Key Concepts and Theories Origins of Monolingual Principle

Second Language Learning Theories

Cummins’ (1991) Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis posits the existence of a common proficiency underlying all languages. It is argued that certain aspects of L1 knowledge can be positively transferred during the process of L2 acquisition. This model became the fundamental theoretical grounding for recognising the benefits of using the student’s L1 in L2 teaching.
Cook (2001) revisited Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypothesis and emphasised that L2 exposure is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee L2 learning. The L2 input must be internalised, and here judicious and theoretically principled L1 use can facilitate intake and thereby contribute to learning. Therefore, students’ prior knowledge in L1 can be of great significance in improving the internalisation process. A growing number of scholars have been prompted by this to soften their insistence on using L2 only and have begun to advocate a multilingual pedagogy.
Multilingual pedagogy sees the student’s L1 as the ‘greatest asset any human being brings to the task of L2 learning’ (Butzkamm and Caldwell 2009: 66), and the use of L1 is ‘instrumental to the emotional and academic well-being’ of the students (Swain 1986: 101). Moreover, Butzkamm (1998: 81) argued that systematic episodes of switching to the L1 can ‘function as a learning aid to enhance communicative competence in the L2’. Although it is generally accepted that ‘maximizing the use of the L2 in the classroom is beneficial in providing linguistic exposure’ (Butzkamm and Caldwell 2009: 18), many studies have shown that the use of L1 as a MoI can enhance students’ comprehension (Ramirez 1992; Willig 1985). Plenty of studies have provided evidence that a monolingual pedagogy in L2 teaching is ‘undesirable, unrealistic and untenable’ (Levine 2011: 70).

Sociocultural Theories

Vygotsky’s (1978) Sociocultural Theory supports the idea that L2 development is a mediated process, driven by social interaction. In brief, people learn language for social communication. Whenever we participate in social activities, we participate in conversational ways of acting and being that is already deeply saturated with significance (Atkinson 2002). Vygotsky also argued that the transfer of functions from the social domain to the cognitive plane occurs within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Within the ZPD, cognitive development occurs not only during a child’s development but also throughout one’s life.
The use of L1 works as an indispensable source of scaffolding that activates the ZPD, where semiotically mediated interactions lead to development. In essence, code-switching in conversations can be especially helpful in situations where the learner needs affordances for learning or simple maintenance of their social position in conversations with their teacher and other learners. Drawing on this notion, Antón and DiCamilla’s (1998) study reported that students’ L1 could be effectively deployed to provide scaffolded help in a study of native English speakers in a six-week intensive Spanish class. In a similar fashion, Kim (2008), and Littlewood and Yu (2009) found that depriving students of L1 support by immersing them completely in a new L2 environment is one possible source of demotivation. In brief, studies adopting this perspective have provided evidence for the positive use of L1 and invited more studies to focus on classroom language use (Turnbull 2001).
Wenger’s (2000) Social Learning Theory and the idea of Communities of Practice has buttressed the multilingual approaches as they advocate the idea that learning is a socially constructed event, and that learning happens when people get together to pursue a shared goal. A community of practice is therefore a ‘social institution of sharing knowledge and information, a forum for achieving satisfaction and in the many tasks of life, of learning in many subtle ways that are both explicit and implicit’ (Levine 2011: 41). To use a mediating language in an L2 class and have students engaged in classroom activities critically allows a large part of the language learning process to remain in the control of the learners and thus meaningful to them.