Key Concepts and Theories Origins of Monolingual Principle

Translanguaging Theory

Translanguaging refers to the process of using one’s full linguistic repertoire ‘to gain knowledge, to make sense, to articulate one’s thoughts and to communicate about using language’ (Li 2011; García and Li 2014). It is a term that specifically calls for reconceptualising the communicative strategies that multilinguals display in social and classroom settings. Although the term was initially developed to delineate language use in bilingual classrooms in Wales, it can be extended as a powerful and practical framework to interpret hybridity and creativity of language use in second language classrooms, where the high degree of diversity in students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds means that they are able to draw upon a huge database of linguistic resources (Canagarajah 2011a, b; Li 2017). As García (2011) argued, language classrooms in the twenty-first century are moving from monolingualism towards translingualism, encouraging flexible concurrent language use rather than continuing to keep students’ linguistic knowledge separate or treating prior languages as non-existent or purely negative influences. This study will adopt translanguaging as the conceptual framework to understand and analyse the emerging pedagogy in communicative CSL classrooms.

Research Paradigms and Approaches

The above key terms and concepts have contributed to a paradigm shift towards a post-monolingual era, where scholars’ research attentions have turned to the multilingual reality and the functional use of students’ L1 in L2 teaching and learning. These studies can be categorised into three major types: (1) the amount and patterns of L1 and L2 in actual classroom setting; (2) teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards using monolingual and multilingual pedagogies; and (3) students’ perspectives of learning under monolingual and multilingual approaches.

Functions of L1 Use in L2 Classroom

Numerous studies have emerged to examine the naturalistic L1 use in L2 classrooms in two main kinds of context: (1) how much L1 is used in L2 classrooms and (2) what instructional functions are L1 used for (Lin 2013). The language used in the classroom and the amount used is a major criterion for differentiating monolingual and multilingual instructional models. First of all, in terms of quantity, studies (e.g. Duff and Polio 1990; Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie 2002) have measured the relative amounts of L1 and L2 use. It was found that L1 was commonly used even in the situations where exclusive L2 use was required, such as immersion programmes. These studies have shown a clear discrepancy between the monolingual policy and the actual multilingual practices in second language classrooms. Secondly, focusing on the pedagogical functions of L1, Lin (2013) pointed out that previous studies on code-switching have provided sufficient descriptive taxonomy for the functions of L1 derived from findings in classroom observations. A few frameworks to promote the functional role of existing linguistic resources in the classroom have been presented, discussed and revised (e.g. Polio and Duff 1994; Swain and Lapkin 2000). Cook (2001), in his seminal article on language use in the classroom, identified three positive roles that L1 would play in an L2 classroom, and these included ‘conveying meaning’ and ‘organizing the class’. Apart from this, there are plenty of other empirical studies investigating how to effectively employ students’ L1s and common languages to accomplish practical teaching goals. Furthermore, Lin (2015) summarised these studies in a three-dimensional framework of language use in classrooms: ideational function (e.g. teacher using L1 to explain L2 grammar), textual function (e.g. teacher using L1 to mark out transitions between different activity types) and interpersonal function (e.g. student using L1s to negotiate shifts in frames and footings).
In English-speaking countries, plenty of studies have been carried out to analyse classroom language practices as a method of evaluating the effectiveness and development of language programmes for ethnic minority students. One of the most important national studies was presented by Ramirez (1991) and was recommended by Cummins (1992) as the ‘only research report that both opponents and proponents of bilingual education accept as methodologically valid’ (p. 91). The eight-year study compared the effectiveness of immersion and bilingual programmes implemented in the USA and documented classroom language use patterns in immersion and bilingual programmes for minority students. In this study, ‘classroom language use patterns’ refer to which language is used within the classroom by teachers and students and for what specific teaching and learning purposes. The Ramirez report evidently demonstrated that sustained promotion of students’ L1s and familiar languages can be an effective approach to academic excellence and refuted the assumption that intensive exposure to L2 is the best way of teaching minority students. Adopting classroom observation as the main method for data collection, the study developed a Language Observation Measure (LOM), which focused on not only the general functions, but also a few important speech acts of second language teachers (e.g. question, feedback and correction) and students (e.g. responses and initiations). As a quantitative report, the study presented the average number of utterances that teachers and students produced in L1 and L2 for different teaching and learning purposes. However, this national project lacked an explanatory lens to further investigate teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards monolingual and multilingual policies in L2 teaching and learning.
In the CSL learning context, Wang (2014) observed language use patterns from four classes taught by four Chinese teachers and found similar results. The four CSL teachers used English as a lingua franca for a good range of purposes. In brief, three major areas of pedagogical functions of L1 have been identified. They are the ‘explanatory function’ (e.g. initiated by teachers for explaining grammar or new words), the ‘managerial function’ (e.g. initiated by teachers for managing the classroom and building rapport with students) and the ‘interpersonal function’ (e.g. initiated by students for peer meaning negotiation). It is also noted that although Chinese-only is the predominant language policy for most CSL classrooms, students’ L1s and English (as a lingua franca among different L1 speakers within one class) are found to be widely used in various quantities and qualities in CSL classrooms. Research in CSL is exploring the most effective pedagogy to deal with the increasing number of multilingual learners (Moloney and Xu 2015). In a similar way to the long-standing focus of English as a foreign language research, the key contentious question in CSL is also how much L1 and L2 are used, and how should L1 be used to facilitate classroom language learning.