Monolingualism has dominated EFL classrooms for a long period of time (Cook 1999; Cummins 2007; May 2014). Researchers have traditionally viewed monolingualism as enhancing and supporting the students’ learning cycle through extensive and strict exposure to and interaction with the target language. They have claimed that it is a practice imitating how children acquire their first language via exposure (Cook, 2001). In addition, they have considered the classroom to be the favorable venue in terms of providing a controlled instructional environment. Moreover, according to García and Otheguy (2020, p. 18), “When elite monolinguals develop as bilinguals, they most often do so in school, where they are taught what is labeled as a second language, to be used completely separately from what is called their first language or mother tongue”. Thus, there is an insistence on sticking to the target language-only policy. This belief raised the need to highlight the impact of monolingualism on the community in general and the context of education in particular (Vallejo & Dooly, 2020). The issue with monolingualism was chiefly that:
…second- and foreign-language pedagogy became focused on correcting errors and eradicating interference. Students acquiring what is regarded as a foreign or a second language were expected to be two monolinguals in one. (García & Otheguy, 2020, p. 18)
Therefore, developing and maintaining an inclusive linguistic repertoire does not tend to be supported in such contexts. In contrast, a more flexible view that would allow the students’ whole linguistic repertoire to be used in EFL classrooms is gradually gaining prominence. This view, termed plurilingualism, “tries to capture the dynamic and developing linguistic repertoire of an individual user/learner” (Piccardo, 2019, p. 184). The prospective shift from monolingualism to plurilingualism has brought them into the light and begged the question of whether or not plurilingualism is worth considering. Allowing students’ mother tongue to be used in the classroom will potentially enhance the students’ comprehension ability and foster their metalinguistic awareness. Indeed, Cook (2001, p. 405) argues that “dismissing the L1 out of hand restricts the possibilities for language teaching” and it has been argued that exploiting students’ full linguistic repertoire can accelerate the learning process generally, including learning new languages (Haenni Hoti & Heinzmann, 2012; Moore, 2016; Ò Laoire & Singleton, 2009). This interaction has led to the emergence of:
…a wide spectrum of nomenclatures: plurilingual modes, heteroglossia, languaging, translingual practices, translanguaging, transglossia, crossing, code-meshing, polylanguaging, metrolingualism and transidiomatic practices. (Vallejo & Dooly, 2020, p. 2)
Indeed, bi/multilinguals do not keep each language in a separate compartment, but build up a unitary communicative competence. However, it is worth noting that employing plurilingualism in EFL classrooms is not a straightforward practice as there are some challenges with regard to how it can be implemented (Boeckmann, 2012). These challenges differ among societies and between educational contexts, depending on their specific characteristics, but they all share the same main issues discussed in this article.
In addition, studies conducted by Ekman (2015) and Iannacci (2008) found that prohibiting students’ mother tongue in EFL classrooms will support students’ language development. This claim, according to Cook (2008) can only hold for the sake of avoiding students’ becoming confused in their learning cycle. Moreover, other researchers have found that abandoning students’ mother tongue can hamper their ability to retain their previous knowledge (Cimbganda & Mokgwathi, 2012; Cook, 2001). Thus, students will not be able to benefit from their full inherited learning skills. English learning in EFL classrooms should incorporate students’ local context, language and culture, which are part of their identity (Jiménez, López-Gopar, & Morales, 2014). In this regard, the mother tongue can serve as a useful linguistic resource in learning the target language. Thus, the view that “English is perceived as having a distinct linguistic reality and, as such, can be taught without any reference to the existing language repertoire of the child/student” must be reassessed and reconsidered (García & Otheguy, 2020, p. 19).
A very recent study conducted by Dooly and Vallejo (2020) concerned how to integrate plurilingual practices in language education. The study took place in Spain and used data collected through a workshop with 15 primary and secondary teachers. In the workshop, the teachers were given some activities and topics to discuss and debate concerning plurilingualism and pedagogy. The study found that “languages are not treated as separate resources and yet these teachers have been hired to ensure the learning of one specific language” (p. 93). Although the teachers were open to the application of plurilingualism in the classroom, they found it challenging to relinquish the idea of the primacy of students’ exposure to the target language. In addition, they were concerned about employing a practice that might go against the will of policymakers and students’ parents, who still believe in the separation of languages.
2.1 The policy of EFL in Saudi Arabia
English is not only a communicative tool, but also a cultural and social marker. Stakeholders are very keen to enhance and support students’ learning; however, they are reluctant to accept major changes, such as allowing EFL classrooms to be flexible with regard to the inclusion of the students’ mother tongue. This is probably due to their concern that providing EFL classrooms with more linguistic diversity might hinder students’ linguistic development and detract from their focus on the target language (Barnawi & Al-Hawsawi, 2017). In other words, they are more concerned with the expected challenges than thinking of the potential benefits of creating a diverse linguistic environment that EFL classrooms currently lack. Barnawi and Al-Hawsawi (2017) urge policymakers in Saudi Arabia to deepen their understanding of the linguistic situation in the country, respond to what scientific research has revealed and design a strategic plan that includes the interests of Saudi nationals. Indeed, the “internationalization of education” and the “globalization of English” are crucial nowadays and plurilingualism as a practice should be implemented. By having a strict language allocation policy, school policy that the students’ mother tongue is prohibited in EFL classrooms is officially reinforced (García & Otheguy, 2020).
Following the establishment of official education in Saudi Arabia in 1925, English was first incorporated in the educational system in 1937. This early introduction indicates the eagerness of the government to include English in its national sphere. However, the inclusion of the use of English in the Saudi community was minimal. The Saudi community was considered very conservative compared to neighboring countries in the surrounding region. This was partially due to a misunderstanding, namely that English posed a cultural and social threat to Arabic, which Muslims—including Saudis—consider a divine language. After the events of 9/11 and later the birth of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS, and the allegations of links to Arab and Islamic countries, pressure on Saudi Arabia to liberalize its education system was at its peak. As a result, a major transformation of the whole education system began, including the use of English. Over time, English has become the “gatekeeper to positions of prestige in society” (Pennycook, 1995, p. 39). Indeed, English is now considered a social and professional asset, especially among Saudi youth.
Empirical and theoretical analysis of English language use in EFL contexts provides policymakers with a holistic view of its application, the implications of its use, and how they can be addressed. For instance, Zaid (1993) conducted a study regarding the actual practice of English language in Saudi public schools. He employed questionnaires and classroom observations, focusing on the practice of teachers and the opinions of school supervisors in Saudi Arabia. He found that the teaching method applied was mainly grammar translation and students’ participation was minimal. Therefore, students’ communication skills were not being developed. Another study conducted by Zafer (2002) regarding teachers’ preferred teaching strategies in the classroom in Saudi public schools again found that grammar translation was the strategy most commonly employed. However, it is widely assumed that the current situation in English language classrooms is quite different. Saudi families send their children to private English institutions and some send them abroad during the summer holidays to improve their English skills. This is a dramatic shift, as it indicates the openness of the community and acceptance of English as a global language.
2.2 Theoretical lens
Knowledge is socially constructed and attained via interaction and communication. As for the present study, the plurilingual perspective holds that an individual’s whole linguistic repertoire should be allowed everywhere and without restriction for the sake of achieving communicative competence. This emerged from:
…Anglophone contexts with highly multilingual and multicultural populations where bilingual education and the empowerment of linguistic minorities have been long pursued objectives (e.g. the UK, Canada, bigger cities in the USA). In terms of language use, it has been explained as “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages.” (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015, p. 283)
Plurilingualism appears to incorporate socio-political and epistemological aspects that may signal language users’ own orientations, contextualizations, and co-construction of roles in interaction (see Lüdi, 2020). It is seen as emergent, situated, and undergoing constant evolution and change (Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 1997), and is employed in a creative way in which speakers can expand their linguistic repertoire and improve their communicative competence (Vallejo & Dooly, 2020). Indeed, the situation in the context of this study where EFL teachers are in constant exposure with their students indicate their own linguistic orientation. The exploitation of the students’ full linguistic repertoire in classroom is essential for their social and political development. This development enhances their awareness of diversity even beyond languages. Another facet is that plurilingualism focuses from an emic perspective on what plurilingual speakers do with their communicative resources. In the context of this study, the target language is considered a foreign language. Analyzing the linguistic repertoire available in classroom from an emic perspective boosts teachers’ understanding towards their students in which they can improve their students’ proficiency in the target language. As pointed out by García and Otheguy (2020, p. 19):
…the linguistic conception centered on named languages that represent different cultures and political states has had its most influence in foreign language education. In these classrooms, students considered monolingual representatives of the nation-state, are taught an additional language, which is always seen as second to their first. Foreign language education programs reinforce the construction of named languages as spoken in specified, and foreign, nation-state(s), the idea being that the learning of this language will contribute to increased communication between people of different countries.
Thus, the traditional idea of the separation of languages is strongly reinforced by foreign language education programs and policymakers, ultimately constituting a considerable obstacle to the notion of plurilingualism.