Updating teaching definitions: translanguaging as an effective tool for

the classroom

Language teaching methods have been significantly modified over time.

There have been crucial changes in perspective, from the ancient grammar-translation
method to ones more recent, such as the communicative approach. However, those
were designed to be used in monolingual learning environments. García & Lin (2016)
advocate in favor of translanguaging, a concept that can be defined in terms of
linguistics theory, pedagogical tools and social practices, in which foreign language
speakers or learners use their native languages to negotiate meaning and reach
common understanding, among other uses.

Nevertheless, due to its increasing popularity, translanguaging has been

employed as an umbrella term as specialists tend to give excessive meanings to it,
sometimes contradicting themselves. In addition, the predicted effects tend to be
unachievable, leading Jaspers (2018) to challenge its transformative claims. In order to
better understand how translanguaging effectively works in the classroom, Tang (2002)
and Daniel & Pacheco (2015) conducted observatory studies in Chinese and American
schools, respectively, describing translanguaging practices and their effects on the
students’ performance.

That being said, the purpose of this paper is to reflect on the terminology
and present how translanguaging techniques have been used in the classroom. First, I
will provide an overview of the definitions of translanguaging and the expected results of
its use in favor of bilingual individuals. I will then discuss the limited effects of those
practices regarding social changes. Finally, the reader will be offered two case studies
regarding the actual use of translanguaging in the classroom.

What is translanguaging?

Language teaching tradition holds that using the student’s mother tongue
in the classroom has negative effects as the studied language runs the risk of being
“contaminated” by their own first language. Although it is not a rule in schools, the
practice of going back and forth between two languages, known as code switching, is
largely used in additional language classes, even by teachers, to make meaning
comprehensible. Welsh scholars expanded this approach by coining the term
trawsieithu, literally translanguaging, as they saw bilingualism as an important aid in the
acquisition of an additional language and to enhance the very bilingualism. The concept
could be then defined as the deliberate pedagogic practice of changing the input and
output languages (García & Lin, 2006, p. 3).

Although translanguaging has not been systematized as an in-class

activity, its frequent use to scaffold language teaching has drawn the attention of
scholars. They have documented that one-third of the Welsh classrooms observed used
translanguaging as the only or dominant approach: teachers go beyond the Welsh
practice and use code switching with students to make greater sense of complex
concepts or difficult grammar points, which has been proved to be effective. However,
translanguaging was only found in the latter years of primary school, and in the arts and
humanities (Lewis et al., 2013), and serves as a tool for organizing and mediating
mental processes.

In addition, translanguaging includes a different perspective about

bilingualism as regards to the definition of the codes. From a monolingual point of view,
bilinguals deal with two separate, independent linguistic systems, whereas
translanguaging postulates that bilingual users have a heteroglossic behavior, moving
between different languages but using them as a single, integrated system (Bakhtin,
1981; Bailey, 2007, as cited in García & Lin, 2006, p. 4).

As for its consideration as a mental process, translanguaging can be

understood in terms of the creative and critical choices users make when switching
languages.According to this approach, multilingual speakers consciously choose
whether to follow or break language use norms, besides reflecting on them and
expressing their own views. The term codemeshing arose, differing from code switching
in that the earlier is an integrated system with different communicative modes and
symbols, and can include ideological or rhetorical purposes. As a result, languages
mesh in transformative ways, generating new meanings and grammars, considering
that bilinguals focus on mixing modes and symbol systems as a creative improvisation
to adapt to their current needs in a given social interaction (Canagarajah, 2011b).
 From a social and educational point of view, because bilingual teachers
can fluidly use their languages to transmit ideologies, translanguaging is also
understood as a political act of resistance. By bringing into discussion the protection of
minoritized languages in a way not to completely keep them separated, but to sustain
them in the functional interrelationship with the dominant language in a communication
context, translanguaging empowers bilingual speakers because it focuses on the
individuals, offering them opportunities to fully use their linguistic repertoire. That led to
the development of early initiatives to try to include multilingual education as a state
policy.

Having reviewed the several perspectives and definitions of

translanguaging, I will now present some limitations of its transformative claims.

Limited effects

As seen in the previous section, translanguaging can cover concepts

related to pedagogy, linguistic instinct, language use, cognitive processes and even a
theory of language and education. Such polysemy might have led to weakening the
meanings, particularly because those have been defined by specialists, turning
translanguaging into an umbrella concept that might even contradict itself. Jaspers
(2018) reveals, for example, that some of the more acclaimed points of view have
premises that can impair the very recognition of linguistic diversity, one of the main
purposes of translanguaging.

Another aspect brought to light by that author is the ambitious effects

predicted by the use of translanguaging in society. Those may not be reliable as the
actual agenda of social justice tends to be unfeasible, unrealistic, and an outcome can
take a long time to be achieved. In addition, translanguaging ideology eventually
becomes as authoritarian as the monolingual policies for requiring (and often holding
teachers responsible for) a standardized bilingual society in which to apply
translanguaging principles. Furthermore, multicultural environments could be delicate as
it would require participants to renounce certain parts of their repertoire, such as
offensive language or slang, thus running the risk of controlling the students’ linguistic
output instead of favoring their subjectivities (Jaspers, 2018).
 Although much has been said about translanguaging and exploratory
research on the marginalization of those practices is insubstantial, I will now focus on
the observation of translanguaging practices in the learning environment.

Case studies

In spite of the uncertainty towards a definition of translanguaging,

research on the actual practice in learning environments provide interesting results. A
study was conducted by Tang (2002) among 100 Chinese students of intermediate
English and 20 teachers of the same university in which they had their classes randomly
observed and recorded, participants uninformed, followed by an interview with teachers
and specific questionnaires to students and teachers. All teachers used Chinese in
class to give instructions and explain abstract concepts after a first try in English. One of
them used more Chinese as a second instance to make sure students were clear.
Chinese alone was used when it was noisy outside or when English failed. As for the
interviews and questionnaires, it was concluded that, among others: both students and
teachers think Chinese should be used in class; students like when the teacher uses
Chinese; Chinese is necessary to explain grammar and new vocabulary; some students
indicate that Chinese could be used to compare translations; students do not feel
imposed to use English, but they actually prefer using it all the time in class. The study
concludes that a limited, sensible use of Chinese in the English class does not reduce
English time, but assists in the process.

In another interesting paper on the matter, Daniel & Pacheco (2015)

provide a qualitative study with four teenagers in different schools levels, describing
how their translanguaging practices are used as a way of keeping students close to
their roots. With the use of interviews and observations of those practices in the school
settings and in an after-school refugee program, it was assumed that teens participate
in multiple discourses and are environment-responsive. A pattern was observed: their
mother languages were undervalued or not useful at school but were used to make
sense of school, and the students envision a multilingual future, implying that
translanguaging at school supports learning. The study, which provides useful tables
with suggestions, also describes detailed practices of students, such as using one
language for thinking and one for note-taking, and moving back and forth between
languages when out of school. Among the conclusions, it was found that students use
translanguaging for academic development and connection with larger communities,
although they do not see translanguaging as a valuable skill. In addition, they want to
learn English but want to keep their roots.

Conclusion

After presenting the possible definitions of translanguaging, challenging

some of its effects, and providing practical examples of an “unofficial” use of
translanguaging, it is possible to reaffirm the usefulness of that approach in language
teaching. Translanguaging has proved to be effective not only by facilitating
understanding in class, but also by enhancing self-awareness about the mother
language of the learner. Even though more research is necessary, this paper could be
used as a starting point for a more advanced and detailed study on the matter, with
effective methods to put into practice in a local, contextualized multilingual or
multicultural environment.

References

Bailey, B. (2007). Heteroglossia and boundaries. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A

social approach (pp. 257–276). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Canagarajah, S. (2011b). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for

research and pedagogy. In L. Wei (Ed.), Applied linguistics review (Vol. 2, pp. 1–27).
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Daniel, S. & Pacheco, M. (2015). Translanguaging Practices and Perspectives of Four

Multilingual Teens. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 59.

García, O., Lin, A.M. (2016). Translanguaging in Bilingual Education. In: Garcia, O., Lin,
A., May, S. (eds) Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Encyclopedia of Language and
Education. Springer, Cham.

Jaspers, J. (2018, January). The transformative limits of translanguaging. Language &

Communication, 58, 1–10.

Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Developing its
conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7),
655–670.
Tang, J. (2002, January). Using L1 in the English Classroom. English Teaching Forum,
40, 36–43.

Rubrics
Literature review final draft
10 points

Literature review (LR) structure and organization of ideas

Yes No Comments

Does the introduction move from a

good hook or broad topic to a specific
topic? Is there a transition from the
broad topic to the thesis statement?
(0.5)

Is there a clearly stated thesis

statement? (0.5)

Is the organization of the LR

presented? (0.5)

Are all the points presented in the

thesis statement developed in the
paper? (1)

Does each paragraph have a purpose

(a clear topic sentence)? (1)

Are there enough supporting details in

each paragraph? (1)

Is there a good conclusion? (0.5)

Language use

YES NO Comments
 Are the words used appropriate for the academic
register? 1)

Are the collocations appropriate? (1)

Are there grammar mistakes? (1)

Are linking adverbials / conjunctions used

properly? (0.5)

Are there punctuation and spelling mistakes? (0.5)

Are the references cited properly? (0.5)

Is the bibliography consistent with one format

(either MLA or APA)? (0.5)

.../10