Monolingualism: an uncongenial policy for Saudi Arabia's low-level learners

Remember … no Arabic please. No everyday expressions like kabsa or salat. No Ramadan, no insha Allah.1 This is the infamous ‘no Arabic’ rule here in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), a policy that strictly prohibits L1 usage in the class. Proponents maintain that teachers must be inflexible in prohibiting the use of L1 because L1 usage interferes with L2 acquisition. By being inflexible, teachers facilitate the best English language learning conditions. Interestingly, however, my experience in implementing the policy has convinced me otherwise. In a number of instances, L1 proved to be an asset in class, not a liability. As such, I firmly believe that monolingualism needs to be re-examined in terms of its effect in helping learners develop positive attitudes towards L2, motivating them, and providing them with the basis necessary to build solid foundations. In debating monolingualism, I am not a pioneer. Dealing with immigrant populations in Massachusetts, Auerbach (1993) raised a number of important issues that L1 usage ‘validates the learners’ lived experiences’ and ‘allows … for language learning to become a means of communicating ideas rather than an end in itself’. Most recently, Cummins (2009) sounded the call for seriously considering pedagogical strategies which incorporate (not consign to invisibility) students' L1 in the classroom. However, previous debate has tended to mesh all proficiency levels and teaching contexts together (ESL and EFL), whereas I maintain that monolingualism is particularly ineffective in low-level homogeneous (EFL) settings.