Are languages linked?

Language learning

Many teachers and parents still hold what they think is a common sense view about learning a second language (L2) such as English. This view assumes that the best way to learn English is to spend as much time as possible speaking, reading, and writing it. (See also the inquiry Is bilingualism a problem? .) This has been termed the time-on-task theory and is based on the idea that maximum exposure to the L2 is required for successful language acquisition and learning to occur.

On the basis of the time-on-task theory, a student’s first language (L1) is often regarded as ‘interfering’ with learning English (as in language interference ) and is actively discouraged. This amounts to a subtractive view of bilingualism . Consequently, many Pasifika L1 speakers have been told over the years to stop using their Pasifika language and start speaking English, particularly when they are at school. (See the inquiry Attitudes to bilingualism .)

The idea that continuing to speak an L1 will impede or delay the acquisition of an L2 is based on the balanced scales or container view of the mind. As discussed in Is bilingualism a problem? , this view of the mind is wrong – languages are not housed in separate containers that compete against each other for space. Instead, a central processing system in the brain integrates them, and as a result, knowing and developing one language actually helps to develop another.

In the 1970s, Jim Cummins developed a now-widely accepted theory of language interdependence to explain this phenomenon. The interdependence principle has significant implications for schools because it challenges the still-widespread view that the first languages of bilingual students should not be part of the teaching and learning process. Cummins argued that the level of competence a child can attain in an L2 largely depends on the level of competence already achieved in their L1. To put it another way, the more developed the L1, the easier it will be to develop the L2. The less developed the L1, the more difficult the achievement of bilingualism will be. (See the video clip Languages are interdependent for some examples of these language links.)

Cummins' theory stands in complete opposition to the time-on-task theory because it means that, wherever possible, students should actually be encouraged to continue speaking and learning their L1 in order to more effectively learn their L2. The first language is not an obstacle to learning a second language but a crucial basis for it. (See also the video clip Bilingualism .) When you think about it, this makes good sense: We regard prior knowledge as a crucial basis for every other sphere of teaching and learning, moving students from the unknown to the known, and it is no different for language learning.

Return to top

Subsequent studies by other researchers have consistently reinforced the interdependence principle. For example, Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier (2002) conducted a major study in the United States, tracking the educational achievement of bilingual students over a number of years and in a wide variety of educational programmes, including English-only, English as a Second Language (ESL), and bilingual programmes. They found that the most gains for bilingual students in both their L1 (usually Spanish) and L2 (English) were to be found in bilingual programmes led by appropriately qualified bilingual teachers. The students who gained the least were in English-only programmes (with no L1 input), while ESL programmes came in between. Numerous other large international studies have replicated this general pattern. (See May, Hill, and Tiakiwai, 2004, for an extended discussion.)

While bilingual students’ first languages can obviously be used most extensively in bilingual education contexts, there is still much that teachers can do to encourage the use of their L1 in mainstream classrooms. As the interdependence principle shows, if a bilingual student’s L1 is not drawn on at all, they will not learn English as effectively as they might otherwise.

The interdependence principle also shows that many bilingual students do not achieve to the same level as other students because they often find themselves in subtractive schooling environments where their L1 is devalued and/or ignored. This pattern is reflected clearly in Thomas and Collier’s study, where the schools whose students performed the least well were the ones that ignored their L1 entirely, concentrating instead on immersing them in English language instruction (the time-on-task theory). This pattern is also evident in New Zealand, since Pasifika and other bilingual students, the majority of whom are in mainstream contexts, are disproportionately over-represented at the lowest levels of English language achievement. (This is discussed in Why are Pasifika languages keys to learning? in relation to the home language gap .)

In the past, such differences in achievement have been ‘explained’ by attributing the problem to the students’ bilingualism, family, or community background, in a process of deficit thinking or subtractive bilingualism. However, what we now know, largely based on the interdependence principle, is that it is the way we teach bilingual students, and the degree to which we allow them to draw on their first language, that will determine their long-term educational success.

The challenge in mainstream contexts is to find as many ways as possible for Pasifika (and other) bilingual students to be able to draw on and use their L1 in the teaching and learning process. Even if their Pasifika language is not their L1, the advantages of the interdependence principle still apply.¹ Some examples of this process are discussed in the video clip Being bilingual . These possibilities are also explored more fully in the inquiries Affirming biliteracy and Affirming Pasifika languages in the mainstream.

Return to top