Multilingualism in the English-language Classroom: Pedagogical Considerations

Author(s): JIM CUMMINS

Source: TESOL Quarterly , June 2009, Vol. 43, No. 2 (June 2009), pp. 317-321
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27785008

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27785008?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly

This content downloaded from

83.208.242.202 on Sat, 27 Jan 2024 18:14:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THEAUTHOR

Joshua A. Fishman is a sociolinguistic researcher, teacher, lecturer, and author. In

addition to his many well-known journal and book publications, he is the recipient of
an honorary DHL from the Free University of Brussels, the Premi Institut Linguapax
(Barcelona), and a multivolume festschrift presented by colleagues and students in
honor of his 80th birthday. An annual prize in his name has just been announced by
the National Association for Heritage Languages of the USA and will be awarded for
the first time in 2009.

REFERENCE

Fishman, J. A. (1966). Language loyalty in the United States: The maintenance and perpetu
ation of non-English mother tongues by American ethnic and religious groups. The Hague,
The Netherlands: Mouton.

Multilingualism in the English-language Classroom:

Pedagogical Considerations
JIM CUMMINS
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

This article addresses the issue of whether TESOL should clearly artic
ulate a set of pedagogical principles that challenge the assumption that
English language teaching (ELT) should be conducted monolingually
through English. This monolingual principle (Howatt, 1984) emphasizes
instructional use of the target language (TL) to the exclusion of stu
dents' home language (LI), with the goal of enabling learners to think
in the TL with minimal interference from the LI. The monolingual prin
ciple initially gained widespread acceptance more than 100 years ago
in the context of the direct method and has continued to exert a strong
influence on various language teaching approaches since that time (Yu,
2000).
There are strong empirical and theoretical reasons to challenge
the monolingual principle and articulate a set of bilingual instruc
tional strategies that more adequately address the challenges of English
language and academic development. The focus is on school contexts
rather than on the teaching of English to adults, but similar arguments
are equally relevant in many adult learning contexts (e.g., Auerbach,
1993).

SYMPOSIUM: IMAGINING MULTILINGUAL TESOL 317

This content downloaded from

83.208.242.202 on Sat, 27 Jan 2024 18:14:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TESOL AND THE MONOLINGUAL PRINCIPLE
Throughout the 40-year controversy in relation to bilingual education
in the United States, TESOL has consistently articulated its support for
bilingual education as a legitimate policy option for the education of
bilingual and language-minority students. TESOL has joined proponents
of bilingual education in refuting the argument that there is any opposi
tion between ESL and bilingual education. For both groups of advocates,
ESL represents an essential component of an effective bilingual educa
tion program.
TESOL, however, has not elaborated a position in relation to an equally
important, albeit less volatile, issue, namely, the extent to which the teach
ing of English and other academic content in English-medium classes
should be conducted entirely through English. This is not a critique of
TESOL; although the issue surfaced in the TESOL Quarterly and other
publications in the 1990s (Auerbach, 1993; Lucas & Katz, 1994; Phillipson,
1992), it has gained momentum as an urgent equity issue in United States
and international classrooms only in recent years (e.g., Cummins, 2007;
Garcia, 2008; Manyak, 2004). Thus, the goal of this article is to highlight
the issue as an appropriate focus of policy consideration and articulation
by TESOL.
Failure to articulate a position on the issue of the use of monolingual
versus bilingual instructional strategies risks linking TESOL with the nor
malized assumption that monolingual instructional strategies are self
evidently desirable when teaching English to children and adults.
Currently, most ELT professionals and policy makers associate themselves
explicitly or implicitly with some form of communicative or task-based
language teaching. As Cook (2001) has pointed out, these approaches
perpetuate the monolingual principle by consigning students' LI to invis
ibility within the classroom:

Recent methods do not so much forbid the LI as ignore its existence alto
gether. Communicative language teaching and task-based learning meth
ods have no necessary relationship with the LI, yet. . . the only times the
LI is mentioned is when advice is given on how to minimize its use. The
main theoretical treatments of task-based learning do not, for example,
have any locatable mentions of the classroom use of the LI. . . . Most
descriptions of methods portray the ideal classroom as having as little of
the LI as possible, essentially by omitting reference to it. (p. 404)

Cook (2001) argues for judicious use of the LI in the teaching of sec
ond and foreign languages but cautions that despite the legitimacy of
using the LI under certain conditions, "it is clearly useful to employ large
quantities of the L2, everything else being equal" (p. 413).

318 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

83.208.242.202 on Sat, 27 Jan 2024 18:14:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL RATIONALE FOR
BILINGUAL INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES IN
ENGLISH-MEDIUM CLASSROOMS
Some of the major points articulated by various researchers to argue
for bilingual instructional strategies or translanguaging (Garcia, 2008) are
outlined below:

A fundamental principle of learning states that learners' pre

existing knowledge is the foundation for all future learning
(Bransford, Brown, 8c Cocking, 2000). Because English Language
learners' (ELL) prior knowledge is encoded in their LI, particu
larly in the early stages of English language learning, activation
and building on prior knowledge requires the linking of English
concepts and knowledge with the learner's LI cognitive schemata
(Cummins, 2001, 2007; Garcia, 2008; Lucas & Katz, 1994). This
linking cannot be done effectively if students' LI is banished from
the classroom.
Translation skill is widely found among bilingual children by late ele
mentary school (Malakoff 8c Hakuta, 1991; Orellana, Reynolds,
Dorner, & Meza, 2003). Malakoff and Hakuta highlight potential
pedagogical applications, noting that "translation provides an easy
avenue to enhance linguistic awareness and pride in bilingualism,
particularly for minority bilingual children whose home language is
not valued by the majority culture" (p. 163).
For languages such as English and Spanish that have many cognate
connections, a focus on cognates can enhance students' knowledge
of TL vocabulary (Nagy, Garcia, Durgunoglu, 8c Hancin-Bhatt, 1993).
This practice is an example of teaching for transfer, which draws on the
general principle of conceptual interdependence across languages
(Cummins, 2007).
Encouraging newcomer students to write in their LI and, working
with peer, community, or instructional resource people to translate
LI writing into English, scaffolds students' output in English
and enables them to use higher order and critical thinking skills
much sooner than if English is the only legitimate language of intel
lectual expression in the classroom (Cummins, 2007; Reyes, 2001).
Students' dual language books can be published in hard-copy
form (and checked out by other students from the school or class
room library) or made available to a wider audience through web
publication (see, e.g., Baron [2001], and The Multiliteracy Project
[n.d.]).

SYMPOSIUM: IMAGINING MULTILINGUAL TESOL 319

This content downloaded from

83.208.242.202 on Sat, 27 Jan 2024 18:14:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Research has consistently supported the efficacy of bilingual diction
ary use for vocabulary learning as compared with monolingual dic
tionary use or simply learning from context alone (Laufer & Kimmel,
1997; Luppescu Sc Day, 1993; Prince, 1996).
Legitimating students' LI as a cognitive tool within the classroom
challenges the subordinate status of many minority groups and
affirms students' identities, thereby promoting what Manyak
(2004) has called identities of competence (Cummins, 2001; Garcia,
2008).

CONCLUSION

The perpetuation of the monolingual principle as "common-sense

knowledge" in countries around the world is associated with multiple
forms of injustice to both teachers and learners of English. It reinforces
the empirically unsupported and socially problematic assumption that
native speakers are superior English language teachers as compared with
nonnative teachers. This assumption is also implicated in the discourse,
very audible in countries such as Germany and the United States, that stu
dents' home languages are a major cause of underachievement and
should thus be undermined as early as possible through immersion in
English (Esser, 2006; Porter, 1990). Not least, it consigns newcomer
students to a nonparticipatory role in the regular (and sometimes ESL)
classroom until they are capable of expressing themselves without embar
rassment in English, a process that can take several years for many stu
dents. Bilingual instructional strategies have demonstrated in multiple
research studies that they are capable of addressing these policy and peda
gogical concerns, and they thus warrant serious consideration by policy
makers and practitioners. An endorsement by TESOL of these approaches
would challenge the educational and social injustices associated with the
monolingual principle. It would also reposition TESOL as a strong advo
cate for empirically supported and equity-oriented approaches to English
language teaching.

THEAUTHOR

Jim Cummins is a Canada Research Chair in the Department of Curriculum, Teaching

and Learning of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. His research focuses on literacy development in multilin
gual school contexts as well as on the potential roles of technology in promoting lan
guage and literacy development. In recent years, he has been working actively with
teachers to identify ways of increasing the literacy engagement of learners in multilin
gual school contexts.

320 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from

83.208.242.202 on Sat, 27 Jan 2024 18:14:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REFERENCES

Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining ESL only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
27, 9-32.
Baron, N., Chow, P., Dale, V., Kelly, A., Solomon, B., Wong, B., et al. (2001). The dual
language showcase. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thornwood Public School.
Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://thornwood.peelschools.org/Dual/.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 57, 402-423.
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society
(2nd Ed.). Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual
classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221-240.
Esser, H. (2006). Migration, language, and integration (AKI Research Review 4). Berlin:
Social Science Research Center, Programme on Intercultural Conflicts and Societal
Integration (AKI). Retrieved December 21, 2007, from http://www.wzb.eu/
zkd/aki/files/aki_research_review_4.
Garcia, O. (2008). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Boston:
Blackwell.
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Laufer, B., 8c Kimmel, M. (1997). Bilingual dictionaries: How learners really use them.
System, 19, 217-224.
Lucas, T., 8c Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate: The roles of native languages in
English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28,
537-562.
Luppescu, S., 8c Day, R. R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning.
Language Learning, 43, 263-287.
Malakoff, M., 8c Hakuta, K. (1991). Translation skills and metalinguistic awareness in
bilinguals. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 141
166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manyak, P. C. (2004). "What did she say?": Translation in a primary-grade English
immersion class. Multicultural Perspectives, 6(1), 12-18.
The Multiliteracy Project, (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2009, from http://www
.multiliteracies.ca/ index.php.
Nagy, W. E., Garcia, G. E., Durgunoglu, A., 8c Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish
English bilingual students' use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 25, 241-259.
Orellana, M. E, Reynolds, J., Dorner, L., 8c Meza, M. (2003). In other words:
Translating or "para-phrasing" as a family literacy practice in immigrant house
holds. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 12-34.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Porter, R. P. (1990). Forked tongue: The politics of bilingual education. New York: Basic
Books.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus
translations as a function of proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 80, 478-493.
Reyes, M. de la Luz. (2001). Unleashing possibilities: Biliteracy in the primary grades.
In M. de la Luz Reyes &J. Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives
on literacy for Latino students (pp. 96-121). New York: Teachers College Press.
Yu, W. (2000). Direct method. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language
teaching and learning (pp. 176-178). New York: Routledge.

SYMPOSIUM: IMAGINING MULTILINGUAL TESOL 321

This content downloaded from

83.208.242.202 on Sat, 27 Jan 2024 18:14:02 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms