Translanguaging: Some final comments

Translanguaging: Some final comments

Michael Rabbidge adds his final comments and presents a list of suggested readings

Over the last few weeks, we as a team of writers, and you as willing readers, have engaged in some useful discussions around the topic of translanguaging. I’d like to take this opportunity to respond formally to my fellow bloggers and to the reader responses as well.

I’d like to start with Jono’s discussion as it raised some important concerns that I think a lot of teachers may have regarding translanguaging’s position on English-only policies. I’d like to respond to this by saying that the core of translanguaging is based on having no hard rule on any language use in the classroom, and that instead it seeks to provide learners and teachers with options that suit their own individual needs. Therefore, I imagine a translanguaging approach could at times embrace interactions that favor the use of only one language, if the students and teachers so desire it.

But in reality, a lot of students and teachers may not be equipped to succeed in such an environment early in their development. So, freedom from top-down policy constraints does prove beneficial in such cases. And this is actually shown to be true in more recent research on translanguaging, which highlight how the freedom to use their full linguistic repertoires improves student participation in the learning process. Research further suggests that this improved participation positively impacts the acquisition of strategic, linguistic, pragmatic and sociocultural competence in the target language.

Pedagogical translanguaging is defined by Cummins (2022, p. 34) as ‘instruction designed to enable students to use their entire multilingual repertoire in carrying out academic tasks and activities’.  Scholars such as Ofelia Garcia discuss how pedagogic translanguaging strategies help teachers understand the potential benefit of full repertoire use at different points in a lesson. I also have produced such work that highlights how different translanguaging strategies benefit learners and teachers in EFL contexts. Fears that translanguaging strategies may mean less emphasis on providing corrective feedback are also unfounded, as it is not the goal of translanguaging to promote unintelligibility; in fact, there is a growing body of work that reveals how translanguaging facilitates acquisition processes via corrective feedback by making features more salient for learners. This ultimately leads to learners improving their linguistic competencies.  

I found that Maria’s responses to Jono’s questions provided anecdotal evidence that is well backed up by emerging translanguaging literature. Her experiences, as well as those of some readers, highlight the fact that teachers and students around the globe actually implement some form of translanguaging strategy in their practices, despite dominant discourses that discourage such practices in the name of effective ELT industry practices. It is no coincidence that the experiences of Maria and our readers come from contexts that are not central to the ELT industry, and therefore are free from discourses that overwhelmingly favor monolingual ideologies at the expense of actual multilingual realties. Language ideologies that influence the ELT industry traditionally favor established power bases to ensure their own success. Translanguaging seeks to disrupt this bias and create more inclusive learning and teaching environments that actually mirror and prepare people for the multilingual reality we already live in.

Ultimately, I see the discussion of translanguaging as a means to providing teachers and learners with more agency when it comes to learning another language. Whether educators choose to implement a translanguaging approach will be up them. But knowing that there is research emphasizing alternatives to dominant language policies is important. I’ll provide a list of references here for anyone who may be interested in further reading about translanguaging. I have enjoyed this series of discussions and look forward to the next topic that is raised for discussion.

Suggested readings:

Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging (Elements in Language Teaching). Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (2021b). Translanguaging: A critical analysis of theoretical claims. In P. Juvonen & M. Källkvist (Eds.), Pedagogical translanguaging: Theoretical, methodological and empirical perspectives (pp. 24–68). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788927383-004

García, O., Flores, N., Seltzer, K., Li, W., Otheguy, R., & Rosa, J. (2021). Rejecting abyssal thinking in the language and education of racialized bilinguals: A manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18(3), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2021.1935957

García, O., Ibarra Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2016). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon

García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765

Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014

Translanguaging: A second response

Translanguaging: A second response 

Mia Tarau responds to posts on the topic by Michael Rabbidge and Jonathon Ryan

Part 3 of a three-way conversation between Michael, Jonathon and Mia

To begin, thank you, Michael and Jonathon, for laying the groundwork for an interesting discussion! When preparing my response after reading Michael’s introductory post on translanguaging, I was determined to approach this topic from two perspectives: the first, that of a person with a multilingual background and – consequently – with a history of learning multiple languages in a foreign language learning context; and the second, through the lens of sociolinguistics, which is the field that prompted my doctoral research into language planning and policy concerning a minority group in Romania – namely, the Roma. However, I decided to settle on the former, as tackling both would have made for far too lengthy a post. Therefore, today, I offer my thoughts on translanguaging from the perspective of a language learner in the post-communist Romanian school system, where in addition to formally studying the Romanian language, we were also taught English, French, and Latin.

Let’s begin: the notions involved in the practice of translanguaging are not new to me as a learner of multiple languages in Romania, where I grew up. However, while I instinctively employed strategies relating to translanguaging in my teaching practice, they have not been formally framed by this term - and the literature exploring it - since I started to teach English after moving to New Zealand, and later, to Australia.

Upon reflection, I realise that the reason I must have incorporated translanguaging practices instinctively and intuitively into my classroom practice of teaching English in both these countries is the background knowledge and experience that lingered on long after my years of learning multiple languages in Romania. Similarly to Cenoz and Gorter (2021, p. 1), I, too, carry this lived experience of the fact that ‘[m]ultilinguals have broader repertoires than monolinguals, and they are often more experienced language learners.’

However, unlike the downside that Cenoz and Gorter (2021) point out, namely that ‘the potential of multilingual students based on their repertoire has not been fully developed because traditionally schools have adopted monolingual ideologies and have isolated languages in the curriculum’ (idem), in our Romanian classrooms we were ACTIVELY allowed to use our mother tongue to sustain and help grow our linguistic repertoire. In fact, it was standard practice for the teacher to initiate translanguaging moments. I guess I internalized that process and applied it in my teaching career without thinking twice, sometimes in spite of the ‘classroom rules’ stating that the classroom was an ‘English-only space’, BECAUSE I acknowledged the important role it plays in helping learners draw on what Michael referenced in his initial post as their ‘full linguistic repertoire’ (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015).

As such, I will provide brief answers to two of Jonathon’s questions:

Question 1: ‘if everyone in class understands the first language, and translanguaging is promoted, why not just switch back to the L1? You could just avoid the hassle and potential miscommunications. But in this way, I could see translanguaging perhaps disincentivizing development in the second language.

Answer 1:

Switching entirely back to L1 would, indeed, disincentivize development in the second language. The role of translanguaging, as I experienced it in my learning context, was to provide a ‘road sign’ whenever students were stuck. Allowing brief moments of switching back to L1, combined sometimes with drawing parallels between multiple other languages, would bring any ‘strays’ back, allowing them to make connections between these languages, and helping them to understand rules and principles that may have remained unclear if taught in the target language alone. Thus, those teaching moments that involved translanguaging BECAME the building blocks of that EXPERIENCE in language learning that Cenoz and Gorter (2021) reference, in a practice that they describe as ‘[p]edagogical translanguaging’, or the process of ‘activating multilingual speakers’ resources so as to expand language and content learning’ (p. 1).

Question 2b. [D]oes translanguaging discourage correction?

Answer 2:

Building on my first answer: Whether or not translanguaging discourages correction in principle, my experience back in Romania suggests that translanguaging did not discourage correction in practice. On the contrary, the correction was offered THROUGH translanguaging, allowing us – the learners – to develop a system whereby we could better see the parallels between the two languages, and ultimately endowing us with that ‘linguistic mastery and virtuosity’ (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015) referenced by Michael in his initial post.

I will stop here, acknowledging that this is only a very brief trip down memory lane in regards to my personal experience with translanguaging, both as a multilingual/language learner, and as an ESL teacher. I look forward to further thoughts on the topic – here or in the comments!

Translanguaging: A first response

Translanguaging: A first response 

Jonathon Ryan responds to last week’s post by Michael Rabbidge

Part 2 of a three-way conversation between Michael, Jonathon and Maria

The term translanguaging first registered with me in about 2015 when it was suggested as the theme of a language teaching conference. To the unfamiliar ear, it has an intimidating gravity. The familiar root word ‘language’ is cast in the unfamiliar role of gerund and then tied to that most postmodern of prefixes: transdisciplinary, transhuman, and now translanguaging? I was intrigued but didn't have the time and headspace to properly sit with it. Later, in chats with Mike, I got the broad outlines, and at some stage I will sit down and read his book Translanguaging in EFL contexts: A call for change. But for now, I’m coming at this very naively but full of questions.

As a first reaction, I appreciate its rationale for opposing the ‘English-only’ policies that exist in many schools. It is true, of course, that for some students the classroom will be only quality exposure to English, but in most cases a strict English-only policy seems deeply misguided. To illustrate just one of the issues, as a Spanish learner I remember a 3-hour class that was both mind-boggling and excruciating. We had no idea what the poor teacher was going on about. So after class I asked a friend to translate one of the examples and it all fell into place: they were simply object pronouns. Had the teacher known the English term or let us look it up in a bilingual dictionary, the class would’ve been rescued.

So for this and numerous other reasons I’m on board with the general direction of translanguaging. But I know that certain Directors of Study won’t be. So, my first question to Michael is this:

Q1. What hard evidence is there that learners benefit from a translanguaging policy?

My second question about translanguaging is this:  

Q2. If we encourage students to draw on their full linguistic repertoire, what are some useful guidelines around correction?

As the background to this question, I can see two competing tensions, which I’ll pose as sub-questions.

Q2a. On the one hand, is there a point at which we would draw a line, and say “no, you should try that in English”?

What I’m thinking is that in an EFL context, if the teacher and students share the same first language, there may be little communicative pressure for the students to further develop their English. I’m thinking of the classic longitudinal study of community language learning spearheaded by Wolfgang Klein and Clive Purdue and funded by the European Science Foundation in the 1980s-1990s. One of the things they found was that from early on, a learner’s ‘language variety’ (a term roughly akin to ‘interlanguage’) is guided by a set of organizing principles (phrasal, semantic and pragmatic). For a language user, a basic system (e.g. with just one verb tense, no articles) might be enough to do the sorts of things they need to do to get by. That’s helpful, but in such cases their language development often fossilizes. On the other hand, if the learner found their language system was unable to convey their intended meanings, this spurred on further development through expanding and refining that system (e.g. adding new tenses to their repertoire).

So what I wonder is this: if everyone in class understands the first language, and translanguaging is promoted, why not just switch back to the L1? You could just avoid the hassle and potential miscommunications. But in this way, I could see translanguaging perhaps disincentivizing development in the second language.

Q2b. But the competing tension I see is this: does translanguaging discourage correction?

To provide an analogy, I recall feeling slightly aggrieved one time when my old supervisor asked me to submit a very rough discussion of my ideas, “just rough, and don't worry about making it polished”, but then he proceeded to focus almost entirely on how I'd written it (i.e. it's lack of polish). ‘That wasn’t the deal!’, I wanted to say. Would our students feel the same if we encourage translanguaging but then try to correct their English? But we have to provide correction, right? And I’ve been that language learner wanting to try out a new sentence or structure in class and expecting to get feedback: if the teacher didn’t correct me, I assumed that my utterance was good and would continue to use it outside the classroom. I would’ve felt very let down if they’d let a bad error pass unremarked and I’d then incorporated it into my repertoire.

Those are my thoughts. Three questions wrapped up in there.

Discussing Translanguaging: A Conversation Starter

Discussing Translanguaging: A Conversation Starter

Michael Rabbidge

To start the new year we’ve decided, as a team of bloggers, to take a slightly more integrated approach to our postings. We’ll start with a brief discussion on a topic of interest, and then take turns responding to each other to create a more shared learning approach with these blogs. We welcome you, as the reader, to join the discussion by posting questions in the comments section, and hopefully we’ll be able to answer these or provide more discussion in subsequent blogs.

That being said, I’ve decided to kick things off by discussing an area of research that I have had a real interest in since my days as teacher trainer in South Korea; that of language choice and use when teaching a foreign language.

I became interested in translanguaging as a concept as a result of my PhD thesis work, which looked at why and how South Korea elementary school teachers used English and Korean languages when teaching English. What really got me interested in this was the sense of guilt South Korean teachers tended to have when discussing the use of their mother tongue, Korean, to teach English. At that time, the Korean government had implemented a policy that prohibited the use of Korean while teaching English in the public school system, which led to a lot of confusion and conflict for these teachers.  

As this area of research continued, I came across the term translanguaging, which initially read like the more commonly known concept ‘code-switching’. Code switching is “understood by most informed scholars in a dynamic and creative fashion as the expressive transgression by bilingual speakers of their two separate languages, endows these speakers with agency and often finds in the very act of switching elements of linguistic mastery and virtuosity” (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015).

A definition of translanguaging that I like is “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).

When seen side by side, code-switching as a concept sees bi or multilingual speakers as switching between languages that exist separately in the mind of the speaker. Translanguaging on the other hand sees language existing as a single repertoire in the user’s mind, so that there is no switching between named languages, rather, the speaker reacts to changing contexts by employing contextually relevant elements of their single semiotic repertoire.

Furthermore, there is a greater socio-political focus within translanguaging research that extends it as a concept beyond that of code-switching.  Unpacking the quotes further reveals a shift in focus from linguistic competencies to that of linguistic repertoires which creates an opportunity to free speakers from monolingual ideologies and concerns of native-speakerism influences that have tended to negatively position learners of a new language or those born in certain geographical locations not traditionally associated with the target language. It also highlights socially constructed realties that have privileged the ‘one nation-one language’ ideology. In doing this, it is asking for an acknowledgement that multilingualism is the true linguistic norm of our world.

This interest has led me to employ a translanguaging perspective while conducting research on language use, and like any new concept, translanguaging continues to grow and inform understandings about effective teaching and learning practices in different contexts. There are a lot of directions that translanguaging can head in, and the better this concept is understood the more likely it can benefit a more socially inclusive language education environment. I look forward to further discussions on this topic, and if you have any questions feel free to reply to this blog.