A literature review on using the first language in a second or foreign language classroom

 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015 95 
A LITERATURE REVIEW ON USING THE FIRST LANGUAGE 
IN A SECOND OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM 
Trinh Thai Van Phuc 
Ho Chi Minh City Open University 
Email: phuc.ttv@ou.edu.vn 
(Received: 06 /06 /2015; Revised: 23/07 /2015; Accepted: 14 /08 /2015) 
ABSTRACT 
The paper seeks to review on the use of a first language or a mother tongue (L1) in a 
second or foreign language (L2) classroom. The report examines permissible frequencies, 
practical purposes and influential factors of the L1 employment in the L2 classrooms. The 
findings provide that (i) there are mixed results of L1 use among novice and experienced 
teachers or low-level and high-level students and among different language teaching approaches 
followed by (ii) three main categorized reasons facilitating the role of L1. The review further 
suggests strong factors influencing the use of L1, namely task types, proficiency levels, teaching 
experience, timetabling, pedagogical tools, learning strategies, teachers’ beliefs and learners’ 
perceptions. The review closes with conclusion and classroom implications. 
Keywords: first language (L1), second/ foreign language (L2), the use of L1. 
1. Introduction 
Employing the first language (L1) in a 
second language (L2) classroom has recently 
sparked off considerable debate (Klapper, 
2006) and proposed opposing positions 
(White & Storch, 2012) in L2 language 
learning and teaching. On the one hand, the 
L2 learning is actively facilitated by the use of 
L1 (Levine, 2003; Jingxia, 2010) and (2) L2 
teaching-and-learning process is positively 
influenced (Iqbal, 2011). Additionally, (3) 
students’ communication problems can be 
handled significantly by employing the L1 in 
a L2 classroom (Moghadam, Samad, & 
Shahraki, 2012; Jamshidi & Navehebrahim, 
2013). Besides, Cenoz & Gorter (2011) assert 
that students’ sense of identiy can be strongly 
fostered by utilizing the mother tongue since 
the native language is inevitably the 
“language of thought” (Macaro, 2005, p. 68). 
Indeed, the dominated viewpoints of anti-L1 
attitudes for several decades have been 
challenged by recent attention to the role of 
L1 and of normal process of multilingual 
functioning (Scott & Fuente, 2008). 
Generally, the use of L1 is advocated in light 
of some facilitative roles in the process of the 
second language learning and teaching and of 
inevitable occurrence among the language 
teachers who share the same L1 with the 
learners. 
On the other hand, (i) L1 interferences 
should be avoided in an L2 classroom by 
advocating a policy of the only-and-sole target 
language use so that a pure target language 
exposure can be available to learners 
(Lightbown, 2001; Chaudron, 1988; Ellis, 
1984). In the same vein, Lee (2013) and 
MacDonald (1993) echoes that (ii) students’ 
deprivation to opportunities of receiving and 
producing the target language can be caused 
by not supporting the only L2 policy. 
96 A Literature Review On Using The First LanguageIn A Second Or Foreign... 
Additionally, Nation (2003) cautions that (iii) 
students’ motivation can be reduced if 
overusing the L1, and L2 should be 
maximized as much as possible in a 
classroom. Furthermore, Ellis (2008) warns 
that (iv) the overuse of the L1 should be 
admonished because students have a 
classroom context as their only place to be 
immersed in the L2. In general, the L2-only 
policy has strongly been promoted on account 
of the valuable opportunities of pure L2 
exposure and students’ motivation 
enhancement. 
Currently, English is regarded as an 
official foreign language in Vietnam and is 
supposed to be fully used and instructed in all 
EFL classrooms although none of official 
documents are released to regulate the 
frequency of Vietnamese use in the EFL 
classrooms. As a consequence, the rationale of 
employing L1 in EFL classrooms mainly 
relies on teachers’ beliefs and practices. 
Personally, as a teacher of English language, I 
sometimes feel guilty that the use of 
Vietnamese (L1) makes students lack of the 
English language (L2) exposure. Even more, 
they seem to undervalue the opportunities of 
using the L2 when required because of the 
habit of overusing the L1. For some other 
times, the use of L1 can save my times of 
instructions for other classroom activities 
because of our few weekly classroom 
meetings. Besides, while L2-only policy is 
given in my classroom, it gives my students a 
burden on communicating and intermingling 
in complex activities and understanding 
clearly what they are required to do. This 
investigation practically sheds light on my 
understanding about some advantages and 
disadvantages of using the L1 in my EFL 
classrooms. 
The paper consequently and 
subsequently seeks to review on the 
frequencies, purposes, and influential factors 
for employing the L1 in an L2 classroom. In 
doing so, the review begins with the 
frequencies of L1 utilization in which mixed 
findings and different approaches with 
different L1 use frequencies are mainly 
presented. Next, the three main categories of 
purposes of L1 utilization are illustrated 
before influential factors including teachers 
and learners’ beliefs are provided. The 
reasons for monolingual approach advocating 
the L2-only policy will be reported then. The 
review closes with classroom implications and 
conclusion. 
2. Literature Review 
Frequencies of L1 Use 
The findings from various studies 
related to the frequency of L1 use are quite 
mixed. For instance, Macaro (2001) and 
Guthrie (1987) show a low level (under 20 per 
cent) of teachers’ first language use during 
class time while Edstrom (2006), Kim & 
Elder (2005), Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie (2002) 
and Duff & Polio (1990) highlight great 
variations among teachers’ use of the first 
language (from 10 to 100 per cent). 
Additionally, Crawford (2004)’s study shows 
that teachers’ L1 use gradually decreases from 
low level of L2 competence to intermediate-
or-upper levels. In other words, the utilization 
of L1 by the teachers in beginner-level classes 
is higher than that of L1 use in intermediate-
or-upper-level classes. In the same vein, 
experienced teachers report a lesser 
proportion of L1 use in comparison with 
novice teachers do (Kraemer, 2006). 
Generally, Campa & Nassaji (2009) reveal the 
frequency use of L1 varies among teaching 
contexts while White & Storch (2012) explain 
different analysis methods of teacher talk 
(e.g., word count, turn count, or both) 
significantly lead to mixed findings. 
Regarding the L1 use by students in a 
classroom, in a study of Yan, Fung, Liu, & 
Huang (2015) investigating the context of 
target English language (L2) use of Chinese 
students, the results show that the frequency 
 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015 97 
of students’ L1 use significantly increases 
from junior high school students to senior 
ones because there are more emphasis on 
preparing students for national university 
entrance examination. However, in another 
study examining frequency of L1 use in 
students’ interaction by Swain & Lapkin 
(2000), the higher L1-use frequency of lower 
proficiency students is reported. In contrast to 
Swain & Lapkin (2000), Storch & Aldosari 
(2010) investigate the L1 utilization by 15 
pairs of college students with different 
combinations of proficiency levels. A finding 
shows a low frequency of L1 use (under 20 
per cent) in which the L1 frequency use is not 
influenced by proficiency levels but by 
students’ beliefs for an opportunity for the 
practice of the target language. 
Besides, different approaches of 
language teaching and learning cause different 
frequency of L1 use (Richards & Rodgers, 
2001). According to Richards & Rodgers 
(2001), some approaches fully promote the 
use of L1 while others partially allow or 
completely forbid the L1 utilization. 
Regarding the full allowance of L1 
employment, Grammar-Translation Method 
(GTM) comes first on the list. More 
specifically, GMT fully approves the use of 
L1 in which reading literacy through 
translation exercises and deductive grammar 
rules are focused. Second, Community 
Language Learning (CLL) is another one 
promoting the full employment of the L1. 
CLL strongly relies on the language 
interpretive equivalents between the two 
languages. Students learn the L2 through a 
flow of L2 messages and its parallel meaning 
of a flow of L1 messages. 
In contrast, Natural Approach (NA), 
Total Physical Response (TPR), Direct 
Method (DM), and Audiolingualism (ALM) 
ban the use of L1 in the classroom outright. 
These approaches confirm that (1) the target 
language should be instructed and used 
exclusively in the classroom and (2) overt L1 
use for grammatical instruction should be 
deemphasized. 
Besides, some other approaches 
partially allow the use of L1 such as 
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), 
Content Based Instruction (CBI), Cooperative 
Learning (CL), Task Based Language 
Teaching (TBLT), Suggestopedia, etc. These 
approaches take a neutral/ or no stance on 
employing the L1 in an L2 classroom. The use 
of L1 is flexible and various among the 
teachers. Generally, the facilitative role of L1 
is regarded differently in different approaches 
and based on different situations and purposes 
of teaching (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). 
In brief, the use of L1 varies among 
novice and experienced teachers or low-level 
and upper-level students and differentiates 
among teaching approaches. Different 
frequency rates of the L1 use suggest that the 
use of L1 relies on different classroom 
contexts and circumstances. 
Purposes of L1 Use 
Regardless of mixed findings from a 
permissible frequency of L1 use, reasons 
utilizing the first language are mainly 
presented in three categories, namely, 
cognitive, pedagogical and affective reasons. 
For cognitive reasons, language learners 
inevitably relate a plethora of information 
about their first language (such as syntax, 
lexical sources, etc.) to learn a second 
language (Rell, 2005). Consequently, the 
utilization of the mother tongue significantly 
enables their available asset to promote the L2 
learning process. Macaro (2009) and Ellis 
(2005) backs up Rell (2005)’s notion that 
there is a connection between the L1 and the 
L2 conceptual stores. Both the two resources 
of lexical items are activated when a language 
is processed. Particularly, for non-balanced 
bilinguals, such as a beginner language 
learner, the connections with the first 
language is much stronger to the ones of the 
98 A Literature Review On Using The First LanguageIn A Second Or Foreign... 
second language; as a consequence, it would 
be an ignorance if avoiding the use of the L1 
during the second language learning process. 
For the pedagogical issues, the 
allowance of the first language use serves a 
humanistic function (Atkinson, 1987; Rell, 
2005) when it acknowledges the learning as 
truly for adults with live experiences instead 
of child-like mimicking and guessing meaning 
from puppets and stuffed animals. In addition, 
the L1 use can make instruction clearer for 
students to complete the tasks and exercises 
successfully (Chambers, 1992). Moreover, 
using the L1 significantly save time for other 
activities and practices in the classroom 
(Tang, 2000). Furthermore, promoting the use 
of the L1 essentially increase students’ 
participation in the classroom (James & 
Bourke, 1996). Besides, Polio & Duff (1994) 
provided five categories of L1 utilization 
consisting of grammar instruction, classroom 
management, administrative vocabulary, 
solidarity reflection, and teachers’ English 
practice among which the most practical and 
pedagogical purpose of using L1 reported is 
related to vocabulary, particularly for 
vocabulary translation (Rolin-Ianziti & 
Brownlie, 2002) and administrative 
vocabulary (Kraemer, 2006). 
For the affective themes, Polio & Duff 
(1994) asserts that the teachers resort to use 
the L1 to strengthen relationship with 
students, to build rapport and to play a role as 
an “empathetic peer” (p. 318) since the close 
relationship between the teachers and the 
students helps to improve the students’ 
learning. Besides, an opportunity to use the 
native language in a second/ foreign language 
classroom helps to reduce students’ anxiety 
(Casado & Dereshiwsky, 2001), to increase 
students’ confidence (Campbell, 1997), and to 
fit students’ learning preferences (Schweers, 
1999). 
Generally, the reasons of using L1 are 
categorized into three intentional themes. L1 
use firstly helps learners’ available cognition 
assets facilitating their L2 learning. The 
employment of L1 in an L2 classroom 
secondly is beneficial for pedagogical 
practices of language teachers. Finally, the 
utilization of L1 plays an affective role to 
establish a good and personal rapport among 
teachers and students, which helps to motivate 
students’ learning, reduce their anxiety, and so 
on. Indeed, these purposes are seemingly in 
accordance with Macaro (2009)’s three main 
underlying theories supporting the facilitative 
role of L1, namely cognitive processing 
theory, sociocultural theory and code-
switching in the naturalistic environments. 
 Factors affecting the employment of L1 
Beside the areas of research 
investigating purpose and frequency use of 
L1, there is another area of research 
examining influential factors for the use of 
L1. In a study by Duff & Polio (1990) 
observing thirteen teachers in two classes, a 
number of possible factors are listed, namely 
exercise types, department policy, and teacher 
training nature. Indeed, exercise-type is found 
as an influential factor for the teachers’ 
utilization of L1 by subsequent studies of 
Rolin-Ianziti & Brownlie (2002) and Kim & 
Elder (2005) in which grammatical exercises 
employ more L1 than task-based ones. In the 
same vein, Scott & Fuente (2008) conduct 
two conversation analysis studies focusing on 
grammatical-form tasks of two groups (06 
pairs) of French and Spanish foreign language 
students in which L1 is allowed for one group 
(03 dyads) and L2 only is employed for the 
other group (the other 3 dyads). The results 
reveal that the group employing only L2 have 
a burden to produce and process 
metalinguistic talk while the group approving 
the use of L1 have more learners’ 
participation. This highlights the correlation 
between grammatical tasks and the use of L1 
in the study. In another study by Nakatsukasa 
& Loewen (2015) examining the teachers’ use 
 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015 99 
of English (L1) in a Spanish (L2) classroom 
during form-focused episodes (FFEs) at a 
university in the USA. The ... classroom management, few meeting 
schedules, teachers’ beliefs, students’ 
perceptions, learning strategies of the shared-
L1 group and contextual factors lead to the 
utilization of the L1. 
Reasons for the monolingual approach 
Different from those advocating the L1 
employment in an L2 classroom or the 
bilingual approaches, ones supporting the 
monolingual approaches or the L2-only in an 
L2 classroom provide some following 
reasons. First, Cook (2001) as cited in Anh 
(2010) assert that the process of L2 learning is 
similar to the one of L1 learning; 
consequently, exposure to the L2 as much as 
possible becomes of paramount importance in 
the L2 learning. As a result, L2 should be 
used solely in the classroom so that (i) 
students can be exposed purely to the target 
language (Ellis, 1984; Chaudron, 1988; 
Lightbown, 2001) and (ii) students will not 
miss an opportunity to be exposed to the only 
classroom context of L2 exposure (Lee, 2013; 
Ellis, 2008; MacDonald, 1993). Second, 
depending on the use of L1 makes students 
get used to the L1 use which negatively 
affects their appreciation of the value of target 
exposure they are exposed to (Bouangeune, 
2009). Third, Sharma (2006) confirms that 
students will learn to internalize, to think and 
to use the L2 if they are exposed much to the 
L2 input. Forth, Nation (2003) warns that 
overusing the L1 probably demotivates 
students to use the L2. Fifth, the use of L1 can 
have a negative transfer to the second 
language learning (Anh, 2010; Osswald, 
2010). Sixth, the use of L1 can challenge the 
teachers’ viability of their teaching methods 
and their responsibilities to improve students’ 
target language (Carless, 2008). Another 
reason disapproving the L1 use is that the L1 
is often used inconsistently and randomly 
(Bruhlmann, 2012). One more important 
feature advocating the monolingual approach 
is the importance of having native L2 
speakers in L2 classroom since they are ‘the 
best embodiment of the target and norm for 
learners’ (Phillipson, 1992, p. 194 as cited in 
Anh, 2010). This philosophy has deeply 
influenced the mindset of a large numbers of 
learners, policy makers, parents, and training 
institutions (Osswald, 2010). In fact, having 
opportunities to learn with native speakers of 
the target language can help learners’ 
language learning experience considerably. In 
brief, L2-only policy has its own advantages 
in language learning process and positively 
influences mindsets of a great number of 
language learners, policy makers, and 
language centers/ institutions. 
Personally and currently, it is seemingly 
inevitable for the employment of the L1 in my 
L2 classroom with a frequency rate from ten 
to twenty per cent probably because we share 
the same L1. Among the categorized reasons, 
the purpose of my L1 utilization mainly for 
pedagogical and affective issues in which 
classroom management, abstract word 
translation, and close rapport mainly cause the 
use of my Vietnamese. Besides, it seems to 
me that my L1 employment depends on task 
types and the students’ level of proficiency in 
which grammar and low-level proficiency 
students lead to my decision of using the L1 
to save time for other activities, to clear up 
misunderstandings and to avoid ambiguity in 
the classroom. 
In addition to the employment of the L1 
by the teacher, from my observation, the use 
of Vietnamese by students definitely occurs as 
a learning strategy and a cognitive tool during 
the speaking task in which background 
knowledge and topic ideas are activated, 
discussed and negotiated before they present 
to their classmates even when the L1 use is 
being banned outright. In writing tasks, it is 
probable that the students utilize the L1 to 
 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015 101 
brainstorm their ideas before actual writing as 
well. It is probably presumable that the only 
reason for their Vietnamese use in an English 
classroom is that they take the available assets 
of the share-L1 community for granted. This 
review has significantly shed brighter light on 
my personal issues and provided me with the 
following concluding remarks. 
3. Concluding remarks 
Like two sides of a coin, using the L1 in 
the L2 classroom has its advantages and 
disadvantages as well as contains 
contradictions and complexities (Copland & 
Neokleous, 2011). A review has shown a 
mixed finding in the frequency of the L1 use 
and suggested considerable variations of the 
L1 frequency differently used among the 
classroom contexts and circumstances. 
However, the use of L1 should be carefully 
and consistently employed so that it is 
positively beneficial for the L2 learning. 
Another important implication from the 
purposes of L1 use is that it is used 
productively for cognitive enhancement, 
pedagogical tools and close rapport 
establishment among teachers and students. 
Consequently, L1 should not be prohibited 
outright; but it should be consciously used 
with understanding and based on pedagogical 
decisions. Indeed, there are two beneficial 
pedagogical strategies encouraging the 
production of target language presented by 
Carless (2008), namely language monitor and 
incentives. 
Since there have been contradictory 
perceptions and beliefs on the L1 use among 
teachers and students, there is a necessity of a 
clearer institutional policy on the inclusive use 
of L1. By doing this, teachers are seemingly 
able to measure their perceptions of L1 
inclusion compared with the institutional 
policy, to eliminate their ambiguity as well as 
to increase their efficacy. Furthermore, the 
emergent use of L1 occurring inevitably in a 
L2 classroom helps instructors, policy makers 
and language learners develop an awareness 
of natural occurrence of L1 in a classroom 
context (Moore, 2013). As a result, a method 
possibly optimizing the benefit of L1 and 
providing a framework of appropriate time of 
L1 use in the L2 classroom should be 
presented (Samar & Moradkhani, 2014). 
REFERENCES 
Anh, K. H. (2010). Use of Vietnamese in English language teaching in Vietnam: attitudes of 
Vietnamese university teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 119-128. 
Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: A neglected resource. ELT Journal, 
41(4), 241-247. 
Bouangeune, S. (2009). Using L1 in teaching vocabulary to low English proficiency level 
students: a case study at the university of Laos. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 186-
193. 
Bruhlmann, A. (2012). Does the L1 have a role in the foreign language classroom? A review of 
the literature. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 55-80. 
Campa, J. C., & Nassaji, H. (2009). The amount, purpose, and reasons for using L1 in L2 
classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 742–759. 
Campbell, I. (1997). Using English to support second language learning. Babel, 32(2), 10-14. 
102 A Literature Review On Using The First LanguageIn A Second Or Foreign... 
Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal, 
62(4), 331-338. 
Casado, M., & Dereshiwsky, M. (2001). Foreign language anxiety of university students. 
College Student Journal, 35(4), 539-551. 
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Focus on multilingualism: a study of trilingual writing. The 
Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 356-369. 
Chambers, G. (1992). Teaching in the target language. Language Learning Journal, 6(1), 66-67. 
Chau, E. (2007). Learners' use of their first language in ESL classroom interactions. TESOL in 
Context, 16(2), 11-18. 
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. 
Cambridge: CUP. 
Copland, F., & Neokleous, G. (2011). L1 to teach L2: complexities and contradictions. ELT 
Journal, 65(3), 270-280. 
Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the foreign language classroom: target language or the 
learners’ first language? Regional Language Centre Journal, 35(1), 5–20. 
Duff, P., & Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language 
classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154–166. 
Edstrom, A. (2006). L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. Canadian 
Modern Language Review, 63, 275–292. 
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language 
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352. 
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development: A study of classroom interaction and 
language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. 
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP. 
Grim, F. (2010). L1 in the L2 classroom at the secondary and college levels: a comparison of 
functions and use by teachers. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(2), 
193–209. 
Guthrie, E. M. (1987). Six cases inclassroom communication: A study of teacher discourse in the 
foreign language classroom. In J. Lantolf, & A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in Second 
Language Learning: Focus on the Classroom. NJ: Ablex. 
Iqbal, L. (2011). Linguistic feature of code-switching: a study of Urdu/English bilingual teachers' 
classroom interactions. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(14), 
188-194. 
James, C., & Bourke, J. (1996). Mother tongue use in bilingual/bidialectal educaction: 
Implications for Bruneian Dwibahasa. Journal o f Multilingual and Multicultural, 17(2-4), 
248-261. 
Jamshidi, A., & Navehebrahim, M. (2013). Learners use of code switching in the English as a 
foreign language classroom. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(1), 186-190. 
 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015 103 
Jingxia, L. (2010). Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied 
Linguistics Journal, 3, 10-23. 
Kim, S. H., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the foreign 
language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher talk. Language 
Teaching Research, 9(4), 355–380. 
Klapper, J. (2006). Understanding and developing good practice: Language teaching in higher 
education. CILT, The National Center for Languages. 
Kraemer, A. (2006). Teachers’ use of English in communicative German language classrooms: 
A qualitative analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 435-450. 
Larsen-Freeman. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford: 
OUP. 
Lee, P. (2013). English only’ language instruction to Japanese university students in low-level 
speaking & listening classes: An action research project. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from 
Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first 
language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern Language Journal, 
87(3), 343-364. 
Lightbown, P. M. (2001). L2 instruction: Time to teach. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 598-599. 
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: 
theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 531–548. 
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. 
In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and 
Contributions to the Profession (pp. 63-84). New York: Springer. 
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: exploring 
‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull, & J. Dailey-O'Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and 
foreign language learning (pp. 35-49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 
MacDonald, C. (1993). Using the target language. Cheltenham: Mary Glasgow. 
Mcmillan, B., & Turnbull, M. (2009). Teachers’ use of the first language in french immersion: 
Revisiting a core principle. In M. Turnbull, & J. Dailey‐O’Cain (Eds.), First language use 
in second and foreign language learning (pp. 15-34). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 
Moghadam, S. H., Samad, A. A., & Shahraki, E. R. (2012). Code switching as a medium of 
instruction in an EFL classroom. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 
2219-2225. 
Moore, P. J. (2013). An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in the English-as-a‐
foreign‐language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 239-253. 
Nakatsukasa, K., & Loewen, S. (2015). A teacher’s first language use in form-focused episodes 
in Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 
133 –149. 
104 A Literature Review On Using The First LanguageIn A Second Or Foreign... 
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL 
Journal, 5(2), 1-8. 
Osswald, I. (2010). Examining principled L1 use in the foreign language classroom. Boca Raton, 
Florida: UMI Dissertation Publishing. 
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language 
classrooms: a qualitative analysis of english and target language alternation. The Modern 
Language Journal, 78(3), 313-326. 
Rell, A. B. (2005). The role of the first language (L1) in the second language (L2) classroom. 
Los Angeles: UMI Publishing company. 
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd 
ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Rolin-Ianziti, J., & Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign 
language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 402–426. 
Samar, R. G., & Moradkhani, S. (2014). Codeswitching in the language classroom: A study of 
four EFL teachers’ cognition. RELC Journal, 45(2), 151 –164. 
Schweers, C. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. Forum, 37(2), 6-13. 
Scott, V. M., & Fuente, M. J. (2008). What's the problem? L2 learners' use of the l1 during 
consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100-
113. 
Sharma, K. (2006). Mother tongue use in the English classroom. Journal of NELTA, 11(1-2), 80-
87. 
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an 
EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355–375. 
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task‐based second language learning: The uses of the first 
language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. 
Tang, J. (2000). An empirical study o f the use of the mother tongue in the L2 reading class. 
Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 45-58. 
White, E., & Storch, N. (2012). En français s’il vous plaît: a longitudinal study of the use of the 
first language (L1) in french foreign language (FL) classes. Australian Review of Applied 
Linguistics, 35(2), 183-202. 
Yan, E. M., Fung, I. Y., Liu, L., & Huang, X. (2015). Perceived-target-language-use survey in 
the English classrooms in China: investigation of classroom-related and institutional 
factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-22.