In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Introduction:Showcasing the Translingual SL/FL Classroom: Strategies, Practices, and Beliefs
  • Shelley K. Taylor and Cecelia Cutler

In an article published in this journal 15 years ago, Vivian Cook (2001) argued that it was time to question the time-honoured view that the native language (NL) should be avoided in the classroom by teachers and students. The justifications for this perspective hinged on a questionable compartmentalization of the two languages in the mind. The conventional wisdom has been that the NL has no place in the second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) classroom and that teachers should focus on getting students to think and interact exclusively in the target language (TL). In Linguistic Imperialism, Phillipson (1992) debunks five fallacies that are foundational in the field of applied linguistics, among them, the monolingual fallacy or the idea that a second or foreign language is best taught monolingually. Questioning monolingual pedagogies is at the heart of the investigations assembled in this Special Issue.

Such monolingual (and potentially subtractive) pedagogies treat learners’ minds as if the NL were irrelevant for learning a SL/FL. Interest in additive pedagogies that embrace and build on rather than negate the NL are gaining ground, and this is reflected in a range of new paradigms such as the concept of “translanguaging” defined by Otheguy, García, and Reid (2015, p. 281) as “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named . . . languages.” Adopting a translanguaging perspective demands a different set of research questions centred on how best to capitalize on learners’ existing linguistic repertoires, which is the motivation for this Special Issue: Showcasing the Translingual SL/FL Classroom: Strategies, Practices, and Beliefs.

The reasons that many SL/FL teachers are taught to avoid the NL stem from the “monolingual principle,” or the idea that use of the NL should be minimized or even banned, so as to replicate NL acquisition and maximize SL/FL input (Howatt, 1984). Yet, as Cummins (2007) points out, there is little empirical support for these assumptions. Indeed, several research studies have shown that language learning [End Page 389] occurs more quickly and effectively with NL support, while others have pointed to the connection between NL proficiency, particularly literacy and the transfer of these skills to the SL/FL classroom (Cook, 1995; Cummins, 2000, in press; Dressler & Kamil, 2006; Greene, 1998; Hall & Cook, 2012; Krashen, 1992; Rossell & Baker, 1996; Soto Huerta, 2012). Furthermore, several research studies concur on the importance of bilingual children’s NL for overall personal and educational development (Baker 2000; Cummins 2007; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000).

Since Cook wrote his piece in 2001, there has been increasing recognition that monolingual second language teaching methods need to be challenged (Piccardo, 2013) and experts in the field of SL and FL teaching and learning are increasingly questioning the monolingual ideology of SL/FL teaching (Cenoz & Gorter, 2014; Conte & Meier, 2014; Cummins, 2007, 2009; García, 2009; García & Sylvan, 2011; Phillipson, 2009; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2009, Taylor, 2009; Taylor & Snoddon, 2013). Translanguaging and translingual pedagogies have been proposed as an alternative to prevailing monolingual methods. We adopt Baker (2011)’s definition of translingual teaching as “making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two [or more] languages” (p. 288). This leads us to the question of what the state of the field is regarding translingual methods and approaches to teaching SLs/FLs, which we outline in the following section.

State of the field

The question of whether the NL has a place in the SL/FL classroom has been the subject of a great deal of theorizing and some empirical scholarship over the past two decades (Piccardo 2013). Much of this work has focused on cultural and identity issues facing language minority students in transitional bilingual/assimilationist settings that may or may not recognize NL rights (Auerbach, 1993; Cummins, 2000, 2007, 2009; García, 2009; Greene, 1998; Lotherington, 2013; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas & Heugh, 2012; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2016; Skutnabb-Kangas, Phillipson, Mohanty, & Panda, 2010; Taylor, 2014). There has also been an interest in exploring the utility of using the NL among majority language...

pdf

Share