
and Redman 2006) to pedagogic approaches such as communicative language teaching
and task-based learning that champion target language use and learning language through
using language. Despite well-established unease in the academic literature on the seeming
advantages enjoyed by NESTs (see for example Mahboob 2010; Pennycook 1994), NEST
schemes continue to thrive and with them classes delivered solely in the target language
(see Copland, Garton, and Mann 2016).
Even those who do not oppose L1 in the classroom tend to focus on what Copland and
Neokleous (2011, 270) call ‘judicious’ language use. In this perspective, the how, why and
when aspects of using L1 are examined and debated, with the view to developing ‘guidelines’
for L1 use in the classroom (e.g. Macaro 2009; Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain 2009). Interestingly,
these debates are of more concern to those investigating the traditional foreign language
classroom than those researching bilingual contexts such as complementary schools, where
translanguaging practices seem to be accepted as socio-culturally appropriate and peda-
gogically effective, rather than something to be regulated.
In terms of young learners, the focus on L2 only classrooms can be attributed to slightly
different beliefs. The first is that children somehow absorb language easily and more quickly
than adults (Singleton and Lengyel 1995). This view, particularly prevalent outside academic
circles, results in stakeholders such as parents and school authorities putting pressure on
teachers to use L2 only in class (see Copland, Garton, and Mann 2016). For example, in South
Korea, the introduction of the policy of ‘Teaching English Through English’ has recommended
that non-native primary teachers use English as a medium of instruction in the classroom
(see Heo 2016), despite some local teachers’ lack of confidence in their own language skills.
The second is that children are easily motivated and will not find a target-only classroom
uncomfortable, a view recently investigated by Macaro and Lee (2013) who found that in
fact in South Korea, the opposite was true: young learners were less comfortable in a target
language only classroom than adult learners. Recent research by Copland, Garton, and Burns
(2014) suggests that motivating young learners is one of the greatest challenges teachers
face (see Djigunovic [2009, 2012] for detailed examinations of motivation from the learners’
perspectives).
 Classroom Discourse   225

In contrast, the argument that L1 is of value in supporting young learners in the early
stages of language learning has been made with some force (by, for example, Inbar-Lourie
[2010]). Enever (2011) cites evidence that target language only classrooms are uncommon
in seven European countries, perhaps because, as Weschler (1997, 5) puts it:
There comes a point beyond which abstract concepts simply cannot be conveyed through
obvious gestures, pictures and commands.
Pre-literate learners, in particular, have little recourse to means of expressing themselves
other than their L1 they do not know how to say what they want in the target language
(Fisher 2005). They cannot look up a word in a dictionary, their narrow range of vocabulary
makes it difficult for them to give an example sentence to clarify their meaning, and even
their ability to use gestures is immature. Often their first language is their only means of
communication with the teacher. For these reasons, they are particularly affected by class-
room language use, so the decision about using L1 or L2 becomes especially salient. However,
with the exception of work cited here, there is very little research that focuses on the effects
of language use in when teaching children, from either the teachers’ or the students’ per-
spective, and thus the debates tend to focus on the adult rather than on the young learner
classroom.

3.  Setting and participants

The research for this paper was conducted at a private elementary school in Japan that has
English in its core curriculum for all grades. Children have one 45-minute lesson of English
a week. However, as English is not part of the official early education curriculum in Japan,
there is no standard system for teaching English at this level and Japanese elementary school
teachers are generally not prepared to teach English to children. Therefore, the elementary
school in this study outsourced their English lessons to a large commercial conversation
school.
While the elementary school itself does not stipulate that the English teachers may not
use Japanese in the lessons, the conversation school has a target language–only policy and,
in order to meet this requirement, hires NESTs directly from overseas. This approach chimes
with current thinking in Japan, where the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Culture (MEXT) is currently actively embracing the direct method (Stewart 2009) partly
through recruiting NESTs in large numbers. Indeed, according to MEXT’s most recent report3,
‘the government aims to secure ALTs4 for all elementary schools by 2019’. Furthermore,
according to the government website that recruits NESTs for public schools,5 ‘formal teaching
qualifications are not required’ and ‘many successful candidates apply with little or no knowl-
edge of Japanese’. This is also the case at the conversation school.
The participants were two NESTs, two first-grade (six-year-old) classes of 64 learners in
total, and two HTs. NEST1 was in her 40s. She had lived and worked in Japan as an English
teacher for 21 years. For most of those 21 years her main focus was teaching adults, but for
the 7 years previous to the study she had worked part time at this elementary school. She
had near-fluent level Japanese language skills. NEST2 was in her 30s and had previously
worked full time at a kindergarten in Japan for 1 year and at this elementary school for
6 months. She thus had some teaching experience, but almost no Japanese. Both teachers
received basic language-teacher training from the commercial language school that
employed them, but neither had any formal training in teaching young learners.
226    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

The HTs were the main classroom teachers of the six-year-old children. HTs in Japan
have a very special relationship with the children in their classes: they teach the majority
of the lessons, guide the children academically, look after the children’s pastoral needs
and support their interpersonal development (Ito 2011). When NESTs are in class, the
HTs mostly remain in the classroom. In this study, the HTs had no part in teaching
the classes but were present usually marking papers, and were available to support the
students if the need arose.

4.  Research methods

This was a qualitative comparative study comprising classroom recordings, interviews and
teacher diaries carried out over a 7-week school term. The lessons of the two NESTs were
recorded (a total of 14 45-minute lessons), and both teachers kept a diary over the term.
Individual interviews were conducted with both NESTs at the end of the term: they were
asked to expand upon or explain the comments in their diaries and to comment on specific
extracts that the researchers had picked out from the recordings. The HTs were also inter-
viewed: they were asked for their observations of the lessons and about their feelings about
having to teach English themselves in the future if and when English becomes an official
part of the curriculum.
As the purpose of this study was to compare the interactions of the NESTs with a view to
focusing on the children’s learning, steps were taken to ensure that the classes were as similar
as possible. To do this, only the first-grade classes were involved as the focus was on revising
what the children had learnt at kindergarten rather than on introducing new words, which
we also felt would put the monolingual NEST (NEST2) at a disadvantage. The majority of
kindergartens in Japan include some English instruction and the most common method is
to use flashcards to teach basic nouns, songs to teach the alphabet and repetition to intro-
duce some very simple phrases. It is usual to teach this basic language in the target language.
Therefore, in all classes, the focus was on revising and practising language rather than on
introducing new language.
As already explained, NEST1 had much more teaching experience than NEST2, so steps
were also taken to limit the effect of this and to ensure that the structure of the classes in
both lessons was broadly similar. Each week there was a detailed lesson plan for the two
NESTs to follow, with the language to be taught and the timings for each activity clearly laid
out. In total there were three first-grade classes. Class A was always taught as a whole group
by NEST1, who was supported by NEST2. There was a 20-minute morning recess between
Class A and Class B, and this time was used by both NESTs to discuss the lesson plan and for
NEST2 to ask questions. Class A then served as a model for teaching classes B and C, which
were split in half and taught by the two NESTs. We recorded the half of Class B that was
taught by NEST1 and the half of Class C that was taught by NEST2. This meant that NEST2
had observed one class and taught one class before her lessons used in this study were
recorded.
Ethical approval to carry out the research was given by a British university’s ethics approval
panel, which ensured that the research was carried out according to ethical principles of
respect for persons, beneficence and justice. The school principal acted in loco parentis in
providing consent for the research to take place in the school. No student received treatment
that was different from normal in classes B and C, the focus of the research.
 Classroom Discourse   227

4.1.  Data analysis

The classroom recordings were transcribed by one of the researchers who is bilingual
in English and Japanese. She also made the translations. The overall focus was the use
of L1 and L2 in the classroom and so instances in which L1 was used by the students in
class were identified, transcribed and extracted. In addition, sections of talk in which
NEST1 used Japanese, or where NESTs had some difficulties communicating with the
students, were also transcribed and extracted. In the interviews, data that focused on
using L1 in the classroom, or on a perceived misunderstanding between teachers and
children, were identified, transcribed, translated into English (in the case of HTs) and
extracted. Likewise, data that described misunderstandings or language use were
extracted from the NESTs’ diaries.
The extracted data sections were then studied and coded on an Excel spreadsheet.
Because both teachers taught the same lesson and co-taught the lesson on one occasion,
the classroom data followed a similar trajectory. This meant that sections of talk were similar
across the data sets and differences therefore easily identified. There were some one-off
instances of L1 use – such as in Week 6, when NEST2 was told by one of the students that
there would be a fire drill during the lesson but she did not understand. However, these
were only occasional; and very soon into the transcription process, three main codes emerged
into which most instances could be categorised. These were:

• Language practice
• Pronunciation
• Opportunities to learn.

5. Findings
5.1.  Language practice
On occasions, NEST2’s inability to understand Japanese led to incorrect items being taught,
as in the following extract, where one of the children had gone to the nurse’s office and was
going to be late. NEST2 was taking the roll:

Extract 1:
NEST2:  [calling out the child’s name during the roll call] Nagomu?

Ss:   後れ[He will be late.]



NEST2:  Oh, he’s absent. Say absent … absent.

Ss:  [repeating] Absent.

Unable to understand what the children are saying, NEST2 presumes that Nogumu is absent.
She then asks students to repeat the word ‘absent’, which suggests to the class that absent
means ‘he will be late’. When the child arrives five minutes into the lesson, NEST2 does not
stop the class to explain that 後れ does not mean absent, but instead continues with the
class.
Of course, there are many reasons why NEST2 made this pedagogical choice. She may
for example have decided not to interrupt the flow of the lesson or considered the incident
228    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

too minor to revisit (in her interview, when asked about this incident, NEST2 was unable to
recall it). Nevertheless, it is also true that NEST2’s inability to understand Japanese meant
that students were taught an incorrect meaning. Furthermore, NEST2 was not able to make
a simple repair as any correction would have entailed quite a complex explanation, which
the children were not capable of understanding in English and which the NEST was not
capable of giving in Japanese.
In contrast, NEST1 often took advantage of her Japanese language skills to check concepts
with learners. After practising new language using the target language, NEST1 would often
ask one of the students to translate before moving onto the practice stage of the lesson. An
example of this comes when she is teaching ‘How old are you?’ (Extract 2). After modelling
the question/answer pattern several times with some of the stronger students, she elicited
a translation before moving on to ask the remaining students, whose English was weaker:

Extract 2:
NEST1:  Okay, so ‘How old are you?’ は。。。[is….?].

Ss:  何歳ですか　　[How old are you?].

NEST1:  Excellent, very good. One more time: How old are you?

Ss:  How old are you?

NEST1:  And “I’m six’ は。。。[is….].

Ss:  六歳です　[I’m six].

NEST1:  Good! Again: ‘I’m six’.

Ss:  I’m six.

NEST1:  How about ‘I’m 7’?

Ss:  七歳です[I’m seven].

In this extract, apart from giving the cue ‘は’ (‘wa’ which translates here as ‘is’ or ‘means’ and
is used to elicit a translation from the students), NEST1 does not speak Japanese, but allows
the students to do so in order to display understanding. Asked in her interview about the
use of translation, NEST1 explained:
I like to make sure that everyone is on the same page before we get into a lot of practice. I know
we are not supposed to use Japanese when we teach, but I think there is no point having them
parroting something that they don’t actually understand.
This is a view held by many language teachers who balance input in L2 with explanation
in L1 (see for example, Copland, Garton, and Mann 2016). Understanding the L1 also allows
NEST2 to provide opportunities to the children to display their learning and so develop their
confidence.
NEST2’s lack of Japanese again plays a part in the following extract. As in NEST1’s class,
the children are required to give their age:

Extract 3:
NEST2:  How old are you?

S4:  I am seven.
 Classroom Discourse   229

NEST2:  Very good.

S5:  え？違うよ six だよ。誕生日二月だからまだ二月じゃないからまだ six だ

よ　[Eh? That’s wrong, you’re six. Your birthday is February and it’s not February
yet, so you are six].

NEST2:  Six? [holding up six fingers] Seven? [holding up seven fingers]

S4:  [holds up six fingers]

NEST2:  Oh well, never mind.

The majority of students in this class had already turned seven, and it may have been that
S4 was simply repeating the answer that s/he had heard most frequently. NEST2 attempts
to clarify the age of the child by holding up fingers to represent the correct number, a com-
mon way for language teachers to check concepts. However, the approach does not seem
to work in this case. Despite S4 holding up six fingers, the NEST appears to give up when
she closes the discussion with ‘Oh well, never mind’.
Not understanding the children’s L1 meant that NEST2 was unable to understand S5’s
explanation and then not able to tell S4 his/her age in English. A more skilled teacher may
have been able to pursue the finger-counting technique to a more satisfactory conclusion,
ensuring that all children in the class could give their age. However, in this case S4 may have
left the class not knowing if his age was six or seven in English – not a desirable learning
outcome, given the topic of the class.
It could be argued that the students in NEST2’s class learn an important lesson about
language learning from this incident: that uncertainty is common. In contrast, perhaps
NEST1 over-scaffolds her students, using the L1 as a crutch to ensure that there is no
ambiguity. However, it may also be true, as Butzkamm (2003, 31) notes, that, ‘studies in
which informal meaning checks were used at the end of a lesson have repeatedly shown
that pupils misunderstand more than their teachers realise’. With young learners in par-
ticular, using the children’s L1 is one way in which informal meaning checks can be made
and in this case the NEST2’s lack of Japanese hinders her ability to support students’
learning.

5.2. Pronunciation
The benefits of starting foreign-language education with very young learners is the subject
of some discussion, but there seems to be some agreement that pronunciation in particular
benefits from an early start (Cameron 2003; Lecumberri and Gallardo 2003; Long 1990). Both
teachers in this study spent time on improving their students’ pronunciation, but in different
ways. Before we discuss these, we introduce some features of Japanese pronunciation to
facilitate the discussion.
Japanese has a syllabary rather than an alphabet, which means each character is made
up of a consonant followed by a vowel; the only consonant that can appear on its own
word-final is ‘n’. Words that finish in consonants other than ‘n’ in English are either given an
extra vowel sound at the end (‘It is a book’ becomes ‘Ito izu a booku’) or the final consonant
is just not voiced (‘car’ becomes ‘ca’, ‘your’ becomes ‘you’).
A common and well-known difficulty is with the pronunciation of /r/ and /l/. The Japanese
sound (らりるれろ) which is usually transcribed as /rᴂ/rɪ/ru/rɛ/roƱ/ is actually made with
230    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

the tongue halfway between the position native English speakers would use to make the
sounds /r/ and /l/. For this reason, when Japanese speakers use their sound らto say the
letter /r/ their tongue is too far forward, so it sounds to us like an /l/. Similarly, when they
use their sound らto say /l/ the tongue is too far backwards, so it sounds like an /r/.
When introducing a new word, NEST1 first of all modelled the correct pronunciation but
then modelled a version using familiar Japanese syllables. After students repeated this, she
moved towards a more natural pronunciation. This process can be seen when one student
asked the class to close their eyes before playing a game of ‘What’s missing?’

Extract 4:
NEST1:  Close your eyes. CUROZU YUA AIZU.

S6:  Curozu yua aizu.

NEST1:  Good. One more time 舌出して (stick your tongue out) Close your eyes (making
a sharp stop on the consonant).

S6:  Clozu yua eyes.

As can be seen, in his/her second turn, S6 produces a more accurate version of the pronun-
ciation than in the first turn. It is not perfect, but the number of extra vowel sounds has been
reduced and progress is made towards an intelligible version through the teacher ‘scaffold-
ing’ the learners (Bruner 1975).
When asked in her interview about this approach to teaching pronunciation, NEST1 said:
I find that when you introduce a brand new word, especially one with difficult sounds for
Japanese students like /l/, /r/, /b/, /v/ and /ð/, it is just easier for them to start from what they
know and then work towards a more natural sound. If you only say it naturally it’s like they just
can’t ‘hear’ it and there is no retention.
HT A concurred that this approach to teaching English was effective:
I think that NEST1’s way of doing it in katakana first was helpful because that’s what the students
know.
‘Phonological interference’ (Crystal 1987, 372) is often viewed in terms of correction, but
the fact is that ‘when we encounter a foreign language, our natural tendency is to hear it
in terms of the sounds of our own language. We actually perceive it differently from the
way native speakers do’ (Wells 2000, 9). NEST1’s knowledge of Japanese, and more par-
ticularly her understanding of which English sounds present a problem physiologically
for Japanese speakers, seems in this case to positively affect the children’s pronunciation
of English.
NEST2 also wanted the students in her class to close their eyes for the ‘What’s missing?’
game. However, she was unable to reference the children’s mother tongue and relied solely
on repetition to improve pronunciation, with uneven results.

Extract 5:
NEST2:  Okay; say ‘Close your eyes’.

S7:  Cro yero.

NEST2:  Close your eyes.

S7:  Curo yooeh.

 Classroom Discourse   231

NEST2:  Close…

S7:  Cro…

NEST2:  …your…

S7:  Yoo…

NEST2:  …eyes.

S7:  Eye.

NEST2:  Close your eyes.

S7:  Curo yoo eye?

The version of ‘close your eyes’ that students eventually produce after six turns is less
recognisable than that produced by the students in NEST2’s class after only two turns.
However, this result is not necessarily a direct result of NEST2 not knowing Japanese. Had
she had advanced pronunciation training, in addition to the training she received from
her employer, she might have approached the task in a different way – perhaps by breaking
the sounds down more effectively and focusing on the production of the vowels, which
may have led to the children producing a more accurate version. Nevertheless, NEST1’s
knowledge of the children’s L1 means she understands what the children find difficult
about English pronunciation, and this enables her to build from their weaknesses in an
efficient and helpful way. This approach is not available to NEST2 because she lacks knowl-
edge of the children’s L1.

5.3. ​Opportunities to learn
Having an understanding of the L1 allowed NEST1 to create learning opportunities for all
her students. The following exchange shows how she acknowledges an attempt at an answer
from a student with weaker English skills and then guides her to the English word and its
pronunciation:

Extract 6:
NEST1:  What colour is this? (holding the purple flash card)

S8:  紫　[purple].

NEST1:  Yes, that’s right. Can you say 紫[purple] in English? … It starts with ぱ　[PA].

Ss:  パプル[pa pu ru].

NEST1:  Can you say that, Ayano? Purple PA PU RU purple.

S8:  Pa pu ru.

NEST1:  Good girl. Purple.

S8:  Purpre.
In NEST2’s class, however, a similar opportunity to support a weaker student was missed
because she did not understand what the student had said.
232    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

Extract 7:
NEST2:  What colour is this? (holding up a red flashcard).

S9:  赤　[red].

NEST2:  What colour is this?

S9:  赤　[red].

NEST2:  Anyone? What colour?

S10:  Red.
Asked about this specific incident in the interview, NEST2 said she thought S9 was saying ‘I
don’t know’ and that she wanted to elicit the language rather than providing the answer, so
she moved to another student. This approach is quite common in communicative classrooms,
as teachers are keen to give students opportunities to produce the target language. However,
in this case, and in others in our data, the contribution from Student 9, whose level of English
is quite low, was not taken up and valued. Instead, a contribution from Student 10, whose
English was more advanced, was elicited. In her interview, HT B said:
There were a couple of slower students in my class who really were not able to follow what was
happening in the [NEST2] class and they didn’t really take part in the lessons.
As this extract shows, even a basic understanding of the child’s L1 would have provided the
NEST with a greater repertoire of techniques for supporting the learning of all children in
the class.
The amount of student–teacher interaction varied greatly in NEST1 and NEST2’s class-
rooms, particularly in the later weeks of the term when the students became more aware
how little Japanese NEST2 could speak. This was also true for conversations that did not
explicitly use the target language but were relevant to it. In the first two lessons, students
tried to engage NEST2 in conversations relevant to the language point in eight instances,
but these interactions soon dropped off as students realised she was unable to respond. In
the final three lessons, there were no instances of conversation with NEST2 initiated by the
students. As HR C explained in the interview:
I never noticed a wall between the students and NEST2, but the atmosphere in the class is a
little different. They don’t include her in their conversations … they know she doesn’t speak
Japanese, so they know it is impossible to include her.
Nevertheless, these conversations had the potential to support language development. In
Week 4, the students were looking in their picture dictionaries at a page of insects in order
to get an example to practise the language point of the lesson, which was responding to
the question ‘What animal do you like?’ with the response ‘I like/don’t like (animal + s)’. During
this activity, over 18 separate interactions with NEST1 were initiated by the students. All
conversations were carried out in Japanese, but each ended with the teacher eliciting a full
English sentence, as in the following extract:

Extract 8:
S1:  先生、毛虫嫌い [Teacher, I don’t like hairy caterpillars].

本当!何で?可愛いじゃない？[Really! Why? They are cute].

NEST1:  

S1:  いや！年中のとき刺された、痛かった　[No way! I was bitten by a hairy cat-

erpillar when I was in kindergarten. It was sore].
 Classroom Discourse   233

それはそうだよね, じゃあ　[I can understand that. In that case] I don’t like

NEST1:  
caterpillars.

S1:  I don’t like caterpillars.

NEST1 was able to follow the conversation in Japanese and then find a way to bring it back
to the target structure of that lesson ‘I like/don’t like (animal + s)’. While this utterance might
not be considered particularly advanced or the amount of English spoken abundant, we
would argue that for these young, low-level children, producing full sentence utterances
with a personal meaning fulfils an appropriate learning outcome. In contrast, in the same
section in NEST2’s lesson, children spoke only to each other, and in total there were only
four utterances using ‘I like/don’t like (animal + s)’ produced compared with nine utterances
produced in the same section in NEST1’s classroom.
The HT in NEST2’s class believed that NEST2’s inability to understand Japanese meant
that she gave mixed signals to the students that left them confused. For example, NEST2
would occasionally scold children for talking, when in fact they were discussing the language
point; and at other times she would allow students to be quite disruptive because she
thought, mistakenly, that they were on task. NEST2 noted this issue herself in her diary:
I notice a big difference in classroom management without Japanese. Understanding what the
kids are talking about – are they discussing the question or being cheeky? – would make a big
difference in terms of knowing when to encourage and when to discipline.
In Extract 11 from Week 4, NEST2 was also teaching the question, ‘What animal do you like?’
and appropriate responses (‘I like/don’t like (animal + s)’), using a picture dictionary. She
walked around the desks of the students at the front of the class asking them to name some
of the animals on the page, but at the back of the class the following conversation was taking
place:

Extract 9:
NEST2:  Okay, please turn to page 114. What animal do you like?

S9:  (Looking at page 120) ほら宇宙だ [Look, it is outer space].

火星に行きたい[I want to go to Mars].

S10:  

宇宙飛行土かっこいいぜ　[That astronaut is so cool].

S11:  

僕は宇宙飛行土になるぞ[I am going to be an astronaut when I grow up].

S10:  

Ss:  (Students at the back of the class talk about space for almost two minutes, getting
louder and louder.)

NEST2:  Listening … listening … quiet, please…listening. Can anyone see an elephant?

Can anyone see an elephant?
When asked about this exchange in the interview, NEST2 said she presumed the children
were talking about the animals; and she wanted to give them some time to consider their
favourite animal, so she let the chat continue. Of course such off-task behaviour is common
in young learner classrooms, as is the use of the L1 between the children, as HR B noted:
My class often misbehaves or talks about off-topic things, so whether or not the teacher is
speaking English or Japanese, the children who misbehave will misbehave.
234    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

However, had NEST2 shared her learners’ L1, she might have been able to persuade the
children to get back on task through providing them with the kind of personalised and
appropriate language input her colleague uses.

6. Discussion
Although these qualitative data have limited application from a psycholinguistic perspective,
they are helpful in developing both the sociolinguistic and pedagogic case for employing
bilingual NESTs to teach English to young learners. From a sociolinguistic perspective, the
data show NEST1 providing a model of the bilingual speaker to children as she moves effort-
lessly between Japanese and English. As with many bilinguals, using two languages is an
everyday reality for this teacher (Canagarajah 2012) and she uses her language resources to
scaffold learners through checking understanding and working with what the children
already know. Furthermore, using both English and Japanese in class demonstrates that
both languages are valued and that the teacher empathises with the learners, a point dis-
cussed at length by Brooks-Lewis (2009). In contrast, using the target language only, which
is NEST2’s only resource, has been shown in these data to provide fewer affordances to
scaffold language learning. At various points NEST2 misunderstood the learners (extract 1),
gave up on trying to understand the learners (extract 3) and disregarded a learner’s contri-
bution (extract 7).
Using two languages seems even more appropriate given the ‘social context’ (Creese,
Blackledge, and Takhi 2014) and educational reality of one 45-minute class of English per
week. What is achievable in this time with such young students is clearly limited, particularly
in the Japanese school context where English is not considered part of the academic cur-
riculum (Yanase 2016). NEST2 was not even able to use the L1 in a ‘judicious’ way (Copland
and Neokleos 2011) to engage the children or enhance learning, which Macaro identifies as
the ‘optimal position’ for L1 use (Macaro 2009, 3).
From a pedagogic perspective, the data suggest that the bilingual teacher (NEST1) is able
to harness more resources than NEST2 to support learning. Her translanguaging practices
(Creese and Blackledge 2010) mean she can be drawn into conversation by the children and
respond to their personalised linguistic needs (extract 8). Furthermore, knowing the chil-
dren’s L1 means she can draw on their phonological knowledge and understanding of
Japanese to support their English pronunciation (extract 4), in the same way as Thornbury
described in ‘The Language Debate’. In doing so, she is able to use what the students know
to Cook support them in knowing what they do not yet know (Batstone 2002), a central
tenet of cognitive theories of learning.
NEST1 is also able to elicit translations in Japanese to check understanding and develop
motivation (extract 2) so that she can be sure that the learners are following the class.
Furthermore, she is able to use Japanese to provide children with weaker English skills the
opportunity to get involved in the class (extract 6). NEST2, on the other hand, cannot under-
stand the students when they use Japanese. This means that she cannot support weaker
learners as effectively (extract 3). Furthermore, she is not able to draw on the sounds of
Japanese to teach the sounds of English (extract 5) and she is unaware when learners are
off task (extract 9).
Taken together, we believe these data extracts and their analyses demonstrate the oppor-
tunities for learning that accrue from the teacher sharing the young learners’ L1. While we
 Classroom Discourse   235

do not deny the importance of training for young learner teachers, these data demonstrate
that a common language provides affordances which can support NESTs in teaching English
effectively.
Furthermore, these data demonstrate the importance of considering sociolinguistic and
pedagogic factors in discussing L1 classroom practices with respect to young learners. While
we have some sympathy for Ellis and Shintani’s (2013, 24) position that from a psycholin-
guistic perspective teachers should ‘maximise the use of L2 inside the classroom … especially
in a foreign language setting’, in the young learner classroom, the focus must always be on
meeting the child’s social and learning needs and developing his/her affinity for and confi-
dence with the L2. In order for this to happen, it is beneficial if teachers can speak the chil-
dren’s language(s).

7. Limitations
The extracts presented here provide an insight into the young language learner classroom
taught by NESTs. However, the NESTs are very different: NEST2 knows little or no Japanese
and has limited classroom teaching experience: NEST1 is fluent in Japanese and has more
classroom experience. L1 skills, training in teaching young learners and experience of teach-
ing young learners are clearly relevant to the success that teachers have in the classroom;
and a research study that investigated these variables over an extended period could pro-
duce useful findings, developing our understanding of effective ways to teach this group of
learners.
It would also be useful to explore the effect of translation in the foreign-language class-
room. While studies of translanguaging seem to suggest positive benefits of the approach
(e.g. Creese and Blackledge 2010), the studies focus mainly on bilingual classrooms rather
than foreign-language ones. Furthermore, studies on the benefits of translation tend to
involve adults, not children, despite evidence that children are less comfortable in target-only
classrooms than adults (Macaro and Lee 2013). Translation, therefore, is another variable
that could be usefully investigated.

8. Conclusion
Globally, the age at which children are learning a language is dropping (Garton, Copland,
and Burns 2011). In Japan, as in some other Asian countries, this has led to a demand for
NESTs to teach English classes (Copland, Garton, and Mann 2016; MEXT6). However, as we
point out earlier in this article, in most cases in Japan NESTs are not required to know the
local language or to have teaching experience. The data we present here suggest that both
these conditions are potentially problematic and although the lack of language education
training is bound to have serious negative consequences, not knowing the language of
young learners can create particular difficulties for effective language teaching. We concur,
therefore, with Thornbury, who concluded his talk in ‘The Language Debate’ by suggesting
that NESTs should actively learn the language of their students in order to provide a learning
experience that is psycholinguistically, sociolinguistically and pedagogically sound. As
Chapman (1958, cited by Thornbury 2015, 58) recognised:
236    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

The influence of the mother tongue must always be strong and the language teacher recog-
nizing this, should search for ways to make this influence help, not hinder, the learning of a
foreign language.

Notes
1. 
We recognise that the term L1 is contentious for a variety of reasons. We use it here as it is the
term commonly used in the literature on this area. Furthermore, the children in this study were
homogenous in that they all had Japanese as an L1.
2. 
The Cambridge Signature Event: The Language Debate (2015).
3. 
http://mext.go.jp/english/topics/1356541.htm.
4. 
ALTs are assistant language teachers, the acronym afforded to NESTs in Japan.
5. 
http://www.jet-uk.org/contact/faq_criteria.php.
6. 
http://mext.go.jp/english/topics/1356541.htm.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the teachers who took part in the study for their time and commitment.
They would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers, whose careful reading of earlier versions of
the paper and insightful comments have contributed to its development.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Auerbach, E. R. 1993. “Reexamining English Only in the ESL Classroom.” TESOL Quarterly 27 (1): 9–32.
Batstone, R. 2002. “Contexts of Engagement: A Discourse Perspective of Intake and Pushed Output.”
System 30 (1): 1–14.
Birdsong, D. (2006) “Age and Second Language Acquisition and Processing: A Selective Overview.”
Language Learning 56 (Supplement S1): 9 – 49.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. 2009. “Adult Learners’ Perceptions of the Incorporation of Their L1 in Foreign
Language Teaching and Learning.” Applied Linguistics 30 (2): 216–235.
Bruner, J. S. 1975. “The Ontogenesis of Speech Acts.” Journal of Child Language 2: 1–19.
Butzkamm, W. (2003) “We Only Learn Language Once. the Role of the Mother Tongue in FL Classrooms:
Death of a Dogma.” The Learning Language Journal 28 (1):29–39.
Cameron, L. 2003. “Challenges for ELT from the Expansion in Teaching Children.” ELT Journal 57 (2):
105–112.
Canagarajah, S. 2013. Literacy as a Translingual Practice: Between Communities and Classrooms. London:
Routledge.
Carless, D. 2008. “Student Use of the Mother Tongue in the Task-Based Classroom.” ELT Journal 62 (4):
331–338.
Chapman, L. R. H. 1958. Teaching English to Beginner Learners. Longman, Green and Co.
Cook, V. 2001. “Using the First Language in the Classroom.” Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (3):
402–423.
Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Copland, F., S. Garton, and A. Burns. 2014. “Challenges in Teaching English to Young Learners: Global
Perspectives and Local Realities.” TESOL Quarterly 48 (4): 738–762.
Copland, F., S. Garton, and S. Mann. 2016. Investigating NEST Schemes around the World: Supporting
NEST/LET Collaborative Practices. London: The British Council.
 Classroom Discourse   237

Copland, F., and G. Neokleous. 2011. “L1 to Teach L2: Contradictions and Complexities.” ELT Journal 65
(3): 270–280.
Creese, A., and A. Blackledge. 2010. “Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for
Learning and Teaching.” The Modern Language Journal. 94 (1): 103–115.
Creese, A., A. Blackledge, and J. Takhi. 2014. “Voice, Register, and Social Position.” Multilingua 33 (5–6):
485–504.
Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Djigunovic, J. M. 2009. “The Impact of Learning Conditions on Young Foreign Language Learners’
Motivation.” In Early Learning of Modern Foreign Languages: Processes and Outcomes, edited by
M. Nikolov, 75–89. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Djigunovic, J. M. 2012 “Attitudes and Motivation in Early Foreign Language Learning.” Center for
Educational Policy Studies Journal 2 (3): 55–74.
Edstrom, A. 2006. “L1 Use in the L2 Classroom: One Teacher's Self-Evaluation.” Canadian Modern
Language Review 63 (2): 275–292.
Ellis, R., and N. Shintani. 2013. Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition
Research. London: Routledge.
Enever, J., ed. 2011. ELLiE. Early Language Learning in Europe. London: British Council.
Fisher, R. 2005. Teaching Children to Think. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes.
García, O., and W. Li. 2015. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Gairns, R., and P. Redman. 2006. Natural English Elementary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garton, S., F. Copland, and A. Burns. 2011. Investigating Global Practices in Teaching English to Young
Learners. ELT Research Papers 11–01. London: The British Council.
Gottlieb, N. 2005. Language and Society in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, G. and G. Cook. “Own Language Use in Language Teaching and Learning.” Language Teaching 45
(3): 271–308.
Harley, B. 1998. “The Role of Focus-on-Form Tasks in Promoting Child L2 Acquisition.” In Focus on Form in
Classroom Second Language Acquisition, edited by K. Doughty, and J. Williams, 156–176. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Heo, J. 2016. “Power, Balance, and Identity: An Insight into Intercultural Team Teaching.” In LETs and
NESTs: Voices, Views and Vignettes, edited by F. Copland, S. Garton, and S. Mann. London: The British
Council.
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inbar-Lourie, O. 2010. “English Only? The Linguistic Choices of Teachers of Young EFL Learners.”
International Journal of Bilingualism 14 (3): 351–367.
Ito, A. 2011. “Enhancing School Connectedness in Japan: The Role of the Homeroom Teachers in
Establishing a Positive Classroom Climate.” Asian Journal of Counselling 18 (1 & 2): 41–62.
Kelly, N., and J. Bruen. 2015. “Translation as a Pedagogical Tool in the Foreign Language Classroom: A
Qualitative Study of Attitudes and Behaviours.” Language Teaching Research 19 (2): 150–168.
Kubota, R. 2001. “The Impact of Globalisation on Language Teaching in Japan.” In Globalisation and
Language Teaching, edited by D. Block, and D. Cameron, 13–28. London: Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2001. “Towards a Post-Method Pedagogy.” TESOL Quarterly 35 (4): 537–560.
Lecumberri, M., and F. Gallardo. 2003. “English FL Sounds in School Learners of Different Ages.” In Age
and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language, edited by M. G. Mayo, and M. G. Lecumberri,
115–134. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Liebscher, G., and J. Dailey-O'Cain. 2005. “Learner Code-Switching in the Content-Based Foreign
Language Classroom.” The Modern Language Journal. 89 (2): 234–247.
Littlewood, W., and B. H. Yu. 2011. “First Language and the Target Language in the Foreign Language
Classroom.” Language Teaching 44: 64–77.
Long, M. H. 1990. “Maturational Constraints on Language Development.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 12 (03): 251–285.
Macaro, E. 2009. “Teacher Use of Code-Switching in the Second Language Classroom: Exploring
‘Optimal’ Use.” In First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, edited by M. Turnbull,
and J. Dailey-O’Cain, 35–79. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
238    F. Copland and E. Yonetsugi

Macaro, E., and J. H. Lee. 2013. “Teacher Language Background, Code-Switching and English-Only
Instructions: Does Age Make a Difference to Learners’ Attitudes?” TESOL Quarterly 47 (4): 717–742.
Mahboob, A., ed. 2010. The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL. Newcastle-upon-Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing Mext Guidelines. http://www.hifriendsblog.com/
Pennycook, A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Routledge.
Pinter, A. 2011. Children Learning Second Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Shak, J., and S. Gardner. 2008. “Young Learners’ Perspectives on Four Focus on Form Tasks.” Language
Teaching Research 12 (3): 387–408.
Singleton, D. M., and Z. Lengyel, eds. 1995. The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition: A Critical
Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Smojver, V. J. 2015. “Croatian Primary School Pupils and English Pronunciation in Light of the Emergence
of English as a Lingua Franca.” In Early Learning and Teaching of English, edited by J. Mihaljevic
Djigunovic, and M. Medved Krajnovic, 37–95. Bristol: Mulitlingual Matters.
Stern, H. 1992. Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stewart, K. 2009. “Will the New English Curriculum for 2013 Work?” The Language Teacher 33 (11): 9–13.
Thornbury, S. 2015. “The Language Debate.” Cambridge English Signature Event Held at IATEFL
Conference, Manchester. https://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2015/session/cambridge-english-signature-
event
Turnbull, M. 2001. “There is a Role for the L1 in Second and Foreign Language Learning, but…” Canadian
Modern Language Review 57: 531–540.
Turnbull, M., and J. Dailey-O’Cain. 2009. “Concluding Reflections: Moving Forward.” In First Language
Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning, edited by M. Turnbull, and J. Dailey-O’Cain, 182–207.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Vilke, M. 1976. “Implications of the Age Factor on the Process of Acquisition of an L2.” Studia Romanica
Et Anglica Zabrabiensia 41/42.
Wells, J. C. 2000. “Overcoming Phonetic Interference.” English Phonetics, Journal of the English Phonetic
Society of Japan 3: 9–21.
Weschler, R. 1997. “Uses of Japanese (L1) in the English Classroom: Introducing the Functional-
Translation Method.” The Internet TESL Journal III/11.
Yanase, C. 2016. “From an Assistant to a Team Member: A Perspective of a Japanese ALT at Primary
Schools in Japan.” In LETs and NESTs: Voices, Views and Vignettes, edited by F. Copland, S. Garton and
S. Mann. London: The British Council.