In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

Translanguaging as a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy for Teaching English to

Multilingual Pakistani University Students
Muhammad Shaban Rafi
University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Rebecca Kanak Fox
George Mason University, Fairfax, USA

Abstract
While Pakistan is a country with dual national languages, English and Urdu, there are over 74
regional languages actively spoken by its citizens. A changing and post-colonial world is placing
demands on students to communicate and do business in English; however, their pre-university
preparation across regions does not always, or often, provide adequate English mastery prior to
their tertiary schooling where English is required knowledge. This study explores English teaching
and learning of Pakistani learners attending a tertiary level institution. To seek solutions to some
of the challenges they face, the study posits the possibility of translanguaging as a culturally
responsive pedagogical approach to provide a pathway through which instructors might promote
and maintain the country’s linguistic diversity while simultaneously promoting greater mastery of
English. The data used for analysis were obtained from 1) 15 faculty instructors of English at this
university and 2) 15 student participants who speak five of the major languages spoken in Pakistan.
Findings reveal faculty perceptions and ideas about translanguaging as a culturally responsive
pedagogy to be open to new considerations for meaning-making but in need of scaffolding in order
to understand these approaches for teaching English to university learners. Insights into prioritizing
students’ mother tongue as a point of departure and a resource in their learning suggests potential
for creating a cross-over with the target language (English) to arrive at greater student engagement
and more meaningful mastery of English as an outcome.

Keywords: Translanguaging, multilingual learners, English writing practices, culturally

responsive pedagogy

Introduction
Pakistan is a country with dual national languages, English and Urdu, and yet there are over 74
actively spoken languages across its regions. Depending upon the definition of language and
dialect, many of these languages are in verbal form only, and for others, written forms use the
Nastaliq script from right to left. Learners acquire their first language as members of a cultural
group with expanded language instruction only sparsely available in some regions. A changing
and post-colonial world has come to place increasing demands on university students to be able to
communicate and do business effectively in English. Thus, students must learn English and Urdu
for higher mobility in education; however, their pre-university preparation across regions does not
always, or often, provide adequate English mastery prior to their tertiary schooling. This situation
places a great deal of stress on university students and professors alike because, even in adult
learners with robust prior schooling, acquisition of a new language at an academic register remains
challenging and quick mastery an elusive goal without focused measures in place.
This study aims to provide a more in-depth understanding concerning how knowledge of students’
first language might enhance instructors' classroom practice and the students’ positive learning

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

outcomes in a multilingual setting. The same perspective is endorsed by researchers of

translanguaging (Baker, 2011; García, 2009; Hornberger & Link, 2012). For example, Svensson-
och and Torpsten (2020) emphasize that an understanding of multilingual learners' linguistic
repertoires and the target language (English) influences the ways that educators’ approaches can
serve to promote greater equality in a diverse society. Building upon earlier research conducted by
the researchers (Rafi & Fox 2020), this study seeks to understand more about students’ first
language, as well as faculty and student views toward translanguaging, as one means toward
achieving the implementation of a more culturally responsive (Gay, 2018) and sustaining (Paris,
2012; Paris & Alim, 2014) pedagogy to support learning.
Research suggests that learning challenges for university-level learners of English might be
attributed, in part, to differences between their first language and English. For example, several
tendencies have been documented among Pakistani English learners who enter a university for
further education in various disciplines (Mahboob, 2004; Rahman, 2015; Talaat, 2002). As
students move from communicative language to more complex demands of English use for
academic purposes, students face challenges in the area of specific vocabulary use and terminology
(e.g., flat for apartment, washroom for the restroom/toilet), a difference in sense relations and
meaning (e.g., unconscious for subconscious, effective for affective and hesitant for hesitate), or
very specified collocations (e.g., systematic way, natural way, and emotional way). In addition,
complex grammatical relations, such as subject-verb-agreement, verb forms and tenses, SVO word
order (as compared to the SOV word order of Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian language families) are
also some of the differences that must be understood in order to assist students in their learning
journey. As with most language learners, stative and progressive verb use can also be confusing
(e.g., I am studying engineering in this university for I study engineering in this university), and
spelling mistakes are also not uncommon, particularly homophonic words (e.g., week vs. weak,
bare vs. bear, ad vs. add, and so on).
Multilingualism is a reality in Pakistan, and it presents a challenge for English language educators
who may continue to employ grammar-translation instruction for teaching English. Faculty are
required by education policy (Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training 2017) to
use regional languages or Urdu, along with English, as a medium of instruction (p. 19).
Nevertheless, university faculty who may not be aware of multilingualism as a new linguistic
dispensation may also be unaware of linguistically and culturally diverse learners' characteristics
and pedagogical needs. Linguists have studied the structural and discourse properties of Pakistani
English (Baumgardner, 1996 and 1993; Mahboob, 2004; Rahman, 2015; Talaat, 2002), but
scholars (Ashraf, 2017; MacSwan, 2017; Rafi and Fox, 2020; among others) are still investigating
how to conceptualize the prevailing linguistic diversity in a classroom to enhance learning and
make classrooms more affirming discourse spaces that respect multilingual learners’ entire
linguistic repertoire. Instructors should be made aware of learners' linguistic resources and the
target language’s unique characteristics to help them overcome some of their challenges in learning
English, mainly writing challenges. This study aligns philosophically with a growing line of
research in translanguaging in higher education (Mazak & Carroll, 2017), where tertiary
institutions, such as the Pakistani university in the current study, might provide an authentic
context for investigating multilingual academic practices. Such contexts where multiple linguistic
resources might be used to value linguistic diversity and diverse language practices as resources

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

can also promote greater student engagement when they are invited to build upon their cultural,
sociohistorical, and linguistic backgrounds to transfer knowledge. To seek solutions to some of
the challenges faculty face in teaching English through direct and grammar-translation methods,
this study explores the following research questions.

Research Questions
1. What are the perceptions of faculty with regard to translanguaging as a culturally
responsive pedagogy?
2. How might English learners' major cultural and linguistic backgrounds in a Pakistani
university be characterized for developing and implementing culturally responsive
pedagogy?

Theoretical Framework
The general view of translanguaging has evolved and can mean different things in different
contexts and applications. A framework of translingualism, a practice that affirms the value of
linguistic diversity within the English learner classroom, provided a lens for analyzing the data
and considering implications. The term, translanguaging, was coined by Welsh researcher Cen
Williams (cited in Baker, 2011), to refer to “the planned and systematic use of two languages
inside the same lesson” (Baker, 2011: 288), as also noted by García (2009). In recent years, García
has defined translingualism as a process of becoming and changing; rather than a static set of
learning strategies, she believes the practice of translanguaging to promote an active sense of
meaning-making. According to Canagarajah (2014, as referenced in Mazak and Carroll, 2017: 3):

Understanding translingual practice involves two key concepts: 1) communication

transcends individual languages, and 2) communication transcends words and involves
diverse semiotic resources and ecological affordances.

Some researchers have viewed translanguaging as a flexible bilingual pedagogy (e.g., Creese and
Blackledge, 2010) and, through this lens, have investigated learners' changing multilingual and
multicultural identities. However, this study promotes translanguaging as a culturally responsive
pedagogical practice that affirms the way learners engage their mother tongue to build knowledge
and new understandings of a target language. Hornberger and Link (2012: 244-245) support the
concept of translanguaging as a means of fostering transfer of language and knowledge,
particularly when learners have use of all their existing skills, not limiting language learning to the
second language itself and vocabulary and grammar memorization. By bringing together different
aspects of one’s culture, history, semiotic resources, and experiences, the learner can create a
meaningful learning space that references both known and new in the quest for understanding.
Many practices might provide this opportunity, including kinesthetic learning, or even reading in
one language and providing time for discussion in the other. Providing strategic opportunities for
learners to practice translanguaging as they delve deeper into their backgrounds and existing
language knowledge allows them to make connections, utilize their unique linguistic repertoires,
and become more autonomous in the learning process. If used, translative expression with open-
ended goals for expression can also provide one way to utilize linguistic diversity within the
classroom. Thus, translanguaging pedagogy can contribute to university classrooms as democratic
multilingual spaces that reflect a linguistically diverse society with multiple perspectives.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

Where there is a growing body of research in elementary and secondary classrooms in the UK and
the US on the implementation and results of translanguaging practices, only minimal research has
been found in higher education, and particularly in global settings. With strategic goals worldwide
for expanding internationalization efforts in higher education and promoting bi- and multi-
lingualism in contexts such as the Pakistani university in which the current study takes place,
translanguaging research represents a fertile space for consideration and investigation.

The teaching of language is far more than a rote process of teaching grammar rules, requiring
memorized phrases, or assigning mechanical exercises involving vocabulary in translation. In the
case of university faculty, in particular, who are charged with the ambitious goal of teaching
English to students who arrive with a broad array of cultural and linguistic backgrounds, abilities,
interests, and understandings, the challenge is augmented as students have only a short period to
acquire enough English to participate in their coursework and prepare for their careers. Since the
1990s, critical scholars have constructed cultural difference theories that seek to address cultural
and linguistic discontinuities between students and the demands of schooling (see, for example,
Ladson-Billings, 1994; Nieto, 2010). These theories posit that differences between diverse
students’ backgrounds, languages, and funds-of-knowledge and the ways of knowing, being, and
doing valued in schools can provide partial insight into students’ challenges in achieving academic
success (Moll & Gonzalez, 2004). In response, recent cultural difference scholars have focused on
positive teaching and learning strategies, often referred to as culturally responsive pedagogy
(henceforth CRP), that draw on students’ existing cultural and linguistic assets to build new
knowledge and expand their language repertoires (Gay, 2018). More recently, still, scholars in this
area have proposed that we must extend CRP beyond only being responsive to move toward
sustaining learners’ cultural and linguistic practices by bringing them forward into the learning
spaces to become part of students’ newly developing knowledge and understanding (e.g., Paris &
Alim, 2017). Pedagogy that is culturally sustaining calls students to use all of their resources in
the learning space to support meaning-making and students' deepening language acquisition across
languages through meaningful personal responses and language production. It is in the intersection
of CRP and translanguaging that possibilities might be determined for extended, meaningful
learning.
As we began our investigation, the researchers first wanted to explore faculty's ideas about
teaching and learning practices to build upon those when considering ideas for enhanced teaching
practice. We also wanted to explore some of the linguistic backgrounds of student speakers of
some of the major languages represented at the university, believing that these differences might
provide some insight into students' points of departure. This would provide instructors with more
profound knowledge about what possible communicative space some of the students' interaction
patterns in English might be emerging. This knowledge might then be used to help students better
understand how to express themselves in English and make use of their home language resources
in building university-level disciplinary knowledge and expression.
The data and method
To investigate the research questions, two data sources were used: 1) a survey for English faculty,
and 2) student prompted writings. First, a convenience sample of 15 faculty instructors of English
who had an average of 10-years of teaching experience in higher education institutions comprised
the faculty participants to whom the instructor questionnaire was administered (See appendix A).
It is interesting to note that most of the faculty participants reported growing up with Punjabi-

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

speaking parents; however, they listed Urdu (the national language) as their L1. Two faculty
members listed Pashto and Balti as their L1. All instructors identified themselves as multilingual
speakers and believed they were aware of learners’ diversity in their classrooms. They responded
to open-ended questions regarding their understanding of linguistic diversity, pedagogical
practices, and the concept of translanguaging as an approach to promote CRP in a university
setting. The instructors’ perspectives obtained through this questionnaire were then used to
consider potential ways to approach university students’ greater engagement in their learning of
English and consider expanded aspects of CRP. The participants' identities and affiliations were
masked throughout the study while reporting the data.

Second, a purposive sample of 15 university students, who were speakers of Balochi, Balti, Pashto,
Punjabi, and Sindhi, was selected to provide a writing sample of translated sentences including
tense, aspect, number, mood, gender, article, and preposition (see appendix B). Three participants
from each sample language provided insight into several of the prominent structural variations.
They were pursuing undergraduate and postgraduate studies at a large, private university in
Pakistan. Most of them had completed their school and college education in their home town;
however, they moved for higher studies to this university. Many of their peers also move to
universities like this one that are mainly located in Pakistan's metropolitan cities. The sample
selected to accomplish the underlying objective was representative of five major languages spoken
in Pakistan and at this university. As demonstrated in Figure 1, and to provide context for this
selection of languages, around 134 million people in Pakistan speak Balochi, Balti, Pashto,
Punjabi, and Sindhi, along with their dialectic variations. We can classify these languages into
Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan languages families (c.f., Simons & Charles, 2018).

Figure 1. A lineage of major languages of Pakistan and English

With these 15 university students, we administered a sentence translation task in a focus group
setting over Zoom, a video communications app. This approach allowed us to ask questions or
seek clarification regarding contradictions or dialectic variations in a series of transliterated
sentences. These data were analyzed to identify and explore visible linguistic differences
concerning the use of tense, aspect, mood, and gender, particularly, along with articles, numbers,
and prepositions in general in the major languages: Balochi, Balti, Pashto, Punjabi, and Sindhi and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

English. Each respondent participated in the transliteration of sentences designed to cover several
structural nuances in writing English. These structural differences provided a lens to set the base
for better understanding learners' English writing challenges and eventually to suggest enhanced
pedagogical approaches. The same process completed by three speakers of each language served
to improve the data's reliability and were used, in turn, to suggest the existence of potential general
language-specific characteristics for further study. For a more nuanced analysis of the above-
mentioned linguistic properties, the participants were also asked to explain any challenges they
perceive to have in writing English.
Findings
This section will first share faculty responses regarding how they promote university students'
engagement in language learning (specifically English learning) and consider the potential for
faculty to integrate aspects of CRP into their practice. This will be followed by a brief
representation of the findings from the student focus group data, as revealed through the students’
transliterations and their perceptions about the challenges in writing English.

L1 Foundation for Teaching and Learning English

Faculty questionnaires provided insight into English instructors’ knowledge and perceptions of
students’ language backgrounds; how they see students’ languages potentially providing a
foundation for or a bridge to learning English; how they see students’ major challenges in the
transfer of knowledge from their first language to the target language; and their understanding
about translanguaging and its potential connections to CRP. These faculty data also captured
specific points about the instructors' classroom approaches and practices in teaching English. As
noted in the following quote, some faculty conceptualized student errors in English composition
as an outcome of linguistic differences between their first language and English (e.g., Coder, 1984;
Wardhaugh, 1970; and those who have studied interlanguaging/contrastive analysis hypothesis).
I guess syntactic differences between L1 and the target language are a kind of major challenge which causes
errors in English composition.

This instructor noted that an incorrect use of subject-verb agreement, tense makers, articles,
prepositions, and lexical inequivalence identify learners' linguistic backgrounds and writing
practices. They did not identify any specific ways to help students bridge languages, but were open
to learning new practices.
In general, faculty data pointed to a desire to learn about new ideas and ways to bridge learning
from L1 to L2. A faculty participant shared this perspective in the following quote.
Sometimes the learners are not able to grasp concepts in the target language, and at times help from L1 could
make it easier for them to understand the concept.

Translanguaging as a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Apart from two faculty members who shared that they were not aware of translanguaging, the
remainder of the faculty participants indicated that while they were “aware” of translanguaging,
they had never used or practiced it. Nevertheless, they indicated an interest in learning how to
integrate translanguaging practices while teaching English. The faculty shared several ideas about
their understanding of translanguaging, about their current approaches to teaching English, and
about how they envision using it once they could learn more. For example, some faculty expressed

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

that understanding the linguistic similarities and differences between learners' first and target
languages provides instructors with a lens for providing learner feedback and promoting
translanguaging as a CRP. However, most responses expressed questions about how to use
translanguaging pedagogy effectively and how they would look to understand the results. Several
wondered if translanguaging were another version of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM).

Among those faculty aware of translanguaging, two responses emerged demonstrating

misunderstandings of the linguistic landscape of Pakistan. One faculty member did not view
Pakistan as a multilingual country and thus felt little need to implement translanguaging. Another
faculty member suggested using Urdu as a mediating language for learning English, despite the
fact that not all students speak Urdu as their L1. With the exception of the two participants, the
remaining faculty participants showed genuine interest in the possibilities that might be afforded
by exploring translanguaging, as in the following quote:

Learners through translanguaging will be able to express their insights. They will be free to translate, switch,
and mix between different languages.

While most faculty were open to the possibilities of translanguaging pedagogy, it is clear from the
faculty data that much remains to be discussed and planned to support the faculty. They are aware
that it will take additional effort on the part of instructors to employ translanguaging in teaching
English. However, they voiced interest in how translanguaging could tap into learners’ cultural
heritage and thus influence their thinking, feelings, identity, and attitude (e.g., Mwaniki, 2014).
Specifically, they were interested in how this approach would promote multiple language learning
processes for their students, as suggested by García (2009), while gaining knowledge through L1
(Rafi & Fox, 2020).

Participants also indicated that in addition to working with faculty to provide guidance and
modeling in its usage, there remains an even greater challenge: how to change the prevailing
philosophical approach of grammar-translation and direct instruction, and more importantly, how
they could promote communicative proficiency over detailed accuracy. This challenge was further
explained by a faculty participant who mentioned that the university administration currently does
not allow the use of L1 for teaching or supporting English despite the education policy 2017 that
allows instructors to utilize the first language of students. Nevertheless, most faculty members
responded that they saw the potential for translanguaging to be a viable approach for creating a
more balanced way to reach diverse learner' populations in a university setting, as reflected in the
following quote:

Translanguaging will allow learners to use L1 for expressing their thoughts.

Regarding the use of CRP, different faculty imagined they could integrate local stories, folklores,
and myths for discussion, comparison, and writing activities. For example, if students are asked to
narrate a story in their L1 and follow with a retelling in English. Moreover, faculty participants
recommended involving learners in class discussions through short video projects relating to their
cuisine, dress, music, and festivals. Around ten faculty participants endorsed promoting CRP to
enrich students' learning experiences; one said it this way:
I, while teaching English, try to integrate some localized oral stories, myths, and folklores to render
indigenous flavor.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

Linguistic Similarities/Differences
Following on our analysis of instructors’ perceptions of translanguaging pedagogy and CRP, we
examined aspects of students’ home languages to identify where interested faculty might begin if
they intend to use translanguaging pedagogy and CRP in their university English teaching practice.
Therefore, this section of the findings will focus on students’ transliteration and reflection data
concerning the linguistic similarities/differences in terms of tense, aspect, mood, gender, number,
article, and preposition between their mother tongue and English.
Findings associated with the transliterations of two Balochi participants from Gwadar indicate that
they use the same verb ent for 'lives' and 'lived' to mark tense; whereas, one participant from
Chagai and Quetta used the inflected verb Kant for ‘lives’ and kurte for ‘lived’ to signify the tense
as mentioned in table 1. Balochi has a single pronoun haa for 'he' and 'she'; however, to express
number, the participants applied an additional lexeme, mooch, for 'all'. The data show no perceived
difference between the structures of past indefinite and present perfect. As illustrated in table 1,
the Balochi participants practiced various modal verbs, such as kurt kanye and beth kne to express
the modality of ‘can’. They employed an extra lexeme lazum and lazimi for ‘definitely’ and a
modal verb byag for ‘should’ to express intensity and obligation. Like the rest of the sample
language families in this study, Balochi does not utilize articles and multiple prepositions to
structure utterances. The participants noticed structural differences (e.g., subject-object-verb vs.
subject-verb-object) and morphemic differences between Balochi and English as challenging to
them when writing English, as reported in the following reflection:

The alphabets of Balochi and English are not similar so I faced issues while speaking and writing
in English language.

Table 1 shows that the Balti participants simplified the tense marking system in their
transliterations, as well. For example, they applied the form dugen for ‘lives’ and ‘lived’. They
also adopted the same verb to mark aspect and inflect it for future: dukpin. However, they
extended sa as auxiliaries and modal verbs. It is interesting to note that they inflected nouns, such
as hostel ning for ‘in hostel’ to express the pronoun ‘in’ and the deixis of place. The participants
showed their meta linguistic awareness when they mentioned that Balti did not allow different
prepositions to transliterate the layers of meanings in the English language. One of the participants
expressed in the following excerpt:
Balti has limited prepositions e.g., yar for ‘on’, ‘above’, ‘over’, and ‘upon’, skella for ‘between’,
and ‘among’, and oqto for ‘below’, ‘under’ and ‘beneath’. Unlike English, Balti prepositions are
used at postposition in a structure e.g., mazi kha for ‘table on’.

The usage of pronouns in Balti can be compared with English. For example, the Balti language
has first-person pronouns nga for ‘I,’ nayang for ‘we’, second-person pronouns that mark gender,
kho for ‘he,’ mo for ‘she,’ khong for ‘they’, and the third-person pronoun yang for ‘you’.
Moreover, Balti has independent pronouns to mark number. The numeral is inserted after nouns,
as in shoqbo chik ‘book one’.
Unlike English, there are two modal verbs: nenet for ‘can’, ‘may’ and rgospin for ‘should’, ‘must’,
and ‘ought to’. The participants managed an additional utterance (sa sa) to express
complementarity for the modal verb, as in sa sa yod for ‘must’. The participants did not use articles

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

to specify the information. They perceived subject-verb agreement and sentence structures among
the key challenges while writing in English.
During writing something in English, subject, verb agreement is the foremost challenge I face.
Secondly, the sentence structure sometimes is confusing as we try to think in Balti and Urdu while
writing in English.

There were dialectic variations in Balti participants' conversation from the same language to
different regions. For instance, participants from urban areas had a dialect variation from rural
areas of the same province. This dialectic feature was also noted in the translation exercise by the
participants. Only the sentences with more similarities within a language were selected for
contextualization and clarity of the analysis.
The participants of Pashto reported themselves to originally come from the South Waziristan
regions, Peshawar, Mardan, and Swat. As demonstrated in table 1, they exhibited variations
between Pashto and English. All the sample participants demonstrated different tendencies in
marking tense. They did not inflect and distinguish the verb for singularity and plurality. One of
the participants translated osegi both for ‘lives’ and ‘lived’. The remaining four participants used
past participle oseda and pand shawai to mark the tense. They employed ba and tool to express
the future in their utterances. They have used osegu and osegdum to express the aspect. However,
modality is expressed differently in Pashto. For example, the participants used shay to refer to
different modal verbs (such as can, and may) of English. They constructed agha to denote both
‘he’ and ‘she’ and a single form ke to indicate definite and indefinite articles in their conversation.

The main issues/challenges that we are facing in writing English are grammar and structural
differences.

The Punjabi language does not allow the participants to translate tense and aspect with different
linguistic forms, as shown in table 1. Participants used a single verb e.g., rehan/rean for 'live' to
mark tense and aspect. However, they inflected the verb to express number e.g., reandy and gender
e.g., reandi. The participants also deployed light/small verbs: aan, e, hain, and sen. They
used ga to refer to future activity. The participants also practiced two types of modal verbs
e.g., sakna for ‘can’ chana for 'should'. They used the supplementary word zaror along with
chana to imply the meaning of ‘must’. The participants appeared subconsciously unaware of
articles as there is no use of mainly the definite article (the) in Punjabi. They switched certain
expressions from the Urdu language while translating to Punjabi.

As shown in table 1, Sindhi has the maximum number of marked forms. Being a sister language,
Sindhi might be compared with Urdu and Punjabi in many ways. The participants indicated tense,
aspect gender, and modality by inflecting the root verb, e.g., rah for live. They also employed
light/small verb, e.g., aahay, aa, aahyoon, and aahyan. They applied a separate pronoun hooa for
she and hoo for he. The participants used another word e.g., zaroor for definitely and shayad for
perhaps, along with the verb rah to express complementarity (e.g., must) and possibility or
permission (e.g., may) for living in a hostel. To seek permission, Sindhi does not discriminate
between the form and function of ‘may’ and ‘can’. It uses sagho for both the modal verbs. Like its
sister and neighboring languages, Sindhi does not employ articles and various prepositions to
communicate meanings. The participants perceived sentence structure, grammar usage, and
vocabulary as significant writing challenges.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

If I tell in a broad sense, I would first encounter language vocabulary because it makes me to be
more alert in using conventional vocabulary. After that, the other main challenges that I noticed are
sentence structure and proper grammar usage.

Table 1. A linguistic overview between the major regional languages and English

Linguistic English Balochi Balti Pashto Punjabi Sindhi

properties
Tense marked marked unmarked marked marked marked
(pres.+ past)
lives, riyash kanth, dugain yud* osegi, rendi ee, ranandi aahay,
lived riyash kurtha oseda rendi si rahyo
Aspects marked partially marked marked marked marked
(prog. + marked
perf) be+ living, dugain yudpin, osegu, reh rahi aan rahi rahyan
have + lived riyash kanga dukfin osegdum rai si aahyoon,
riyash kurtha rahiyo aahyan
Mood marked marked partially partially marked marked marked
marked shy*, pakar *, ba
can, should, kana, rawanth, Sakda, pavien, sago tha,
must, may, kanaghi, pika, nenet*, chai da, ghurjay,
ought to, kanag rgospin*, sasa zaroor chai da mattan, khay*,
will yod zaroor,
Pronominal Marked Unmarked Marked Unmarked Unmarked Marked
gender
He Haa* mo agha oo hooa
She kho hoo

In summary, all the sample languages used in this study have similarities and differences with
English. They demonstrate variants of verbs in different tenses for tense markedness. They
represent different patterns while switching into different aspects apart from Balochi, which has a
partial markedness. Balochi carries diverse moods because it has different modal verbs to
communicate different functions in many ways similar to English. Unlike English, Pashto and
Balti have limited modals to express multiple functions. However, some additional words are
inserted in Punjabi and Sindhi occasionally to show some moods. Like English, pronominal gender
is used in Balti and Sindhi, which is not the case in Balochi, Pashto, and Punjabi that inflect gender
with verbs.

Figure 2 summarizes the results from the student writing samples, which suggest that the closer
the languages, the more the syntactic similarities. Although Balti belongs to an isolated languages
group in Pakistan, it has some unique linguistic properties, as noted in table 1, that can be compared
with learning English. The grammar of Sindhi and Punjabi has more similarities with English than
the rest of the sample languages. In the same vein, the syntactic properties of Pashto can be
compared with Balochi; however, it is further from the grammar of English. As shown in figure 1,
these findings are supported by the fact that Sindhi and Punjabi belong to the same language group.
So is the case for Balochi and Pashto. The grammatical distance of these languages from English
may call for heightened attention for teachers and learners of English.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

Figure 2. A cross-linguistic mapping of the major regional languages and English

Learners who have solid foundations in their mother tongue can acquire English competence much earlier
because the first language serves as the basis for learning the second language.

The findings also suggest that Sindhi and Punjabi learners may have the edge over Pashto and
Balochi learners with regard to learning English grammar, at least when it comes to tense, aspect,
modality, and pronominal gender; however, many details about prior instruction would also have
a bearing on the learner outcomes. There are fundamentally two reasons for this. First, Sindhi and
Punjabi belong to the same language groups, and they share common linguistic forms. Second,
both the languages' grammar is comparable in terms of tense, aspect, mood, gender, number,
article, and preposition. Although Balochi and Pashto are from the same language group, their
distance from English grammar often causes particular writing challenges for learners. These
findings suggest faculty creating a cross-over with the target language to arrive at greater students’
engagement and more meaningful mastery of English as an outcome.
Conclusion
One of the principal consequences of internationalization and the rise of English as a lingua franca
is the requirement that university students learn English; courses are also taught in English. The
expectation, even if not the official policy, in Pakistan is that students should be highly proficient
in English upon graduation from university and enter the workforce prepared to use particular
kinds of English. This is a tall order because, as in the case of Pakistan and many other locations
around the world, the teaching of English varies greatly across contexts. Students arrive at
university with varying linguistic repertoires, and most have not had the opportunity to develop
communicative competence in English in their elementary and secondary schools. If faculty
understand some of the linguistic characteristics of students’ regional languages, this information
might form foundational knowledge from which a translanguaging pedagogy can emerge.

The data collected for this study are limited, and yet they provide exciting new considerations for
teaching English in culturally and linguistically responsive ways. Most faculty in this study are
interested in and ready for new pedagogical approaches. Thus, though data are limited, two
pedagogical implications might yet be drawn from our study. First, the time is ripe, and there is a
strong need to change current pedagogical practices for teaching English at the tertiary or
university level. The English teaching faculty at this university are interested in learning more

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

about translanguaging and CRP so that sustained learning (Paris, 2012) might extend into students’
backgrounds; they do not currently have models to draw upon.

The second implication is that both faculty and students can benefit from learning about and
engaging in multilingual and integrated teaching practices that allow students to draw on their full
meaning-making repertoire in learning and transferring knowledge – the linguistically and
culturally engaged classroom involves both faculty and students working together. Thus, if
university faculty are going to break away from current practices (that often use grammar-
translation and direct instruction to teach English) to expand their knowledge and promote the
creativity of language use, they will require focused opportunities for professional development,
discussion, and reflection. One idea would be to provide seminars, modeling, and time for open
dialogue about the benefits that could result through the implementation of translanguaging. These
seminars might also involve student representation as prioritizing students’ mother tongue as a
point of departure and a resource in their learning; this suggests creating a cross-over with the
target language to achieve greater student engagement and more meaningful mastery of English
as an outcome. Because much research remains to be done on the implementation and results of
translanguaging in higher education, it would be particularly beneficial for faculty to approach and
conduct research in their courses and with their learners during implementation. In this way,
explorations in new concepts and approaches, such as translanguaging and culturally responsive
teaching, will begin to build a research base upon which fellow faculty members might draw.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

References
Ashraf, H. (2017). Translingual practices and monoglot policy aspirations: A case study of
Pakistan’s plurilingual classrooms. Current Issues in Language Planning, 19(1), 1-21.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Baumgardner, R. J. (1996). South Asian English: Structure, Use, and Users. Urbana and Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.
Baumgardner, R. J. (1993). Pakistan: The English language in Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford
University Press.
Coder, S. P. (1984). Error analysis and interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 68-71.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy
for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1),103-115.
García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In T.
Skutnabb–Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty & M. Panda (eds), Social justice
through multilingual education (pp. 140-158). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hornberger, N., & Link, H. (2012). Translanguaging in today’s classrooms: A biliteracy lens.
Theory and Practice, 51: 239-247.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mahboob, A. (2004). Pakistani English: Morphology and syntax. In B. Kortmann & E. Schneider
(eds), A Handbook of varieties of English: A multimedia reference tool (pp. 1045-1057).
Munich: Mouton de Gruyter.
MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. The American Educational
Research Journal, 54(1),167-201.
Mazak, C.M., & Carroll, K.S. (2017). Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual
ideologies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, Government of Pakistan. (2017).
National education policy: 2017-2025. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan, Ministry of
Federal Education and Professional Training. Retrieved on February 24 from
http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/planipolis/files/ressources/pakistan_national_educat
ion_policy_2017-2025.pdf.
Moll, L., & Gonzalez, N. (2004). Engaging life: A fund-of-knowledge approach to multicultural
education. In J.A. Banks & C.A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural
education (2nd ed) (pp. 699-715). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mwaniki, M. (2014). Mother tongue education in primary teacher education in Kenya: A language
management critique of the quota system. Multilingual Education, 4(1), 1-17.
Nieto, S. (2010). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities (10th
anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology,
and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Paris, D., & Alim, H.S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.
Rafi, M. S., & Fox, R. K. (2020). Translanguaging and Multilingual Teaching and Writing
Practices at a Pakistani University. In G. Svensson & A. Torpsten (Eds.), Translanguaging
and Disciplinary Language in the Individual, at School, and in Society (pp. 72-101). Vaxjo:
Humanetten.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

Rahman, T. (2015). Pakistan: Pakistani English. Islamabad: Institute of Pakistani Studies, Quaid-
i-Azam University.
Svensson-och, G., & Torpsten, A. (2020.), Translanguaging and Disciplinary Language in the
Individual, at School, and in Society. Vaxjo: Humanetten.
Simons, G. F., & Charles, D. F. (2018). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dellas and Texas:
SIL International.
Talaat, M. (2002). The form and functions of English in Pakistan (PhD thesis, Bahauddin Zakariya
University, Pakistan. eprints.hec.gov.pk/1631/1/1191.HTM.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4(2), 123-130.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

Appendix A
Questionnaire
This questionnaire is part of a study seeking to understand more about “Translanguaging as a
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy for Teaching English to Multilingual Pakistani University
Students”. The faculty perspectives obtained through this questionnaire will be used to promote
university students' engagement in their language learning (specifically in their English learning)
and consider expanded aspects of culturally responsive pedagogy. Anonymity and confidentiality
of your position and/or institution will be maintained throughout the study. The researchers seek
your input and ideas to inform university learning practices that promote greater equity and
inclusive excellence for all learners. If you need additional space when responding to the survey
questions, please feel free to use the backside of this questionnaire or an additional page. We are
very grateful to you for sparing some time from your hectic routine to complete this questionnaire.

Please indicate your first language________________

And any other languages you speak _________________________________________
Instructor years of experience in teaching English: ________year(s)

1. In thinking of the students' language backgrounds in your classes, which of the following
languages do you see as most represented?

Balochi Balti Pashto Punjabi Sindhi

2. Have you been able to consider how these languages might provide a foundation for and a
bridge to learning English? If so, what are some foundational characteristics? In what ways
might this foundation provide a bridge to learning English?

3. What major challenges do you see that students have in their transference of knowledge
from their home language to learning English?

4. In what ways do you see that your students reveal/identify their linguistic background in
their English writing practices?

5. What do you believe to be different ways to promote culturally responsive pedagogy in

the teaching of English? Is this something you have been able to do in your classes? If
so, please provide an example.
6. Translanguaging is a rising pedagogical practice that promotes one's first or mother tongue
to complement or bridge learning another language. Have you heard of this pedagogical
approach or had an opportunity to understand more about its use in your educational
practice? If not yet, would you be interested in knowing more about translanguaging’s
application?

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

7. Do you believe that translanguaging could be employed in your own teaching as an

approach to promote a culturally responsive pedagogy and develop a more equitable
approach to learning for students?

If so, what might be its possibilities, in your opinion?

What do you see as barriers?

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

Appendix B
This instrument is designed to investigate “Translanguaging as a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
for Teaching English to Multilingual Pakistani University Students”. You are required to translate
each sentence in your first language. The data will provide us an insight into the linguistic
similarities/differences between your mother tongue and English. The findings of this study will
help to devise an approach suitable for teaching English writing to multilingual learners while
prioritizing their mother tongue. The study aims to acknowledge linguistic diversity in the ESL
classroom.

First language________________

Sentence Translation
1- Sentence She lives in a hostel.
a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim

2- Sentence He lived in the hostel.

a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim
3- Sentence They will live in a hostel.
a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim
4- Sentence We are living in the hostel.
a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim
5- Sentence I have lived in the hostel.
a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim
6- Sentence You can live in the hostel.
a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim
7- Sentence You should live in the hostel.
a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim
8- Sentence I must live in the hostel.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818

In print at SPELT Quarterly Journal, 2021

a)- Roman translate

b)- English Verbatim
9- Sentence She may live in a hostel.
a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim
10- Sentence He ought to live in the hostel.
a)- Roman translate
b)- English Verbatim

What are the challenges do you perceive in writing English?

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3827818